0845 603 0590 
Committee Reports and Agendas
May 2007 to Present
 | NORTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL Education Executive |
| Agenda Item 5 22 April 2008 |
| Subject: | Consultation on the proposal to amalgamate Dreghorn Primary School with Springside Primary School |
| Purpose: | To report to the Education Executive the views expressed in the consultation on the proposal to amalgamate Dreghorn Primary School with Springside Primary School. |
| Recommendation: | It is recommended that the Education Executive notes the results of the consultation on the proposal to amalgamate Springside Primary School with Dreghorn Primary School and agrees that: a) Option 1 in the consultation proposals be adopted, namely the retention of both schools; b) the replacement of Dreghorn Primary School, should progress in line with the current capital plan; and (c) that the Scottish Ministers be advised of the Council's decision where required. |
1. Introduction
- all parents/carers of the two schools;
- all Head Teachers and staff of these schools;
- the relevant Parent Councils;
- all elected members; and
- other interested parties.
- the accuracy of the school roll projections and the anticipated house building;
- distances to be travelled; and
- the impact on the local community of the loss of a local school with the change to the community following the closure of the primary school.
- 1.1 At its meeting on 13 November 2007, the Education Executive approved a recommendation to issue to all interested parties a consultation document on the proposed amalgamation of Springside Primary School and Dreghorn Primary School. The consultation document, attached as Appendix A, offered four options.
| Retain both school schools. |
| |
| Amalgamate Springside Primary School with Dreghorn Primary School in a new school to be built on a new site convenient to the two villages. This would require the identification and purchase of a site in addition to the capital investment in a new school building. |
| |
| Amalgamate Springside Primary School with Dreghorn Primary School in a new school building on the site of the current Dreghorn Primary School. |
| Option 4 | Amalgamate Springside Primary School with Dreghorn Primary School in a new school building on the site of the current Springside Primary School. The resulting catchment area for the new school in Options 2-4 would be the combined catchments of Dreghorn and Springside primaries as shown at Appendix 1. |
2. Consultation Process
2.1 The consultation process has now been completed. The proposal, involving the amalgamation of two existing schools, required a formal consultation procedure in terms of the Education (Publication and Consultation etc) (Scotland) Regulations 1981, as amended 1987, 1988, 1989, and the Education (Publication and Consultation etc) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007. The regulations require, as a minimum, that information be issued to all relevant parties and that 28 days be allowed for responses. In this case the Council has gone considerably beyond the minimum requirements. The consultation period was extended to 70 days, ran from 8 January to 17 March, and the consultative document was issued to:
2.3 Beyond this initial information distribution, the consultation strategy has been planned in discussion with the Parent Councils. It was agreed that a number of meetings should take place with the parents and Parent Councils at Dreghorn and Springside Primary Schools.
2.4 These meetings have been attended variously by the Chair of the Education Executive, the Corporate Director (Educational Services), the Head of Service with responsibility for the School Estate, senior Educational Services staff and other elected members.
2.5 The views of the pupils in both schools were gathered through discussions with the Pupil Council.
2.6 During the extended consultation period some 367 letters and e-mails were received. In addition, 3 petitions were received, one with 887 names, one with 18 and one with 13. The letters and e-mails may be classified in terms of their origin. These are shown in Appendix D and are as follows:
| 114 |
| 17 |
| 37 |
| 199 |
2.7 344 responses were received from parties connected with Springside Primary School and 23 from Dreghorn Primary School.
2.8 A transcript and DVD of a "diary room" event to record the views of residents of Springside was submitted. Forty-five supporters left messages against the closure of Springside Primary School. Copies of all the consultation responses are available for inspection within Educational Services, 4th Floor, Cunninghame House.
2.9 The 2 meetings which were held were very well attended by parents, members of the local community and staff.
2.10 These meetings, were organised in order to give further information to key stakeholders and to allow some public debate. As such, they were generally successful in providing extended information and discussion. It was stressed at all meetings that their purpose was to inform stakeholders and answer their questions, so that subsequent written responses would have the benefit of the fullest background to the complexities of the issues involved.
2.11 The Pupil Councils in each school met and were briefed by a Quality Improvement Officer from Educational Services. The Pupil Council was given time to gather views from other pupils before reporting back to the Quality Improvement Officer.
3. The Views Expressed
3.1 Overall, of the 367 letters received, 348 supported Option 1, 11 supported Option 2, 4 supported Option 3, and 4 supported Option 4.
3.2 Individual written submissions on the consultative proposals were also received from a number of other official sources as indicated in 2.6.
3.3 The views expressed by various groups are summarised below and illustrated in Appendix C.
- The Parent Council:
Members of the Parent Council from Dreghorn Primary School suggested that disruption to pupils and teachers should be kept to a minimum and that the new school would be a perfect answer for everyone. Whilst those for Springside expressed concerns over the occupancy levels and the impact on the community. They also highlighted the high quality provision which they currently receive within their own village school.
Parents:
Parents/carers from Springside expressed concerns over occupancy levels, transport issues and the quality of resources/education. The negative impact of the closure of the school on the regeneration of Springside was also a recurring theme.
Parents/carers from Dreghorn expressed views on the best use of facilities, transport and environmental issues and least disruption. The Head Teacher of Dreghorn Primary School welcomes the opportunity for children to experience education in a modern purpose built primary school
Pupils:
Dreghorn: Pupils had a mix of views with exactly 50% supporting option 1 and the remainder of the pupils having different views, the next most popular was Option 2. The pupils discussed and put forward arguments in favour and against all 4 Options
Springside: Pupils in Springside expressed concerns over their ability to mix in a bigger school; the travel and transport; and the school equipment. However, they also recognised that there would be benefits from a merged school. They highlighted the potential improvements as being new facilities; more space and a new playground. The pupils also produced a frieze with hand prints and their names.
3.4 The issues raised in the responses fall into the following broad categories:
4. Comments on the Views Expressed
4.1 The consultation response, in the form of letters and e-mails, has been uneven with significantly more responses from Springside. The responses from Dreghorn favoured mainly Option 2 with less, albeit similar levels of support for both Options 1 and 3, and only one person supporting Option 4. The responses from Springside were overwhelmingly in favour of Option 1, with much less support for Option 4, and no support for either Option 2 or 3.
5. Conclusion
5.1 The overall conclusion to be drawn from the consultation is that the responses put forward in favour of Option 1 far outweigh Options 2, 3 and 4.
5.2 The school clearly acts as a hub for activities within the community and provides a focus for community cohesion which would be lost should the school close.
5.3 Furthermore, the location of the school in the regeneration area within the village of Springside makes the school central to the regeneration initiative. There is an understandable concern that the loss of the school would have an adverse impact on the regeneration efforts being made by the Council and its partners
5.4 In particular, the arguments for the role of Springside Primary School in a small clearly identifiable community and the regeneration programme for large areas of Springside were well-made. These arguments strongly favoured Option 1, and it is therefore recommended that the retention of both schools be agreed.
5.5 The future replacement programme for Dreghorn Primary School, should be progressed in line with the current capital plan of the Council.
| CAROL KIRK Corporate Director (Educational Services) |
Reference : JL/GJ/MM
For further information please contact Carol Kirk, Corporate Director, Educational Services, Cunninghame House, IRVINE , on 01294-324411
Background Papers :
Committee Reports and Agendas
Facebook
