Lib Dems Fight New Government Threat to Kent Primary Schools

The Liberal Democrats have released figures showing that up to 2,500 English Primary Schools are at risk from Government policies which oblige local authorities to close schools with surplus places - often in rural areas. Kent is one of the worst hit areas in the country, with 87 schools at risk.

The figures come from a parliamentary answer to Liberal Democrat Shadow Children, Schools and Families Secretary, David Laws, and show that 2,489 primary schools have 25% or more surplus places. A recent Government directive sent to local authorities made clear that councils would only get extra money for new primary schools if they had decisive plans to ensure that no school has more than a quarter surplus places.

Obeying these instructions would threaten around 2,500 schools, and force the removal of around 125,000 places in primary schools. This is in spite of government projections that primary school roles will start to grow again from 2009.

Amongst the worst hit areas, those particularly at risk include: Lancashire (94 schools), Kent (87 schools), Essex (77 schools), Norfolk (73 schools) and North Yorkshire (63 schools.)

Of 150 English Local Authorities, 107 also fall foul of a second Government directive to reduce surplus places to less than 10% of total school places. Local authorities at particular risk include: Rutland (24% surplus places), Wakefield (21%), Knowsley (21%) and North Tyneside (20%.)

Commenting, David Laws said:

"These figures show that 2,500 schools are at risk of closure - often smaller schools in rural areas. Government education and planning policies are threatening to decimate rural schools, in the same way that the post office network is being torn apart.

"Government policy is confused, contradictory and hypocritical. While ministers offer public reassurance about school closures, they are privately issuing instructions to local authorities to close schools and reduce places - backed by the threat of withholding money for new buildings.

"Local Authorities are being put in an impossible position - being instructed to close schools and reduce places, while the Government proclaims its opposition to rural school closures. This muddle will lead either to policy paralysis or to the wiping out of many schools - particularly in rural areas.

"The Government has no business dictating to local authorities how they manage their schools - these must be local decisions, taken with local knowledge, and in the best interests of children's education.

"I am today writing to Ed Balls urging him to withdraw the instructions issued to local authorities in December.

"The Government should also help local schools by giving councils more freedom to set their own local housing priorities. If more housing was allowed in rural areas, where this is needed, instead of only being allocated to large cities and towns, then there would be new families coming in to support village schools for the future."

The DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) survey of surplus places can be viewed at www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/fallingschoolrolls/context/stats/

Areas at particular risk from closures are (figures show total schools in each authority with more than 25% surplus capacity): Lancashire (94), Kent (87), Essex (77), Norfolk (73) and North Yorkshire (63), Nottinghamshire (59), Hertfordshire (58), Suffolk (57), Lincolnshire (56), Hampshire (50), Staffordshire (49), Cheshire (48), Derbyshire (46), Wakefield (45), Wiltshire (43), Durham (42).

Other rural areas at risk include: Buckinghamshire (29), Cambridgeshire (27), Cornwall (23), Cumbria (20), Dorset (26), East Sussex (20), Gloucestershire (35), Northumberland (27), Shropshire (20), South Gloucestershire (21), Surrey (38), Warwickshire (27), West Sussex (30), Worcestershire (25).

The English Local Authorities which are at risk of the second Government directive to reduce surplus places to less than 10% of total school places include (with percentage surplus places in brackets) Rutland (24%), Wakefield (21%), Knowsley (21%), North Tyneside (20%), Gateshead (19%), Nottingham (19%), Suffolk (18%), Isle of Wight (18%), North Yorkshire (18%), Halton (18%), Salford (17%), North East Lincolnshire (17%), Northumberland (17%), South Tyneside (17%), Wiltshire (16%), Herefordshire (16%), Durham (16%), East Riding of Yorkshire (16%), Middlesborough (16%), Milton Keynes (16%), Wolverhampton (16%).

The Government issued its "Primary Strategy for Change" guidance to local authorities on 6th December 2007. Local authorities are required to draw up plans for school closure and reorganization, as well as capital development, for submission to the Department by 16/6/2008 (PQ, 28/1/08, David Laws MP, 181793). This is "mandatory" (page 9).

The Guidance instructs local authorities to "reconfigure the primary capital stock to account for demographic change". (page 6). The guidance includes taking "the opportunity to reorganize…close schools with consistently poor performance and/or excessive surplus places.." (page 10). The guidance says this is: "a unique chance to be bold, innovative and consider radical options" (page 10). The "problem" local authorities (with many surplus places) will be given early warning and asked to submit early plans (page 16).

The guidance is very clear about what is required to qualify for funding to rebuild/renew up to half of primary schools. Page 25/26 says: "Strategies that fail to commit to addressing surplus capacity at local authority or individual school level will not be approved. In particular, we would expect to see decisive plans for early action to: ensure that no school has more than 25% surplus places; [and] reduce overall surplus places to less than 10% across the local authority area".

This strategy appears to put local authorities in an impossible position - driven by the Government to close schools and reduce surplus places (at risk of losing grants for new schools), while the Government undermines their ability to force through closure plans by acting as the defender of smaller schools.

While the Government is pressing for schools closures, their own figures show that primary school rolls will start to rise again from 2009, so that the number of councils with more than 10% of surplus places will fall from 107 to 67, by 2012.

Many schools with surplus places are in rural areas because of the Government's planning directives which force all housing development onto large towns and cities, even when the villages want more housing for local people and new families.

This contradicts the public pledge last week from Schools Minister, Jim Knight MP, who briefed the press that rural schools were not under threat. He wrote to the Directors of Children's Services in England on 31st January 2008 to claim "the presumption against closing rural schools which we introduced in 1998 is unchanged." He drew attention to an old DFES list of rural schools to which "the presumption applies". This appears to include almost every rural school. However, page 2 of his letter goes on to say that: "It is not our intention that no rural school should ever close, but the case for closure needs to be strong…."

The Liberal Democrats are calling for Ed Balls to: withdraw the departmental guidance; allow local authorities to determine their own plans within the allocated budgets, based on local circumstances and the best educational interests of the children; press other Ministers to give local authorities more power to allow housing development in villages where there is demand and where this is supported by local communities.