Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 04 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 4, 2001

Official Report 114KB pdf

---

School Closures

Item 4 relates to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities guidance on school closures. Members will recall that this item arose out of a petition from Argyll and Bute Council and a report on school closures that I prepared. The committee agreed that national guidelines on school closures were needed, which we asked COSLA to prepare. We waited for some time, but COSLA issued its report at the end of June and it was circulated to committee members. Members may want to air their views on that report if they have not already done so.

My concern over the COSLA report, which is a weighty document, is that it is about what to do at the crisis point of school closures. It would be advantageous to have clear national guidelines for parents and stakeholders on what happens when education departments are first considering school closures in specific areas. The COSLA guidelines will be used only when a school closure is imminent; they need to go further back in the process.

My report highlighted some of the proposals in the English guidelines, which were clear, accurate and fairly brief. I believe that we need something much clearer than what we have received from COSLA, although members may disagree. I am not 100 per cent happy with the COSLA report.

What is the next step for the COSLA report? Is COSLA still taking views from all over?

I understand that COSLA is taking views only from local authorities, and I am not sure what stage it has reached. Perhaps Martin Verity can find out.

I do not have the document with me today, for which I apologise. You are right, convener, that it is a lengthy document that does not get to the heart of the concerns that would arise at any stage of the reorganisation of schools in an area. There must be understanding about the way in which local authorities handle such issues, as they are incredibly difficult to deal with.

There have been quite a few school closures and rationalisations over the past few years and it is important to establish general guidelines and principles. The problem for anyone who undertakes a school closure programme is that people will quote an endless number of documents because there is no consistent approach.

Another concern is the way in which we arrive at school closures, because they involve more than just an audit view of school provision. For instance, Glasgow could do with a fairly rigorous examination of the use of primary school resources. However, large-scale primary school closures would have serious consequences for communities, especially in disadvantaged areas such as the one that I represent.

The guidelines must be much sharper. There is scope for further dialogue on them with senior figures in COSLA and with the ministers; a tripartite discussion at some stage might be useful.

I sense some difficulty with the COSLA report. As the body that represents most of Scotland's local authorities, COSLA is trying to put together guidelines. We have shown an interest in that, not least because we are often presented with petitions and letters about school closures. We are not a court of appeal, although we represent people who live in those areas—the Executive has the final say.

We must establish where the Education, Culture and Sport committee fits into the process. Would it be better for us to respond to the draft document now? Or would it be better to let COSLA go through its procedures, finalise its document and then, perhaps, give evidence at a meeting of the committee? I am not sure what would be best. Our relationship with COSLA over this matter is not clear, nor is it clear how we can get a result with which everyone agrees and is happy.

COSLA has expressed a desire to have some formal liaison with the committee. Members might want to consider that. It is clearly not the role of this committee to make a decision on school closures. If it were, we would have to meet not just once a week, as Ian Jenkins suggested, but probably three or four times a week. However, our role in the inquiry was to look at how the business of school closures is conducted, who is involved and what procedures are followed. Those procedures were found wanting because of the lack of guidelines, which is why COSLA has produced its proposed guidelines for the school closures process.

We can wait until COSLA finalises its deliberations and then ask it to appear before us. We might consider asking the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs for his view on guidelines for school closures. It is my view that we should do that—I do not know what his view would be.

I know that other stakeholders are being consulted about the matter. It is important that we hear the voices of people who have experienced rationalisation processes. In some parts of the country those have been difficult, but eventually fruitful. In other places, they have left substantial sores that will last a long time. We need to hear that viewpoint also, which will help in the handling of future rationalisations.

I genuinely believe that two simple things require to be understood. One is that, having gone through a hellish school closure programme—as I did when I was in Glasgow—I do not think that it would be right for parliamentarians to go through that process. Also, I do not think that we should be seen as the final decision-making court. That would be fatal for everybody concerned. There is some uncertainty at the moment about the role of MSPs and the role of the local authority in the decision-making process—not just on school closures. Getting some guidelines out might at least give us a legal framework for decision making and—it strikes me—a legally-bound consultation period. We need to get guidelines clarified as much as possible.

Perhaps we could have a look at the document that Cathy Peattie talked about—which describes the broad-brush guidelines in England—and draw the whole matter to the attention of the minister.

I included most of that information in my report, but I would be happy to have the document looked at.

I thought that your report was a valuable document, and a guideline in itself about the principles that we want embedded in the COSLA guidance—or ministerial guidance, if we end up with that.

Frank McAveety's points suggest to me that COSLA's crucial relationship is not with this committee or, indeed, with the Parliament, but with the Executive. Because of our past involvement with local issues we are being drawn in. It might be better for us to wait until COSLA finalises its process so that there is a definitive COSLA view, rather than have us playing a role in shaping that view when we have no locus. We could then invite COSLA to a meeting of the committee to discuss the matter with us and, as the deputy convener suggested, with the minister. We can help to explore the relationship between COSLA and the minister and see if there are any areas in which ministers feel that they could influence the guidelines. The relationship that the minister and the Executive have with COSLA is more important than the relationship that this committee has with COSLA.

I suggest that we ask the minister what he thinks is going to be the way forward for the Executive's relationship with COSLA. That might help us to get a better idea of whether the minister has plans to do anything, or whether the relationship with COSLA is developing—because there is a problem with that relationship.

I do not think that the issue concerns only rural schools. School closures are becoming an issue across the board and we must consider all the criteria that concern information and the sharing of information. The next step might best be to get information from the minister and to ask him about his plans.

We discussed participation of people other than legislators earlier. At what stage are parents' organisations being brought in, for example? If parents had a stake in how the guidelines are drawn up, and if a framework were agreed beforehand instead of being imposed, it is likely that they would find the eventual decision more acceptable.

That is why we need something like stakeholders' guidelines, with which parents, teachers and everyone involved in education can engage.

On Karen Gillon's point, we could ask the minister for his view. In the interim, COSLA will be finalising its document and we could ask it what stage that document is at. We will then be able to review the matter.

I now invite Karen Gillon to take the chair.

Having left Mike Russell behind on the road somewhere—he is obviously a slower driver than I am—I suggest that we move now to item 6, the technology teachers' petition, instead of item 5, given that Mike Russell has been directly involved in the Gaelic broadcasting inquiry. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.