Gadburn School
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion number S4M-01982, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on saving Gadburn school. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the decision by Glasgow City Council to close Gadburn School, which teaches children in the north east of Glasgow who have additional support needs; understands the importance of additional support schools with regard to the wellbeing and education of many of Scotland’s young people and believes that the parents and teachers of these young people are best placed to understand the children’s educational needs; commends the parents of the Gadburn pupils for what it considers to be their tireless campaign in trying to keep the school open and secure adequate educational facilities for children with additional support needs, and believes that the decision-making process for the future of Gadburn has been flawed.
17:03
It is a pleasure to hold my first members’ business debate since being elected to the Scottish Parliament on such an important issue.
I have just come from a meeting where I had the honour of hosting Nobel peace prize winner Muhammed Yunus, who has earned accolades throughout the world for tackling poverty. A key theme of that meeting centred on the famous saying that a nation’s greatness is measured not by the strength of its economy or military might but by how it treats the most vulnerable in its society. All members will sign up to such a sentiment and many of us will agree that children with disabilities or learning difficulties certainly fall into that category.
Gadburn school is located in the north-east of Glasgow. It does an excellent job of educating some of the most vulnerable young people in our city. However, the parents and—more important—the children of Gadburn now face an uncertain future due to a process that has, largely, treated them as an afterthought.
I thank members from across the Parliament for their support for the motion. The fact that it has received support from members of the Labour Party, whose colleagues in Glasgow City Council took the decision to close Gadburn school, shows that there is a common desire to secure the best outcome for the children of Gadburn and to meet their educational needs. For that, I give them thanks.
From the outset, it is important to note that the parents of children at Gadburn are not opposed to integration or mainstreaming as such, but they believe that the children must be placed at the centre of any such decision. The fear that is continually expressed by the parents is that Glasgow City Council’s decision to relocate Gadburn has been taken for financial reasons and is not in the best educational interests of the children.
A survey of the parents of children at Gadburn showed some very worrying statistics. It found that more than a third of the children reported having being bullied—that included being spat or urinated on—more than 45 per cent of them had been removed from mainstream school because the system could not cope, and almost 10 per cent had been assaulted, some physically and some sexually. The additional support and educational facilities that Gadburn provides are essential for those young people. Parents of Gadburn pupils say that the education that is provided at the school is working and is producing positive results for their children, and they are undoubtedly best placed to understand their children’s educational needs.
The process of consultation and the way in which the council has dealt with Gadburn school have been mired in controversy and full of sleights of hand and rushed agenda items that have suddenly appeared on or disappeared off committee minutes. It is for that reason that I join local councillors in asking the cabinet secretary, unequivocally, to call in the council’s decision and save Gadburn school.
It is a telling sign that, months before what will be a hotly contested local election in Scotland’s largest authority, local councillors of all parties, led by the Scottish National Party’s Grant Thoms, have joined together to oppose the ruling administration’s decision to shut Gadburn school.
The executive committee of Glasgow City Council first considered the closure of Gadburn school at its meeting on 9 December 2010. That triggered a statutory consultation on the closure of the school in January 2011, which ended on 4 March of last year. In the intervening period, parents of pupils at Gadburn, along with parents of pupils at Barmulloch primary—where the council hoped to relocate the special needs pupils—local councillors and council officials had a number of discussions on the way ahead.
The original plan was that the consultation responses and the recommendation to close Gadburn were to be presented to the executive committee on 23 June, but the agenda item was removed at short notice—no explanation was given, even to elected members.
From October to late November, local councillors gained the confidence of the Gadburn parent council on agreeing a compromise solution to prevent the closure of Gadburn school and, instead, to relocate it within Barmulloch primary as a stand-alone school. The intention was to work towards the integration of the two schools over a longer period—three to four years, say. In addition, parents were told time and again by council officials that there was no rush to make a decision on Gadburn.
Therefore, it came as a shock to everyone when a report recommending the closure of Gadburn was presented at the council’s executive committee in December last year. The administration rejected calls for local councillors to be able to complete discussions and reach a consensus whereby Gadburn school could be relocated within the buildings of Barmulloch primary but remain a separate school. At the time, the administration stated that some of the councillors in the ward did not agree with the continuation of discussions, but after consultation with all the councillors for the ward, it was clear that no such indication had been given, and the decision to close Gadburn school was called in to the council.
When the call-in was heard on 12 January of this year, it was decided that if, and only if, discussions could not resolve the matter, consideration would be given to having Gadburn as a separate school within Barmulloch primary. However, when the executive committee reconsidered the matter a few days later, it inexplicably reaffirmed its decision to close Gadburn school. Even now, the parents of pupils at Gadburn do not know where their children will be—whether in a separate classroom, a Portakabin or elsewhere—when the new term starts. So much uncertainty is clearly the last thing that they need.
I put on record my admiration for the parents of children at Gadburn school for their tireless campaign. It has been a tough and constant slog having to fight against the machinery of Glasgow City Council—at times, getting answers from the Kremlin would be more likely.
I would not want to get on the wrong side of two of the parents, Isabel Kelly and Sandra Martin—I am told that she is no relation of Paul Martin MSP. They have been passionate and driven—as any parent would be—in trying to secure the best future for their children.
Members who are in the chamber agree that the process has been flawed. It seems that parents and children have been an afterthought in Glasgow City Council’s rush to cut the finances and balance the books. I urge the cabinet secretary to call in the decision and give hope to those who are fighting for the most vulnerable in our community.
17:10
I congratulate Humza Yousaf on bringing this important debate to the chamber. Like him, I welcome the parents who have joined us this afternoon.
It is important that we recognise that, for more than a year now, the parents at Gadburn school have sought to play a major part in shaping the future of their children’s education. I would not fault them for being—on many occasions—robust, outspoken or difficult in order to ensure that their children’s complex needs are met. In my dealings with Isabel Kelly and Sandra Martin—she is not a relative of mine—I have found their arguments to be cohesive, intelligent and robust.
I am afraid that the same cannot be said of the education officials in Glasgow City Council. They have failed on a number of occasions to recognise the scale of the parents’ concerns, and they are unwilling to negotiate with the parents on an equal basis. It is another David and Goliath story—one that has highlighted a number of poor practices that exist throughout Scotland with regard to how education authorities consult parents.
We need to be clear that the decision is one for Glasgow City Council, regardless of the minister’s decision on whether to call it in. I welcome the fact that—as Humza Yousaf said—we have taken a cross-party approach in representing the parents at Gadburn.
Councillor Leonard and Councillor Davidson, who are Labour councillors, have been working closely with Councillor Thoms, who is a local SNP councillor. The councillors have met with education officials on numerous occasions to try to resolve the various differences that exist.
For many of the parents, the main issue—as Humza Yousaf highlighted—is that they no longer have confidence in mainstream education. Their children been poorly supported during the whole process, leading to some of the issues that have been raised, such as children being bullied and parents finding it difficult to feel sure that their children will be able to continue in mainstream education.
I have met the parents on a number of occasions and advised them that I am an advocate of ensuring that children are given a fair chance to access mainstream education—an ethos with which I think many members in the chamber would agree.
I have learned from the Gadburn parents that, as Humza Yousaf suggested, the issue is not as straightforward as it seems. Given the parents’ preference for special needs provision, the proposed move to Barmulloch primary school is perhaps the way forward. Of course, the parents’ first preference is for Gadburn school to remain open. However, if possible, they want a separate educational establishment at Barmulloch, given the possibility that the establishments could consider integrating in future.
The parents’ requests are not unreasonable, given the circumstances in which the parents find themselves. We must consider their requests alongside the request from members today for the minister to call in the decision.
We in this Parliament should show leadership. We should call on the education officials to work closely with the local elected members to ensure that the interests of the parents—and, more important, the interests of the children—are paramount in making progress on the issue. [Applause.]
I remind visitors to the Parliament that they should not applaud. I respectfully ask them to desist.
17:15
I am pleased to speak in the debate, and I thank Humza Yousaf for bringing the issue before the Parliament. Gadburn school is outwith my region of West Scotland, but I am speaking on behalf of my colleague, Ruth Davidson, who is unable to attend.
Ruth Davidson gave her support to Humza Yousaf’s motion after receiving correspondence from constituents who are concerned parents of children at Gadburn, and my colleague, Councillor David Meikle of Glasgow City Council, has written to the Scottish Government expressing his concerns.
Gadburn is a non-denominational primary school, catering for children aged four to 12 years. It has a roll of 33, and meets the needs of children with additional learning needs, including some with autism spectrum disorder. I understand that the council proposes to close the school by August 2013, and to offer, as we have heard, additional support for learning provision in Barmulloch primary. There is clearly an apprehension that Glasgow City Council education department’s plans to shut Gadburn have been too hasty, and most parents are naturally fearful about the impact that integration with a mainstream primary will have on their children.
In early 2011, the city council launched an official consultation into the future of the two schools, in which it outlined its plan to move the children at Gadburn to the new unit in Barmulloch primary. According to the consultation paper, measures would be taken to ease the transition, but it is instructive to note that of the 67 responses, only 15 supported the plan, while 45 were against and seven unclear. It is disappointing that the council then took the decision on 27 January of this year to close Gadburn school.
The early years are an important time for children’s physical, emotional, educational and social development, Parents naturally want the very best for their children, including a schooling environment that supports their needs. Schools such as Gadburn aim to educate pupils who require additional support in a way that addresses those pupils’ individual differences and needs. That might include adapted equipment and materials, accessible settings and other interventions designed to help children who require additional support to achieve a higher level of self-sufficiency and success than if they were given access only to a typical classroom environment and education. Humza Yousaf’s description of some of the young people’s experiences is disturbing.
“Gadburn School Handbook” states:
“The pupils learn in a highly structured, ordered environment designed to reduce anxiety and prevent distraction. A clearly defined, predictable routine is followed throughout the day.”
I can see, therefore, why Gadburn parents have genuine fears that a change in the school setting will be a seriously disruptive upheaval for their children. Ruth Davidson and I understand that the closure of a school, particularly one that provides additional support to students, is a sensitive subject. I know that the parents at the school have campaigned tirelessly to try to prevent the closure, and I sympathise with their concern about Glasgow City Council’s decision. There are significant concerns about the council’s decision-making process, and I urge the minister to listen to the parents’ legitimate concerns, heed these children’s very particular needs, and call in the decision. I support the motion.
17:19
Like other members, I am delighted to congratulate Humza Yousaf on securing the debate. I had a similar situation with a school in my constituency but, unfortunately, it did not have the time and ammunition that Gadburn has to ask the minister to call in the decision. If there is a lesson to be learned from that situation, it is for Glasgow City Council. If it wants to close down an additional support for learning school without getting into the current process, it should do so by making the decision on the last day of term—for both the school and the council—so that the parents are not allowed the opportunity to get together and campaign as the parents have done in the case of Gadburn school. Those parents should be congratulated. There is nobody in Glasgow who does not know about the parents and pupils of Gadburn school and the work that elected representatives such as Grant Thoms have done to defend the school.
Humza Yousaf talked about some of the conditions that the kids have had to put up with in Gadburn. When I was dealing with St Raymond’s school, parents told us that one child had had to up his dose of antidepressants by three times since the threat of closure was made at the school. Parents at St Raymond’s told me that—as Humza Yousaf said about children at Gadburn—their kids were taken out of mainstream schooling because it would not work for them and it was a danger to their own health and that of others.
There is clearly a process at play. I have been concerned for some time about the way in which Glasgow City Council education department has looked at ASL schools in Glasgow. It came home to me when St Raymond’s was affected, but I have known about Gadburn for some time and, in addition, nobody seemed to be very happy about a restructuring of schools that took place a couple of years ago.
In the case of St Raymond’s, Glasgow City Council education department made the final decision to close the school just prior to Christmas and kept the parents in the dark at all times. The only time that the parents heard anything was when somebody from the Evening Times informed them or I managed to get information from a letter or whatever. The parents were not kept informed at all. The method of communication was to put a letter in a school bag of a child with special needs. How can that possibly be the right way to communicate with parents who must know what is going on at all times for the benefit of their children?
I agree with Paul Martin that there must be a look at the way in which Glasgow City Council education department deals with such situations. It has a duty of care not only to its staff but to every child who goes through the doors of its schools and, in particular, to children who go to schools such as Gadburn or went to schools such as St Raymond’s.
To some extent, the situation at St Raymond’s had a wee bit of a happy ending for some of the parents involved, because the ones who made the most noise got preferential treatment. Glasgow City Council education department went out of its way to ensure that their children got to go to the school of their choosing. However, what about the other parents who were not as voluble and determined? What about those who thought that such closures are just what happens and did not believe in fighting authority?
Glasgow City Council education department has a crucial role in such situations, which should be to first and foremost look after the welfare of the children. I do not think that it is a coincidence that the Gadburn children are being moved to Barmulloch primary school when Barmulloch is only one third full; surely if it is only one third full, there is scope for a stand-alone Gadburn in that school. Like Humza Yousaf, I urge the cabinet secretary to call in the decision.
17:23
I congratulate my good friend Humza Yousaf on securing the debate.
As members would expect, how we ensure that all our children and young people are given the support that they need to realise their potential is a subject with which I am very engaged.
I welcome the parents and representatives of Gadburn school. I have been involved in the issue of school closures for all of my political life. The Presiding Officer is right to say that people in the gallery should not applaud, but she will allow me to applaud those who are fighting for their school.
Last year, we published a refreshed Government economic strategy. It reaffirmed our central purpose of making Scotland a more successful country, with opportunities for all to flourish through increasing sustainable economic growth. I make that point because key to the delivery of that purpose is an education system that unlocks the true potential of every child. A child’s education is affected by a wide range of issues: social, emotional, environmental and even genetic. However, it is also affected, axiomatically, by his or her school.
Legislation such as the Education Scotland Act 1980, the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000, the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 have enshrined the right of every child to receive the support that they need to access learning. The curriculum for excellence is providing a framework for all our young people to gain the knowledge and skills for learning, so we know that prospects are bright for our young people. The most important principle is to meet the needs of the individual pupil in the most appropriate setting for them. That is true for all children; it is particularly true for children who have additional support needs.
Today we are debating the future of Gadburn school, which provides for children with such needs. As we heard, members are passionate about the positive impact that the school is having on young people. Glasgow City Council has taken the decision to close Gadburn and transfer the children to new specialist provision at the neighbouring Barmulloch primary school. I understand the widespread concern that the decision has caused, particularly given the questions that have been asked about the process.
As I have said many times in the Parliament, sometimes schools have to close. Communities change, populations move and sometimes buildings become unsuitable. However, I am entirely clear that common decency as well as good practice demands that a closure must attempt to command public confidence. At the very least, the process of decision making must be inclusive and transparent.
All proposed school closures result in worry, anger and resentment for the pupils, parents and staff who are affected. I have been through school closures—I have seen and suffered them at close quarters. The effect is made much worse when schools are closed without proper and full consultation with the communities that they serve.
That is why this Government introduced the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill, which was agreed to unanimously by the Parliament in November 2009—the bill united the Parliament. The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 is intended to make the consultation process for the proposed closure of any school open, transparent and fair. The Government sought to increase local participation, ensure that there is genuine dialogue and foster a sense of trust between local authorities and the people whom they serve.
The 2010 act established a more formal role, by means of a safeguard whereby ministers are able to call in decisions in relation to which they perceive serious flaws in the consultation or decision-making process. The call-in can be triggered by community or parental request, but such requests have to outline a flaw in process. The key word is “process”. The 2010 act is not about prejudging or second-guessing a local authority’s decision; it is about ensuring that the process, as enshrined by statute, has been carried through properly and correctly.
Since the 2010 act was passed, it is fair to say that a number of school closures, particularly of rural schools, have given me great cause for concern. That is why, in June, I established the commission on the delivery of rural education, to consider and make recommendations on the 2010 act. I am grateful to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for agreeing to a moratorium on rural school closures while the commission undertakes its work—although we should note that a presumption against the closure of rural schools is written into the 2010 act. Since the establishment of the commission, no contested closure of a rural school has taken place.
The commission is currently taking evidence and I was encouraged to hear the constructive and active participation of the local community at the commission’s evidence session at Lochgilphead last night. The commission has arranged several more meetings, so that it can take evidence from rural communities across Scotland. I encourage parents and other interested stakeholders to attend whenever they can. I look forward to receiving the findings of the commission in August. I think that its work will greatly improve the process of consultation on all closures and I hope that it will restore confidence in the 2010 act throughout Scotland’s communities.
Gadburn is not a rural school. Indeed, Glasgow is the one local authority in Scotland that has no rural schools, by the definition that we operate. However, the school is vital to the community and the young people whom it serves, and I take every proposed school closure seriously.
Glasgow City Council notified me formally of its decision to close Gadburn school on 27 January. The 2010 act allows a three-week period for representations to be made to the Scottish ministers and a further three weeks to enable me to consider representations and reach a decision on whether to call in the council’s school closure decision.
I have received 19 representations from parents of children at Gadburn school, setting out their concerns about Glasgow City Council’s proposals and asking that I call in the decision. I have also received letters from the local councillor, Grant Thoms, from Glasgow MSPs Paul Martin, Patricia Ferguson and, of course, Mr Yousaf, and from the Westminster MP, Margaret Curran. I have carefully considered the representations that I received and I can announce that I have decided to call in Glasgow City Council’s decision to close Gadburn school, for further investigation. The council was informed this afternoon of my decision. A copy of the letter will be published on the Scottish Government website tomorrow.
Given that it is now for Scottish ministers to determine the matter of process, I am sure that members will understand that I cannot comment further on the case. To do so could be seen as prejudicing the decision that I now have to make. However, I can assure all members, stakeholders, Glasgow City Council and the school community that, in reaching my decision, I will consider very carefully all the information that has been put to me.
Meeting closed at 17:30.