Shropshire Magazine

Three-year-old twins Merffyn and Bracken Broadway protest against the threat to Buildwas school. Picture: Bob Greaves.

At the end of January crowds of concerned Shropshire people gathered outside the Shirehall to demonstrate against the proposed closure or amalgamation of several primary schools across the county. But what were the reasons behind the proposals which, for many, represented another step in the erosion of village life in Shropshire, and what are the alternatives, if any? The Shropshire Star’s education correspondent, Dave Morris, investigates

Bucknell School in the early part of the 20th century.

The storm clouds have been gathering ominously over Shropshire villages and their small, but much loved, schools for years.

Back in February 1998, for example, the bleak findings of a survey by the Rural Development Commission revealed that Shropshire’s villages had fewer services than any other county in England.

Since then there have been fairly regular warnings that Shropshire could be facing serious challenges as a result of low birth rates and an ageing population.

Last September I broke the news that 20 Shropshire primaries could be at risk of closure under a new schools organisation policy aimed at tackling falling pupil numbers. At the time it was stressed there was no hit list.

But things moved quickly. The new policy was adopted by the county council on December 14 and on January 23 the authority published a list of 22 proposed closures and amalgamations involving 16 other schools.

I have not expressed an opinion on whether the policy is right or wrong, and nor will I. It is my job to try to report impartially. But I did warn officials and leading council members that by proposing school closures they faced a furious backlash from across the county.

Ten years ago, when it was proposed to slash £5 million from the county education budget – which, it was feared, would lead to heavy job losses and larger class sizes – an estimated 4,000 parents, teachers, governors and children brought Shrewsbury town centre to a standstill with a protest march and rally.

The threat to the 22 schools was lifted by the cabinet on January 30 this year amid another massive demonstration outside the Shirehall.

But where do we go from here?

The county council’s announcement of a series of schools closures and amalgamations was only ever likely to have one effect: to rouse the ire of parents and villagers in the communities affected.

Well, unless there has been a further major shift sometime between my writing this article, and you reading it, then the county council schools policy is still in place.

What caused great angst, and continues to cause unease, despite assurances that the schools are safe, is the policy statement that, except where very small schools are needed to maintain access to education in areas of “geographic isolation”, schools should be planned to sustain at least four classes of 23 pupils or above.

Four classes is the smallest size of school which has the ability to operate separate classes for Key Stage 2 only, and maintain no more than two age groups in a single class.

Red herring

But there is a feeling in some quarters that falling pupil numbers and empty classroom spaces are something of a red herring – that the real reason for the new policy is that it is the ‘vision’ which will persuade the Government to release £8.5 million to Shropshire for school refurbishment and the building of new and bigger area schools.

Heather Kidd is one of those who has no doubts that schools remain at risk of closure. She is a Lib Dem district councillor, and the party’s parliamentary candidate for Ludlow. She is also a school governor.

Last year Mrs Kidd carried out detailed research on the impact that a school closure could have on the community and concluded it would have far-reaching effects on the local economy.

She surveyed 24 schools in the Bridgnorth and South Shropshire districts, of which 17 were two- or three-class schools.

Taking a three-class school as a case study, she said it employed three minibus drivers and a taxi driver, carrying 35 pupils. This put in excess of £57,000 into the local economy and helped keep the local petrol station open. But the money would be recycled several times over in the community.

The school also visited the shop daily for tuck and estimated a spend of £2,000–£2,500 per annum. On slim economic margins this was a significant amount. Parents and staff also visited the shop before and after school.

In addition the school put £300, plus PTA events, into the village hall coffers. This is the hall’s safety net, its reliable income, according to Mrs Kidd. Many village halls are barely viable and income from schools can make the all the difference to them.

Twenty-one of the 24 schools in her survey used their village hall.

Mrs Kidd believes the schools policy and the issue of falling pupil numbers is being driven by the county council’s bid for capital funding for primary school refurbishment and new build. Fifty per cent of all primaries should be upgraded in the next three years and the council needs a vision to qualify for this money by June. It has to reduce surplus places to 10 per cent or lower.

She says the council can continue on this path but pick the schools off one by one, so that the outcry is less forceful.

“They can then use the policy they now have as their vision for area schools and gain the money,” she says.

“We will then have some sparkling new schools, geographically placed to provide excellent education – often dislocated from their communities and leaving a desert behind them in communities which will slowly lose other services and their focus. There will then be more closures as surplus places increase in other schools.”

The second option is for the council to decide that this is a step too far and listen to the angry collective voice of parents, governors, staff and their communities, and realise that this has a bigger impact than just providing the same standard of excellent education in a new building. It then needs to stand up to the government, return to the old vision for excellent education and refurbish the existing schools – building where there are at present demountables.

The Right Rev Michael Hooper, Bishop of Ludlow.

The Bishop of Ludlow, Michael Hooper, feels in-depth consultation is required on the issue of rural life and the part village schools play in it.

He is well placed to comment on the issue: many of the proposed closures were in fact Church of England schools.

“People from outside say how beautiful Shropshire is, but Shropshire is not a holiday theme park and there is question mark over rural areas and their sustainability; schools are part of this,” says Bishop Michael.

He is unsure of where the current schools debate is going to lead, but says that in the meantime it is vital that parents continue to support their local school and don’t move their children to others which they feel have a long-term future.

“If they don’t support their school, then it will close,” he warns.

But there are already worrying signs that the closures list may have started to undermine the viability of some of those schools that found themselves on it. The Bishop says he has received reports of house sales falling through in one village, because the buyers were no longer certain the village school will be there when they move in.

Shirehall figures show that in five years time 3,400 fewer primary school places will be needed in the county council area compared with 2001.

There are currently 3,250 spare places in the county’s primary schools and this is set to rise to 5,450 by 2012.

If nothing is done, it is claimed, a typical school of 100 pupils could lose £23,000 a year in funding.

The local government spending watchdog – the Audit Commission – has said that schools should have no more than 10 per cent surplus places. But of the 141 Shropshire primaries, there are 91 with 10 per cent or more and 20 with 25 per cent or above.

And if no changes are made, it is further claimed, the number of schools with at least 10 per cent and possibly more surplus places could rise to 110. By 2012 the county council will have lost nearly £4 million in government grant.

Unfilled places mean both a reduction in grant and an extra cost to the service. And the county council has argued that if it does not address this problem in a planned way, there is a danger that individual schools could fail, affecting the quality of education for all children.

Ann Hartley, county council cabinet member for children’s services, has previously stated that current preductions show that in two years time, 50 schools will have a quarter of their places empty.

This, Mrs Hartley has said, represents funding paying for the upkeep of buildings rather than being used for teachers, teaching assistants, classroom resources, and the children’s education.

So again, is there another way forward which might satisfy Shirehall leaders and officers as well as the majority of governors, parents, staff and others worried about the future of Shropshire schools?

Chris Endacott, a parent and governor at Coleham Primary School in Shrewsbury, one of Shropshire’s largest schools and one of the biggest primaries in the country, might have the solution.

He says that he is “very concerned” that MPs and ministers have created the illusion that they have headed off a funding crisis that has yet to hit the county.

In fact, according to Mr Endacott, we are already in a deep funding crisis that is affecting the majority of Shropshire’s primary schoolchildren.

Fallen

“Over the last four years the number of children in our primary schools has fallen from 21,900 to about 20,350,” he explains.

“Because the government funds pupils, not places, Shropshire’s funding has fallen too. If we still had all those pupils today we would have an extra £5.5 million in our budget. And over the same period we have allowed the number of surplus spaces to rise to over 3,250.

“So how does Shropshire perform the trick of funding over 23,600 places with the income for just 20,350 children? The council does it by using the Shropshire Funding Formula, a system unique to the county which takes money away from the schools with full rolls and uses it to maintain funding in schools of all sizes with falling rolls.

“As a result, at one end of the spectrum we have 20 schools where each pupil receives, on average, £3,823 – over £250 more than Shropshire receives from the government – and at the other end, 20 schools where the average is only £2,370 for each pupil.

“Those bottom 20 schools are among the worst-funded primary schools in England, even though Shropshire is not the worst-funded county. There are under 1,400 pupils in our 20 best funded schools but over 5,600 in the worst funded.

“A small drop in roll in the schools with the worst funding results in less money, teacher redundancy, class mergers, mixed-year groups and class sizes of well over 30 pupils.”

Mr Endacott believes that the Shropshire Funding Formula is at the root of the problems. If Shropshire employed the same system of pupil-led funding used by the rest of the country – with a generous pupil allowance for the first two classes in every school – he reckons that most of the county’s rural and urban schools would be viable and the pressure for closure would be lifted from all but a very few, if any.

Furthermore, he says, all Shropshire’s children would benefit from lower teacher–pupil ratios rather than a minority, and the “nonsense of taking money away from the pupils we have to fund the ones we don’t”, would be ended. Then, argues Mr Endacott, successful schools with a full roll from two to 14 classes would be sustainable throughout Shropshire.

Surpluses

He adds that some primary schools have, between them, collected more than £5 million in surpluses in their current accounts.

The money was given to teach today’s children, not to fund capital projects or next year’s teachers, and in reality the money has come from other pupils in Shropshire, transferred by the Funding Formula. If that money could be put “back in the pot” it would soften the impact of funding change.

The way they were . . . Diddlebury School in the early 1920s.

However, Mr Endacott warns: “If pupil numbers fall by as much as predicted, the shortfall in 2011 will have increased by another £5 million and we will have over 5,000 spare places funded by the income from fewer than 19,000 children. Maybe a future government will give Shropshire pupils the extra £10 million needed to bridge that gap, but I fear that is wishful thinking.

“It is, however, a three-year campaign that all Shropshire schools could join together to support.”

I have no idea how things are going to turn out but I’m pretty sure our schools are going to be the key focus of attention for the rest of this year and into next.