Elizabeth opened the meeting and introductions and apologies were given from religious representatives. The format of the meeting was agreed that each school would give a report and questions would be asked if required at end of each presentation.
Paul Hayes asked to say prayer to begin the meeting and no objections were raised.
Mr Hayes said that they had received only the council documents and representation from some but not all of the schools concerned.

TEMPLE – Andrew Hudson gave a report on behalf of Temple highlighting the journey to this point in time. This included the out-of-date survey and the funding needed to keep Temple open. He gave background on the school and the past school rolls and said that they were at 80% at the moment but would reach 90% next year. He intimated the short period of time between the start of this process and the proposed closure and the difficulties getting information from the council. He mentioned the expected travelling time for the children should they go to Stobhill and the difficulties between the communities associated with this move. He informed us about the impact that the school closure would have on their own community.

Jan Gilles asked Andrew about the catchment area and percentage of children attending.
Paul Hayes asked how Temple was examining the alternatives.

BORTHWICK – Colette Pemberton and Henry Graham gave the presentation from Borthwick. They spoke about the capping placed on the school due to the increase in housing in the area and its influence upon the present numbers. The school roll had fallen considerably since the capping was put in place, as the expected numbers of children from the new homes did not materialise. The capping had not been lifted even at the schools request. Presently there is 2/3 of children were catchment and 1/3 from out-with but the overall numbers would have been higher if the capping had been removed. The ICT facilities were more than adequate with high equipment to pupil ratio. Concerns were raised that many of the original reasons for closure had already been done and that the survey was out of date. Henry spoke about the council describing the property as a ‘time bomb’ but the recent survey has said that capital expenditure was minimal and that they had already spent tens of thousands upgrading the school. He spoke about all the issues that had been raised with the council at an earlier meeting and contested Mr MacKay’s opinion that there will be no changes to the communities if the schools close. Rural forum had been agreed in principle at the meeting with the council but the very short consultation time had proved to be the obstacle to enable true communication to occur.

Donald Mackay then explained the roles and responsibilities of every local authority to have religious representative and that it was no secret. We pointed out that we only discovered recently and that at no time did any elected representative or council employees mention the religious representation at the cabinet meeting. Our concerns were raised at the amount of information reaching these representatives with only a day left in the consultation period.

HOWGATE – Ron Faulkner reiterated the issues for Howgate School as well as the increase in the housing in the village and the community issues surrounding the closure of the school. Other Howgate representatives mentioned that there was a 100% opposition to the closure and, as the smallest school, had the greatest opportunity for growth and that the potential for more houses was a very real option in the area. The school like many of the others was 150 –200 years old and that the ‘shelf life’ for the PPP was less than 30 years. Many of the school survey and community issues applied equally to Howgate as well as the other rural schools.

CRANSTON – David Drever agreed with all the school and rural issues put by the other schools. He challenged the attainment levels that Mr Mackay had stated at the public consultations and challenged the costings of the new surveys. Asked if individual schools could get there own surveys / estimates done for the necessary work at the schools Donald Mackay said we would need to ask those involved with the buildings for permission to do that. David mentioned the early intervention at Bryans Primary and suggested reasons for this.
There was a challenge on the evidence that Mr Mackay had been using to promote two-streamed schools and, at Mr Hayes request; Mr Mackay explained the principles of a two-stream school to the religious representatives.

COUSLAND – Lorraine Chapman began with the way in which the council informed us about the closure of our schools (pupil post) and gave the representatives a copy of the ‘glossy.’ Again she mentioned the flawed survey & all the work already done and the 20% increase in housing later this year. She spoke about the issues concerning the lack of community links with Woodburn & it’s much needed and substantial refurbishment after the children are moved there. She also mentioned the two moves and questioned why Cousland were included in the consultation. Donald Mackay confirmed that no other schools involved in ‘developer schools’ were included in the consultation but that Cousland had been included because of the move to Woodburn. The lack of community use of the school was explained by the refusal to grant open evenings/cost and the extensive links between community & school throughout the year. She also challenged the beliefs of Mr Mackay that the communities will not be altered after the closures and the Irish research document was given to the representatives (date of publication - late 2002). She reiterated all the other points raised already and finished by explaining that we were not experts in funding and education but within the limit of time had worked extremely hard to find evidence and documentation to challenge the rural closures.

Paul Hayes asked if we had tried to work with the council on the issues and the possibilities of alternative solutions but we explained that the minimum time had been given for consultation and that we were willing to talk but had run out of time. We also said that every meeting, visit and attempt at working together had been at our request and not the councils.

Paul Hayes, on behalf of himself and Jan Gilles, spoke about the potential for creative partnership and getting agreement on facts, working together with the council on processes and the potential to come up with agreement with the council. He stated that they had taken on board all the facts presented and the two schools who had not yet submitted reports to them were able to do so.

Elizabeth extended thanks to everyone and Rev. Jan Gilles closed meeting in prayer @ 9.30pm.