I am concerned that the educational arguments related to small rural schools both those that are supportive and those which are critical seem to be secondary to the issue of financial modelling and budget control for the management of the collective estate.

One of the arguments used by the Director of Education in Midlothian in favour of the new rationalised and centralised proposals is that 2 stream primary schools provide better education than single stream schools (see Radio Scotland interview). I do not think there is any substantive empirical evidence supported by the Scottish Executive to make this case. Such arguments can only be made if there is strong educational research to back up such a claim and the Council and its relevant Committee making decisions on the future of these schools must be furnished with any relevant research.

There is a substantial body of evidence and information about the educational benefits and attainment levels of rural schools available and can be sourced from SCRE the Scottish Centre for research in education and I can't imagine that the committee taking such important decisions would do so without familiarising themselves with the relevant educational research - both the arguments in favour of rural schools and the criticisms of rural schools.

No-one would question the need to ensure the fabric of school buildings are fit for purpose but they must not be the primary argument particularly if the fabric of the schools facing closure can meet the purposes and need little investment compared to complete new build. I understand for example that Borthwick Primary has been spent recently on modernising the building.

I also think that full information should be considered as part of any decision making and that the on-going revenue cost of potentially fewer teachers and fewer tiers of senior management in schools needs to be outlined clearly and admission made if any if this is a driving factor.

The Council has obviously taken the view that the whole estate should be tackled at once and there may be economies of scale to be gained in this. However the authority may wish to reconsider this approach and learn from other authorities where a more locally engaged and paced approach has been taken eg Dumfries and Galloway and Edinburgh councils.

I have received feedback from constituents that they have not had access to some of the basic financial budgeting and recognising, although regretting, that there are currently some confidentiality issues around PPP contracts the council does appear to be more restrictive in releasing financial information than other Councils.

The proposals do not seem to have any reference to the Executive's policies on sustainable rural communities and the benefits and costs in regard to ensuring sustainable communities should be a factor in any decision making process of the Council. The Scottish Executive made a commitment in 'A Partnership for a Better Scotland' for 'continued reform so that our public services are designed and delivered around the needs of individuals and the community within which they live' and in its document 'Building our Future Scotland's school estate to place' the child at the centre, meeting the needs of the communities'.

The schools listed for closure are well used by the community and different organisations. It is of some concern that the Education Committee of the Parliament heard evidence from the Scouts organisations in Scotland that when they checked there was no Scout troop meeting in school facilitiesd managed under PPP contracts primarily because the letting costs were too high. So not only do small village communities face losing a resource should schools be sold off to realise capital for the Council , the new schools may have difficulties servicing the needs of the local community into the bargain.

This is such a serious, widespread and relatively short 6 week consultation and therefore it is essential that communication is made as per statute with the various stakeholders. I am concerned that individual addressed letters were not sent with the relevant consultation material to all parents by post and indeed nursery age children were expected to provide pupil post. Having been involved in similar type consultations with other local authorities which have used posted mail, I have concerns that the form of communication used leaves the Council open to criticism and indeed a future appeal depending on decisions taken .

The Council will be aware that the Parliament has been calling for revised guidelines since 2000 firstly from COSLA and then when COSLA called in 2001 for a review in legislation by the Executive. I appreciate that the Council has to operate under existing legislation but it must be aware that the Parliament's education committee is addressing this use with the Minister in order to pursue why such guidelines have not been forthcoming to date. There is a strong case for the Council to put the proposals on hold while the new guidelines and information which the Minister this month has agreed to produce are published - this would then provide an opportunity to engage more meaningfully with local communities about finding a way forward which meets both the communities and the councils requirements but which may involve some compromise from all parties.

For information , on 1 April 2004 Peter Peacock MSP confirmed that 'following discussions with COSLA, we will prepare guidance for parents and local authorities, to raise understanding of the processes and the responsibilities of the respective parties' (S2O-1886). He stated that he would; 'try and move the process along as quickly as I can.' Furthermore, Peter Peacock referred to Brian Wilson's test of proportionate advantage, stating that 'local authorities should still have regard to it' (OR 7401 ).

The statement the current Education Minister referred to was Brian Wilson's speech at a seminar in Dunoon and quoted in a Scottish Office News Release 0583/98 March 20 1998.

'No school should close on financial grounds alone. there must also be a credible educational justification for closure. I am now inviting education authorities to apply a test of proportionate advantage to any proposed closure of a rural primary school. In other words, do the educational and financial gains deriving from a closure stand up to scrutiny and do they outweigh the negative effects - on that rural community and the children and their families - which that closure will have ?

It is important that all those consulted on closure proposals feel that they have been listened to, and have the opportunity properly to assess the balance of arguments for and against. this will put an onus firmly on the education authority to demonstrate the case for closure , as well as on the community affected to demonstrate the case for retention.'

As mentioned above the Council must operate under current statutory guidelines which contain the requirement that any school with an occupancy of over 80% which is proposed for closure must be referred to the Minister.

Unfortunately it leaves the Council in the position of both establishing the criteria by which the 80% threshold is both administered and judged - both judge and jury. I understand that there is recent evidence that the Council has deliberately restricted and capped intake to popular schools which are under current consideration for closure in recent years and this prejudices judgements about whether the 80% threshold has in fact been breached as it will depend on what is deemed the capacity of schools in the first place.

Bearing in mind that closure proposals of other Councils have foundered on the issue of the accuracy of the information used in the consultation process it would be important to acknowledge the capacities used and documented in Cranston's case in Council correspondence of 15 may 2000 from the previous Head teacher Mrs Finlayson to Ian Glen Head of Schools where it states that 'last year we were not allowed to place any more than 71 pupils on the roll' and placement pupils had had to be refused at the requirement of the Council. With a capacity of 71 and a current level of 57 pupils the school is presently at 80.3% capacity, but even using the Council's capacity reference, the net intake of 3 pupils expected in Autumn 2004 would be at 80% capacity.

There is a presumption against closure of rural schools in England and I am strongly of the view that this should be adopted in Scotland. Please find below a copy of a motion on this which I have lodged in the Scottish Parliament.

S2M-1111# Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP) : Presumption Against Closure of Rural Schools - Code of Guidance- That the Parliament notes the continuing anxiety of rural communities across Scotland faced with rural school closures; notes the work of, and reports to, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee in Session 1 on rural school closures and its recommendation of 4 July 2000 that national guidelines be revised; regrets that COSLA abandoned its earlier agreement to draw up such a revised code of practice in 2001 by proposing a review of legislation by the Scottish Executive instead, and is of the view that the Executive, having acknowledged in March 2003 that COSLA was no longer carrying out this work, should itself, as a matter of priority, produce a revised code of guidance on rural school closures which should have as a central tenet the presumption against closure of rural schools.

Supported by: Brian Adam, Bruce Crawford, Mr Kenny MacAskill, Mark Ballard, Rob Gibson, Christine Grahame, Robin Harper, Richard Lochhead, Jim Mather, Mr Stewart Maxwell, Bruce McFee, Stewart Stevenson, Shiona Baird, Rosemary Byrne, Rt Hon Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Mr Adam Ingram, John Swinburne, Mr Michael Matheson, Alex Neil, Eleanor Scott, Jean Turner, Chris Ballance, Linda Fabiani, Frances Curran, Donald Gorrie

Lodged on 26 March 2004; current

Midlothian is in the unusual situation of an area in Scotland where population is increasing. The Council should consider the strategic benefit of having attractive vibrant local communities to attract young families rather than allowing the smaller villages to become dormitories for an older population.

There are strong arguments against proposals for closure of the 5 schools concerned but the idea that some pupils would be expected to move from their current school surroundings to a new school next year and then to a third school campus at a later stage would be very disruptive to their education and I strongly recommend that the Council revisits this aspect of the proposal. This particular proposal would lead to overcrowding in some schools with no educational advantage.

I know that the proposed structure plan identifies a number of possible sites for opencast coal development across Lothians and in Midlothian in particular. I would seek re-assurances that the identification for schools for closure has in no way been influenced by the need to remove potential grounds for objection for any such sites in the future.

The Scottish Executive has recently brought forward new guidelines on school transport at the request of the Parliament's Education Committee which the Council elected members should be made aware of. There are serious concerns expressed by parents at the added risk of the need to transport children if the proposals go ahead. There are valid concerns as to whether the current infrastructure can cope with added school traffic and the dangers posed by the siting and volume of pupils expected to attend Pathhead Primary in particular are well founded with its location by the busy A68. The executive are keen for children to walk to school, there will be less children walking to school with these proposals.

I urge the Council to take the opportunity of time, reflection and re-appraisal to engage in a more constructive dialogue with each of the communities affected on the way forward for educational provision in Midlothian.