Parents need to go on record before being written out of it

The Herald Scotland

14 hours ago

This last concern is especially important given the widespread issue of council attempts to mothball, close, or otherwise change nursery provision.
There has been a rash of nursery closures and mothballing–temporary closure–in recent years, with councils seeing declining rolls at small settings as a quick way to reduce their deficits.
Different councils have taken wildly different approaches: some have attempted to avoid talking of 'mothballing' entirely and, in doing so, avoid a statutory requirement to consult with parents; others have delegated the authority over mothballing to unelected council officers; and at least one council has tried (without success) to stand by a belief that local authorities have free reign over when, how, and why to mothball nursery settings.
For its part, the Scottish Government has consistently stated that there is statutory guidance requiring councils to consult with parents about mothballing nurseries. In many cases, this, combined with media and community pressure, has convinced local authorities to take this official route.
Most recently, this led to a major reversal in Aberdeenshire Council, where a set of nurseries were slated to be mothballed without consultation and based on the decision of unelected officers. After increased pressure from parents, the media and the Scottish Government raised questions about the policy, the council ultimately held a special meeting to abandon the current proposals and review local policies.
However, decisions were finalised in other local authorities before the spotlight was shone on the council, and some parents are still wary that delays and partial victories might make it harder for communities to continue applying pressure.
This is because, despite councils often claiming to engage with communities, parents repeatedly tell us that this does not mean a real opportunity to impact decision-making or guarantee a fair (if undesirable) outcome.
The word "fair" is important. Parents often say they understand the pressures on councils and know that they cannot have a perfect solution.
Instead, they want the feeling that democracy has run its course: a fair outcome does not mean everyone gets what they want, but it does mean an outcome that preserves trust in the system.
Instead, parents raising complaints are easily painted as troublemakers; the longer they persist, the easier that becomes.
During a recent consultation in the Scottish Borders over changes to nursery provision, a group of parents emailed the education director and key councillors with a list of concerns following a meeting.
Parents asked for an explanation of why the meeting was not recorded, argued that the council's official minutes did not reflect the whole discussion, and asked for some form of written assessment of the new type of nursery model that was being proposed for their children.
Before getting straight explanations, parents received another type of response.
In an email seen by The Herald, one Scottish Borders councillor entered into this correspondence chain, asking for them to "dial down some of the rhetoric.'
The email called out two parents by name and included dozens of councillors on its recipient list.
Read more
Numerous examples of this type of treatment have been reported across the country. It can discourage open disagreement and cut off dialogue, especially when many parents do not have the luxury of volunteering their time to cut through bureaucracy.
The result is that parents keep quiet, or are kept quiet enough, so that when the official council papers come out reviewing a consultation and summarising its findings, there is barely a whiff of the discontent that dominated the conversation.
Instead, any reporter, councillor, or government minister reviewing the record a few months down the line will see a neat timeline of how the council ticked all the right boxes, held all the right meetings, and reached a decision.
The situations in Aberdeenshire and Scottish Borders are only two of the many examples of parents struggling to be heard. Aberdeenshire's nursery ordeal gives an example of what can happen when enough pressure–and perhaps critically, enough resources to bring in legal advice early–is applied.
There have also been multiple recent examples in Dumfries & Galloway where parents were able to convince councillors to step in and stop mothballing decisions. In one case, the council had no relevant policy on the books, and in another, nurseries were slated for mothballing with no input from the community.
Had these decisions gone through, they would have been extremely difficult to overturn, and official reports written in flat council-speak would not have fully captured parents' opposition.
That is why what is happening in the Scottish Borders is important, and why parents want their version of events to have a place.
Parents in the Borders have spoken out following their recent consultation to voice concerns about its challenges. There were regular IT issues, meetings were not recorded, and minutes lacked detail; weeks later, they were left with many of the same questions they had at the start.
When presented with the parents' concerns, a council spokesperson said that 'the consultation process was indeed adequate.'
'Consultation commenced on Monday 12 May and concluded on Sunday 1 June.
'Parents/carers in all affected settings were invited to 2 meetings to discuss the proposed models, and there was an opportunity to provide written feedback through a Microsoft Form. A focus group was held mid-way through the consultation.'
The council recently voted to approve its new model for some nurseries–combining some primary and early learning classes to maximise efficiency–and to create a working group to write a new early years policy.
But parents have spoken out to have their concerns on record.
Speaking on behalf of concerned parents from affected settings at Cockburnspath, Walkerburn and Ednam nurseries, Dr Alice Blackwell said that she and other parents 'take issue' with the council's depiction of the consultation.
"There were significant issues with the structure and execution of this consultation which has made it impossible for SBC to take our views into meaningful account."
Importantly, these concerns are less about the final proposals than about the Council's process. Although there was initially clear consensus among parents at all affected nurseries when they were first slated for mothballing, some have now opted to wait and see how the situation develops.
Most parents, even those with ongoing concerns, are hopeful that the new model, combining nursery and primary classes, can work. The problem is that they feel this is based more on hope than evidence.
The council says it has been done before, and it has, but multiple nurseries that have used composite classes are no longer in operation.
Another reason parents want their concerns about the process to be recorded is that they remember how the process began. In March, council officers tabled recommendations to list multiple nurseries as 'inactive,' a process that would have seen them close for the upcoming year.
Officials explicitly claimed that this was not the same as mothballing, which by extension meant that they did not need to consult with parents. In fact, many parents, nurseries and even local councillors only found out about the plans days before they were to be approved.
Scottish Government officials made it clear to the council that they were misinterpreting the guidance, and by the time the meeting was held, the word 'inactive' was dropped in favour of mothballing. After voting the measure through a contentious meeting, the council called another snap meeting to undo the decision and instead pursue the 'alternative' strategy of combining some nursery and primary classes.
Each step of the way, parents only felt they were getting a reprieve. One lingering question is: why was all of this necessary?
The original reason for wanting to list the nurseries as 'inactive' was that too few children were enrolled; the same was true for the attempted mothballing. The council has been explicit about why it began investigating the current composition model.
A spokesperson said: 'SBC did identify the primary reason to look at changes, which was to avoid mothballing.'
If the primary reason was to avoid mothballing the nurseries, then why not leave them as they were? When pressed, the council gave a clear response.
'We believe that we have been as clear as we can be through the report presented to Exec committee on 6 June, and through the consultation process with local communities, that the benefit is to achieve a model which provides places for children in their rural communities while addressing the challenge of operating services with very small numbers of children, and will allow us to look at how this can provide a degree of sustainability.'
As councils battle tightening budgets, questions about sustainability will constantly swirl around rural schools and nurseries.
This is why many parents want their concerns noted, because these difficult decisions might be revisited in the future, and the written record will be a key witness.