Official Report 249KB pdf
I open the 13th meeting in 2009 of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. Mobile phones and BlackBerrys should be switched off for the duration of the meeting.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to give evidence today on the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill.
I thank Ms Henni for keeping her opening statement short so that we can ask lots of questions. I remind everyone that today is an opportunity to ask questions about the bill—any questions about policy intent should be put to the minister, who will give evidence at the end of the process.
The purpose of the educational benefits statement is to provide councils with an opportunity to set out their case from an education perspective. The requirement to include an educational benefits statements in every consultation shows that the Government regards the education aspect of the process as a high priority. The statement will allow councils to give their views on the educational benefits of their proposals. It will be for councils to make that case, which will then be included in proposal papers that will go out for consultation.
It has been suggested in some of the responses to the Government's consultation that there will be a need for consistency, particularly on what information is included in the educational benefits statement, so that parents and communities have a clear understanding of what local authorities are attempting to do. Do you have a view on that? Does the Government intend to produce policy guidance on that to ensure that there is clarity and consistency on the minimum information that would be required in an educational benefits statement?
When we launched the consultation, we explored whether there should be guidance. We started from the point of view that it was not appropriate to have a checklist approach because we would inevitably miss some things out of the list and it might also lead to local authorities just ticking off the items on it. However, we picked up from the consultation responses that some kind of guidance would be welcomed. We are certainly considering guidance on educational benefits statements.
Would that be statutory guidance?
Yes, it would.
There were also some suggestions that educational benefits statements should cover matters such as the condition of buildings—that might be a material factor, although it would not always be one—and a cost benefit analysis of the proposals. What is the Government's view on including such matters in the statements?
The bill has been drafted so that, when a council consults, it would not only produce the educational benefits statement but provide the wider information in the proposal paper. There would be scope to include in that paper evidence or information that supported the council's case. The condition of buildings might be included in an educational benefits statement, depending on the circumstances, but there is certainly scope for all such factors to be covered in the proposal paper. Educational benefits statements would focus on what a council believes the educational benefits of its proposals would be, but we accept that the other factors would also be important in the process and should be included in the wider proposal paper.
Closing schools is never easy for local authorities, so I hope that the motivation behind the bill is to make the process transparent and accessible for the people who are affected by such changes. Section 6 is clear on the requirement for consultation and that a consultation should last six weeks. Why did the Government decide on a six-week timescale when Scottish Government consultations normally last 12 weeks?
That is partly because of the recognition that consultations by councils cover much smaller areas than consultations by the Government, which take place throughout the whole of Scotland. The current timescale is a minimum of four weeks. That does not have to be in term time, so it could be four weeks including a holiday.
We discussed at great length with the Scottish rural schools network the proposal to extend the consultation period to six weeks. There would be a six-week formal consultation period, which is an extension, and then there would be an additional six weeks before a decision was taken. In its formal response, the network said that it regarded the six weeks between the end of the consulation and the council's decision as beneficial.
Some of the educational benefits will be covered in the statutory guidance that you have referred to, and you say that other issues will be covered in the proposal paper. Will the proposal paper have the same statutory status as the guidance?
The proposal paper is a requirement within the bill, and the educational benefits statement is part of the proposal paper. Section 4 of the bill sets out what has to be included in the proposal paper—details of the proposal, a proposed date for implementation, the educational benefits statement, and any other evidence or information in support of the council's proposals. Those are all required by the bill.
I beg your pardon: what I should have asked was whether statutory guidance would be published on the proposal paper, in the same way as guidance will be published on the educational benefits statement.
We received the clear message that people want guidance on the educational benefits statement, and ministers clearly understand the need for that. However, I do not think that we have taken a firm view on guidance on the proposal paper.
No. Early in our thinking on the structure of the bill, we considered the possibility of issuing statutory guidance on specific sections. In the end, it was decided—sensibly—to have a catch-all provision in section 19, which allows for statutory guidance to be issued in respect of any earlier part of the bill.
So, ministers have the power to issue guidance.
It needs to be made clear that the list of sorts of consultation that the bill applies to is large. Some issues are technical, and some are broad, such as a school closure. Any statutory guidance on the educational benefits statement in section 3 of the bill, or on the proposal paper in section 4, would not be prescriptive but would set out a menu of good practice that would be appropriate to the particular circumstances and type of consultation.
The educational benefits will have to be spelled out by the local authority in its statement. Will any counter-argument, or counter-proposals, be made? Will the local authority put the arguments for and against?
The educational benefits statement is where the local authority will say, "These are our proposals and this is our educational justification for them." The local authority may have more than one proposal; I believe that the current practice is to discuss a range of options. However, the statement is the local authority's educational justification.
The educational benefits statement must include
I am sure that we will come on to a discussion of HMIE, but its role will be to consider the educational aspects of the council's proposal, and the educational benefits statement will clearly be a significant part of the proposal. There will be an objective, professional assessment by HMIE of the educational aspects of the proposal paper, the educational benefits statement, and any other evidence.
I note the involvement of HMIE, which is important. Later in the meeting, we will hear from two experts, who will certainly argue the educational benefits of retaining small rural schools. Would you expect the arguments that we are about to hear to be reflected in educational benefits statements when authorities propose closure of rural schools?
That will depend on each case. The proposal paper is about all schools. In some cases, those arguments might be used; in other cases, they might not. It will be for the council to consider its proposal and the case that it is dealing with, and to argue accordingly.
This question might be related to corrections, which we are coming to later. If a council proposes a case and lists a number of what it claims are educational benefits but does not mention the educational advantages of a small rural school, would you be able to correct that as a result of the bill?
I suppose so. If an allegation were made that there is something incorrect in the proposal, that would trigger the provisions in section 5. When an authority is constructing its educational benefits statement, I suspect that statutory guidance would say that the proposal needs to be set in the context of an authority's statutory duties—for instance, in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000—to raise standards and improve the quality of education for the children in a particular school or the children who would be affected by the proposal. The obligation on the authority is to state clearly what the benefits of the proposal will be for the children who would be affected.
One of the other contentious issues is the broader argument that could be made for closing a rural school, which is that it will save money—money that would be better spent on all the pupils in the wider area. The benefit of the greater good is a common argument that is used to close schools. Clearly, however, there is a lot of debate about whether the figures that are used to justify those arguments hold up. Would those figures be included in an educational benefit paper or proposal paper? Would they be published? Would there be an analysis not just of the transport costs but of the revenue received by a council from the Government in relation to a rural school?
If a council proposes a closure on financial grounds, one would expect that it would provide the data to back that up. If it did not do so, that would suggest that the issue could be challenged further down the line. A council cannot propose to spread money around without providing some evidence for its argument.
The Scottish rural schools network suggested that there is currently a financial incentive to maintain small rural schools, which is the additional funding that schools with fewer than 70 children on their roll receive. I believe that that matter is currently under review by the Government. Are you able to say on the record whether that incentive will remain?
Not at this stage, no. The Government is reviewing the funding mechanism. We do not know any more than that at the moment. The work is ongoing, and something will come out about that in due course but, unfortunately, not at the right time for the bill.
Would you expect that sort of calculation to be included in any proposal paper or educational benefit paper that accompanies a proposal to close a rural school?
If the council saw it as part of its justification, I would expect it to include such information.
It could not be part of a justification. Clearly, closing a small school would lose the authority that additional revenue, so it would be a counter-argument. However, would you expect that calculation to be made clear to the parents and the wider community?
If the council is going to present a financial picture, one would expect it to present the whole financial picture. If loss of money was significant, I would expect that to be part of what was published.
Section 7 of the bill places a requirement on local authorities to hold a public meeting and it also requires them to advise HMIE in advance of when and where such a public meeting will happen. Why is there a requirement to advise HMIE of the public meeting in advance when the inspectorate's involvement in the process will be at the end when the local authority has completed its consultation and reports to it? Why is the obligation not to require local authorities to advise HMIE that the public meeting took place, rather than to advise it in advance?
HMIE will provide an assessment of the educational aspects of the council's proposal, but it can also identify any emerging educational issues and assess them in its report. It will get from the council a copy of the written responses or, if there is a vast number of them, a summary of them and the oral evidence. I suspect that quite a few HMIE people might decide to go to public meetings and hear for themselves, because any educational aspects that were raised would form part of their assessment. We have not required HMIE to attend, but if it wants to attend and hear at first hand, it can; otherwise it will get from the council later on a summary of the representations that have been made.
Could that create a potential difficulty for HMIE? There is no requirement for it to attend and some of the decisions will, inevitably, be controversial, so those who argue against the proposals might feel that it was important for HMIE to have been present to hear those arguments. If, on occasion, HMIE is not present but has participated in other public meetings in another or the same local authority area, people might think that that was a ground for appeal.
We have tried very hard to ensure that the provisions and procedures that we put in place in the bill do not trip the process up. One of the considerations for not requiring HMIE to be at a public meeting was that if something should happen on the evening of the public meeting that prevented HMIE from being there—if the representative's car broke down or something of that nature—the meeting would have to be cancelled. I believe that the committee is planning to take evidence from HMIE. We discussed some of the practicalities with it—for example, there is a requirement for a public meeting in respect of all consultations, but some will be far more controversial than others and attendance is left to HMIE's judgment. Your point is well made, convener, and perhaps it will be covered in guidance. We wanted to ensure that the whole process would not come to a halt simply because HMIE was planning to be at the meeting, but could not attend for one reason or another.
I appreciate that argument; perhaps we need to pursue it with HMIE. If we want to ensure that we get the legislation right, there is a potential pitfall if HMIE is not represented at a public meeting. We need a clear system—it is either required or not required to be there. Perhaps the grey area will lead to confusion.
In order to try to cover that point, HMIE get a summary of what happened at the public meeting and all the consultation responses right at the end of the consultation process.
Will the bill team clarify HMIE's new responsibilities under the bill?
HMIE would produce an assessment of the educational aspects of a council's proposals, including any that emerged through the written or oral consultation responses. At the end of the consultation period, it would submit a report—an objective assessment of the educational aspects, not advice or recommendations—to the council. The council would include that in its final consultation report at the end of the process, so it would be part of what was submitted to the council when it reached its final decision.
Would that include the latest formal inspection report for the school?
That would be a matter for HMIE's professional judgment. In some cases, it may refer back to that report; in others, it may not. Some inspection reports may be much more recent than others or much more relevant than others, depending on the type of consultation.
So you do not envisage it being a statutory obligation on HMIE to include its latest inspection report when it presents its objective report on the educational aspects.
Ministers have not proposed that. HMIE's school inspection reports are widely available. They are published, so they are in the public domain.
Will you outline the timescale that you anticipate for HMIE's involvement? You have just mentioned the possibility that it would have to attend a public meeting.
Section 8(5) of the bill says:
In her previous question, the convener identified possible concern about HMIE being involved in some public meetings but not others. Does the bill team anticipate that HMIE would take up the opportunity to attend public meetings?
Generally, yes. As we discussed earlier, some issues are much more contentious than others—a closure is clearly much more contentious than a small change to the boundary of a catchment area—so, in some instances, HMIE may make a judgment not to attend the public meetings. I suppose that it is also possible that, in some instances, it may not be able to attend, although our expectation is that it would generally plan to attend.
HMIE has a huge and important input into educational objectives and it is good to hear that the Government regards those objectives as paramount in the situations that the bill covers. Can you foresee a circumstance in which HMIE's being unable to attend a public meeting, although it had done so in many other parts of Scotland, might present some difficulties with the public's understanding of the issue or give rise to concern that some key stakeholders had not been involved?
If HMIE attended a meeting, it would do so as an observer: it would be there to take stock of what was being proposed. It would not sit with the council on the platform—if the meeting was being conducted in that way. I do not envisage its role at public meetings as being about assisting the public understanding of the situation.
Do you accept that some members of the public might consider HMIE's role to be to assist public understanding?
I suppose that they might, but they would be going along to the public meeting to hear the council respond to their concerns. The meeting should be an engagement between the council that has made proposals and advanced its justification for them and the individuals or community who would be affected. They should go along and be able to quiz the council on the reasons for, and thinking behind, its statements and proposals. That should be the purpose of the meeting.
I detect a slight irony in that context. Educational provision has been strongly identified as the main principle behind the bill, and HMIE's input might considerably enhance understanding of that, but I am nervous about HMIE's ability to make a full contribution in all circumstances. I think that the convener expressed concern about that in her questions. Of course, it is for Government ministers to respond to those concerns.
The bill will require education authorities to give notice "to the relevant consultees" of a proposal to make changes in the school estate. As the witnesses know, that often happens through the pupil post, whereby letters are issued for children to take home to their parents. Some consultees are concerned that such an approach might cause distress to pupils, lead to delays in notification and undermine the importance of the consultation that must take place. Do you propose to introduce a more robust way of notifying parents and other interested parties?
We picked up the messages that you mention and we understand people's concern. The bill will require councils to advertise publication of the proposal paper and consultation report. Detail about methods of delivery would probably best be covered in guidance.
There are often complaints that advertisements are not picked up by parents, so information is passed on by word of mouth, which is not helpful. Would it be helpful to provide specific details of how notification should take place, not just in guidance but in the bill?
We could certainly consider doing that, but we are talking about a level of detail that might be better in guidance, which can be changed as circumstances change. If such detail was in the bill, we would have to go back to the primary legislation if we wanted to make changes further down the line. However, I take the point that the issue must be addressed appropriately.
There is concern that the bill contains no explicit presumption against closure of rural schools. I noted what you said about the issue in your introductory remarks. Why is the phrase "presumption against closure" not in the bill, as many people expected it to be?
It would be problematic to include in the bill such a phrase on a matter as wide reaching as a school closure, which is impacted on by other statutory obligations. If we said in law that there was a presumption against closing rural schools, the opportunities for misinterpretation and different interpretations of the phrase would be such that the courts would ultimately be invoked on a number of occasions. Therefore, ministers thought that that might not be the best way of dealing with the matter.
Is it a matter of semantics? Do you want to have, in effect, a presumption against closure by requiring councils to consider viable alternatives, effects on the community, travel arrangements and so on, while not specifically setting out such a presumption in the bill?
What is set down in the bill will enable councils to understand clearly what they have to do and people to understand what is expected of councils. If we used the wording to which you referred in legislation, it would be much harder for councils to understand how to implement the legislation and for other people to know whether a council had done so. We have attempted to set out very clearly the vital matters that must be considered before a council considers closing a rural school. Councils must consider and work their way through the viable alternatives, the impact on the community and its use of the buildings, and how changes in travel patterns would affect people. At the end of the process it will be clear what councils had to consider and there will be a clear picture. Ministers' view is that that is implicitly a presumption.
The EIS states in its written evidence:
The bill recognises that local schools are often the focal point of community activity. That is true of all communities, but the loss of schools has a much greater impact, proportionately, in rural areas. It also has an impact in urban areas, but rural communities are often more fragile and have fewer alternative community resources on which to fall back. The school is often the only community asset.
I understand your view, but many parents in parts of Glasgow would probably dispute what you have said, given the somewhat cack-handed developments in the Glasgow school closure programme that have taken place in recent weeks. People in some of the more deprived areas of Glasgow where closures are taking place would not consider that they have any real local assets other than their schools. Do you not think that the definition should not be so tightly drawn?
One reason for the decision to distinguish between the three categories of rural area in the Government's classification and other categories was that there is a real step-change difference between closing a school in a rural area and closing a school elsewhere in Scotland. If you close a school in a rural area, the chances are that education will no longer be delivered in that area, which, by definition, is smaller than a remote small town. The other side of that coin is that children from the community will have to go some distance—in rural areas, usually several miles—for their education. That is the distinction.
There are a number of rural schools in my constituency, so I am sympathetic to that view. However, I wanted to set out the opposing argument, as many people in urban areas have a strong sense of community around a specific school. The fact that there is another school 2 or 3 miles away does not mean that they do not have the same view of their school and might not suffer similar consequences from a closure.
I have some questions about the corrections process and the introduction of a mechanism to address inaccuracies. In previous school closure processes, families and communities have questioned the accuracy of some of the figures that local authorities have used. Some authorities argue that there is a need to distinguish between opinion and fact in the consultation process. Colin Reeves said that the purpose of the corrections mechanism is to deal with factual inaccuracies. Can you describe in detail how the mechanism will work?
A degree of transparency is built into the bill. If a parent turns to their council and alleges that there is an inaccuracy in a proposal paper, the council must respond in a transparent way. It might conclude that the allegation is incorrect and that there is no inaccuracy; it might conclude that there is an inaccuracy, which perhaps requires an amendment to be issued; or it might conclude that there is a serious inaccuracy, that the whole paper needs to be redone and reissued and that the clock needs to be restarted. Whichever route it took would have to be highlighted in the consultation report at the end of the process.
We thought about the issue long and hard, and we discussed it with the Scottish rural schools network—it was one of its main concerns. We discussed the idea that, if there is an allegation of inaccuracy, perhaps someone could adjudicate on it at some stage. However, we considered that that would require a complex mechanism and that we could end up with one party or the other—the one that was not found to be in favour, as it were—simply putting the adjudication aside and carrying on. In our discussion, we thought about the oxygen of publicity, and we considered that the allegation, the nature of the argument that was put to the council, the council's answer or material in its defence, or its concession of the point, should all go into the consultation paper.
So whatever the outcome of the council's decision, all that material will be available in the final consultation report.
Even if the council refutes an allegation or does not propose to take any action, all the material will be there, so that, at the end of the day, the council can see it all. The consultation report will be a public document, so all the people who have made allegations will also see all the material.
I have a question about the timescale. At what point in the process can a complaint be lodged? Lynn Henni said that, if a complaint was upheld, the process would be stopped—the clock would be stopped, and the process would start again. Is that right?
Let us suppose that somebody claims that there has been an inaccuracy, such as an error in some figures. The council will judge, first of all, whether there has been an error and, if there has been, how serious it is. If the error fundamentally undermines the whole argument that the council has advanced in its proposal paper, there would be an expectation that it would withdraw the paper and rewrite it to reflect the necessary changes. It might not even rewrite it—in theory, it could call a complete halt. If the error undermines a key part of its argument, the council could take the paper back, rewrite it and reissue it, and then restart the consultation. That would be a judgment for the local authority to make. If it felt that it was a lesser issue that did not have a huge impact on its case or on the facts and figures, that might simply require an amendment to be made—not necessarily the reissuing of the whole paper.
In relation to Claire Baker's point, are you talking about the three weeks at the end, once an authority has published its consultation report?
There are several sets of three weeks.
I am interested to know why the period of three weeks was chosen, because what the timescale should be has been debated. In an answer to Karen Whitefield, I think that Colin Reeves said that six weeks would have to elapse after an authority had published its consultation report. I am referring to section 11.
It is probably most helpful if I explain the stages of the process. There is a six-week period from when a proposal paper is published until the end of consultation on it. It will take a bit of time to get everything together for HMIE. HMIE receives everything from the council and then has three weeks to produce a report to the council, which has—no doubt—started to prepare its consultation report before receiving the HMIE report, as the consultation report also deals with other matters, such as a summary of responses. The council then produces and publishes its final report, which will include the HMIE report. Three weeks after that, the council can make its final decision. That time allows people to see the council's report and to continue to have contact with elected members, who will make the decision.
Why was the period of three weeks chosen for section 11? I understand that the original proposal was that the period should be 28 days, and that some had suggested 14 days instead.
We engaged quite a lot with stakeholders—with the Scottish rural schools network and with local authorities, which will have to undertake the work. We were conscious that we had to consider the whole package of time and that we should not create a monstrous process that would increase uncertainty for pupils, parents, staff and authorities, so we balanced the number of weeks here and there. In discussion with stakeholders, three weeks was the number on which we agreed.
Do you envisage that stakeholders such as parents will use that time to make further representations?
Yes—in those three weeks, representations would be to the council.
The onus will be on the council to ensure that people know that the consultation report has been published.
The council will have to advertise the publication of its report.
I have a question that relates to an issue that Kenny Gibson raised. Will guidance give advice on how councils should approach the content of letters that are sent by pupil post? I am concerned because I have been approached by parents who were distressed by a letter that was neither clear nor transparent and which seemed to float ideas about mergers or closures. Has thought been given to ensuring that councils are explicit and clear about their proposals?
In the bill, we have tried to be clear about what a proposal should contain, but I recognise that that is not the same thing as a letter. We have tried to spell out in as much detail as possible what a council needs to put in a proposal. We are considering guidance on how letters might be delivered.
I do not want you to be too prescriptive, of course.
We must achieve a balance.
When we craft the guidance, we will look at a selection of best practice in the various local authorities and endeavour to emphasise best practice in the various aspects on which guidance is issued. Obviously, it is eminently sensible to issue guidance that steers people away from poor practice.
I thought that the point was worth raising, given my experience in the area that I represent.
Reference has been made to the changes to the ministerial call-in process. Some of the written submissions that we have received have highlighted a lack of clarity about the grounds for call-in. I am sure that people will expect something that is procedurally wrong to be called in, but I am more interested in finding out how much the legislation will cover the policy, rather than the process of closure.
Ministers have made it very clear that even under the current arrangements they cannot retake a council's decision. After all, they can never know all the details that the council has been privy to in reaching its conclusion. At the moment, when referrals are made for ministers' consent in the various categories, ministers principally look at the procedures that have been followed in reaching the final decision. The definition of the call-in categories focuses on the consultation procedures, as set out in the bill, and the decision-making processes. Indeed, as the bill makes clear, ministers will issue a call-in if there is a failure to comply with requirements under the legislation in significant measure, or a failure
So if a closure that is opposed by 200 people goes ahead anyway it is enough for the council to explain why, after consideration, it has set aside those people's arguments. According to you, that is also the sort of thing that ministers will look at.
In cases in which allegations are based more on opinion than on fact, with people saying, "This is what we think," and council officials saying in the consultation report, "We think differently," it can become next to impossible to adjudicate between two sets of opinions. As a result, both sets of opinions will be clearly laid out before councillors.
If a large body of people was opposed to a decision, ministers would look for evidence that the consultation had been properly conducted and that concerns had been addressed. They would not be seeking to rerun the process.
In legislation, it is impossible to get right down to specifics. However, if ministers felt that the council had failed to take proper account of a material consideration that was relevant to the council's decision, the bill leaves them room to consider any such allegations. [Interruption.]
We have heard about different points in the timetable, but there does not appear to be any timescale for ministers once a case has been called in. Why is that, and what would be a likely timescale?
We do not expect many cases to be called in. However, if a case were called in, it would be because ministers had concluded that the process was seriously flawed. There would then be a lot of investigation with the council and others.
Sorry, convener. I spilled my glass of water a moment ago. I did not mean to make a splash.
In considering the different options for transition, our starting point was to ensure that any disruption to councils would be minimised. We wanted to avoid there being a period during which councils were unable to carry out any consultations whatsoever. The transitional arrangements are therefore designed to allow councils to carry on when the bill reaches stage 3 and then goes on to commencement.
So, it is anticipated that it will take five to six months for people to start to use the new procedures.
Yes—it may even be four.
Will that have an impact on decision making? Will it lead to delays?
As I said, we have tried to come up with a transition that minimises the scope for delays. The only difficulty that I foresee is if a council starts to consult under the old mechanism and the consultation drags on longer than expected. When the new process comes into effect on 1 April, that council would not be able to take a decision. In theory, as the City of Edinburgh Council noted in evidence, the process would have to be re-started. That said, quite a long lead-in period is involved, and councils have had plenty of notice of the change. We did that deliberately to try to ensure that councils have the capacity to start working on the new system.
We looked at a lot of options and discussed them with representatives of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and COSLA. Some of the options that we considered were complicated—indeed, some were completely unworkable. However, all the options that we discussed were designed to give councils good notice of the changes that were coming into play and how on-going consultations or those that commenced close to implementation would be affected.
I read that in the ADES submission.
No. If a council found that a consultation was becoming extended, it could switch horses—that is not quite the right metaphor—half way through the process. The council could stop the earlier consultation and re-start the consultation process without waiting for commencement. A council can anticipate that it will not meet the deadline.
Liz Smith has a question on the finances.
It was answered earlier.
The committee has received a substantial number of proposals on the subject of Gaelic-medium education. Does the Government have a formal response to those?
It is fair to say that the proposals were not raised in our consultation last year. Our first sight of them was in the published responses to the committee's call for evidence. The Government is considering those responses. Ministers will discuss them, but we have not had much time thus far fully to consider what has been suggested. The short answer is no.
Will there be another legislative opportunity to give parents the right to Gaelic-medium education for their children, where regional demand exists? Are other bills in the pipeline?
I am not sure that we can anticipate what other legislation might be coming forward.
I do not know.
But no bill on Gaelic-medium education is under preparation at the moment.
Not to our knowledge.
If the committee was minded to support an amendment in that respect, would that give the Government a problem?
That is a question of policy.
I have just realised that.
Thank you, convener.
I was just thinking aloud. At least the officials now have a clue—they can tell the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning about it.
We will let her know.
I am sure that, in preparation for her attendance at committee, the cabinet secretary will read with interest the Official Report of today's meeting.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I reconvene the meeting and welcome our second panel for the committee's continued stage 1 scrutiny of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill. We have been joined by Professor Neil Kay and Mervyn Benford, who is the information officer for the National Association for Small Schools. I understand that Professor Kay is keen to make a short opening statement.
Thank you. It is a privilege to have the opportunity to contribute.
I am sure that Argyll and Bute Council has noted just how tenacious and persistent you have been and will read your comments with some interest.
The change from a smaller school to—in all likelihood—a bigger school can have genuine educational benefits, such as the provision of more resources. The SPTC has identified the socialisation advantages that such a change can have, as part of the educational process. However, there are also recognised educational advantages of small schools, on which I am sure Mervyn Benford will elaborate. We note that in small schools there is much more vertical interaction across the years, which can be beneficial, as it allows pupils to take leadership roles in educating—both specifically and more generally—those who are junior to them. The process of moving from a smaller school, which may be close, to a bigger one may have some educational benefits, but schooling in a small school can have tremendous socialisation and educational benefits, as it allows younger pupils to be exposed to and encouraged in more areas. In larger schools, which are more streamed by year, the focus is narrower.
My next question relates to the educational benefits statements that will be required. Earlier, I asked Government officials whether they believed that there was a need for guidance to make explicit the information that local authorities will be required to provide in those statements. Do you have a view on that?
An important provision of the bill is its requirement on councils to consider alternatives. For example, my school takes advantage of some of the benefits of physical education provision in a larger school next door. That is an important consideration, if the argument is that merging schools would result in such facilities being made available to the smaller school. The question is, are there ways of achieving educational benefits without closure or merger? There are two points. First, there are educational benefits of smaller schools that can be set against the possible educational benefits of larger schools. Secondly, we need to consider the alternatives. Are there ways in which advantages can be achieved without closure?
Thank you for inviting me to today's meeting; it is a delight to be here. I am giving evidence as the information officer for the National Association for Small Schools. I have worked on the issue of school closure for 10 or 20 years, in one way or another. I come here as the former head of a village school for 15 years, during which I saw three generations of parents and families. I worked as a cluster group co-ordinator for both Oxfordshire and Warwickshire, where I was responsible for helping autonomous, self-governing schools to collaborate in the way in which Neil Kay has described. At its best, that is an extremely effective approach—better than anything that we have yet seen in more closed systems, such as federation.
Earlier this morning, we touched on the issue of consultation. The bill is clear about the timescales. Is six weeks sufficient time to allow local authorities to consult communities formally when they plan to make changes to their schools structure?
It seems reasonable, but we remain concerned that the bill should make it clear that, in line with the statutory duty in the English guidance, adequate and sufficient information should be provided to the people who are consulted, to enable them to give an intelligent response.
The bill goes into detail about educational benefits statements and initial proposals. The witnesses heard the bill team promise that more detail on both matters will be included in statutory guidance. Are you confident that the level of detail will be sufficient to cover all the issues that need to be covered? Will all the counterarguments about costs and benefits, travel costs and educational disadvantages emerge as a result of the bill?
That will be a matter of good will and of the sensitivity of the people who implement the bill to the situation on the ground. When we do a cost benefit analysis, it is difficult to prescribe every eventuality, even for a single school, but we can identify general categories of potential costs and benefits that should be taken into account. As Mervyn Benford said, there is a body of knowledge about those categories. I hope that Government and councils will acknowledge authoritative conclusions from respected authorities that are based on established research on the merits of small schools versus larger schools, educational performance, class size and so on. If they do so, that will satisfy many concerns about the process. For example, blanket statements have been made to the effect that larger schools are better and smaller schools are inferior—the SPTC has made much of that recently in a different context, and has argued that small schools should be considered for closure because children can get a better education in larger schools. If such bald statements were not accepted and the evidence on the balance of costs and benefits was taken into account, I would be content that the process was fair and just in particular cases.
Mr Benford, are you happy that the bill will allow educational benefits and disbenefits to be publicised to all concerned during the consultation process?
The bill will enable the publicity, but we are concerned about the information that will be provided. There needs to be a balanced presentation of argument and evidence. The process for releasing that information is okay.
I am not sure that the SPTC would entirely agree with Professor Kay's interpretation of its comments.
I am sure that the SPTC will give its view in evidence.
It is difficult to require that, because what if the HMIE representatives could not make it? Without trying to second-guess the bill, I wonder whether provision could be made for HMIE to receive transcripts of the process if it was decided not to require its attendance.
We have no experience of that in England in our work during the past 30 years. However, any facility that would help to improve scrutiny of the process—which is something that we expect HMIE to do—would be beneficial. We have attended many public meetings over the years, and what one sees is fascinating. At the moment, the parents and community say their piece, the pupils sometimes say theirs, the councillors make the case for the authority, the officers make the case for the authority, then everyone goes away and that is all put into the decision-making process. Unless someone takes notes, or parents ask to make tape recordings, there is no process to analyse objectively the events at the meeting. Requiring HMIE to be present at public meetings would therefore be a welcome step.
I would like to hear your views on the proposed method for dealing with corrections and inadequacies. Professor Kay, in your opening statement you said that you hope that presentations will be balanced, and you stressed the importance of information. What is your view of the bill team's comments on the process? Also, will there be any difficulties? How difficult will it be for parents to challenge the information that is provided? How difficult will it be for them to source alternative data when the data are held by the local authority? In your experience, how could such data be challenged?
When a closure proposal is made and consultation is carried out, there will be quite widespread dissemination of information within the community, so any errors should be picked up quite quickly, unless the information is difficult to second-guess because it is not generally available.
I concur.
I asked the bill team about the timescale for corrections. Were you satisfied with the explanation of how that will operate?
Yes.
That is helpful.
My question is on public meetings. Obviously, the witnesses have considerable experience of the situation north and south of the border. Public meetings are crucial in bringing together the various stakeholders. What opportunities are there to improve the process, including opening it up to other stakeholders or to people with valuable opinions on, for example, the educational benefits?
Several references are made in the bill to the "affected school". I am interested that the singular is used in the bill, whereas the phrase "affected school(s)" is used elsewhere. People in my region are conscious that the "affected school" is not only the school that is subject to closure but the school or schools to which pupils are to be disbursed. One invidious aspect of past closures in Argyll and Bute was the setting of school against school, often in the same community. The resulting antagonisms and resentment have gone on down the years. The "affected school" is not only the school that is to be closed, but the school or schools to which pupils might go.
In England, the opposite process has been undertaken. Our statutory guidance leaves to local authorities the decision on the process of holding public meetings; two or three options are set out as acceptable. Nowadays, some councils are trying to avoid gathering everybody together to hear their comments because of the effect that that has. Instead of consultation meetings, they are holding drop-in sessions in supermarkets. However, such drop-in sessions are not the equivalent of public meetings.
You have both said that it is all too easy to make a judgment about one school, based purely on the factors affecting that particular school. Professor Kay suggested that there is a much bigger picture. Mr Benford said that rural schools have an extraordinarily high rate of success, and it is difficult to find evidence to the contrary. How can we bring into the process the fact that people make their judgments not just about one specific school, but set against the criteria of that grouping—namely, remote rural schools?
Parents are often told that their children will be better off in a bigger school, despite their current school having a superb Ofsted or Estyn report. The implication of the argument that is put to parents is that their children's school is somehow an exception. Changing that would mean becoming part of the norm, which, we argue, favours the larger organisation. The school would be in a stronger position if people were informed from the start—with the evidence that is now freely available in England, Wales and Scotland—that small schools, as a species, are at the top of national performance. Parents can know that their school is not an exception—that it is doing a very good job.
I do not know whether you heard my question to the bill team about the three-week lapse between publication of the council's consultation report and any action being taken. Is three weeks an adequate length of time for that? Do you have any comments about the process? Is there anything that you would like to happen within that time window?
The measures that have been set out seem to offer a fair conclusion with regard to what would balance the interests of both sides, if I can put it that way.
The level of provision is very fair. Sometimes, the problem is that there is inadequate time, when school holidays intervene, for parents and others to be informed.
Is there anything that you would like to happen so that councils take more action to ensure that all consultees are properly informed about the publication of reports? Do you have any further comments on that?
I do not think so.
That is fine.
The statutory guidance provides an exhaustive list of people who must be consulted. We applaud that, because all those people are genuinely affected by the proposals. Sadly, sometimes the authority tries to limit a public meeting to parents and governors, excluding even the local community. All kinds of interest groups, including trade unions and professional associations of teachers, are affected by the proposals, so there is a need for wide consultation. All the groups that must be provided with information on the effects and educational benefits or otherwise of the proposals should be consulted. It should not be for the authority to decide what is good or less good for the pupils of the school or of any other school. Under the English guidance, pupils of any other school that will be affected must be consulted.
Do you have experience of children being adequately consulted about what was happening to their school? It is their school, after all.
It is a difficult issue. Children in such situations are likely to know only their own school, but we are asking them to second-guess what it would be like to be in a bigger school. It may depend partly on the state of relations between the schools concerned—sometimes relations between schools are quite competitive. I cannot think of any way to approach the issue other than to leave an open question. Essentially, that is what the bill does—the matter is left to the discretion of the authority. There is no ideal answer. Much depends on how the children and parents handle the situation.
Claire Baker raised the important issue of corrections. When a school closure was proposed in my constituency in 2007, the local authority was predicting the number of primary 1 children in 2018. That shows how ridiculous some of the information that is presented in such cases is, given that the children concerned will not even be born until 2013.
We welcome the fact that, in an election manifesto some years ago, a party promised for the first time to introduce a presumption against closure. The issue arose earlier, when the distinction between rural and urban areas was being discussed. In England, small schools—schools of 100 pupils or fewer—tend to represent no more than 10 per cent of the total picture. Ninety per cent of all those who are involved in education are not involved in small schools, so we find that it is hard to make our small voice heard. It is easy for it to be discounted, because 90 per cent of people work in larger institutions.
How can we do that? The bill team took the view that a presumption against closure does not have to be explicitly included in the bill. Do you agree with the team's analysis?
That is ultimately an issue for the people of Scotland. Do they want the importance of rurality and sustainable rural communities, to which all aspects of educational provision contribute, to be a stated priority in a relevant piece of legislation? I am not sure that I am in the best position to advise people in Scotland on what to do. We have a presumption against closure in England, and my opinion is that it is valid to have such a presumption made public in that way.
I represent an Edinburgh constituency that has what I refer to as a rural fringe—colleagues who represent large rural constituencies find that laughable. When it is proposed to close a small school in a village on the edge of a city, there are issues to do with transport and children's ability to take advantage of after-school facilities and so on.
I speak from experience, because I have lived in inner Edinburgh and in Glasgow. I have complete sympathy with the notion that in suburbs, and particularly in inner cities, the idea and role of community that is attached to a school can be critical.
We advise any small school that needs help—the school does not have to be a member of our organisation, according to our constitution. Schools usually need our help because they face closure. We have dealt with several urban schools in such a situation and we are currently dealing with a school in Cleckheaton in Yorkshire, in the Kirklees Council area. We have had to say that the presumption against closure will not protect the school, which is sad. The extra considerations for rural schools for which the guidance provides do not apply to that school.
I am not sure whether you heard me ask earlier whether the grounds for ministerial call-in had been clearly stated. Do you think that it is correct to focus on whether the process has worked?
In relation to school closures in Argyll and Bute, one of the issues that we considered was the possibility of judicial review. The call-in proposal has similarities to the principles of a judicial review, in that it concentrates on the process rather than on the content of the decision. To my mind, that is both a strength and a weakness. It is easier to identify weaknesses and failures in process. As has been well established in discussions on the policy background to the bill, second-guessing the decisions that are made by the council might be more difficult.
Call-in is certainly an improvement on what we have in England. A school's right to adjudication is constrained—it is not automatic—and the secretary of state is no longer involved. When that change came about, three or four years ago, the right to totally independent scrutiny of a decision was available only in certain situations in certain cases. Therefore, the proposal is important.
The stage at which the minister calls in a proposal is the one stage in the process for which there is no timetable. Is that acceptable, given the potential complexities of some decisions?
A finite time period may not be attached to that process because complex decisions may be involved. Things may depend on the circumstances of the case.
At the start of our discussion, Professor Kay talked about the costs of excess capacity. That is a crucial issue. In my experience of dealing with school closures, local authorities often use the costs of maintaining a small school to justify using the closure process. Professor Kay was forthright in his opinions on the matter, but I want to probe him a little further on it, because it is important.
I totally accept what you say, but the point is the starting point of excess capacity. Excess capacity in the school that is to be closed is not what really matters; what matters is whether there is spare capacity in the school to which the pupils will be moved.
That is helpful. You referred to the written evidence from the SPTC. Many outsiders would regard the SPTC as an organisation that speaks with authority on education issues. Does it therefore concern you that the evidence from the SPTC might be prayed in aid by local authorities in closure processes?
Yes. I examined the record on that recently. I respect the SPTC's right to promote its views on education matters, but it is not generally recognised that the majority of the SPTC funding is direct funding by councils. People think that it is a parent and teacher council but, in fact, councils directly fund the SPTC to a large extent. You might well wish to take up that matter with the SPTC representative when you interview them. It is therefore not surprising that the SPTC might see its role as promoting the interests of councils. However, that does not insulate the SPTC from accusations that the points that it makes are not accurate.
The SPTC's written submission talks about the social isolation of pupils in small rural schools, which, in its view, is a serious negative feature in the consideration of whether to maintain small schools. What is your view on that, Mr Benford?
You said the words "in its view". Many of the arguments in proposals to close small schools are to do with the small peer groups. That is somebody's opinion—no evidence has ever been produced to show that children in small peer groups do less well. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we find that small school pupils in mixed age and ability groups, with few specialist teachers, in old buildings and with small peer groups are at the top of national performance figures. I urge you, as we urge anyone in such important forums, to take with a pinch of salt something that is said to be in someone's view and which is not anything other than an assumption. There is nothing in our evidence for which we cannot provide backing. The quality of the argument stems from the original information.
Given what you have said, and given the evidence that we have heard from the SPTC, does it concern you that we have here an organisation that is regarded as speaking with authority on educational matters, and which purports to speak for parents, but which, in its evidence, is simply making assertions that are not backed up by the facts?
I am very concerned about that. Half of the office bearers of the SPTC are nominated by councils, and a significant number of its directors are nominated by councils. There is nothing wrong with that in principle. However, the impression is given that it represents the interests of parents and teachers, when in fact it seems to be representing the interests of larger schools in urban areas, and councils that might wish to have an argument made for larger schools, larger classes and possibly fewer teachers. That is a legitimate point of view, but it should be made clear that it is one point of view, which is not necessarily consistent with the interests of parents and teachers generally.
The important finding from the French study was that there was no educational gain from reducing the number of schools. I suppose that a lot of children were being driven to school rather than walking, so there are all sorts of other health and social aspects.
One would take much of the emphasis of the bill as reflecting primary education. I cannot see any obvious direct impact on secondary education, although such an impact may well exist. I can appreciate and understand the emphasis on primary. For example, when I think about the involvement of pupils, I think of primary school pupils; obviously, it would be different at secondary school. I see the bill very much as relating to primary schools because that tends to be a contentious area, involving closures.
We are finding that we have more secondary school members, and that the debate is being replicated for secondary schools. For example, all of the eight rural academy schools in Cumbria except one, in Appleby, are small secondary schools. They each have around 300 pupils—that is small by most definitions of secondary—and are at the top of national performance. That is also the case with Fairfield community school in Peterchurch, Herefordshire, and another Herefordshire school. In 2007, the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust analysed results from 2,500 specialist schools in England under three different criteria—straightforward academic results; most value added; and another factor that eludes me—and assigned schools into three categories based on achievement against those criteria. Only 25 of those 2,500 specialist schools were in all three categories, and the two Herefordshire schools were among them.
This is an observation as much as a question. I was surprised by the line of questioning and Professor Kay's answers on the SPTC, in what was an otherwise strong presentation. Indeed, the evidence of both our witnesses has been strong, and their submissions are strong, too. The committee is not used to having witnesses undermine the integrity of other witnesses. I do not particularly want to get into a tit for tat next week, so I would prefer us to concentrate on the arguments rather than undermine the standing of other witnesses. I prefaced my remarks much earlier in the session by saying that I did not find the SPTC's argument particularly convincing. I said that before Professor Kay's recent comments about the SPTC. I wonder whether he might want to rethink those remarks.
I do not need to revisit my remarks, because they were quite clear. It is quite legitimate for the SPTC to make the points that it has made. I think that the point that I made about funding is a legitimate point to make. I have looked at the SPTC's annual reports and, as far as I can make out, my understanding is that the majority of its funding comes from councils. That can be checked. It is certainly the case that a substantial proportion of its funding comes from councils.
I cannot comment on the Scottish context, but I can say that, in January 2008, when there was a major scare about closures across Wales and England, the major parents organisation in England, the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, which is an independent body, made a statement in support of small schools.
I will just add that members of the committee are quite capable of making their minds up on evidence and arguments without having their attention drawn, in quite pejorative terms, to the status of other witnesses.
I note your comments, Mr Macintosh, as I am sure that other members of the committee will do.
Meeting continued in private until 12:51.