Latest news with #FountainhallPrimarySchool
The Herald Scotland
20 hours ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Sometimes what communities really need from councils is bravery
Schools across Scotland have shut their doors for the summer, but not all will reopen for the autumn term. If you have followed any of The Herald's education coverage in recent months, you have read stories about council strategies for mothballing schools and nurseries and the Scottish Government guidance which sets the rules for this process. Mothballing refers to the temporary closure of a school (or nursery), and local authorities are required to review this decision at least once a year. Mothballing is intended to provide schools with a lifeline. Instead, it is often used as a way for councils to prolong the inevitable. As a result, painful decisions become more painful and drag on for years. The vast majority of mothballed schools never reopen, to the point that campaigners have come to describe mothballing as 'closure by stealth'. Read more: It is not difficult to see why this is the case. Technically, local authorities are only allowed to mothball a school when the roll has fallen to zero, or very close to zero, according to guidance for the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. At first glance, a recent decision regarding Fountainhall Primary School in the Scottish Borders Council appears to be a textbook case for mothballing. On closer inspection, however, it proves to be a better example of a council trying to soften the blow — and likely deflect some heat — by kicking the can down the road on a likely closure. Between 2020 and 2024, Fountainhall's roll fell from 24 to five pupils, with a total capacity of 50. There was only one child enrolled for the start of the 2025-2026 academic year. Fountainhall fits some of the criteria established in the mothballing guidance: it is only for schools with a 'very low' roll where education for the pupils is 'not presently viable.' However, there is another important criterion that the Scottish Government guidance outlines. Local authorities should only mothball schools when the roll is low and there is good reason to believe that the low roll is only temporary. According to the guidance, the 'and' is crucial and it is clear about why. Even though permanent closure is more final than mothballing, it triggers a statutory consultation process that involves extensive community engagement, culminating in approval from the Scottish Government. This consultation process places additional requirements on local authorities and, in theory, provides more protections for parents and community members to have their voices heard. An important side note: councils love to use the word 'consultation,' but they do not usually mean this type of statutory consultation. What they usually mean is engagement, not the legal definition of consultation found in the 2010 Act. I like to think of it as the difference between a consultation and a Consultation. The mothballing process requires consultation, not Consultation, and councils have much more freedom to decide what that looks like. This game of semantics frustrates parents and rural campaigners, because the guidance explicitly states that mothballing should not be a way to deprive communities of their legal right to a Consultation about the potential closure of their school. However, because mothballing often leads to closure, parents feel that the ultimate Consultation isn't an accurate reflection of the situation. If a school has been 'temporarily closed' for one, two, three years, is it any surprise that few parents asked about enrolling their children or considered moving to the area? This means that when the legal Consultation on closure finally rolls around, the picture is skewed. Interest has fallen off. Parents who had battled the original mothballing have since been forced to move on. Their children attend schools in other communities, and a fight for another transition is different from a fight to keep children in place. All of this is why guidance states that if a council wants to mothball a school, it must be more likely than not that the school will be viable in the long term. Otherwise, the council should initiate the more formal process of permanent closure. And yet, during the recent debate at Scottish Borders Council (SBC) over whether to mothball Fountainhall, the language made it clear that the assumption was that the school would not become viable in the future. The council papers were explicit: 'The Fountainhall school roll is projected to be 1 from August, which is an out of catchment placement. 'Based on this, and considering future planning and migration, Officers project that the number of children will not significantly increase in the coming years within the Fountainhall catchment area.' If the school is being mothballed due to low enrollment, and the council has no expectation that the enrollment will increase, then the question should be about closure, not mothballing. In their objections to the mothballing decision, a group of parents seized on this. In a letter to councillors on the eve of the vote, they called for a statutory consultation on closure to begin "without delay". "Fountainhall deserves proper consultation and legal safeguards – not administrative shortcuts that carry permanent consequences." On the surface, this sounds counterproductive for a group that is fighting to save their school. However, what the parents recognised is that the permanent closure process should provide them with more protections and impose greater oversight on the council's ultimate decision. If nothing else, it offers parents a sense that the democratic process is being followed. As many have told me, an unwanted decision is easier to swallow if there is trust that decision-makers were brave enough to take the hard way out. Instead, another community is looking at unknown years of uncertainty, likely followed by a painful trek towards an even more painful conclusion.
The Herald Scotland
23-06-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Council fails to provide evidence of mothballing consultation
However, local parents have told The Herald that the council has not properly consulted them over the plans, despite being required to do so by statutory guidelines. They say that while they understand that 'tough decisions' are sometimes required, the council has not followed a 'lawful process.' A local MSP previously said that it is 'clear' that the council hasn't adhered to national requirements and argued that mothballing proposals should be withdrawn until the government completes an ongoing review of nationwide regulations. A spokesperson for the council has claimed that engagement with families has taken place, and formal documents prepared by officials state that an 'initial consultation meeting was held at Fountainhall Primary School, attended by current parent/carers, Headteacher and conducted by Education Officers.' The materials also refer to a Teams meeting on Friday June 13 at 9.30am. However, the council has subsequently failed to respond to emails asking for proof of the content of these discussions in the form of minutes or other records, and The Herald has been told that such material may not exist. Scottish Government guidelines, replicated in the council's own policy document, state that a decision on mothballing 'should be taken in consultation with the families involved and the possibility should be raised as soon as possible'. Both documents also note that 'if the majority of families oppose mothballing, it would be appropriate to move to a statutory consultation on closure as soon as possible.' Under the heading 'Consultation with elected members and community councils', the local authority guidelines state that 'any proposals regarding temporary or permanent changes should not be a surprise to families or the community.' However, a family affected by the decision received communication from the council after 6pm on Thursday 12 June, less than two weeks before schools close for the summer holidays, in which officials 'inform' the recipients that the status of the school is being reviewed and that this will likely lead to 'a recommendation to temporarily mothball the school due to exceptionally low pupil numbers.' The email concludes by thanking the parents in question for their 'understanding', followed by the official advising that they would be very happy to discuss and facilitate the transition arrangements for August. No offer is made to discuss the mothballing proposal itself. This mothballing recommendation is due to be presented to councillors at the full council meeting on 26 June. In April, The Herald reported that officials had attempted to shutter several nurseries by declaring them as 'inactive' with the Care Inspectorate, a process that they argued was both legally valid and different from either mothballing or permanent closure. However, the Scottish Government subsequently confirmed that this approach 'does not have any meaning' under the law, and that any attempt at a non-permanent closure of an education setting should be regarded as mothballing. The council then changed approach, holding a vote in which members approved existing mothballing processes, requested a report based on a 'short period of consultation' with families, and delegated authority to the Director of Education to 'implement the decisions' of that report. READ MORE At the time, community leaders and campaigners accused officials of acting 'behind closed doors' to implement changes without the knowledge of councillors and in contravention of national guidance. A few weeks later, an emergency motion was passed to 'set aside' the 15 April decision and guarantee that five of the affected nurseries would in fact remain open for the coming year. The council is currently exploring the introduction of nursery-primary composite classes in some settings, but parents have hit out at officials' failure to provide them with 'vital' information about those proposals. Aberdeenshire Council has also recently been forced to rethink plans to mothball nurseries without consultation after government officials clarified that this is required under national guidelines. In response to various recent controversies the Scottish Government is now reviewing the national guidelines on mothballing, although it has declined to provide a specific timeline for when this work will be completed. Local parent Michael Napier, whose child has been attending Fountainhall Primary School told The Herald: 'If this is Scottish Borders Council's (SBC's) definition of engagement, then we no longer have faith in the process. We suggest SBC revises the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 set out by the Scottish Parliament. SBC's end of year report card for 2025 would read 'Does not pay attention, does not listen, does not follow instructions.' There are lessons to be learnt, SBC must try harder.' Local MP John Lamont said that constituents are worried about the councils proposals and that proper consultation is 'the very least' that families deserve: 'I have been speaking to many local residents who are alarmed by moves to reduce nursery and childcare provision. 'Since plans to shut various nurseries across the Borders emerged, I have campaigned to stop the council's proposals and reverse the mothballing process. 'The council must listen to parents and respect the views of the local communities impacted by these decisions. At the very least, families deserve to be consulted and have their say on what steps are taken.' South of Scotland MSP Martin Whitfield also insisted that the council must carry out a clear and detailed consultation process before closing education settings: 'Their child's education is rightly one of the most important and pressing concern for any parent , as it should be for all communities. A council has an obligation to conduct meaningful consultation on specific proposals and to come to decisions that balance the needs of all their local authority demands. Such consultation should be genuine, transparent and evidenced.' Scottish Borders Council has been approached for comment.
