Response to Allegations made by ARSN

The Herald newspaper published an article based on a press release by the Argyll Rural Schools Network entitled “Council misled by schools closure dodgy dossier”. In it the network implied that elected members were deceived deliberately by officers, that the school consultation documents had been overstated and that officers have misrepresented the findings of the studies. The network made contact with the authors of two research reports and cite their responses as evidence that the research they conducted should not be used as the basis for school mergers.

The allegations published in The Herald were directly refuted by the Council in its media response, the following was published as part of the article:

“There is absolutely no attempt to mislead people. We’re committed to providing a quality education service within the constraints of a reducing budget and we have been open about our consultation … The studies referred to quote a wide range of criteria to define a thriving and sustainable rural community.”

The allegations however require further response which is set out as follows:

“The allegations that officers deliberately misled or deceived elected members at the Council meeting of the 25th November are directly refuted in the strongest terms. The Council has deliberately attempted to be open and transparent on the wider financial pressures it is facing and the service review programme it has undertaken. More specifically in relation to the review of education estate, it has been clear about the rationale for the review, the methodology used to assess the efficiency of the estate and all of the supporting evidence. It contends that it has provided significantly more detail than any other authority that it benchmarked its processes against which has enabled opponents of the proposals to challenge the basis of the proposals claiming “fundamental flaws”. This perspective has grown currency through constant repetition, particularly amongst those who thrive on rumour such as under-informed and unregulated bloggers and outright opponents of the proposals.

The Council has actually experienced a form of campaign before a consultation commences – the intention of the statutory consultation is to solicit opinion and feedback on proposals to allow elected members to weigh up all the information before determining whether to progress with the proposals. The campaign has sought initially to prevent such a consultation taking place, thereby preventing all opinions from being heard and latterly tried to imply the process has been dishonest to have the consultation cancelled. It is incumbent on the Council to consider how it uses its assets and how best it can deliver an equitable and sustainable education service going forward – it is to this end that the Council instructed officers to carry out the review and agreed the methodology for doing so. To fail to consider these issues would be to fail in its duties.

The reality of the arguments made against the proposal documents is somewhat different. What were described as flaws predominantly related to disagreement over the accuracy of information contained in the document, around 80% of which was pupil transport related. The information was verified by officers, travelling in satellite tracked vehicles which documented accurately journey times, speeds, stops, etc. This demonstrated that all travel information contained in the documents was accurate with the exception of Luing PS which was as a result of a misalignment of bus and ferry timetables. Public criticism of the GAE calculations and similar comments about officer misrepresentation was also made – this was refuted in detail by the Head of Strategic Finance. For completeness this is as follows:

The Rural Schools Network figure does not allow for the fact that only 83% of GAE is paid to the Council as grant. It is necessary to make this adjustment to ensure the financial implication reflect the actual monetary impact on the Council. Without this adjustment you overstate the financial impact of GAE.

The Council has also modelled the effect on its GAE adjustment of changes to the GAE data since the Green Book was published. It has also modelled the effect of changes to the populations of pupils in small rural schools in other councils. This is an assessment but the Council has taken a prudent approach in an attempt to make it a valid assessment of the financial impact on GAE.

Even if the overstated figure of £2,644 referred to by the Rural Schools Network were used it would only have a limited impact. The total GAE loss would rise from £374,000 to £542,000 an increase of only £168,000 against the estimated saving of £1.9m. The only school where this would turn an estimated savings into an additional cost is Achahoish where the savings of £7,994 would become a cost of £5,946. It would also increase the cost for North Bute from £11,312 to £51,490. Even on this incorrect basis it is clear the Rural Schools Network were wrong to claim the GAE figures have a significant impact on the council’s proposals.

A final example would be the public criticism of the population projection figures which again prompted a response by web link to the GROS website and the formal figures in question. All of the above examples were loudly presented as evidence of fundamental flaws but none of the corrections appeared publicly nor were even acknowledged.

It is understood that the issue of school mergers is emotive and for many an issue they will vehemently oppose. This is understood and the intention of the consultation is to allow these opinions to be reflected in the process. However, just as there should be no confusion between information that someone disagrees with and accurate information as noted above,  a disagreement with a proposal or conclusions that are drawn should not be confused with inaccuracies or deliberate deception.

The Council accepts that neither of the referenced research reports were written with the intention of them being used as an argument for progressing school mergers nor is it intended  that it should enter a debate with the research authors to try to draw them into a pressured argument about their findings. It is not intended to imply that neither report made mention of schools or any other amenities within communities. Rather, to directly provide reassurance that the statement:

 “ studies of the sustainability of rural communities do not generally see the existence of a school as being of comparable importance to local employment opportunities, the availability of housing, private sector led economic diversity or clean energy. None of these issues are affected by the proposal”  

is a legitimate inference by the reader of the research reports, I quote from the reports:

Section 1.5 Hall Aitken Report – Outer Hebrides Migration Study

Following on from a recommendation that policy interventions should focus on retaining more young people in communities, increasing the number of young women and younger couples in the population and stabilising the number of primary school age children in the local population, the report recommends that to achieve a sustainable population this would require policies that focus on:

• Widening employment opportunities for skilled workers and particularly for women
• Providing a greater number and range of vocational training opportunities and apprenticeships that will allow more young people to stay in the Outer Hebrides
• Providing housing options that are desirable, accessible and affordable to people in the early stages of their careers; and
• Ensuring a quality range of social and leisure facilities that are attractive to women and younger children.
• Underpinning all of these is the need to retain and market the environmental and quality of life assets that are one of the key attractions to in migrants.

Section 1.6 : “Factors Needed for sustainable communities

The scenario planning exercise concluded the key essential in terms of policy going forward are:

• Sustainable employment
• Private sector led economic diversity
• Housing provision
• Self determination; and
• Clean energy

These are excerpts from a larger report that make reference to a wide range of findings. For example section 8.1.1 is entitled “Mapping key drivers” which lists no less than 21 “Factors needed for sustainable communities”. Of this 21 drivers apparently reached on the basis of general consensus by those participating in the exercise as part of the research, one relates to “learning and skills – school level and apprenticeships”. This indicates that education is one of a range of factors needed for sustainable communities – a contention no one would argue with but it does not imply that it must be delivered by a primary school in every community which is simply unsustainable.

Whether intended or not, it is reasonable to contend from the published information that a rural community can thrive without a dedicated primary school and that this factor is not ultimately the determining factor on whether a community will survive and progress. Indeed there are many examples of such flourishing rural communities that do not have a dedicated primary school within the village.

“Factors Influencing Rural Migration Decisions in Scotland Report” (SG Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Affairs”

In similar vein to the Hall Aitken report, page 4 (Policy implications from the evidence, specific implications) advises that “the main policy implications (sic) should relate to:

• The provision of high quality jobs in rural areas
• The provision of affordable housing options in rural areas
• The provision of advice and support for people who have moved into rural areas
• The provision of advice and support for people who are thinking of moving or returning to rural areas
• Involving both long term residents and in migrants from all age and life stage groups in local decision making
• Developing initiatives to encourage return migration
• Ensuring that policy makers must take into account the different needs of accessible and remote areas.

The report in this section does note decisions to settle or migrate are influenced by a range of factors including “high quality schooling” – a point that we would support and which underpins the consultation proposals to deliver an equitable and sustainable education provision in Argyll and Bute.

Section 7 of the report notes the requirement to “maintain and promote high quality schooling across rural Scotland – particularly in relation to facilities and teaching standards”. This factor was one of a wide range of non educational factors including community care for the elderly, access to health services, rural housing, rural employment and training which were explored in significant detail. Again we would support the statement regarding high quality schooling and we believe the proposals potentially allow the Council to deploy limited resources better to fewer more efficient schools providing a higher standard of education. 

From the detail outlined above, I trust I have demonstrated the reasonable logic and inferences drawn from the published text and in particular that the proposal documents had not been overstated to promote a particular view. The fact that none of the detail set out above is quoted in the proposal documents should be sufficient evidence of this intent. Through this outline I would also trust that the allegations about deliberate deception are robustly refuted. Whether others disagree with the points made or would place a different level of emphasis on the provision of a dedicated primary school in their community, this is the purpose of the consultation to ensure that all views are heard and are taken into account by the Council in eventually considering merger decisions.

Cleland Sneddon

Executive Director of Community Resources