Glenrinnes School
I ask members who are not staying for the final item of business to leave the chamber quietly and quickly. Private conversations should be conducted outside the chamber.
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-626, in the name of Margaret Ewing, on the closure Glenrinnes school. The debate will be concluded after 30 minutes with no question being put. Members who wish to participate in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the importance of primary schools to our rural communities; asks for clarification of the Scottish Executive's policy on the retention of such schools; is concerned that Glenrinnes school is threatened by closure despite being the only focal point in the village and despite the sound educational arguments proposed by parents and prospective local residents; and considers that the proposals by Moray Council to close this educational facility, which could accrue only £3,500 to Moray Council, should be rejected.
I thank all members who signed motion S1M-626 and all those who have indicated that they would like to speak in the debate. I shall try to keep my speech brief to enable as many as possible to participate. It is important that the Executive is aware of the strong feelings about this issue and about the principles that underpin the motion.
I should point out a factual error in the motion. The £3,500 referred to is a figure that, even now, is debatable, as it relates to the additional expenditure that would be involved in transporting children from the Glenrinnes area to schools in Mortlach or Glenlivet. All of us are bombarded with statistics from time to time; perhaps I should attend Glenrinnes Primary School, given its excellent record in teaching numeracy.
We are here not to talk about money, but to speak about the principles of the motion, which seeks clarification of the Executive's policy on rural schools in general and on Glenrinnes in particular. We are talking about the costs to children's education and about parents' concerns about the welfare of their children. We are talking about the costs to the future of the glen—a lovely part of one of the most remote areas of my beautiful constituency. From a previous conversation with Peter Peacock, I know that he took time at the weekend to visit the Glenrinnes area and is therefore well aware of the place that I am speaking about.
We should remember the cost of school closures to communities. The people of Glenrinnes did not set out to make the future of their school a totem pole, but it has become a test case of the Executive's policy on rural schools. Other members who are here this afternoon are also aware of the importance of rural schools. I understand that a petition has already been submitted to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and that a letter has been written to the Executive about Toward Primary School in Argyll and Bute, although no response has so far been received. I am sure that members from that area, including my colleague Duncan Hamilton, will refer to that.
All of us in this fledgling Parliament, which is now approaching its first anniversary, have a commitment to serve the whole of Scotland. Yesterday evening, we debated Govan; tonight, we are debating Glenrinnes. I cannot think of two more contrasting areas, but all such debates are equally important to the people of those areas. The commonweal of Scotland will be measured in genuine concern and genuine action for all in our nation.
Glenrinnes Primary School has been operating since 1958. The building—a modern building requiring little maintenance—was erected on a plot of land gifted by Miss Isabella Cowie and sold to the council in 1963 for a fee of £50.
The school is the focal point of the tiny community. There are no other community features—there is no post office, shop, place of worship, doctor's surgery, or even a pub—so the school is seen as the hub of the community. It holds a special place in the hearts and minds of the people. The school meets all health and safety requirements. It is equipped with closed-circuit television. It has a 100 per cent record of parental involvement. I am sure that many of my colleagues would wish to see a similar record in their schools. It also has a set of school rules and disciplinary procedures that have been agreed by the pupils, teachers and parents, and has an excellent academic record.
In the substantial file that I have accumulated on this issue, which I will not read out, I have received letters from local businesses: from the whisky industry, because Allt a' Bhainne distillery is directly opposite the school; from property developers; and from those involved in quarrying, farming, fishing, forestry and tourism. They have all submitted letters of support. The indications are that the school roll could rise quite substantially within the next three years because of developments in the community. We wish to retain the school as an attraction for people coming into this area of the Moray constituency.
In the petition that was submitted to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, all of those facts were made clear. Those who signed the petition were not people who were tackled on a wet or windy morning in the main street of a large city: they were people who had a relationship with the community, either at present or historically. I understand that the issue is to be considered by other committees in this Parliament, and that Jamie Stone has been asked by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to act as the rapporteur on rural schools. We expect that a report should be submitted this month, or in the near future, on the future of rural schools as a whole. Depending on that report and its findings, there may be a full investigation into a clarification of the Executive's policy.
Given that education is one of the critical spheres of policy that has been devolved to this Parliament of ours, it would be folly to proceed with the closure of any rural schools at this stage until we have fully debated and fully investigated the situation that is affecting our communities. We should have an overarching policy for our rural schools, so I ask the Executive, and Peter Peacock in particular, at least to look at the possibility of a postponement in this case until that overarching policy has been agreed.
I promised to be brief, so I will end with these words from a card from the children of Glenrinnes, in which was enclosed a piece of white heather. It is from Richard, Faye, Emily, Cameron, Rowan, Duncan and James. It reads:
"Thank you for trying to save our school. I hope this heather brings yourself, and the school some good luck."
I say to the minister that we need more than luck: we need protection, a policy, and action. I hope that we will have a positive response from him this evening.
I want to endorse what Margaret Ewing said about the importance of rural schools to the communities in which they are sited. As she said, in many of our communities there is no pub, the post office has gone, the shop has gone, and all that is left to give social cohesion is the local school. It is important that if schools are meeting educational targets and are offering a good educational experience to their pupils, as most rural schools are, we do everything in our power to maintain them.
It is important that children are brought up and educated in the community in which they live, because that provides social cohesion and a network of activities around the local school. That holds the whole community together and gives it a focal point. Our rural schools are an asset that we should value highly.
I have no direct contact with Glenrinnes, but that school is controlled by the same local authority—Moray Council—as the school at Boharm in my constituency, which is also threatened with closure. The way in which the council has dealt with the proposal to close Boharm School has been far from satisfactory. I will cite one aspect of its consultation.
The council's projection was that the school roll would fall from 10 to seven in the next three years. That figure was challenged during the consultation and the council produced a revised forecast that showed that the roll would be expected to rise to 22 in the same period. The report that went before the full council contained the first, discredited, figure and tacked on the revised figure, which demonstrated the continuing viability of the school, at the back as an annexe. That is reprehensible.
Margaret Ewing mentioned that Jamie Stone has been appointed rapporteur for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, but Moray Council has treated that committee with contempt. It has refused to allow Jamie Stone to visit the school at Boharm and has refused to enter any dialogue with him about the rationale behind its decision. That is outrageous.
I endorse everything Margaret Ewing said about the importance of our rural schools. We need to look closely at the process that is gone through when schools are threatened with closure.
I am pleased to support the motion in the name of Margaret Ewing and I congratulate her on making her points with compassion and empathy, not only for the children at the school, but for the rural way of life that everyone who represents rural areas—including, I am sure, the Deputy Minister for Children and Education—values. It is Parliament's responsibility to ensure that rural voices are heard.
I agree that we need clarification. There is a test case that we can examine. As a list member for the Highlands and Islands, I have received representations from parents and communities from Ulva Ferry Primary School on the isle of Mull and from places such as Boharm and Glenrinnes in Moray.
I attempted to contact Moray Council to ask it why Boharm School is being closed. I was assured by the chief executive that it was for educational, rather than financial, reasons. I see that Margaret Ewing has also been given that excuse. I asked him for research that would prove that children from small schools go on to achieve less in terms of qualifications and careers than their counterparts in larger schools. I asked him to point out to me the ways in which children in smaller schools are disadvantaged. Unlike Jamie Stone, I received a letter in reply. I will be very happy to pass it on to him.
The letter says that
"coupled with issues such as drug education, citizenship and behaviour management there is clearly the need for an increased level of peer interaction between children such as cannot always be provided in a very small school situation".
I say to the minister that if we extended that attitude to the rest of Scotland, I would be seriously concerned about the future of dozens of schools in Moray and throughout the Highlands and Islands.
The next criterion that was mentioned was
"The need for groups of children of similar developmental stage to be linked together in working or investigative groups . . . including team games, orchestras and bands, peer group activity."
Can we truly keep a school open only if it has 11 guys for a football team and if it can mount an orchestra and support a band for pupils to march in? The situation is becoming farcical, but those are justifications for closing a school from the chief executive of Moray Council.
The letter goes on to talk about management and administration. I believe that the administration of some small schools in Ayrshire has been transferred to larger schools. That has allowed the smaller schools to stay open. I hope that Moray Council will examine good practice elsewhere.
Probably the two most telling reasons for proposing to close the school are
"Best Value for available resources"
and
"disparities in funding levels with regard to pupil average costs".
Although the council talks about education, its main concern is finance.
I believe that it is the responsibility of Moray Council to ensure far greater utilisation of the school buildings. As has been said, the school is the hub of the community. I ask the council to consider some of the points that have been made by parents. There is concern that a precedent is being set here, due to pressures on local government finance. That will affect not only children's school experience and education, but the rural fabric of the rest of Scotland.
I, too, congratulate Margaret Ewing on securing this debate. I acknowledge that the motion relates specifically to Glenrinnes Primary School, but I would like to consider the wider implications of this case, as Margaret indicated I would. In particular, I want to focus on the principle to which Mary Scanlon just referred—whether this decision is based on cost or whether it is based on educational theory.
Argyll and Bute is the area that in recent times has been most closely associated with this issue. Last week a petition was submitted against the closure of Toward Primary School. Schools at Ulva Ferry, which has been mentioned, Newton, Drumlemble, Glassary and Bridge of Orchy are also facing closure because the council needs to find £175,000. In the grand scheme of things, that does not seem to me to be a particularly large sum of money. We need to establish whether the decision to close these schools is being made only because the money is not available. Is there an educational rationale for it, or is that simply a cover for the cut in resources?
I want to throw into the debate some of the latest evidence from America. It is argued that there is a critical point below which there is no benefit from reducing class sizes. I want to quote one of the key findings in the latest report by the National Institute on Student Achievement, part of the Department of Education in America. It says:
"The significant effects of class size reduction on student achievement appear when class size is reduced to a point somewhere between 15 and 20 students, and continue to increase as class size approaches the situation of a 1-to-1 tutorial."
The point that is being made is that the idea that smaller class sizes, particularly for those in the early stages of their curriculum development, inhibit learning development is a nonsense. America has been through this debate and has come out the other side. People there are now saying that smaller schools should be preserved and that we should go forward on the basis of smaller class sizes. I hope that the minister will take that into account.
I say to Nora Radcliffe that the idea that a council can simply ignore a committee of the Scottish Parliament was firmly laid to rest by the Public Petitions Committee in the case of Stobhill. The committee has written to Argyll and Bute Council about the Argyll schools specifically to avoid the sort of situation that has arisen in Moray. Nora Radcliffe may want to go down that route also.
We need to get away from having a crisis of this sort every year. This year it affects the schools that we are discussing today, but next year it will affect other schools. We need a long-term, clear strategy so that parents know that if rationalisation has to take place it will happen on a fair and open basis—on the basis of what is best for children, rather than simply to cut budgets. Today, the minister has an excellent opportunity to tell us whether there is a theory behind what we are doing, or whether this is simply a crude budget cut. If it is, that is a sad indictment of current Executive policy.
It seems that I find myself addressing Peter Peacock on the subject of rural school closures quite often. This is not the first time, and I am sure it will not be the last.
I hope in the short time available to me—I do not intend to take very long—to develop a small theme. We have heard how important rural schools are and that small rural schools are not necessarily bad rural schools. I have referred before to my experience and that of my children, who went to a small rural school and received a quality education there in composite classes, sometimes in difficult surroundings. It is the quality of our schools that is important.
The issues surrounding rural school closures were highlighted when we discussed Boharm Primary School. The example that I would like to bring to members' attention today is slightly different. St Vigeans Primary School is on the outskirts of Arbroath. For what I believe are primarily financial reasons, there has been a proposal to close it. It has a roll of 42 pupils. In the past, it was classed as having a capacity of up to 50 pupils, but because of the required pupil:teacher ratio, 42 is the maximum it can take.
Until recently, St Vigeans was classified as a rural school, but for a reason that I have yet to understand, boundaries have been moved and the school is now in the Arbroath area. Of the 42 pupils, only 14 live within the catchment area. The parents of the other 28 have chosen to bring their children in. It is a glowing tribute to a tiny school that operates with two composite classes that it can attract pupils who live a considerable distance away. I visited the school last night and spoke to a number of parents, including one couple who regularly make a 22-mile round trip to deliver or collect their children.
Despite all that, there is pressure to close the school. We have to remember that quantity is not always the best thing for education, and that children who come from a rural background are often far better suited to attending a rural school than they are to being bundled into major schools in the county towns. We have to keep that at the front of our minds.
Another reason for mentioning St Vigeans is that it is in an area controlled by a SNP council. Peter Peacock and I have had our discussions: I suggested that the Executive is the cause of the problem; he suggested that it was the good old Tories. I would like to suggest that perhaps we are all partially responsible for the situation. Decisions are being made on the basis of finances, not on the quality of education.
Through this motion, we hope that the Scottish Parliament, with its responsibilities for education, will look for different criteria from those that have existed in the past. I am sure that Mr Johnstone agrees with that.
Yes, I acknowledge that point.
I would like to close by saying that I hope that, at the end of this debate, we can all go forward and look for those new criteria for dealing with rural schools. We should consider them in terms of the quality of education they provide rather than in terms of the financial burden they place on local authorities. We should find a way of dealing with this issue that is satisfying not only to the Executive, but to the parents and—especially—to the pupils who attend rural schools.
I find myself in a slightly anomalous position. I know that members will appreciate the procedural problems. This debate is specifically about Glenrinnes, but it opens up wider questions on policy. As members have said, Moray Council has sought the consent of Scottish Executive ministers for the closure of Glenrinnes primary school. However, the papers relating to the school are currently with our officials; neither I nor Sam Galbraith have seen any of those papers. We will see them soon but, meanwhile, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the particular circumstances of Glenrinnes, which must await full and proper consideration in the light of the advice that we receive. To do otherwise would be regarded as prejudicial to our consideration of the case.
I will give way in a minute.
It has been useful to hear the points that members have made about the particulars of Glenrinnes, all of which will be taken into account when we come to make our decision. Margaret Ewing delivered her speech in measured tones as usual. Others have done so too, and I recognise the genuine concerns of members. In the light of the restriction on me, however, I would like to consider some of the wider factors that affect all such situations.
On that point, can the minister tell me when the papers were received from Moray Council, what time had elapsed, when they will be looked at and when we can expect a conclusion?
I will write to Margaret Ewing with the details and dates, as I do not have them to hand. I know that Glenrinnes was out of sequence with the other schools in Moray. The papers came in later than those on Boharm school and others.
Will the minister extend the same courtesy to those of us who have been in touch with him on Boharm and some of the other schools?
With pleasure. It may be helpful to look at the points of principle underlying the Glenrinnes and other cases and at some of the background factors. The Executive believes that full consideration must be given to these cases and all relevant views must be considered and addressed.
Setting aside particular cases, I understand the concerns about school closure proposals and that they can be, and invariably are, very strongly felt in rural areas in particular, though not uniquely in rural areas. However, local authorities have a responsibility to keep provision of schools under review. That applies in all areas of Scotland and all types of settlement. They have a duty to plan for the long-term provision of schools in the area, not just a duty—although they also have that—to the current schools and children in them. That is very difficult and challenging and I am not going to criticise any council for exploring the issues with their local population. It is their duty.
I will give way in a moment.
The Executive wants to see a strong network of rural schools but that does not necessarily mean the exact network we have today, although it will predominantly be that network. In many rural areas the pattern of distribution of schools was established in the late 1800s and was based on reasonable walking distances between the settlements and their schools. Life moves on and settlement patterns change as do traditional ways of life.
Many rural schools once served large, mainly agricultural communities with significant numbers of children and poor travel facilities. Time spent at school was shorter and the link with the land and agriculture was more prominent. Changes in agricultural practices and other countryside activities mean that in many areas those factors do not apply. The ease and convenience of transport is vastly improved even from 20 years ago, let alone 120 years ago when much of the pattern of schools was established.
Schools are very different places. The curriculum and the way in which it is delivered has changed hugely over the years. No one is suggesting that a sound education cannot be delivered in a small school—I want to stress that. It has to be for a great many children in the most remote communities. In the communities that Mary Scanlon and others referred to there are no alternatives to the existing pattern because the distances between the schools are too great.
I appreciate that the minister finds himself in a difficult position, but Nora Radcliffe said that the local authority concerned has apparently refused to co-operate with a committee of the Parliament. I understand that the minister is bound by statutory procedures brought in before the Parliament was established, but people voted for the Parliament and for the right to have their case put in its committees and other bodies. That must be taken into account.
Would it be possible for the papers to be returned to Moray Council with the direction that it should co-operate with the elected Parliament, so that the parents of Glenrinnes and other schools in rural Scotland that are facing closure have the opportunity for the reporter on the matter, Jamie Stone, to consider it before the statutory process is taken further?
As Fergus Ewing says, the statutory procedures constrain our actions. However, I understand that Moray Council has agreed to meet Jamie Stone.
On that point, how can the minister say that he understands that there is an agreement to meet Jamie Stone when he cannot tell us when the papers were received from Moray Council and what progress there is on them? It seems to me that there is a total contradiction in what is happening here. We are trying to get to the root of the matter and see if this Parliament has the courage to stand up and say that new procedures will be adopted.
I discussed the matter with Jamie Stone and I understand that Moray Council has agreed to a meeting with him.
When?
That is a matter between Jamie Stone, on behalf of the parliamentary committee, and Moray Council.
A great many children will have no alternative but to remain in the schools that they are in because of the population distribution in the most remote parts of Scotland. There can be gains to children's learning in being able to interact with a wider range of peers and to have access to a wider range of teachers and materials, where that choice exists, but it does not exist everywhere.
Although Mary Scanlon derided it to some extent, participating in sport, music, art and drama becomes possible in larger groups. That is a factor, but it is by no means the only factor.
The Deputy Presiding Officer is asking me to wind up, so I will have to resist the members' temptations.
There is a full statutory consultation process involving parents and school boards when an authority proposes the closure of a school. Authorities have to take account of the representations before them in reaching decisions. That ensures that there is a full opportunity for all issues surrounding closure to be aired and debated. I firmly believe that that is best done at a local level. In this Parliament, almost all of us are committed to strong local government. Education is a key role for local government.
Proposed closures, as we all know, can be highly contentious and people invariably express doubts about the basis of the council's case. That is democracy at work; it is part of the process of reviewing those matters. There are many cases where, in the light of consultation responses, authorities have decided not to proceed with certain proposals.
In March 1998, Brian Wilson, one of my predecessors as an education minister, stressed—and I underline this in view of some of the comments that have been made—that schools should not be closed on financial grounds alone. He invited local authorities to apply a "test of proportionate advantage" to any proposed closure of a rural primary school. That test is intended to ensure that the educational and financial gains deriving from a school closure stand up to scrutiny and that they outweigh any negative effects that a closure may have on the rural community and the children and families concerned.
The term "test of proportionate advantage" reminds local authorities that, in considering and consulting on school closure proposals, they should address all the potential benefits and disbenefits related to education, finance and community that might be at issue. It would be naive to suggest that those issues are always capable of fine definition.
I must ask you to close, minister.
I am moving to a conclusion.
The principal determinants of school provision are the circumstances in a local area. It is right that each situation should be examined on its individual merits, because those vary so much across Scotland. Above all, it is correct that, as far as possible, these are local decisions. However, the concerns about rural schools have always been recognised through the requirement for authorities to seek the consent of Scottish ministers where the distance between the school proposed for closure and the alternative school is greater than 5 miles for primary schools and 10 miles for secondary schools. In that formula the interests of the children are being balanced with the travel burden upon them. That is the correct focus. In considering proposals coming to us for consent, we apply a similar test of proportionate advantage to the case. We look at all the factors in the round.
I know that Jamie Stone is reviewing, on behalf of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, the issues surrounding rural school closures. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss that report with him and with the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, once it has been received.
I trust that giving that background has been helpful to members' understanding of where the Executive stands on those matters.
Meeting closed at 17:44.