Chamber
Plenary, 15 Feb 2007
15 Feb 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Education
How could you, Presiding Officer?
As we are short of time, I will cut to the chase. All members have welcomed HMIE's reports on schools, so there is no need for me to repeat those remarks, other than to say that I think that the reports are invaluable. Instead, I will speak briefly about HMIE's other work, which has involved commenting on local authorities' school estates reviews. I did not agree with everything that HMIE said about the review in Moray, which would originally have led to the closure of perfectly sustainable rural schools—although there is better news on that today—but it is nevertheless right for HMIE to be concerned about the wider issue of how local authorities maximise educational benefit in our schools.
As well as inspections of individual schools, HMIE carries out themed inspections. If possible, I would like HMIE to carry out a themed inspection of consultation processes on school closures, with particular regard to rural schools. That is not because I think that no rural school should be closed. If a local authority identifies a school as unsustainable because of a falling school roll or other factors, has the evidence to justify that, and has conducted a transparent consultation process, of course the school should close. That will often be sad, because rural schools are at the heart of their communities. However, if the decision is justifiable, the school must be closed.
The problem is that, in the past couple of years, swathes of rural schools, many of which received excellent HMIE reports, have been earmarked for closure by local authorities on arbitrary grounds, with poor consultation with parents, processes that are not transparent and, in the worst cases, direct misinformation to parents as justification for the closure. There has been short-termism and a failure to realise that it is often rural areas that are growing rather than urban ones. In some informal consultation processes, the proposals have seemed to be a fait accompli. The result of all that has been campaigns by parents to keep schools open, which I and many other members have backed. I am glad that, as a result, many schools that were earmarked for closure have been saved, but I am sure that everyone agrees that that is not the best approach to the management of the school estate. Those campaigns are a result of poor consultation processes. The processes have stalled rather than encouraged reasonable and rational reviews of school infrastructure. It is very probable that schools that are unsustainable have not been closed because they were bundled in with the process for schools that are clearly sustainable.
If possible, a consideration of the consultation process would be an excellent themed inspection for HMIE to take on. The inspectorate could disseminate examples of best practice and ensure that local authorities embark on transparent consultation processes that involve parents fully throughout. That would ensure far better management of local schools infrastructure, while rightly maintaining decisions at a local level, and would enhance HMIE's work to ensure excellent provision through its reviews of individual schools. The motion rightly identifies HMIE's good work. On the issue of consultation and other matters, HMIE can make a further positive contribution to education provision throughout Scotland.
As we are short of time, I will cut to the chase. All members have welcomed HMIE's reports on schools, so there is no need for me to repeat those remarks, other than to say that I think that the reports are invaluable. Instead, I will speak briefly about HMIE's other work, which has involved commenting on local authorities' school estates reviews. I did not agree with everything that HMIE said about the review in Moray, which would originally have led to the closure of perfectly sustainable rural schools—although there is better news on that today—but it is nevertheless right for HMIE to be concerned about the wider issue of how local authorities maximise educational benefit in our schools.
As well as inspections of individual schools, HMIE carries out themed inspections. If possible, I would like HMIE to carry out a themed inspection of consultation processes on school closures, with particular regard to rural schools. That is not because I think that no rural school should be closed. If a local authority identifies a school as unsustainable because of a falling school roll or other factors, has the evidence to justify that, and has conducted a transparent consultation process, of course the school should close. That will often be sad, because rural schools are at the heart of their communities. However, if the decision is justifiable, the school must be closed.
The problem is that, in the past couple of years, swathes of rural schools, many of which received excellent HMIE reports, have been earmarked for closure by local authorities on arbitrary grounds, with poor consultation with parents, processes that are not transparent and, in the worst cases, direct misinformation to parents as justification for the closure. There has been short-termism and a failure to realise that it is often rural areas that are growing rather than urban ones. In some informal consultation processes, the proposals have seemed to be a fait accompli. The result of all that has been campaigns by parents to keep schools open, which I and many other members have backed. I am glad that, as a result, many schools that were earmarked for closure have been saved, but I am sure that everyone agrees that that is not the best approach to the management of the school estate. Those campaigns are a result of poor consultation processes. The processes have stalled rather than encouraged reasonable and rational reviews of school infrastructure. It is very probable that schools that are unsustainable have not been closed because they were bundled in with the process for schools that are clearly sustainable.
If possible, a consideration of the consultation process would be an excellent themed inspection for HMIE to take on. The inspectorate could disseminate examples of best practice and ensure that local authorities embark on transparent consultation processes that involve parents fully throughout. That would ensure far better management of local schools infrastructure, while rightly maintaining decisions at a local level, and would enhance HMIE's work to ensure excellent provision through its reviews of individual schools. The motion rightly identifies HMIE's good work. On the issue of consultation and other matters, HMIE can make a further positive contribution to education provision throughout Scotland.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
Before the debate on school education starts, I must inform members that I am the only Presiding Officer available today and that I require a 10-minute break...
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Ind):
Ind
Presiding Officer, will you clarify how long I have for my opening speech?
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
A little over four minutes.
Mr Monteith:
Ind
I am rather hopeful that this debate on schools will be better tempered than the previous debate, but one never knows. I was surprised to see that an amendme...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
Wind up, please.
Mr Monteith:
Ind
I am just about to wind up, Presiding Officer.I propose that the inspectorate should come before the Education Committee annually to explain its annual repor...
The Deputy Minister for Education and Young People (Robert Brown):
LD
I welcome the terms of Brian Monteith's motion and the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education. It might be worth s...
Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind):
Ind
Can the minister explain why the chief inspector of schools says that standards of literacy and numeracy have risen while, at the same time, universities com...
Robert Brown:
LD
I accept that there is a series of issues to consider. The whole purpose of having inspection and local authority monitoring systems is constantly to improve...
Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I, too, support the motion and welcome its terms. We place on record our recognition of HMIE's valuable work in Scotland's education system. I am pleased, ho...
Mr Monteith:
Ind
I know that the member takes a great interest in the affairs of Linlithgow. Can she tell me whether she is satisfied that seven primary schools were not insp...
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
Far be it from me to defend a Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive, but there were 14 years of Conservative Government between 1983 and 1997. I understand that ...
Mr Monteith:
Ind
Will the member give way?
Fiona Hyslop:
SNP
I am sorry, but I will continue if I may. There is a big agenda issue with HMIE's role in the curriculum for excellence. If we are to change the culture of S...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con):
Con
Fiona Hyslop has made a very good speech and I welcome the fact that the independent members have raised the important work of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of ...
Margo MacDonald:
Ind
If every headmaster had complete freedom to set their own priorities, how could we avoid a situation in which parents decided that they preferred the managem...
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
Con
It is obviously important that parents have a say but, ultimately, the head teacher must make the decision. More decisions should be in local control. Parent...
Peter Peacock (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
Lab
It is a pleasure to open for the Labour Party. In many respects, today is a remarkable day. It is remarkable for me because this is my first speech as a back...
Mr Monteith:
Ind
I have another example of a situation in which teachers and head teachers welcome inspection reports. When a report identifies that a school building is lett...
Peter Peacock:
Lab
Brian Monteith makes a valid point.I turn to the frequency of inspection, which is a difficult issue that we must examine. It is hard to strike the right bal...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
We move to the open debate. I ask that speeches be brief.
Iain Smith (North East Fife) (LD):
LD
I, too, welcome the debate. Like Peter Peacock, I was surprised to read a motion in the name of Brian Monteith about consensus. In today's politically correc...
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green):
Green
I well remember the time, in 1964, when I was awaiting with a dry mouth and sweaty palms my very first inspection. It was the inspection at the end of my fir...
Ms Rosemary Byrne (South of Scotland) (Sol):
Sol
I welcome the debate that Brian Monteith has brought to the chamber, although I was a bit surprised to hear that he is disappointed that I lodged an amendme...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
We move to wind-up speeches. Again, I stress that members should keep to four minutes. I am advised that I have missed out Richard Baker. I am so sorry, Mr B...
Richard Baker (North East Scotland) (Lab):
Lab
How could you, Presiding Officer?As we are short of time, I will cut to the chase. All members have welcomed HMIE's reports on schools, so there is no need f...
Mr Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome Peter Peacock to the bad boys benches at the back of the chamber. Looking at the members who are seated in the back rows confirms my view about tho...
Dave Petrie (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
The debate has been good. As another former teacher, I have experienced HMIE inspections, which I found to be fair, balanced and comprehensive, with any iden...
Mr Adam Ingram (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
The debate has been useful. The Scottish National Party thanks Brian Monteith for raising the subject—he is a man who could never be accused of lacking ideas...
Robert Brown:
LD
As a number of members have said, the debate has been useful. We are indebted to Brian Monteith for securing it. I should begin with the shameful declaration...