Comment

THROUGHOUT the process of so-called 'consultation' on the primary school organisation proposals it has been said many times by councillors and local authority figures that "doing nothing is not an option".

I'm beginning to wonder if this mantra hides an unwillingness to consider any options other than the draft policy currently on the table. Ann Hartley repeats the claim that "it would be highly irresponsible to do nothing", while reassuring that all views expressed will be given "our careful consideration".

Are councillors really listening? If they are then they will note that most people objecting to the current proposals are most definitely not asking them to do nothing. The majority is asking for alternative, constructive strategies to be explored or are questioning the underlying principles and assumptions of the proposals.

Yes, it's true that the consultation documents do not contain actual proposals for closure of schools. However, by making reference to primary schools being a "minimum of four classes...except in areas of geographical isolation", these documents most certainly contain the future, implied closure of many two and three class schools that fit the criteria.

Instead of 'doing nothing', many would like to see pressure on central government regarding the unfair funding allocation per pupil for Shropshire, (£329 less per pupil than the average across England), or savings from forming a unitary authority ring-fenced for safeguarding existing education provision.

What about looking at the feasibility of executive head teachers for small clusters of schools? Or, has the local authority itself been properly examined for streamlining and prioritisation of funding? Shropshire could be innovative and proactive in pioneering an approach to this huge challenge that would create a truly sustainable future for rural communities and the schools at their heart.

Polly Peters, The Old Chapel, Lydbury North.

3:00pm Thursday 22nd November 2007

Print

Email this

Comment