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
| 
