Andrew Bingham, Conservative Parliamentary candidate for High Peak, will be interviewed by High Peak Radio on Thursday.
Is there anything you'd like to ask him in connection with the Save Combs School campaign? Leave your questions in the comments, and we'll pass them along to the station and ask them to try to fit them in to the interview.
We issued the following press release at 15:00 today.
.JPG)
Following the meeting, the ‘Save Combs School’ campaigners announced that their campaign would immediately move into a second stage, which aims to provide long term stability for the school.We'd like to say a sincere 'thank you' to:
In the Cabinet meeting at County Hall today, Councillor Alan Charles opened his remarks about Combs School with, “I find myself in the unusual position of presenting a recommendation that I do not agree with, which is for Combs School not to be closed.”
In acknowledging that there had been a lot of opposition to the proposed closure, he complimented the campaigners (of which there were over 20 present) on their polite and courteous conduct of the campaign.
He referred to the Education Act 2005 (although that Education Act has been superseded by the Education Act 2006), saying that the school couldn't be closed because it could not be shown that doing so would improve educational standards in the area. Of course, we pointed that out to him when this process began: everything that has followed need not have happened.
Alan Charles maintained that the Act was “intended to protect small rural schools, not small schools for rural communities” and that, “even if the school roll was to fall to zero, the school still couldn’t be closed”. He’s completely wrong on the last point, and goodness only knows what he means by the first bit. We'll have to ask.
With regard to the quality of education at Combs School, he gave a nod to the work of Mrs. Curry and her staff. “Of course,” he said, “with double the funding that other schools get, I would not expect anything other than an outstanding education. You would rightly expect that of any school.”
Why does he continue with that argument? He’s been shown that it doesn’t cost “twice the average” to teach a pupil at Combs, and that there isn’t a clear correlation between money spent and the outcome for pupils. It’s only a few months since he tried to close a school that had a worse performance but a higher per-pupil cost – he must have forgotten that case.
Alan Charles made reference to having got hold of some numbers “ten minutes ago”, which showed that Combs School is “only serving seven children in the village”, and tried to depict it as a small school that, “if it relied on its catchment area, would not have enough pupils”.
We have no idea how he’s defining ‘village’ in that statement, or where his numbers come from. We gave him plenty of well-researched, detailed and accurate numbers. None of them agree with his presentation of the situation.
Two weeks ago, in closing another school, he maintained that there was no such thing as a catchment area, so his reversal of logic is baffling. As we’ve explained before, even the Council can’t explain how the ‘Normal Area’ for Combs is defined, and it bears no relation to the ‘Natural Area’ from which pupils come to the school. He doesn’t seem to understand that it’s in the nature of a rural area for people to be scattered about a bit. We’ve shown him that there is high demand for places at the school now and in the future. And of course, parental choice, a policy supported by the council, allows parents to request that their children go to schools that aren’t on their doorstep.
In closing, Alan Charles said, “I believe it was right for the Authority to propose the closure of Combs School, and it was right that we consulted as we have done. Very reluctantly, I move that the recommendation be accepted.”
The chairman asked for questions and comments. There were none.
The recommendation was put to a vote. A few of the councillors raised their hands an inch or two above the table, the chairman mumbled something, and the decision was made.
So, a conclusion to this completely unnecessary process has been reached. Now it’s time to get on with more positive things, as noted in the press release issued today.
505/07 COMBS INFANT SCHOOL – PETITION
A petition of 1,687 signatures had been submitted to the Authority, opposing the proposed closure of Combs Infant School.
RESOLVED to receive the petition opposing the proposed closure of
the Combs Infant School, as part of the consultation process.
506/07 PROPOSED CLOSURE OF COMBS INFANT SCHOOL
In outlining the background leading to the proposal of the closure of the Combs Infant School, the Strategic Director for Children and Younger Adults outlined the process undertaken for consultation, and in particular the procedures for closing a maintained school, bearing in mind not only the criteria for education and sufficient school places in the area but also the need to preserve access to the local school for rural communities. Whilst this did not preclude the closure of rural schools, it did mean that the case for closure should be strong, with proposals clearly in the best interest of educational provision in the area.
Issues raised during the consultation process included:-Arguably the single most important issue was that of standards and whilst the removal of surplus places supported the core agenda of raising standards, it was acknowledged that Combs Infant School provided a high quality of education, which many parents argued was the most significant for the future development of the child. Standards of education at Chapel-en-le-Frith C of E. Primary were deemed satisfactory by OfSTED, although there was the perception that because of its size, the quality of education was not as good at that provided by Combs Infant School. Some detail was given of the development of Chapel-en-le-Frith C of E. Primary where the quality and provision were improving.
- standards of education;
- effect on the village hall and community;
- budgetary and financial considerations;
- normal area and natural area;
- parental choice;
- consideration of alternatives to closures;
- increased housing in the Chapel area;
- portrayal of village;
- surplus places issue;
- school as provider of local employment;
- ethos of school in balance against costs.
Specific reference was made in the statutory guidance to the issue of standards and the need to ensure that the proposal for a school closure would lead to improved attainment for children and young people.
In accord with current legislation and the overriding concern that any proposal for closure has to be in the cause of raising standards of education, it was felt that the Authority should not proceed with the proposal to close Combs Infant School at this time, but the situation would be kept under review.
RESOLVED
(1) that the Authority does not proceed to the publication of Statutory Notices in respect of the proposed closure of Combs Infant School with effect from August 2008; and
(2) that situation regarding surplus places in this area of the County be kept under review.
A large group of campaigners attended the DCC Cabinet meeting in Matlock today.
The report on the school was presented by Alan Charles, and the Cabinet voted to accept the recommendation that Combs Infant School should not be closed..jpg)
Cast your mind back to when this ghastly closure business started. DCC pointed out that Combs School spends more money per pupil than other schools. Of course, that wasn’t a comparison with similar schools, just a crude comparison with all primary schools in Derbyshire.
Do you remember Alan Charles talking about that at the consultation meeting? He talked of his solemn duty with ‘public money’, and the need to ensure that every child in Derbyshire got the same deal. He even explained this concept to the children of the school council, with a weird analogy about why they should feel guilty about getting more Mars bars than other schoolchildren. He ended with, “and that’s just not fair, is it, children?”
Well, let’s look at another example of the distribution of public money.
Each year, DCC’s councillors get a Basic Allowance which is “designed to cover the time commitment of all Members in all meetings including those with officers and members of the public. It is also intended to cover incidental costs such as the use of home and private telephone facilities”. On top of that, a Special Responsibility Allowance is “paid to those Members who perform special responsibilities in relation to the County Council”. The council decides who gets what.
Let’s select a councillor at random, and look at the allowances paid in 2006-07.
Alan Charles, the councillor responsible for schools, gets allowances of more than double the average paid to all DCC councillors. He gets almost three-quarters as much again as the average DCC cabinet member.
Now, that just doesn’t sound fair, does it, children?
But wait a minute. Maybe the allowance scheme has been carefully thought through. Maybe some councillors’ duties are more onerous than others. Maybe their circumstances are different, and they should rightfully claim certain additional allowances. When asked, maybe individual councillors, such as the one above, could give a believable explanation as to why they deserve a significantly above-average allocation of public money.
Although it might not be the right one, there is a plan for spending public money, we can all see what it is, and they’re working to that plan.
Well, guess what? That’s how school budgets are worked out too.
Combs School has been allocated a budget, based on a plan devised by central government and the local education authority. Part of it comes from a fund to protect small rural schools, whose vital role has been heavily acknowledged by government. For that, and other reasons, the allocation per pupil is higher than it is in large schools where economies of scale enable it to be lower.
So Combs School is being penalised for working within the plan devised by its critic – DCC.
And that really isn't fair, is it, children?
Tom Levitt MP was interviewed on High Peak Radio this morning. The first part of the interview related to Tom Levitt being in the top ten of MPs claiming expenses in 2006-07. The second part related to the Save Combs School campaign. This is a very quick summary of that portion of the interview. While it isn't a verbatim transcript, it is hopefully accurate*.
High Peak Radio: Are you pleased by the decision to keep the school open?
Tom Levitt: Very pleased. I've always said that it would be the strength of the arguments that would decide the matter, and that's what's happened. A logical, sensible answer has been reached.
HPR: You've come in for a little criticism for not backing the campaign.
TL: It would have been very easy to jump in and believe what was being said by one side rather than the other, but I felt there were arguments on both sides. I met with the parents and governors, wrote to DCC, and asked a Parliamentary Question**. That got important information into the public domain. The answer to my PQ, which restated that there needed to be very strong grounds for closing excellent rural schools, is the very point on which DCC's decision is based. Doing what I did was the most supportive thing that could be legally done.
HPR: How do you respond to criticism that you've tried to claim credit for the campaign's success, unlike parish and borough councillors, who actually backed the campaign?
TL: It would have been very easy to jump in and get headlines about 'MP leads campaign', but as I've said, I thought there were arguments on both sides. If I had done that, perhaps the campaigners would complain now that I had claimed the campaign as my own. I played a large part in getting important information into the public domain which the campaign has been able to use***.
HPR: One questioner on the Save Combs School web site asks "How does Tom propose to halt or reduce the continuous and insidious rural community disengagement by DCC?"
TL: You have to remember that DCC has kept more small rural schools open than any other council. Cheshire, for example, tackled the problem of surplus school places some years ago and closed quite a few small schools. DCC still has to look at the problem of surplus places, though, and find a solution. That's what I meant earlier about there being arguments on both sides. DCC is doing a lot for rural communities. Look at the support for rural bus services, the commission set up to advise on protecting rural life, and the support given to ensure that postal services are still accessible even when a rural post office has to close because it isn't viable. There's a lot being done to support rural communities, and while I understand people's fears about those communities becoming dormitories, sometimes there are market pressures which can't be resisted.
.JPG)