Village Schools (Hansard, 4 November 1983)

§ Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark)
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce an Adjournment debate on the subject of village schools. The continuing existence of the village school is probably the one great concern felt by parents of school age children who live in villages. Local people feel that it is Government policy to close village schools. Perhaps the debate will give my hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity to explain that it is not. I very much hope that he will do so.
County councils are in the business of giving value for ratepayers' money and at the same time providing the best possible education. The two cannot always be compatible. Falling school rolls and surplus places caused the Department of Education and Science to introduce guidance on the subject in circular 2/81, which states: schools with fewer than about 100 pupils have ordinarily been provided, and need to be provided, with more generous levels of staff and other resources than elsewhere. Where numbers fall in these schools it may well be impracticable to reduce their resources pro rata. Moreover. many will be small rural schools whose future needs to be considered in the light of the effect of the closure on the length and nature of the journey children would have to make to alternative schools. That cold wording gives me little comfort. It encourages local authorities—as some do, without being party political—to look on larger units and provision for the majority of children in larger areas of population with a more favourable eye than on villages and village children. There is not one word in that excerpt from the circular about education standards. I do not argue that every village school must stay open. Perhaps schools with about 10 pupils on the roll have to be considered carefully from the point of view of education as well as finance.
The circular was quoted freely at a meeting of the full Nottinghamshire county council in August this year, which discussed the future of Upton school in my constituency. The circular was quoted by the Labour party, which had the majority, in support of the county's proposal to close the school on the ground that the pupils would be better off in a bigger school.
Upton is a village between Newark and Southwell. Like all the villages in my constituency, it is a delightful place with a stronge sense of community. The local Church of England primary school has 27 pupils. A great many of the residents, if not the majority, are involved in the school in some way. I appreciate that the school has not yet come formally to the Under-Secretary's attention although I have spoken to him about the matter. I do not ask for a decision on Upton school; I merely use it as an example. If the county council decides to close the school, my hon. Friend will find me with a small delegation on his doorstep at an early stage thereafter. In that event, I hope that I shall have more positive information about the outcome than I have at present.
Experience shows that, whenever a local authority so much as whispers that it might be closing a village school because of a fall in school rolls, the issue becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. People with young children or those who marry with the intention of having children will not come to a village when the local school faces possible closure, and others will move away when the opportunity 1159 arises. When the harsh head count is taken, the statisticians can show a reduced possible pupil take-up. The position would be reversed—I emphasise this to my hon. Friend — if a positive and robust message of support for village schools was given and he stated that he would approve closures only in exceptional circumstances. I go further. If the Conservative party believes in the education and social value of small schools, the matter must not remain only with the education authorities.
If we believe that a significant part of Britain's unique way of life is to be found in the villages, we must not sit back and let them become commuter areas for business men or places to which the elderly retire. Villages must have the noise of children in their playgrounds. Mothers must be seen using the village shops on the way to collect children from school and young people must grow up in those villages appreciating the blessings as well as the inconveniences of living in a close, warm and living community of all ages.
We can all spend other people's taxes far better than they themselves. I appreciate that it is difficult to argue a case for more money to be spent on anything, but I urge my hon. Friend to consider the case for positive educational funding which would enable local authorities to keep the village schools open on education grounds rather than close them on financial grounds.

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)
As my hon. Friend and I represent neighbouring constituencies, will he comment on the sparsity factor when dealing with funding by local authorities? I think that in Lincolnshire the Department of Education and Science does not take sufficient account of the very sparse population.

§ Mr. Alexander
I support all that my hon. Friend says. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deplore those local authorities who take no action whenever a headship becomes available. Without reference to any overall plan, they just refuse to appoint a new head. The unity and integrity of the school is nibbled away, numbers fall and disillusion sets in. If a school headship becomes vacant, local authorities should be under a duty to make a new appointment, especially in smaller schools where the presence of a head teacher is vital for educational and administrative reasons within the unit.
If smaller schools were educationally unsound, a mass outcry for their closure would already have occurred. Parents do not support the retention of bad schools and are in the forefront when a school closure is contemplated.
Like other hon. Members, I have seen at first hand the excellent work carried out by village schools. Almost invariably, the secondary schools pay tribute to the standards of pupils coming to them from village schools. The reasons for closure are not, therefore, educational and it is pathetic to rely, as Nottinghamshire county council does in the case of Upton school, on arguments about difficulties in providing school meals and the absence of a scullery at the school.
Roy Nash, lecturer in the school of education at the University of North Wales, came to the following conclusion: It is curious that so many LEAs in England and Wales are still convinced that the education provided by large primary 1160 schools is better than that provided by small schools. There is not, and never has been, the slightest evidence from empirical research to support this position. The National Foundation for Educational Research, which regularly carries out systematic testing, has never identified primary school size as a factor influencing attainment in the basic subjects. The whole foundation of this belief seems to stem from the notion that since there are more material resources and more specialist teachers available to the larger school, the education it provides must be better than that provided by the small school. This is a shaky argument which confuses the quality of education with the quality of resources. I do not seek to dodge the financial aspect. When closures are proposed it is natural to take financial considerations into account, but the savings are often minimal. When a full financial appraisal is made of the consequences of closing a school and sending the children elsewhere, there often prove to be no savings at all.
Rural areas ask and receive far less than other areas from local and national services. Social services, social security, leisure and council housing services all cater for a far smaller proportion of rural dwellers. Village schools keep a community thriving. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister, on social, environmental and, not least, educational grounds, to ensure that village schools have the utmost public commitment from the Department. A robust message of support should go out to village communities today so that instead of living in fear of destruction they may look to the Government for the fullest possible commitment to their aims and ideals for many years to come.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn)
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) obtained this Adjournment debate as it allows me to pay tribute to him for the way in which he diligently and successfully represents the interests of his constituents. I am grateful to him for raising the issue of village schools and I have noted carefully the points that he made.
This has been an interesting and important debate, because village schools are a highly valued part of rural life. I shall do my best to respond fully in the short time available to me. I shall try to cover three aspects—Upton school, the fall in pupil numbers nationally, including the issue of village schools, and the educational considerations involved.
My hon. Friend raised the possible closure of Upton Church of England aided primary school. I have noted all that he has said, but I must tread carefully here because no proposals for the closure of this school have yet been submitted to the Secretary of State and I must say nothing which could be seen as prejudicing the decision which he may be asked to make. I understand that the authority has yet to take a decision on the school's future.
There is some history here—both in terms of the age of the school and the discussions about its future. I gather that the school building dates back to 1863 and occupies a small site. Currently, it has 26 pupils on its roll and that number is expected to hold steady for the foreseeable future. In 1972 the then Secretary of State approved the closure of the school, when it was assumed that the pupils would transfer to Southwell where a new primary school was to be built. The resources for the new school were not found and thus the proposals were never implemented. Clearly the passage of time means that fresh proposals would be appropriate if Nottinghamshire were now to decide to close the school. I understand that that point is 1161 fully appreciated. I can assure my hon. Friend that if proposals come to the Secretary of State they will be considered carefully.
This is an appropriate opportunity for me to rehearse the statutory procedure set out in section 12 of the Education Act 1980. When a local education authority decides that it wishes to cease to maintain a school—whether it be a county school or a voluntary one — it must publish locally notice of what it is proposing and submit the proposals to my right hon. Friend. There then follows a two-month period when objections may be submitted to the LEA. Those who have a statutory right to object are defined in the Act as 10 or more local government electors, the governors of any voluntary school and any local education authority which might be affected. If there are objections, the authority must send them to my right hon. Friend within one month of the expiry of the notices with its observations and my right hon. Friend must then consider the proposals on their merits and make his decision accordingly. If there are no objections the authority may determine to implement the proposals without reference to my right hon. Friend unless he has informed the authority that he wishes to decide the proposals irrespective of whether objections have been made. This power to call in proposals was always intended to be used sparingly.
When my right hon. Friend considers proposals he must take account of all the relevant factors. They include the educational and financial merits of the proposals, the objections and the authority's comments on them and his general policies on education as set out, for example, in circulars 2/80, 2/81 and 4/82.
It will be seen that my right hon. Friend takes account of all the points made to him, including, of course, those made by any deputation brought by hon. Members, before he takes his decision. That decision is taken only after the most careful consideration of everthing that is involved.
I accept that the village school is an important part of our heritage. It plays a significant part in the history and development of the British education system. It has played a valuable part in preserving important qualities and values of rural life, such as stability, tolerance, friendliness and a sense of tradition. We are today a predominantly urban or suburban society and some of these values are under pressure. Their sustenance in rural England is therefore a matter of comfort and promise.
Village schools are central to the life of rural England, as they play an important role in transmitting and inculcating those values. I share my hon. Friend's concern for the future of village schools and I hear what he says about the effects of village school closures on the rural community and on the children themselves. The closure of any school is always an emotive issue, and I sometimes reflect when I read the papers and listen to deputations that it appears that the schools which local education authorities propose to close are always good and popular ones.
It is vital, though, that we should be able to see such closures in a national context. We must especially recognise one of the key factors affecting educational provision today — the persistent decline in pupil numbers. The closure of schools is often portrayed as being the result of Government policy and the fact that economies in expenditure are required. What is frequently overlooked is that by the end of the decade the size of the school population will have fallen by a quarter, and 1162 demographic changes on that scale inevitably present new challenges and problems for the education service. Furthermore, even on the highest assumptions of numbers of births the present school population will not be reached again — if at all — before the very last years of this century. This fall in the birth rate compounds the effects of the longer-term fall in the rural population.
The reasons for removing surplus places—we have suggested that local education authorities remove only 40 per cent. of the projected. 3 million surplus places—are as much educational as financial. The reasons apply equally to town and country areas, although I accept that in rural areas there are some additional and unique factors. I should stress that village school closures are not a new phenomenon; far more closures occurred in the 1950s than are taking place now, as the following statistics show.
It is estimated that between 1955 and 1967 about 1,000 rural primary schools were closed, which is an average of just more than 80 a year. Between the Plowden report and local government reorganisation in 1974 about 660 schools were closed, which is an average of about 95 a year. There were a further 275 closures between 1974 and 1981, or about 40 a year. For the past five years the figures for approved rural school closure proposals are as follows: in 1978, 49 primary and four secondary schools were closed; in 1979, 26 primary and no secondary schools were closed; in 1980, 43 primary and two secondary schools were closed; in 1981, 88 primary schools and one secondary school were closed; and in 1982, 75 primary schools and one secondary, school were closed. So far this year proposals for 94 primary and three secondary schools have been approved.
On their own those figures may not be helpful, so I shall add this gloss. In 1981 the Department analysed the proposals to close rural schools which were then before the Secretary of State. Of 70 such proposed closures, 45 involved schools with 24 or fewer pupils and a further 14 schools had between 25 and 29 pupils on roll. In January 1983, 418 schools had 25 or fewer pupils on roll, compared with 388 schools in the preceding year. The Department's statistics on schools do not differentiate between those in rural and urban areas, but it is reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of small schools are in the country.
Wherever pupils are educated—in a large or small school, in a city or a village — they should receive provision appropriate to their curricular and other educational needs. That is a key factor for any local education authority to consider when determining the pattern of school organisation which it judges to be best suited to the needs and circumstances of an area.
We all recognise the contribution that village schools have made to their communities and the local support they have usually generated. We also believe that we should avoid generalisations about the quality and range of education offered in these schools and the dangers of assuming that the lessons learnt about larger schools automatically apply to small village schools. For example. since most rural schools are very small, the argument in Her Majesty's inspectorate's national primary survey of 1979 about the need to avoid mixed age classes of 25 or more pupils with substantial numbers from two or more age groups will not necessarily apply where numbers are below 25 and do not cover the full primary range. Moreover, provided they are not one-teacher schools, small classes can overcome the disadvantages of mixed 1163 age groups. It is also true that many village schools have long experience of mixed-age teaching and have achieved considerable success. Much depends, however, on the ability of the few staff in post—particularly the head teacher.
On the other side of the coin we have to recognise that village schools are not exempt from the general decline in the school population and it would be wrong to exempt such schools from scrutiny. Such schools are equally prone to surplus places, and it is a fact that each surplus place costs money to maintain, which is money which could be redeployed elsewhere for teachers' salaries, books and equipment or other local priorities for which there may currently not be the cash. I need not remind my hon. Friend that the country can spend only what it can afford. It is surely folly to devote scarce resources to keeping open empty desks and classrooms.
It follows therefore that the closure of a village school and the transfer of the remaining pupils to nearby alternatives can bring substantial financial benefits in addition to providing more appropriately for the educational needs of the children. Frequently one school with 50 pupils may have more to offer the pupils than two schools with 25 each. Scale may produce not only economies but substantial educational benefits particularly because of the breadth of experience and skill which a larger teaching force may possess in subjects such as science, history and geography.
These are, of necessity, generalisations and cannot be applied mechanistically to indiviual proposals, which must always be considered on their merits. They do, however, provide a backcloth against which particular issues need to be considered. In the case of a village school, they might include the distance and journey times to alternative schools. Here we would take account of any transport arrangements that are to be made, and we would be concerned where journeys each way might exceed 45 minutes. Also relevant would be whether the isolated nature of the area concerned might lead to particular difficulties in adverse weather conditions. Although the occasional disruption and stress may be acceptable—and 1164 some children would regard it as an adventure — it would not be acceptable as more than a very infrequent part of life.
However, to go back to my earlier point about equality of educational opportunity, there is a consequence if very small schools have to be retained. It is that the authority has to consider how to provide the necessary teaching support and the range of other provision necessary. That will involve, as circular 2/81 recognises, more generous levels of resources than hitherto if they are not to suffer educational disadvantages and, in particular, the creation of large classes with mixed age groups. The circular suggests that in such circumstances authorities may wish to consider the closure of some medium-sized schools in closely built-up areas as an alternative to the closure of a number of small schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) mentioned the sparsity factor. The Government take account of the financial impact of such additional financing and of increased transport costs through the sparsity factor in grant-related expenditure.
A final point is the role of the school in the community. The importance of that is often emphasised in objections. I should draw attention to some recent research by Aston university. It concluded that the social role of a village school varied considerably, particularly where other amenities — such as a village hall or pub — existed. Decisions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must be made on the educational case.
I have addressed myself to the main points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. Let me sum up. First, Nottinghamshire county council has yet to decide whether it wishes to propose the closure of Upton village school. That is a decision for it and, if it decides to do so, my right hon. Friend will give the matter the most careful consideration and decide the proposals on their individual merits. The interests of the children at the school will be foremost in his mind.
Secondly, proposals to close schools have to be seen in the——