Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


APPENDIX 7

Memorandum submitted by Cheshire County Council (T8)

  1.  Cheshire County Council is responsible for 350 schools, of which 289 are primary schools. The county has a number of small rural schools and is concerned through its own rural recovery initiatives to sustain the contribution that these schools can make to rural life in spite of the extra cost and reduced educational and managerial viability of such schools operating in isolation. Although the incentive to save money by closing schools has been tempered by additional grant, concerns about educational and managerial viability remain. In spite of encouragement from Government for schools to develop collaborative arrangements to overcome diseconomies of scale, the smallest primary schools continue to be more fragile or less robust than larger schools.

  2.  It is true that the number of rural primary schools that have been closed has dramatically reduced and that the presumption against closure has had a notable effect. This has had a consequential increase in the proportion of schools with surplus places. Local Authorities continue to be under pressure to remove surplus places and aggregate performance indicators for surplus places (eg, in respect of the Audit Commission and Comprehensive Performance Assessments) are significant. Local authorities need to be reassured that in terms of funding flows and inspection frameworks the presumption against closure of small rural primary schools is taken fully into account and will not disadvantage those local authorities with significant numbers of such schools. Maintaining surplus places may bring social benefits but is often a direct cost to the local authority concerned. In order to function at all many small schools require a subsidy within the local funding formula. The new funding arrangements for local government provide, at best, a tenuous link between the presumption against closure policy and the funding needed to support it.

  3.  In the White Paper, in the section "Action to Support Village Schools" (3.4.2), expectations were raised that action would be taken to ensure the long term viability of small rural schools. Two financial measures among several were reported:

    (a)  Administrative Support for Small Schools, and

    (b)  Additional funding to encourage collaborative working. Both these measures will have run their course by March 2004. The piloting of collaborative working did not have a major impact on schools. However, the ASFSS was extremely popular with headteachers and made it possible for them to spend the equivalent of one afternoon a week away from direct teaching and enabled them to work on essential management tasks. Both measures were provided under Standards Fund. Announcements at the end of 2002 regarding the future of Standards Fund meant that specific funding will cease. The Government argued that this funding was to be incorporated into mainstream funding (FSS) but in the case of Cheshire (and no doubt other local authorities who find themselves in a similar position), the overall settlement has proved to be so difficult that it will almost certainly prevent a continuation of the financial support.

  4.  The provision in the Education Act 2002 to extend the opportunities for shared and community use of school facilities was helpful and the related DfES paper "Extended Schools" has opened up some very exciting prospects for all schools. If rural schools are to benefit, some pump priming will be important the financial constraints facing local authorities like Cheshire are likely to prevent the full exploitation of this enlightened policy.

  5.  Early Years Education and Learning is a critical area for the Committee to consider. Research is clear about the long term advantages of early intervention. Related to early years provision there is the equally opportunity of addressing more effectively the less evident dangers of rural child abuse. The DfES has offered funding for rural early years initiatives but competition has been stiff and Cheshire has not yet benefited. Apart from this specific funding opportunity, rural settings are at a disadvantage. The difficulty for local authorities trying to respond to rural need is that the DfES model for Early Years and Childcare planning and development still gives priority to action in areas where there is "concentrated" need. Performance indicators of deprivation effectively favour urban concentrations. It is much more difficult to justify expenditure on provision that is just as severe but more widely dispersed. Cheshire would wish to develop more "clustered" provision in rural areas to help in responding but DfES and other funding sources have proved to be elusive. The fact that rural investment in child care settings does not show the same level of "return on investment" should not deprive isolated children and families in rural areas of their rights to good provision.

14 January 2003


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 5 June 2003