MINISTERS are on a collision course with councils after rejecting plans to make it easier to close village schools.
Education Secretary Michael Russell said he would not change legislation forcing councils to demonstrate the educational benefit of closing a rural school and moving pupils elsewhere.
Two months ago, an independent commission called for the Schools Consultation Act 2010 to be watered down to allow closure plans to have only a neutral impact on education. Councils feel unable to give sufficient weight to financial arguments for closures.
Mr Russell is also proposing an independent appeals process for families to contest controversial closures. Ministers are responsible for reviewing unpopular closure decisions, but that has led to accusations of political bias.
Any such move is likely to be resisted by Cosla, the councils' umbrella body, which wants to scrap the call-in process. It believes councillors and officials with local knowledge are best placed to make decisions.
Speaking at the Scottish Parliament, Mr Russell said: "It is vitally important there is a rigorous assessment of the educational impact of the change and that closure only proceeds on the basis that it will deliver an educational benefit to all the children involved."
He broadly accepted most of the 38 recommendations of the commission on the Delivery of Rural Education, which was set up following concerns about different interpretations of the 2010 Act.
But, on the appeals process, Mr Russell said he wanted to shift ultimate responsibility away from politicians by exploring options for an arm's-length body to rule on proposals called in.
Cosla will meet today to discuss the move. Its education spokesman, Douglas Chapman, said: "We are disappointed that the whole package of recommendations has not been agreed. Previously our consistent message has been to accept all 38 recommendations."
Opposition politicians questioned the proposed shift. Scottish Labour MSP Neil Findlay accused the Education Secretary of demonstrating "political cowardice".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article