Councillor dismay over 'undemocratic' school move
A move to close a North Yorkshire school has been "undemocratic", showing "scant regard" for the community's views, a councillor has told a government minister.
In January, the Dales Academies Trust announced it planned to close Kirkby Fleetham Church of England Primary School, near Northallerton, at the end of the summer term due to low pupil numbers.
Campaigners pledged to continue to fight to keep the school open, with Annabel Wilkinson, North Yorkshire Council's executive member for education, writing to education secretary Bridget Phillipson to share her dissatisfaction about the process.
The Department for Education has been approached for comment by the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
Wilkinson said parents were informed on 16 January that the trust was proposing to close the school and that the government had given their in-principal approval.
The council said it was advised that a substantive decision to close the school was then made less than a fortnight later.
"Not only am I staggered at how undemocratic this process is, how little regard is paid to listening to any views of stakeholders and the community, but your own guidance is very misleading regarding the role of the local authority in the process and decision," Wilkinson wrote.
When the council makes a decision to close a school it is always reached after a "lengthy and very thorough public consultation process", she said.
"Your process has no consultation and pays scant regard to anything the community wants to say regarding the closure - this just isn't right," the councillor concluded.
The decision to shut the rural school, which has 18 pupils, prompted a campaign from parents, past pupils, and the wider community.
More than 600 people have signed a petition calling for the school to stay open.
Save Our School campaigner Tim Barker said: "The whole process stinks.
"There's been a lack of oversight, a lack of authentic community engagement and a lack of humanity."
Listen to highlights from North Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
Parents urge education secretary to save school
Families call for village school to be saved
Village primary school with 18 pupils to close
Department for Education
North Yorkshire Council
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law
Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law A 71-page bill released by Senate Republicans would cut down on repayment plans and deem certain college programs ineligible for federal financial aid. Show Caption Hide Caption Senators grill Education Secretary Linda McMahon over proposed cuts Education Secretary Linda McMahon testified to Congress over proposed budget cuts. WASHINGTON – Congress is closer than it's been in a long time to massively reforming college financial aid. On June 10, GOP lawmakers in the U.S. Senate proposed their version of the higher education section of President Trump's tax and spending megabill. The 71-page portion of the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would set new caps on student loan borrowing while drastically cutting the number of repayment plans. Read more: Republicans propose massive overhaul of student loans, Pell Grants The Senate's version of the legislation is less aggressive than the bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced in late April. While it will likely be further watered down due to congressional budget rules, the scope of the legislation indicates big changes will be enacted soon to how Americans pay for college. Student loan caps proposed When President Donald Trump asked Republicans to find billions of dollars in federal spending cuts, GOP lawmakers in the House drew up measures to eliminate or dramatically curb many student loan programs. In April, they proposed cutting subsidized loans altogether for undergraduates. When students take out a federal direct subsidized loan, the government pays the interest while they're in school (and for a short grace period after the students complete their studies). That idea didn't survive in the Senate version of the bill, which was expected to be slightly more moderate than the House proposal. Read more: Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned Other elements of the House version remain, however. Like the House bill, the Senate measure proposes cutting the number of student loan repayment plans to just two. That change would kill President Joe Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, program, which former Education Secretary Miguel Cardona repeatedly called the "most affordable repayment plan ever." SAVE has been stalled in court for months, placing roughly 8 million people in forbearance. The Senate bill would also dramatically curb lending for graduate students and parents (though at lower caps than House Republicans wanted). Ben Cecil, a senior education policy advisor at Third Way, a center-left think tank, said he was pleased to see the bill appeared to make compromises. "These loan limits are much more reasonable," he said. Melanie Storey, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said she was "relieved" some of the "most harmful" provisions of the House bill had been nixed. "Still, there are several concerning aspects of this bill that would ultimately make college less affordable for students," she said, including changes that "may drive borrowers to riskier private loans, which are not available to all borrowers." Less concern over Pell Grants One of college access groups' biggest criticisms of the initial bill was a significant change to Pell Grants, federal subsidies that help lower-income students pay for college. House Republicans wanted to increase the number of credits students would need to take each semester to be eligible for Pell Grants. The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, estimated that two out of three Pell recipients could've lost their grants or received smaller ones if that requirement were enacted. The Senate version takes a softer approach, codifying a provision to more fully exclude higher-income students qualify for Pell funds. At the same time, the bill expands Pell Grants in ways that could waste money, according to critics such as Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, a college affordability group. 'While the Senate nixed most of the House's proposed cuts to the Pell Grant program and averts a looming funding shortfall, it regrettably threatens the program's long-term stability by extending Pell eligibility to unaccredited programs that are unlikely to pay off for students," Gadkaree said in a statement. New accountability rules One of the biggest distinctions between the House and Senate versions of the bill is that they lay out two entirely different sets of new accountability rules for colleges. The House proposal would fine colleges for leaving students on the hook for unpaid student loan debt. The Senate's framework suggests taking federal financial aid away from college programs if they can't prove that students who graduate are earning more than they would have without a degree. Mike Itzkowitz, who served in the Education Department under President Barack Obama, said that concept has bipartisan support. "I don't know anyone who would be willing to fork over their time to take on loans to earn less than a high school graduate," he said. But it's possible that particular provision won't survive special Senate rules. To avoid needing the support of Democrats, Republicans are trying to pass Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" using the budget process. That strategy comes with challenges. However, the bill must only make changes that spend money or save money. Significant reforms to college oversight might go too far, said Jon Fansmith, the senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, the main association for colleges and universities. "This process isn't designed to do complicated policymaking," he said. "I really do worry about rushing something through without understanding what we're doing." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Town's free parking could be scrapped
Free parking in Ilkley could be scrapped under new plans to be put out to public consultation. Proposals for new tariffs in the town which would see the end of the one hour free parking period allowed before charges come into effect have been published by Bradford Council. The hours in which charges applied would also be extended and parking in Ilkley on bank holidays would no longer be free if the new proposals were approved, according to the council. Alex Ross-Shaw, portfolio holder for regeneration, planning and transport, said: "It's important to note these changes are currently proposals for people to consider. Anyone wishing to give feedback has a few weeks to do so." Brendan Stubbs, leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Bradford Council, said businesses in Ilkley would be hit hard by any changes made to free parking in the town. "We shouldn't be making it harder for people to use independent businesses. That's not good for anyone," he said. The council has also announced proposed changes to parking in Bradford city centre. New long stay parking sites would be created "to compensate for the loss of on-street parking in the city centre over recent years and the expansion of pedestrianised areas", according to the plans. A council spokesperson added that "a new simplified two-tier tariff system to distinguish between long and short stay parking will also be introduced". Meanwhile, charges would be introduced for bank holidays and the current single fixed evening charge removed. Parking for disabled badge holders would still be free for eligible users, but there would be a maximum permitted stay for them in time-restricted parking areas, the spokesperson said. Bradford Council said objections and comments could be emailed as part of a public consultation over the plans. Feedback on the proposals should be sent in by 2 July, according to the spokesperson. Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North. Parking charges to be introduced at historic lido Parking fees are 'insult' to city residents - MP Bradford Council
Business Insider
a day ago
- Business Insider
Millions of student-loan borrowers are getting a 'financial scarlet letter' that could risk their home purchases and job prospects, Elizabeth Warren says
Millions of student-loan borrowers could be facing a financial strain that will hinder their abilities to buy a house or get a new job, Sen. Elizabeth Warren said. Ahead of a Tuesday meeting with Linda McMahon, President Donald Trump's education secretary, Warren published a blog post — first viewed by Business Insider — detailing her concerns with the Trump administration's move to restart collections on defaulted borrowers' student loans. After Trump announced on May 5 that consequences for student-loan defaults would resume after a five-year pause — including garishment of wages and federal benefits — the New York Federal Reserve released a report that said 8.04% of borrowers moved into serious delinquency in the first quarter of 2025, putting them at greater risk of defaulting this summer. Most federal student-loan borrowers enter default after falling behind on payments for more than 270 days. Additionally, 2.2 million of the newly delinquent borrowers saw their credit scores drop over 100 points after negative credit reporting resumed in October 2024, the New York Fed said. Warren wrote in her blog post that a "damaged credit score is a financial scarlet letter that can follow consumers for years." "It can mean borrowers paying thousands more in interest rates on car loans, if they can get approved at all. It can mean being rejected for mortgages, forcing people into expensive rental markets where they build no equity. It can mean paying security deposits for utilities, cell phone plans, and apartments that those with good credit get for free," she wrote. "Nearly half of all employers now run credit checks, meaning damaged credit can cost someone a job opportunity." Warren also said that Trump's big spending bill, which the House recently passed, threatens to push "millions more over a financial cliff." The version of the bill that the House passed, which now sits in the Senate, would condense all existing income-driven repayment plans into two plans with less generous terms that would leave borrowers paying off their debt over a longer period of time with a potentially higher monthly payment. This comes amid a backlog of income-driven repayment application processing; recent data from the Department of Education showed that nearly 2 million borrowers still had pending applications. Former President Joe Biden's SAVE plan, which would have allowed for cheaper monthly payments and a shorter timeline to loan forgiveness, is also blocked in court. McMahon has previously said that restarting collections on defaulted loans would restore accountability to the student-loan system. "Borrowing money and failing to pay it back isn't a victimless offense," McMahon wrote in an opinion piece. "Debt doesn't go away; it gets transferred to others." Ellen Keast, a spokesperson for the Department of Education, confirmed to BI last week that while collections have resumed, the department is pausing Social Security garnishment. "The Trump Administration is committed to protecting social security recipients who oftentimes rely on a fixed income," Keast said. A separate noticed posted on the department's debt resolution website said that the garnishments will resume "sometime this summer," along with wage garnishment. Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute, told BI that while the collections restart was inevitable, its abrupt nature means that many borrowers probably aren't aware that they're in default, or of the options they have to get out of default. Some borrowers previously told BI that after five years of relief, they're not prepared for the consequences of defaulting. "I don't have any problem paying back what I borrowed, but I do have a problem with the lack of transparency and all of the false promises that I feel like the federal government has made to me over the years," Holly Bechard, a 42-year-old borrower, said.
