SUMMARY: There is ample evidence to show that in measurable indicators of academic achievement, the rural schools are consistently at or above the Midlothian average. The assertion that P7 pupils do less well in rural schools is entirely bogus, since the evidence shows that in 4 years out of 5 they outperformed the Midlothian average. This claim should therefore be withdrawn.

During the consultation meetings, the Director of Education for Midlothian, Mr Donald MacKay, produced figures from last year (2003) to show that P7 pupils in the 5 rural schools were doing less well than those at selected larger Midlothian schools in achieving level D in reading, writing and maths. This information gets prominence in the minutes. Mr MacKay used the figures to illustrate his theory that since P7 pupils in rural schools have fewer classmates of similar ability, they lack challenge and so they perform less well.

At the Greenhall meeting, I asked Mr MacKay if he was aware of the level D statistics for more than just last year. He stated that he wasn’t. I then asked for the statistics to be made public, since a single year’s data could be unrepresentative. The chairman, Mr Montgomery, agreed that the information should be made available. Unfortunately, the person responsible for compiling the minutes chose to omit this exchange from the minutes of the meeting. Mr MacKay’s table showing last year’s P7 figures stands out as the only comparison of educational achievement between the rural and urban schools in the minutes.

The information eventually provided by the Education Department is not the requested continuation of the comparison between the rural schools and the selected Midlothian schools, but between the rural schools, Midlothian as a whole and Scotland as a whole. This is still acceptable, and avoids any possibility of sidetracking the issue into discussing the comparative merits of Stobhill Primary.

As can be seen clearly in the attached graphical representation of the figures, the level D attainment results for the rural schools fluctuate much more from year to year than those for Midlothian or Scotland, due to the low numbers involved. However, it only once dipped below that for Midlothian as a whole during the period 1999-2003, and it was this single year that the Director of Education chose to highlight. The full evidence actually contradicts that put forward by the Director of Education, since generally, the rural schools have performed better than Midlothian as a whole in level D attainment by P7 pupils.

By picking only this particular year’s data, the Director of Education has unintentionally misled the public and the council on a key reason put forward for closing the rural schools. To intentionally mislead would have been unethical, but we know this was unintentional, since Mr MacKay stated that he was not aware of the statistics for any other years. However, it beggars belief that he could base his argument against rural schools purely on just one year’s results, without looking down the table to check at least the year or two before. By this omission, he arrived at the wrong conclusion. If the education department can make such a fundamental mistake, this seriously calls into doubt their ability to cope competently with all the other information they have gathered for the consultation document.

Furthermore, to put the 2003 performance in perspective, it should be noted that with a total of 23 pupils in last year’s rural school P7 cohort, each pupil represents 4.3 percentage points. This means that if 4 or 5 more pupils had reached level D in reading across the five small schools, the rural schools would have remained at or above the Midlothian average. In writing and maths, the difference amounts to just 2 to 3 pupils.

Indications from the heads of the five rural schools are that this year’s results will be very good once more in reading, writing and maths, showing that last year’s results were an unrepresentative chance fluctuation.

In conclusion, there is ample evidence to show that in measurable indicators of academic achievement, the rural schools are consistently at or above the Midlothian average. The assertion that P7 pupils do less well in rural schools is entirely bogus, since the evidence shows that in 4 years out of 5 they outperformed the Midlothian average. This claim should therefore be withdrawn.

Alan Pemberton (30th April 2004)

Attainment of Level D by the end of P7 – compared between Midlothian’s five rural schools, Midlothian as a whole and Scotland as a whole

Data supplied by Midlothian Education Department