by
of
Springside Primary School & Dreghorn Primary
School in a new primary School.
17th January 2008
The proposal that has been put forward for public consultation reads “The amalgamation of Dreghorn Primary School with Springside Primary School in a new primary school building”
As a result of this proposal many questions and concerns have been raised surrounding the motives of North Ayrshire Council, especially around the financial implications of the proposal, and the negative impact it will have on Springside. Some of the concerns and queries that have been raised by Springside Primary School Parent Council and Parent Forum, Campaign Committee and also by the residents of Springside, have been put forward in this document, in the hope that North Ayrshire Council will consider the points raised and answer the questions that have been raised.
· Section 1 relates to facts and figures that have been taken from the websites of North Ayrshire Council, The Scottish Executive and COSLA. All points referred to are attached at the back of this document as Appendices. All questions are printed in bold print and have been limited to 15 key questions.
.
· Section 2 relates to the impact the closure of Springside Primary School will have on Springside Village, and covers many questions which have been asked by the community of Springside.
· Section 3 summarises the points above along with our expectations, and also the feelings of the community of Springside.
Section 1. Facts and Figures regarding the proposed amalgamation.
1. With reference to Paragraph 32 of COSLA’s Guidance Notes On Local Authority Proposals For The School Estate, Including School Closures (Extracts included as Appendix 1), the people of Springside do not feel the stipulations referred to in the above paragraph are being adhered to as North Ayrshire Council (NAC) cannot “set out their case for change while listing the advantages and disadvantages, the costs and savings, fully, clearly and openly”. Nor can they tell us how they “plan to maximise the benefits and minimise the disbenefits”. NAC have not found a site for the proposed new school, nor will they have one by the end of the consultation period. (This was confirmed by Cllr David O’Neill at a meeting held in Brian Donohoe’s constituency offices at 7pm on 11th January 2008.) Therefore until the proposed new site has been finalised, the community of Springside are not being given the opportunity of a fair and open consultation, as we do not know where we will have to send our children. NAC won’t know costs of land or transport, therefore cannot clearly or accurately present the savings the amalgamation would make, nor will they be able to explain the advantages or disadvantages until that site has been found.
This is also confirmed in Paragraph 30 of the COSLA document mentioned above. (Appendix 1) “There should be a real emphasis here on both the quality and quantity of consultation. The emphasis should be on more consultation, more information, more time rather than less” We are being provided with extremely poor consultation and very limited information as NAC cannot tell us where they are proposing to send our children!
Springside would urge NAC to think about what they are asking us here and to consider if they would they be happy if their children were going to be moved to a new school but they didn’t know where?
The Parent Council and Campaign Committee of SPS would like the following question answered:-
Can NAC give us a clear answer as to why we are not being given a fair consultation with all the facts including the location of the new school, and where potential sites may be for the new school, and of these, which if any, is the preferred site?
2. Appendix 13 – Proposal, of the NAC Education Executive agenda for 13th November 2007 (Appendix 2) clearly states that the proposal is to build a new school with a capacity of 350. The NAC Education Executives Consultative Document dated 8th January 2008 (Appendix 3-Dreghorn link if using e-version) Section 4, Options 2, 3 & 4 all clearly state that a new school would be built with a capacity of 444. In the same Consultative Documents appendix 2, it is clearly shown that the projected school roll through to 2018 will never rise above 322 pupils in any of the options, and that by 2018 the projection in all options is that the roll will have dropped from the initial roll. In the document classed as Appendix 4 in the document from November 13th 2007 – Current Approved Capital Programme (Appendix 4), it states that the costs allocated to build a new school for Dreghorn is £6.255m. In Appendix 2, it clearly states that the anticipated costs for the proposed new school with a capacity of 350 would be £9.5m. With the latest proposal from January 8th (Appendix 3 –Dreghorn link if using e-version) no anticipated costs are quoted for the new school of 444 capacity, but we can assume they will be considerably more than the school with capacity of 350.
The Parent Council and Campaign Committee of SPS would like the following question answered:-
“With the above facts in mind, can you give the rationale and reason behind the proposal to spend an estimated minimum, of an additional £3.245m of Scottish tax payers money to enable NAC to save £53000 per year?” (Will take 61 years of savings to recoup £3.245m)
3. The community of Springside are concerned that they are not being given all the financial facts to help them base their decision on. This is of particular concern especially when we don’t know where the new school would be. With this in mind the Parent Council and Campaign Committee would like to see the following question answered.
“Can NAC please provide us with all the facts behind the figures being presented in Appendix 3?” IE Can we have copies of the workings that arrive at your proposed transportation costs (quotes from coach hirers?), expected revenue that will be returned from the sale of current school grounds etc (tenders / documents from developers along with the type of houses they feel they can fit 28 and 33 of on the sites)
4. Appendix 5 from the Education Executives report dated 13th November 2007 (our Appendix 5) it shows that NAC feel that SPS has 106 vacant spaces. On the same document 16 schools that are unaffected by the proposals in Appendix 3, have a higher number of vacant spaces. In the minutes from NAC Schools Review Group meeting on 15th August 2007 (Appendix 6), section 6 asks for details of schools under 50% capacity. This is answered in the minutes of the meeting of the same group dated 24th August 2007 with reference to section 2, sub section d. Springside community feel it would have been more prudent to look at the number of vacant spaces within North Ayrshire schools rather than look at “percentage of capacity”. It was highlighted by Councillor Bell at a public meeting that took place on 7th December in Brian Donohoe’s office, that it was not “green” to heat half empty schools. By looking at percentage capacities, the community of Springside feel that NAC seem to be of the opinion that it is less green to heat a school with only 106 supposed vacant spaces than it is to heat schools that have vacant spaces of up to 216.
The Parent Council and Campaign Committee of SPS would like the following question answered:-
“Will NAC please advise on the reasoning behind the decision to look at schools with a capacity of less than 50%, when it is obvious that it will burn more energy, and cost more, to heat vacant space capable of holding 216 pupils, than it would to heat and light a space capable of holding only 106 pupils?”
5. This is confirmed by Appendix 4, combined with the figures in Appendix 5, as NAC want to spend £100,000 on Glebe Primary which will have 137 available spaces, £100,000 on St John Ogilvie which will be running at an estimated 39% capacity by 2010, £500,000 on Annick Primary which will be running at 53% capacity and have 181 vacant spaces, and even more unbelievable is the projected £1.13m spend on Hayocks Primary which will have 213 vacant spaces and will be running at an approx capacity of 44.5%.
The Parent Council and Campaign Committee of SPS would like the following question answered:-
“Will NAC please explain and justify with facts, why they are proposing to close SPS and do not seem to be prepared to spend £70,000 over the next 3 years on it, (taken from Appendix 2) which only has 106 vacant spaces, but are happy to invest in other schools which have considerably more vacant space being heated and lit etc than SPS?”
6. Section 2, subsection 2.3 of Appendix 3 is a statement that most people will agree with, however it is only valid if there is surplus spaces. According to figures relating to capacity for Springside Primary in the proposal document (Appendix 2), Springside apparently has a capacity of 192 pupils.
The Parent Council and Campaign Committee of SPS would like the following question answered:-
What exact formula (with the figures that have been used) has been used to calculate the capacity for Springside Primary School, as we firmly believe that the school could not operate efficiently with 192 children?
7. The Parent Council and Campaign Committee of SPS would like the following question answered:-
“Referring to the point raised in section 6 above, with regards fire regulations and Health & Safety guidelines, what is the maximum capacity allowed within the school gym hall / dinner hall at any one time, especially when chairs and / or tables & chairs are being used, and are these numbers clearly stated on insurance documents that NAC hold for SPS?”
8. We refer you now to Appendix 7, section 3 (in full) and section 5 (in full).
The Parent Council and Campaign Committee of SPS would like the following question answered:-
“Will NAC please advise in detail and in facts, why the Review Group did not once consider the educational achievements of the schools concerned, the impact of the educational factors that affect the pupils, nor the educational advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amalgamations / closures, as the community of Springside are shocked that not once, in any of the minutes of the Review Board meetings is “Educational” matters discussed or referred to, it all seems to be about saving revenue?”
9. We once again refer you to Appendix 7 and to take account of section 5.4. This document refers to four key areas that the Review Group took into account in its deliberations.
· “Quality of Accommodation.” SPS provides an excellent learning environment in a clean, well-maintained building that needs very little money invested in it in the near future. Classrooms are not crowded and it meets the requirements of NAC in the provision of increased access to quality play facilities that are referred to in section 8 of the minutes of the Education Executive dated 4th September 2007. (Appendix 8). This is all backed up with the projected expenditure costs detailed in Appendix 2.
· “Transport Implications.” At the moment there is no transport issues for parents, as the school is in the heart of the village and within easy walking distance from all homes within the village. Springside is a community where families are very close and as a result we see a very high percentage of the pupils being dropped off and collected from school by grandparents. Again travel is not an issue for these elderly people as they live close to the school. However if the proposals go ahead and children have to be bussed to a new school, a lot of the grandparents may not be well enough to travel by bus, thus potentially forcing parents to give up employment in order to be able to drop off and collect kids from school and nursery. Many residents of Springside (and remember that Springside is a designated regeneration area) may not be able to afford the financial implications that would be burdened on them in the event that the school was moved to a new location. We must also stress that due to the location of the school, we can meet the vision and objectives of the NAC Local Transport Strategy 2008 - 2013 document with particular reference to points 7, 11, 15, 16 & 17. (Appendix 9)
· “Need for high quality Nursery accommodation.” Springside has a fantastic nursery that is running at almost full capacity, and again it is in the heart of the community. As most parents walk to school with their nursery age children they get the opportunity to meet other parents in the village that they may not have met before, thus developing new friendships and stronger communities.
· “Need for cost effective management.” As mentioned earlier, SPS needs very little money spend on it and actually has a lot less available / vacant space than other schools within NAC. As a result of this, NAC’s spend on heating and lighting for “surplus” space will be less for SPS than it would be for other schools with almost double the surplus space. It also makes a lot more financial sense and would portray a substantially higher public image of NAC if they realised that it didn’t make sense to spend £3.245m of taxpayers’ money, to save £53,000 of their own money.
The Parent Council and Campaign Committee of SPS would like the following question answered:-
“Have NAC taken the above points into consideration when deliberating their proposals, and as they fulfil all of the points that were to be considered by the Review Group, please explain exactly why these points were ignored and the proposal put forward for consultation?”
10. We would now like to refer you section 5.5 of Appendix 7.
The Parent Council and Campaign Committee of SPS would like the following question answered:-
“Can NAC please fully explain the reason why only “Approved” housing developments had been considered in the proposals (apart from the developments on the 2 school sites), as it would have made more sense to us if you had looked at “projected” housing developments, especially as you are quoting “projected” school roll figures?”
11. Within Appendix 6, the costs per pupil have been asked for and then they are discussed as having been reviewed for all schools.
The Parent Council and Campaign Committee of SPS would like the following question answered:-
“Will NAC please provide us with detailed costings per pupil for SPS, Dreghorn Primary School and also the average figure for NAC?”
12. The minutes from a meeting of NAC Education Executive on 4th December 2007 (Appendix 10), section 2, clearly states that “The Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000” stipulates that:- “Education Authorities must have due regard to the views of the child or young person in decisions which significantly affect them, in regards to the child or young person’s education”. Section 2 also stated that a report by the Scottish Consumer Council highlighted work undertaken by NAC and proposed steps for “improving the effectiveness of the participation of children and young people.”
NAC have not made any attempt to consult with the children that will be affected by the proposed closures and amalgamations, nor do they seem to be wanting to take their views on board. This was confirmed by councillor O’Neill and Councillor Bell at the recent meeting of parent council members with Brian Donohoe on 11th January 2008, as both stated that it would seem unlikely that NAC would look to visit schools to have a look at how they operate and hear from the children.
With this in mind the Parent Council and Campaign Committee of SPS would like the following question answered:-
“Will North Ayrshire be looking to visit all affected schools and sit in front of all the pupils of each school, to listen to the comments and thoughts of the children, and to answer their questions in a way that children will understand, and will they be looking to have regular meetings with pupil councils and eco councils of each school?
13. In conclusion to section 1 – Facts and Figures, we invite you to read Appendix 7, section 8, which also comes under the heading of “Conclusion”. Let’s pick out the key words from this 2-line sentence…… “Acceptance of the Review Group’s proposals would lead to revenue savings” The people of Springside feel very strongly that this should read…. “Acceptance of the Review Group’s proposals would lead to improved standards of education for all”, however we have to remind NAC at this point, that it would have been impossible for it to read the way we would have liked, due to the fact that educational matters have not been considered during the review period.
With this in mind we would like to close this section by asking Councillor Bell to justify his statement at the 11th January public meeting with Brian Donohoe, where he categorically stated that
these proposals were “not a revenue saving exercise”
Section 2. Impact the closure will have on Springside village.
“Social justice is at the heart of the Scottish Executive’s work”. “We want to see a Scotland where every neighbourhood is a safe, attractive place to live, work and play, where public services meet the needs of people, not the demands of the organisations which deliver them, and where social justice is a right, not a privilege.” These statements were made by Margaret Curran, Minister for Social Justice, June 2002, in her ministerial Foreword to the Scottish Governments “Better communities in Scotland: Closing the gap”
The summary that goes along with the “Closing the Gap” document also states “We must make core public services as effective as possible in deprived areas. They must be designed to meet the needs of people and delivered in ways that improve the quality of their lives.”
Section 7 of the same document states the Scottish Executive wants to build communities: “where people want to live”, “where people have the opportunity to learn, work and play”, and “where people can grow up, work, bring up children and retire”. The reasoning behind this is that the Scottish Executive feels “Communities like this will offer people a better quality of life with more jobs, higher incomes, better qualifications and skills, improved standards of health, and less risk of crime.”
All the points above are currently being met within Springside, and Springside is a community that is starting to move forward, and is becoming a village where people are actually choosing to move to from other areas. This is not a position that the village has always enjoyed, but because of the services on offer, new build houses and the good HMIE reports that the school attains, are all helping make Springside have it’s own identity on the map.
We would like you to consider some of the history of Springside. Firstly you must acquaint yourself with the very heart of our community and the facility you wish to demolish. Since 1937 our children from the age of 7 years commuted to other schools in Dreghorn or Crosshouse for their education, children between five and six went to the infant department within our Community Centre. Springside residents fought for over 38 years to see the provision of primary education for their children, until a new primary school built in 1979 opened its doors. It beggars belief that after only 29 years North Ayrshire Council wants to shut that school. If Springside Primary School was to close, all the points that the Scottish Executive are trying to achieve, and which are currently being met, would be impossible to achieve. We aim to show here that all the above areas are being met.
REGENERATION.
We also feel it’s important to point out at that Springside is considered an area of regeneration and this also includes our primary school which receives various after school activities through this programme. The North Ayrshire Community Planning Partnership adopted the 5 national regeneration properties which include the following; Getting people into work, building strong, safe and attractive communities, improving health, raising educational attainment, Engaging young people.
Our school provides essential support and engages in all of these priorities set out by the regeneration programme for it to achieve its goals. Listed below we have taken each property and demonstrated the impact and consequences of removing the school from its vital role in this programme.
Getting People into Work – Immediately we have to think of the local people who are currently employed at Springside Primary and hold various roles within the school.
Lets not also forget that our area under the regeneration also means that we have higher unemployment, and that some of the poorer residents of Springside will certainly be put under further financial strain to pay for transport costs to and from school depending on where the new school will be located.
Building strong, safe and attractive communities – we believe our school is the heart of our community and helps us to achieve the regeneration programmes aims. Strong – our whole village is against this proposal and everyone is participating in some form of activity to prevent the closure of our school. Furthermore as the school is within easy walking distance of all streets in Springside, elderly and young alike can all come along and watch the many services, concerts and performances the school produces. Safe – as our children and adults are mixing during the many activities at the school and the community centre. They are forming relationships, have respect for each other and the properties within it. Attractive – what could be more attractive than a community that cares about the people that live in it, the facilities and most importantly the provisions for its children? Close our school and you instantly make our village less attractive to developers and families moving in to the area. If people don’t get the opportunity to mix and come together for events at the school how will this build for a stronger community. Close the school and we have to look at whether or not the elderly will feel safe when they no longer have the opportunity to meet with their fellow younger residents.
Improving Health – Our school boasts a prime location in which all children and adults accompanying them can walk to school. It’s healthier than travelling by car or bus in which the majority of the pupils will have to do in the future if the current council proposal went ahead. In turn this will mean higher carbon omissions, more cars/buses on the road, congestion and all other health hazards this contributes to. The school also promotes healthy eating and the children have learnt to grow their own vegetables, and these are prepared in the kitchen for school lunches. The garden club has been a huge success within the school and the children are gaining skills and understanding in growing their own food.
Raising Educational Attainment – As we have our own school within our community our children are happy, healthy and well educated in an adequate and well-maintained building. Due to our regeneration status they also receive extra curricular activities as part of this programme. The HMIE reports that our school is satisfactory and is excelling in many areas. We understand that a new school will possibly bring new and better facilities, however why fix something that isn’t broken and appears to be functioning well and more importantly the children are very happy within this facility and it doesn’t appear to need major improvements both from a maintenance or academic perspective.
Please consider the views that have been gathered from a questionnaire that was distributed through the door of every house in Springside. It gives the thoughts and fears of the villagers of what will happen to life in Springside if the heart of our village is removed.
Families will want to move to areas closer to schools, no new families will want to move into the village, Springside will move to the bottom of the pile for council tenants looking for new housing also for prospective house purchasers. Combined, this will mean an overall decline in village life as more people move away and no new people move in. Local businesses and childminders will lose custom and face financial hardship, which will mean that the values of houses will drop if these services and amenities, including the school, disappear. Not only that, but as council tenants chooses to be housed elsewhere we will see a sharp rise in the number of vacant, boarded up houses. This surely means more vandalism and in turn even further decline. At the moment there are a lot of future housing developments within Springside being looked at by developers. None of these developers will want to invest in a village that is in decline, which defeats the goals of the regeneration programme and the NAC Community Planning Partnerships aspirations.
In the past when school children were transported to Dreghorn for their education, and only pupils who lived over 1 mile from the school were afforded the luxury of free transport, this caused a lot of unrest within Springside village itself. A lot of animosity was created by the fact one person received free transport, but their next door neighbour for example didn’t. The villagers of Springside, especially some of the slightly older residents have a real fear that history could repeat itself, which again will play a part in breaking down our community.
We have had independent advice on the impact on property prices within the village if the school was to be closed, and they have confirmed that prices will drop, especially 3 and 4 bedroom homes that are classed as family homes. As a village we are looking very seriously at how that drop in value could be recouped as compensation from NAC.
“What measures will NAC put in place to reimburse all the homeowners in the village who have lost money from the drop in the value of their homes as a direct result of the closure of Springside Primary School?”
“By losing our most valuable “council run” asset, from the village, NAC cannot continue to charge the same levels of council tax, therefore will NAC please inform the residents of Springside the proposed percentage decrease that will be put in place as a result of the loss of amenities?”
We would also like NAC to consider how the questions above will affect the proposed savings of £53,000.
Section 3. Summary and expectations.
The Parent Council and Campaign Committee of Springside Primary School, along with the residents of Springside would ask NAC to please consider ALL aspects of this document when looking at the proposals.
We would expect a fair hearing and request that you please give a timely and factual reply to our questions, all of which are looking at facts.
Our final question is:-
“Will Carol Kirk agree to meet with the Parent Councils of ALL affected schools, and / or host an open public meeting at a time that would be suitable for all parties?