Journal of Education Policy Selecting schools for closure: theory and ...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Edinburgh] On: 19 October 2014, At: 05:38 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education Policy Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedp20

Selecting schools for closure: theory and practice in ‘rational’ planning Liz Bondi

a

a

University of Edinburgh Published online: 03 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Liz Bondi (1989) Selecting schools for closure: theory and practice in ‘rational’ planning, Journal of Education Policy, 4:2, 85-102, DOI: 10.1080/0268093890040201 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268093890040201

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

J. EDUCATION POLICY, 1989, VOL. 4, N O . 2, 85-102

Selecting schools for closure: theory and practice in 'rational' planning

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 05:38 19 October 2014

Liz Bondi University of Edinburgh For more than a decade, LEAs have been under pressure to close schools. During this period the scale of contraction in school provision has been substantial but has nevertheless lagged behind DES expectations. This paper is concerned with the selection of schools for closure or amalgamation and examines in detail the procedures adopted and the proposals advanced in one LEA. While existing evidence suggests that the selection of schools for closure has generally been less than rational, the case selected is an example of what has been officially described as 'strategic planning' and 'good practice'. Policy statements, criteria for selecting schools, and the characteristics of schools earmarked for closure are compared to assess the relationship between theory and practice. In practice, the criteria cited by the LEA were generally not capable of strict application. In addition, unstated criteria, notably school size, appear to have been significant. Thus, the LEA's proposals did not correspond directly to its own stated policy. Further, the extent to which the procedure adopted by the LEA conformed to notions of rational planning was limited. Current legislation is likely to reduce still further the ability of LEAs to produce rational schemes of contraction.

Local education authorities (LEAs) have been under pressure to rationalize school provision for several years. Between 1977 and 1985 a total of 3473 state schools were closed in England and Wales, equivalent to 9% of the 1977 stock. There has, however, been very limited examination of which schools are closing and how LEAs are selecting schools for closure. Indeed, although over 307o of primary school closures between 1980 and 1985 were made without reference to the Secretary of State (under provisions of the 1980 Education Act), attention has focused almost exclusively on those exceptional cases that have provoked intense conflict between central and local government. This paper deals instead with a more routine case, where local authority planning appeared to be at its most rational. Thus, it offers an analysis of what might be considered as 'good practice' in the management of educational contraction. The first section of the paper briefly examines the reasons why LEAs are under pressure to close schools and the second section reviews existing evidence regarding the selection of schools for closure. The remainder of the paper examines plans for rationalizing primary school provision in Manchester which were put forward in 1982 and implemented (with some modifications) over the following years. After outlining the LEA's argument for closing a substantial number of schools (section 3), both the stated criteria for selecting schools for closure and the proposals for achieving the desired contraction are examined (sections 4 and 5). By comparing broad policy statements with firm proposals for implementation it is possible to evaluate the extent to which the LEA's overall objectives were translated into practice. This approach provides an analysis of the internal consistency of the policy process in one LEA and is the main concern of this paper. However, the final section also considers the case very briefly from two 'external' standpoints. First, given the comprehensive character of the LEA's plans, it is appropriate to consider the extent to which the example conforms to the theory of rational planning. Thus, the title of the paper uses the term 'theory' in two senses: 0268-0939/89 $3.00 © 1989 Taylor & Francis Ltd.

156

LIZBONDI

as a prescriptive position and as a set of abstract, formal principles. Secondly, the implications of the case study are considered from the perspective of national policy developments.


1.

Pressures to close schools

Pressures from three sources have combined to bring the issue of closing schools onto the agenda in most LEAs: demographic trends, financial circumstances and central government exhortation. These are considered in turn. The decline of the school-age population is well known. The smallest cohorts of this downswing, born in the late 1970s, are now working their way into secondary schools. Despite a slight increase in births since 1980, DES projections indicate a very slow and limited rise in the school-age population. There is little expectation that either the rapid growth rates or the absolute totals of the 1960s will recur. In such circumstances, LEAs have had to adjust to a long-term decrease in the numerical demand for school places for 5- to 16-year-olds. The scale of the decrease varies geographically because the effects of a falling birth-rate are ameliorated or intensified by patterns of population migration. In general, major urban centres have experienced particularly pronounced enrolment decline (see Bailey 1982a, 1982b), while in suburban areas, especially in south-east England, numbers have remained buoyant. In theory, adjustment to reduced numerical demand might take one of several forms: class sizes could be reduced; more school rooms could be used for specialist educational or community puposes (Briault and Smith 1980, Dennison 1985). However, school closure has become the major form of adjustment in many LEAs because of increasing financial constraints. Cutbacks in public expenditure originated at much the same time as the downturn in primary enrolments. For the education service, the problem was exacerbated by the emergence of public disenchantment: the possibility of tackling major social and economic problems through education was increasingly under challenge (see DES 1977, Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies 1981). In this context: [declining numbers... [provided] the opportunity to test the priority of education's claim on the public purse, since fewer students to teach meant either that existing standards could be maintained at lower cost, or resources freed by the reduction in numbers could be retained within education in order to achieve improvements in such standards. Faced with the insistent need to reduce public spending overall, plus demands for more money for other welfare sectors, Governments have decided to take out of education much of the money 'saved' by smaller numbers (Taylor 1981: 19).

Consequently, the education programme has tended to decline relative to other public spending programmes, at least until 1986 (see table 1). The relative decline of public expenditure on education has been transmitted to LEAs by means of rate support grant settlements. One of the variables used in the formulae for 'grantrelated expenditure assessments' (GREAs) is the size of the school-age population in the preceding year; consequently, falling enrolments tend to produce a reduction in GREA, albeit with a one-year time-lag. The significance of this mechanism is overshadowed by the extremely complex arrangements for grant allocation and grant penalties (see Bramley and Evans 1981, Boddy 1984), together with the non-specific character of rate support grant. Thus, financial pressure to close schools is exerted less through grant allocation than through the overall limitation of rate support grant (Hunter 1983). Another mechanism for central government financial pressure relates to major capital projects, for which LEAs must obtain borrowing consent from the DES. Consent may be granted conditionally. For example, an LEA may be required to close a school before consent is granted to build a new one.

SELECTING SCHOOLS FOR CLOSURE Table 1.

87

Education expenditure, 1978/79 to 1990/91.


Education programme as a percentage of total public expenditure 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91

11.8% 11.5% 11.87o 11.4% 11.2% 11.2% 10.7% 10.7% 11.3% 11.7% 11.5% 11.1% 10.9%

Education spending in £bn at 1986/87 survey

prices

(estimate) (plans) (plans) (plans)

15.1 14.9 15.3 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.2 14.8 15.7 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5

Source: The government's expenditure plans, Cm 288

The third source of pressure is central government exhortation, particularly in the form of Circulars, which contribute to the translation of expenditure plans into substantive service policies. Circular 5/77, entitled 'Falling numbers and school closures', exhorted local education authorities to: make the most realistic assessments possible of future population t r e n d s . . . and t o . . . examine systematically the educational opportunities offered to children in their schools and to consider how the premises, both buildings and sites, might best be used, either for primary or secondary education (including nursery education) or for some other educational purpose (para. 3).

The closing of under-utilized schools was explicitly encouraged: 'The general policy of the Secretary of State will be to approve proposals to cease to maintain under-used schools' (para. 7)Four years later, rather fewer places had been removed from use than envisaged by the DES, and Circular 2/81 pressed LEAs to make more concerted efforts to reduce surplus capacity, employing what Meredith (1984) described as 'interventionist terms reminiscent of the then Labour government's "request" to LEAs to submit plans for comprehensive reorganization in 1965'. (Meredith 1984: 211). In this instance, LEAs were requested to 'inform the Department by 31 December 1981... about the expected number of surplus places up to 1986, and their plans for taking places out of use' (para. 7). Qualifications relating to secondary schools were added in Circular 4/82, following the celebrated dispute between Manchester City Council and central government over the reorganization of sixth-form provision (Meredith 1984). By 1986, when Kenneth Baker become Secretary of State for Education, it was clear that contraction was still lagging behind DES expectations (Audit Commission 1986). A draft Circular pressing LEAs to step up efforts to rationalize school provision was rapidly issued. The final version, Circular 3/87, (published in May 1987) acknowledged that 'LEAs collectively have already made substantial progress in removing surplus places' (para. 18). However, earlier estimates of the appropriate extent of contraction were increased and LEAs were reminded of the importance of 'radical action including closures and amalgamations' (para. 2) in addressing the issue of enrolment decline.

88

LIZBONDI


Alongside these exhortations, local educational provision has been affected by legislative changes. In particular, parental choice has been promoted (see Stillman and Meychell 1986, and for Scotland see Adler, Petch and Tweedie 1987). The Education Reform Act 1988 (which received royal assent at the time of writing) seeks to further extend parental choice in England and Wales by abolishing planned admissions limits, by requiring schools to provide information on the educational achievements of their pupils, and by introducing provisions for schools to opt out of LEA control. These mechanisms are likely to make contraction more difficult to implement: the first two will make it harder to forecast numbers at individual schools and therefore to develop appropriate proposals for contraction; the third, although not intended for this purpose, could well be used as a way of avoiding LEA closure proposals (Cordingley and Wilby 1987, Howell 1988). Thus, pressure to close schools has been accompanied by potentially contradictory demands on LEAs.

2.

Existing evidence

Although the removal of surplus capacity has proceeded more slowly than expected by the DES, local authorities did in fact close substantial numbers of schools in the late 1970s and early 1980s. As shown in table 2, between 1977 and 1985 major changes in school provision included a considerable number of school openings and enlargements, as well as discontinuations. However, the latter rose sharply in 1981 (in response to tightening financial constraints and loosening bureaucratic constraints). In recent years, trends in educational provision have been graphically documented by annual HMI reports, which deal specifically with the impact of expenditure policies: [t]he most serious state of affairs is the deteriorating quality and appropriateness of the accommodation in which pupils and students learn and teachers and lecturers work. There have been no significant improvements in schools and colleges generally since 1981 when we reported that school premises were less than satisfactory in 63 LEAs. Much of the nation's school building stock is now below an acceptable standard. In some schools, the conditions in which

Table 2.

Year

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

New schools

P 101 89 102 109 146 160 154 143 127

S 58 28 34 33 40 57 63 63 58

Major changes in school provision, 1977 to 1985.

Significant enlargements

P 85 46 59 54 23 20 34 30 29

S 86 36 37 30 15 6 13 5 1

Significant changes of character

P 173 61 109 86 76 171 212 271 213

S 114 92 58 34 18 22 63 47 81

Discontinuations *

P 162 151 160 142 402 382 451 376 333

S 70 45 67 38 82 189 138 131 154

* This includes closures and discontinuations by the amalgamation of establishments including, for example, separate infant and junior departments. P Primary schools S Secondary schools These figures include all approvals under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, and Section 12 of the Education Act 1980, together with locally determined changes implemented under Section 15 of the Education Act 1980. Source: DES Annual Reports 1977 to 1985

SELECTING SCHOOLS FOR CLOSURE

89

teaching and learning take place adversely affect the quality of the pupils' work. In many more the decorative state of the accommodation does little to create the kind of decent and civilised environment usually associated with education. Without urgent attention to these problems the cost of putting things right may become prohibitive (DES 1985: 8).


Clearly, closing schools as enrolments fall is one mechanism by which LEAs might remove unsatisfactory premises from use. However, it is far from clear whether schools have been selected from closure on this basis. RufFett and Chreseson (1984) suggest that few local authorities monitor schools or compile data in a form appropriate to the objective application of criteria in the selection of schools. In their study of secondary education in 14 LEAs, they observe that: The matter of the comparative quality of school buildings, and their fitness for the purpose to which they might be put, have a fairly low priority among what is considered before a school is closed or merged with another. . . . The elimination of temporary accommodation, the avoidance of split sites and the geographical distribution of schools have appeared as more significant considerations than the 'quality of plant' in coming to decisions. Comparing such quality is of course more difficult than it appears, and financial values of redundant schools and their sites may inhibit rational solutions when decisions about closures are made (Ruffett and Chreseson 1984: 35).

Brown and Ferguson's more detailed study of educational planning in Liverpool yielded similar conclusions (Brown and Ferguson 1977, 1982; Ferguson and Brown 1982), as did Adler's (1986) study of Dundee in Scotland. The absence of clearly stated criteria informing the selection of schools for closure, contraction or amalgamation does not necessarily mean that proposals are made at random. Thus, Bondi (1987) suggests that school closures in Manchester have disproportionately affected less affluent communities. The social effects of closing schools in rural areas have also attracted attention (Forsythe 1983, Tricker 1984). However, the characteristics of schools selected for closure as enrolments decline remain remarkably under-researched. It is clear that many LEAs have addressed the issue on an ad hoc basis, considering individual schools or small groups of schools at which enrolments have dwindled (Bailey 1982a). But authority-wide planning has increasingly been expected of LEAs (Audit Commission 1986), and Hewton (1986) suggests that LEAs are gradually relinquishing defensive and limited responses to financial and related pressures for more radical and strategic approaches. In this context, therefore, it is useful to consider the effects of strategic planning. To this end, the remainder of this paper focuses on the case of Manchester, where the secondary reorganization programme was held up by the Audit Commission (1986) as an example of 'good practice' on the grounds that the future demand for school places was considered across the whole of the LEA. This study deals with the primary sector, where similar procedures were adopted and which provides an example more amenable to statistical analysis for two reasons: first, it involved a much larger number of schools (162 compared to the 25 in the county secondary school sector), and secondly, the fate of individual schools was not complicated by the issue of sixth-form provision, which was central to the secondary school reorganization.

3.

Closing schools in Manchester: the emergence of a policy

Between 1968 and 1985 (the trough year) primary school enrolments in Manchester declined by 40%, a figure typical of inner-urban authorities (Bailey 1982b). During the 1970s, the LEA took the opportunity of reduced pressure on school places to close some schools in Victorian premises located in inner-city areas where urban redevelopment programmes (particularly road construction) had led to major population loss. However, by 1981, the LEA estimated that 31 % of primary school places remained vacant. Under pressure from both the DES (via

90

LIZBONDI

Circulars 5/77 and 2/81) and the Department of Environment (via grant penalties for overspending) the LEA began to make a concerted effort to rationalize provision. This led to the publication, in 1982, of a consultation paper setting out arguments for a major programme of school closures, together with a set of specific proposals for implementation. The aim was to remove at least 7,000 places (13-5% of the total) by 1986, to be achieved principally by the closure of the whole or part of up to 45 of the city's 162 schools. The proposals themselves are examined in section 5; this section focuses on the arguments for rationalization presented by the LEA in its published and unpublished papers. The issue addressed by the LEA was seen as twofold:


[a]U the available research makes plain the debilitating effect of falling school rolls on both the curriculum and the efficient use of scarce resources (Manchester Education Committee (MEC), June 1982).

Thus, the LEA advanced its case for closing schools in terms of both educational and financial considerations. Educational considerations focused on the inevitability of mixed age-group teaching in conditions of falling enrolments, and the negative consequences this has on the achievement of primary school children; the loss of flexibility in staff deployment} curtailment of the curriculum; constraints on staff and auricular development; and the detrimental effects of an uncertain school environment. Financial considerations focused on the difficulty of ensuring that resources are deployed efficiently. Two major aspects of this problem were identified. First, costs associated with school premises and sites are highly inelastic, so that per capita costs under this heading rise as the number of pupils at a school falls (but see Bondi 1988a). Secondly, the deployment of staff between schools presents difficulties, with wide variations in pupihteacher ratios becoming inevitable (partly because of the need to protect the curriculum in all schools, regardless of their enrolment). With the progressive tightening of financial constraints in the early 1980s, the LEA's standards of resourcing had been eroded. Average pupihteacher ratios had worsened, and the staffing ratio used by the Education Department for allocating teachers was cut from 1:22 to 1:23 in September 1982. Moreover, non-teaching assistance had been reduced to a minimum and capitation allowances had failed to increase with inflation. Savings made through rationalization were therefore seen to be the only means by which such erosion could be stemmed and new initiatives resourced: [n]ew educational developments are difficult, if not impossible, to promote in the current financial situation. In the past two years improvements have been possible only where offsetting savings could be identified. As all identified savings have anyway had to be surrendered along with much else to meet enforced cuts in budget provision there has been no significant new provision for coping with the changing needs of the schools. Relinquishment of surplus premises may well offer some opportunities for new development funding in addition to the educational benefits accruing from strengthening the rolls of individual schools where low numbers are prejudicing present curriculum provision (MEC, September 1982).

Thus, the LEA argued that the rationalization plan would be educationally as well as financially beneficial, ensuring that all schools were of a viable size and that resources were efficiently and equitably distributed. This combination of educational and financial arguments developed gradually. As noted above, the first major prompt from the DES to contract provision came in 1977. Circular 5/77 made it plain that contraction was expected to produce economies, and such expectations were written into government expenditure plans and rate support grant settlements from this time. Manchester Education Committee's initial response to Circular 5/77 did not refer to the need for economies and did not incorporate explicit consideration of school costs in the local areas (although indirect indices such as pupihteacher ratios were considered). But by the early 1980s the City Council faced recurrent budgetary crises. As the education budget came under scrutiny, the scope for savings from the rationalization of primary school provision began to be emphasized:


91

[w]ith the increasing severity of the financial savings imposed upon the City Council, the importance of savings from the relinquishment of unwanted accommodation - and the opportunities this provides for the redirection of scarce resources to maintain desirable educational standards - cannot be understated (MEC January 1982).

Discussing the development of policy on falling school rolls in the Highland Region in Scotland, Forsythe (1983) observed that:


the exercise had fundamentally changed the relationship between education and finance. The previous policy had been quite deliberately formulated to be 'education-led' but the proposals that the committee accepted were equally clearly 'finance-led' (Forsythe 1983: 74).

A similar shift was apparent in Manchester. Initially, the LEA's approach to falling schools rolls was underlain by a rationale independent of financial circumstances (and not wholly in accordance with DES guidance). However, financial issues became increasingly pressing and the arguments for rationalization were adapted accordingly. In making this adaptation the LEA acquiesced to central government's insistence that falling school rolls be used to save money.

4.

Criteria for selecting schools for closure

Implementing the kind of contraction for which the LEA argued required the identification of particular schools for closure or amalgamation. The LEA's consultation paper presented such proposals and provided some indication of how they were arrived at. The aim of this section is to examine the criteria that are referred to in the consultation paper in connection with the development of these proposals. A basic consideration underlying the rationalization plan was the distribution of surplus places. This was to be considered both at the level of individual schools, where vacancy rates gave 'cause for concern', and in terms of local areas, whjch varied considerably in aggregate vacancy rates (see Bondi 1987). In addition, the LEA recognized that: [planning criteria do not consist only of a simple numerical match between pupils and accommodation, although these are important factors in reaching a conclusion. Educational, geographical, social, community and pastoral issues are important in the shaping of change. There are also practical considerations of the conditions and suitability of buildings and sites, and consequential maintenance costs (MEC June 1982).

In the discussion ensuing from this statement the following criteria were cited. First, equity between county and voluntary sectors was a basic consideration. The aim was to maintain the existing balance of provision between sectors throughout the rationalization. Secondly, housing developments were cited as a factor to be taken into account in the calculation of future school populations and their distribution. However, in the public sector, the existing policy of Manchester City Council to rehouse families living in 'deck-access' accommodation (system-built blocks of four or five storeys with flats opening onto balcony walkways) implied a further reduction in numbers at some inner-city schools, with the impact in receiving areas minimized by the dispersed character of relocation. In the private sector, new housing projects were limited in number and size. Consequently, in practice this criterion appears to have been considered as of potential rather than actual significance. Thirdly, possibilities for the alternative deployment of excess space were discussed. Space released as a result of falling school rolls has often been used for specialist educational or local community purposes. Although this was described by the LEA as welcome, in the context of financial stringency, the advantages of finding rent paying users were stressed. Fourthly, accessibility was identified as a major factor guiding the selection of schools for closure. The distance factor was to be considered in relation to major obstacles such as main roads and parks, and the age of the children affected (those over 7 years of age being considered able to manage

92

LIZBONDI

greater distances than those of 7 or less). However, no attempt was made to define maximum acceptable distances. Finally, quality of accommodation was considered. This was to be evaluated in terms of the age of the premises (or the date of renovation), reliance upon temporary classrooms, access to playing fields, and other deficiencies in buildings or site. Putting these criteria into operation, particularly in combination, is problematic. This issue was evaded in the LEA's consultation paper:


[i]t is not always possible to devise appropriate objective criteria and then to apply them systematically. It is emphasized that the factors raised in this section [summarized above] have been carefully considered in arriving at each recommendation (ibid.).

Education officers confirmed that, in practice, the criteria were not applied rigorously and objectively, but informed qualitative judgements. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that potential housing developments or alternative uses of space were considered in other than academic terms. Thus, although the LEA discussed criteria for selecting schools for closure, it is open to question whether the proposals in any way represented an attempt to implement these criteria.

5.

The proposals for rationalization

In this section, the attributes of schools proposed for closure are examined. These are considered in relation to those criteria discussed by the LEA that are capable of being used to select schools for closure. Thus, housing developments and the alternative deployment of space are ignored, while accessibility is treated in qualitative terms only. Attention focuses on vacancy rates, equity between sectors and indicators of the quality of accommodation. Two additional criteria are considered: school size, which emerges as a likely candidate from examination of indicators of quality of accommodation, and school costs, which were suggested as important in DES circulars. The proposals are considered in two groups. First, 27 schools were proposed for outright closure, in addition to which the closure of three schools had recently been approved (due to take effect between July and December 1982). These 30 schools are referred to as 'closures'. Secondly, 17 pairs of infant and junior schools were earmarked for closure with the opening of a new one-form-entry primary school in the premises of one. Three similar proposals were due to take effect in September 1982. These 20 schools are referred to as 'amalgamations'. Analysis of the potential impact of the proposals on the distribution of surplus places between areas has been examined elsewhere and shown to be equitable in terms of the geography of enrolment decline (Bondi 1987). Turning to the scale of individual schools, table 3 shows the mean vacancy rates at schools proposed for closure and amalgamation compared with other schools. Table 3.

Vacancy rates and the rationalization proposals. Mean vacancy rate (January 1982)

Schools proposed or scheduled to close Schools involved in amalgamation plans Remaining schools All schools Source: Manchester Education Department

(30) (20) (112) ,(162)

48 42 25 31

Standard deviation

20 13 18 20



93

On average, schools proposed for closure and for amalgamation had markedly higher vacancy rates than other schools, but the scatter about the mean was considerable. Treating each group as a sample drawn from the population of primary schools, Student's (-test can be used to show whether these differences could have resulted from the random selection of schools. Comparing the mean vacancy rates of these two groups generates results that are statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Nevertheless there were some schools with low vacancy rates, and even one over-subscribed school, affected by the proposals. Equally, there were several schools with very high vacancy rates not proposed for closure or amalgamation. The application of other criteria may explain these school-level variations. Turning to accessibility, the existing pattern of primary schools produced a denser network towards the city centre than in the north and south of the metropolitan district (see figure 1). Closures and amalgamations were also concentrated in the central area so that the proposals would tend to equalize the pattern. However, the shortest distance to school is a very crude indicator of accessibility. Ease of travel depends to a great extent on the occurrence of obstacles and hazards (such as major roads) on the route, and on the method of travel (especially whether a car is available, not merely to the household but for the purpose of transporting children to and from school). Since rates of car ownership tend to be lower in the inner-city area and the density of obstacles tends to be greater, accessibility may, in practice, be lower in the inner-city than elsewhere. It is therefore not possible to provide a rigorous appraisal of the application of this criterion on the basis of shortest distance. With regard to the question of equity between sectors, table 4 shows how the proposals for rationalization impinge upon the capacity offered in the county and voluntary sectors. The overall balance is not altered markedly by the proposals, although there would be a slight shift in favour of county provision at the expense of the voluntary, especially Roman Catholic, sector. However, the way in which these reductions were to be achieved did vary substantially between sectors. As shown in table 5, a greater proportion of schools and places in the Church of England sector were involved in closure proposals than in the County or Roman Catholic sectors. Further, although the mean vacancy rates for schools in each sector were very similar (between 32% and 28%), among schools proposed for closure, the Church of England schools had a lower mean vacancy rate than those in the other two main sectors. Proposals to retain but amalgamate infant and junior schools, on the other hand, did not affect any Church of England schools (see table 6). The reason for this pattern is simple. In June 1982, of the 54 schools consisting of separate infant and junior establishments, 41 were county schools, twelve were Roman Catholic schools, one was the Jewish school and none were Church of England schools. Thus, outright school closure was the only option available in the Church of England sector. Furthermore, while the Roman Catholic sector aimed to provide complete coverage of the city, the Church of England and county sectors were more closely integrated and complementary in coverage. This commitment to universal access to Roman Catholic schooling limited the scope for closures, whilst the closer integration of the Church of England and county sectors were more closely integrated and complementary in coverage. This commitment to universal access to Roman Catholic schooling limited the scope for closures, whilst the closer integration of the Church of England and county sectors weakened the constraint of accessibility on closing schools. Alongside vacancy rates, the most obvious criteria for selecting schools for closure related to the quality of accommodation. Indeed, the rationalization proposals provided a unique opportunity for the LEA to remove from use inadequate or poor quality accommodation. School closures made it possible to transfer children from schools with what the LEA recognized as deficient buildings, or which lacked adjacent or adequate playing fields, to better-equipped schools. However, schools with deficient buildings or sites were only slightly

94

LIZBONDl

Figure 1. Locations of primary schools in Manchester.


N

•

Schools proposed for closure

o

Schools proposed for amalgamation

•

Other primary schools

•••

Inner-city boundary

SELECTING SCHOOLS FOR CLOSURE Table 4.

95

The effect of the rationalization plans by sector.

Sector

School places to remain with plans fully implemented No. Total %

School places available in 1982 No.

Total %

County C.of E. Catholic Jewish

30,560 7,135 13,710 750

58.6 13.7 26.3

Total

52,155

1.4

24,255 5,545 9,390 750

60.7 13.9 23.5 1.9

100.0

39,940

100.0


Source: Manchester Education Department

Table 5. Sector

Schools and places affected by closure proposals, by sector. Schools in closure group

County (82) CofE. (34) RC (45) Jewish (1)

Places to be removed by closure

No.

%

No.

%

13 8+

16 23

8 0

18

2,850 1,590 1,740

9 22 12

Mean vacancy rate of schools in closure group % 49 43

51

0

+ Nine Church of England schools were included in the list of proposed closures but two of these (both schools with capacities of 210) were stated as alternatives. Source: Manchester Education Department.

Table 6. Sector

County (82) CofE. (34) RC (45) Jewish (1)

Schools and places affected by amalgamation proposals, by sector. Schools to amalgamate No. % 10 0 10 0

12

22

Places to be lost by amalgamation No. % 2,225 0 1,920 0

Mean vacancy rate in amalgamation group

7

38

14

41

Source: Manchester Education Department.

over-represented among schools proposed for closure: 28% of all schools suffered from building deficiencies as measured by floor area per place, whereas 33% of schools proposed for closure had building deficiencies; corresponding figures for inadequate playing fields per place were 46% and 57%. Thus, of the 46 schools against which building deficiencies were recorded, and the 75 schools against which playing field deficiencies were recorded, only 10 and 17, respectively, were identified for possible closure. The amalgamation of infant and


96

LIZBONDI

junior schools typically involved a gradual contraction with the eventual release of a building from use. It is not possible to identify the space available at the building to be retained, but the fact that in four such cases floor area per place was noted as inadequate at one of the existing buildings suggests that these proposals could lead to future overcrowding. What these data confirm is the lack of importance attached to certain aspects of the quality of accommodation by the LEA. This finding echoes those reported in other studies of local authority responses to falling school rolls (Brown and Ferguson 1982, RufFett and Chreseson 1984). The failure to utilize the decline in numbers to close unsatisfactory buildings and to direct the savings accrued to the improvement of other facilities has, no doubt, contributed to the deterioration of school accommodation observed nationally by HM Inspectorate (DES 1985). A further aspect of the quality of accommodation requiring examination is school age. Table 7 shows the distribution of proposed and scheduled closures among schools of different periods of foundation. A high percentage of schools founded during the nineteenth century were earmarked for closure. This is not the case for inter-war and immediate post-war foundations, but the percentage rises again for post-1960 schools. The proposed closure of several nineteenth-century schools is not surprising, and were it not for the clustering of such foundations in the inner-city area it is possible that even fewer would have been retained. However, the number of schools founded since 1960 proposed for closure is surprisingly high (nine dating from the 1960s and five from the 1970s). The outstanding debt on these buildings is likely to be substantial since public sector loan repayments are usually arranged over periods exceeding 40 years. Of these 14 schools, 11 were located in the inner-city area. Clearly, less than 20 years ago the authority was still planning for expansion in these areas. This planned expansion was associated with major housing projects developed during the late 1960s and early 1970s. In Manchester, as elsewhere, many of these projects proved disastrous and served to intensify the decline in population of inner-city areas. For example, the social and material problems associated with the deck-access housing estate in Hulme, built in the late 1960s, prompted Manchester City Council to cease letting units to families during the late 1970s and to gradually rehouse those already living there. Consequently, enrolment decline at schools serving this and other similar estates (built at the same time as the housing) has been particularly dramatic. Schools in these districts were, therefore, particularly vulnerable to closure despite occupying relatively new and good quality premises. Examining the age of schools proposed for amalgamation, a very different pattern emerges, as shown in table 8. Whereas a low percentage of schools founded in the immediate post-war period was among the group proposed for closure, a high percentage was included Table 7. Proposed school closures by period of foundation. Total number

Number of schools in closure plans

Pre-1900 1900-18 1919-44 1945-59 1960-69 Post-1969

15 21 40 22 36 28

6 4 5 1 9 5

All schools

162

30

Foundation


% of age category in closure plans

40 19 12.5

5 25 18 18.5


97

in the group proposed for amalgamation. The reverse is true for those founded in the nineteenth century. In a similar way to sectoral variations in the proposals, this pattern can be explained in terms of school type. The majority of schools with separate infant and junior departments were founded in the inter-war or immediate post-war period, hence the predominance of schools dating from these periods amongst those proposed for amalgamation. However, as in the case of school closures, there were a surprising number of amalgamations among schools founded during the 1960s and 1970s. Since 1960 the majority of schools have been built for one-form-entry and only a small number of schools of larger size, with separate infant and junior departments, have been established. But of these, a large number (seven of nine) were affected by amalgamation plans. Like the pattern of school closures, this is the result of particularly marked enrolment decline at schools serving inner-city housing estates erected since 1960. Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 05:38 19 October 2014

Table 8.

Proposed amalgamations by period of foundation.

Total number of schools

Number of schools to amalgamate

Pre-1900 1900-18 1919-44 1945-59 1960-69 Post-1969

15 21 40 22 36 28

0

2 5 6 2 5

10.0 12.5 27.0 18.0

2 8 20 15 4 5

All schools

162

20

12.5

54

Foundation period

% of age category to amalgamate

5.5

Schools with infant and junior depts


The analysis of the age of schools involved in the amalgamation proposals and of the variations between sectors in the method by which reductions in capacity were to be achieved, revealed that school type was important. School type is closely related to school capacity, and the relationship between school size and the proposals, therefore, merits closer attention. The mean capacities of schools involved in the proposals are shown in table 9. Using the (-test, the mean difference between schools proposed for closure and schools proposed for amalgamation and schools unaffected by the proposals, are statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Significant differences in mean vacancy rates between closures, amalgamations and other schools have already been identified (see table 3). However, any suggestion that vacancy and capacity effects are inter-related is not borne out by the data: neither in the whole population of schools, nor the 30 schools in the closure group was there Table 9.

Capacities of schools affected by proposals Mean number of places per school

Closures Amalgamations Remainder All schools

(30) (20) (112) (162)


213 421 333 322

standard deviation 72 47 137 133


98

LIZBONDI

a strong correlation between the proportion of places vacant and school capacity. Analysis of the variation (using the P-ratio) in capacity between schools proposed for closure, amalgamation or retention yields an eta-squared value of 0.20, whereas analysis of variations in vacancy rates for these groups yields an eta-squared value of 0.23. thus, the size criterion provides almost as powerful an explanation of the selection of schools for closure or amalgamation as vacancy rates. That schools proposed for amalgamation were relatively large follows directly from the relationship between school size and school type. The average capacity of the 54 schools with separate infant and junior departments was 463. This is slightly greater than the mean size of those proposed for amalgamation (421). There is no similar explanation for the small size of schools proposed for closure. Indeed, similar reductions in total capacity could have been achieved by closing a smaller number of larger schools. Closer inspection of data on the size of schools in the closure group shows that only two of the 30 schools in the closure group had capacities exceeding 300 places. Moreover, the closure group included eight of the ten schools with capacities of less than 210 places (equivalent to one-form-entry with a standard class size of 30). Although unstated, this implies that a minimum size criterion was applied. Although the LEA did not indicate explicitly that distribution of resources between schools influenced the proposals for rationalization, DES Circular 5/77 stated that per pupil costs were relevant to the question of school closures and Circular 3/87 placed great emphasis on cost-effectiveness. It is, therefore, appropriate to consider whether schools proposed for closure or amalgamation had particularly high unit costs. For both unit employee costs and unit premises costs in 1981/2 (the financial year immediately preceding the publication of the consultation paper), schools proposed for closure had higher mean unit expenditure than other schools (see table 10). However, in both cases, the spread about the mean was considerable. Schools involved in amalgamation plans, on the other hand, had less scattered distributions, with only slightly above-average unit employee costs and slightly below-average unit premises costs. Table 10.

1981/82 unit costs and the rationalization proposals. Unit employee costs stand, dev. mean £ £

Closures Amalgamations Remainder All schools

(30) (20) (112) (162)

720 601

558 594

164 74 101 128

Unit premises costs mean stand, dev. £ £

158 99 98 109

133 42 47 74


The use of unit employee costs as a criterion for selecting schools for closure or amalgamation is unlikely since most of the staff affected would be redeployed and redundancy expenses would be incurred in respect of any others, so that savings would be minimal. The higher mean unit employee costs incurred at schools proposed for closure can be explained by other factors. Positive discrimination policies are a major factor underlying variations in unit employee costs, through both the allocation of Section 11 posts and social priority designation. The higher unit employee costs observed amongst schools affected by closure proposals simply reflect these patterns of variation rather than indicating any systematic attempt to select schools incurring high costs.



99

Turning to unit premises costs, this could provide a more logical criterion for selecting schools since the buildings and sites released could be transferred to other local authority users or sold. This would have relieved the education budget of recurrent premises-related costs and generating capital receipts. Summarizing this analysis, the difficulties of implementing criteria relating to housing developments, accessibility and alternative deployment of space in schools have prevented the equally rigorous examination of all the criteria specified in the LEA's rationalization plan. The proposals were broadly equitable between sectors, preserving the existing balance of provision as indicated by the number of places available, although the Church of England sector was set to lose a disproportionate number of schools. In the selection of individual schools for closure or amalgamation, it is clear that schools with high vacancy rates were vulnerable to either closure or amalgamation, whilst small schools and schools dating from the nineteenth century were vulnerable to closure. There is also some evidence to suggest that schools incurring high unit premises costs were particularly likely to be proposed for closure. This pattern does not reveal any major contradictions between the criteria stated by the LEA and the actual selection of schools, but does demonstrate the operation of unstated criteria, namely school size and unit premises costs, Moreover, notable for its absence is evidence of any attempt to close schools in the least satisfactory premises. In addition, the closure of whole or part of several relatively new schools is likely to reduce the savings generated by relinquishing school buildings.

6.

Conclusion and discussion

Proposals to close schools invariably raise strong feelings among those most immediately affected. National and local newspapers have carried innumerable stories about the impact of closing schools on local communities and about the resistance mounted by such communities. For LEAs, these pressures must be set against demographic considerations and financial imperatives. Compromises are inevitable, and in the Manchester case, vociferous opposition led to the reprieval from closure of ten schools. The character and impact of such opposition is analysed elsewhere (Bondi 1987,1988b). Negotiation, consultation and political protest are likely to lead many LEAs to modify closure proposals. Systematic biases in such modifications (for example in favour of middle-class protesters) may compromise the criteria informing the original proposals. However, it remains the responsibility of the LEA to name candidates for closure in the first instance. From the point of view of the overall physical quality of provision, particularly in the context of acute financial constraint, it is important that LEAs select schools so as to maximize the quality of the remaining stock. Earlier studies have suggested that few LEAs have sufficient data to make this possible (Ruffett and Chreseson 1984). This was not the case in Manchester, but nevertheless, the LEA appears to have been less than systematic in selecting schools in the least satisfactory premises for closure. This may to some extent reflect the multiplicity of factors involved: for example, accessibility considerations may have prevented the closure of some schools with deficient premises. However, from the point of view of public confidence, it is important that LEAs make explicit the basis upon which schools are selected for closure. In the Manchester case, despite the circulation of a detailed consultation paper, it is clear that the criteria cited bore only a partial resemblance to the basis upon which schools were selected for closure. In particular, the LEA failed to discuss explicitly the use of school size as a criterion in its initial consultation paper. Overall, therefore, although the procedures adopted by Manchester LEA appeared in many ways to be exemplary, inspection of the detailed proposals contained in the LEA's plan suggest that


100

LIZBONDI

the translation of broad policy statements into firm proposals was at best imprecise. In this sense, the practice of contracting primary school provision diverged considerably from the stated theory. The approach adopted by Manchester LEA conforms to that described by the Audit Commission (1986) as 'strategic', in that it proceeded from an analysis of existing and projected requirements for primary school places throughout the whole LEA. It would also appear to conform to the notion of 'radical action' encouraged by central government in Circular 3/87. The use of such terms suggests that the case might exemplify what is termed 'rational-comprehensive' planning, in contrast to 'disjointed-incremental' planning (Faludi 1973). The latter system is typified by small, ad hoc changes to meet immediate pressures or demands and accurately describes the piecemeal approach to enrolment decline evident in many LEAs (Audit Commission 1986). However, while the Manchester case differed substantially from this pattern it also fell well short of the ideal of rational-comprehensive planning, which requires not only an authority-wide approach but also the evaluation of all alternative proposals against all the objectives pursued (Faludi 1973: 106). This Manchester LEA did not do. The feasibility and merits of rational-comprehensive planning are, of course, widely debated (see Healey, McDougall and Thomas 1982). However, the point to be made here is that the use of such terms as 'strategic', 'radical' and 'comprehensive' to describe an authority-wide approach is suggestive of a rather more rigorous approach to policy formulation than was in fact the case. Clearly, what is regarded as good practice by observers at both local and national levels diverges considerably from a 'rational-comprehensive' approach; at the same time, the terms used to describe 'good practice' hint at an appeal to the theory of 'rational-comprehensive' planning. The assumption that an authority-wide approach to the issue of enrolment decline is 'comprehensive' and 'radical' stems from the terms in which national policies have been expressed. Central government guidance has been concerned principally with encouraging LEAs to contract provision as rapidly and as extensively as possible, but attention to the selection of schools for closure has been limited. Thus, local action may be viewed as comprehensive if the scale of contraction is great, regardless of whether the methods for implementing the contraction are systematic or rational. To a considerable extent, Manchester LEA replicated the style of DES advice: in couching the issue of contraction in terms of a combination of educational and financial considerations and in discussing factors guiding the development of proposals without committing itself to a set of clear, operational criteria, the LEA merely echoed Circular 2/81. The question remains as to whether LEAs are successfully implementing national policies. In terms of the scale of contraction, local action is proceeding more slowly than intended by central government. Further, this study suggests that local action is not addressing the objectives of central government as efficiently as it might. In particular, the evidence from Manchester reinforces observations made by Brown and Ferguson (1982), Ruffett and Chreseson (1984) and HM Inspectorate (DES 1985) to the effect that closing schools is failing to improve the overall quality of school buildings. In the absence of clearer guidance on methods of selecting schools for closure this is probably inevitable. The Education Reform Act 1988 aims to transfer certain responsibilities from LEAs to schools and to parents. However, there is a continuing expectation that LEAs will continue to manage at the level of the school system. This involves inter alia matching supply and demand, and maximizing the resources available to the system as a whole. LEAs are finding this difficult to do at present. The abolition of planned admission limits, changes in the popularity of schools resulting from the publication of national assessment results, and arrangements for opting out are all likely to exacerbate the problems of adjusting to enrolment decline in a period of financial retrenchment.


101

Acknowledgement The research on which this paper is based was conducted while the author was in receipt of a studentship from the Economic and Social Research Council. Thanks are also due to Michael Adler for his valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References


ADLER, M. (1985) 'Falling rolls and rising conflict' unpublished paper presented to the Scottish Educational Research Association Conference, St Andrews. ADLER, M., PETCH, A., and TwEEDIE, J. (1987) 'The origins and impact of the Parents Charter' in D . McCrone (ed.) Scottish Government Yearbook (Edinburgh: Unit for the Study of Government in Scotland, University of Edinburgh), pp. 289-330. AUDIT COMMISSION (1986) Towards Better Management

of Secondary Education (London: HMSO).

BAILEY, S. J. (1982a) 'Central city decline and the provision of education services', Urban Studies, 19, pp. 263-279. BAILEY, S. J. (1982b) 'Do fewer pupils mean falling expenditure?' in R. Rose and E. Page (eds) Fiscal Stress in Cities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 137-167. BIRMINGHAM CENTRE FOR CONTEMPORARY CULTURAL STUDIES (1981) Unpopular Education (London:

Hutchinson). BODDY, M. (1984) 'Local councils and the financial squeeze' in M. Boddy and C. Fudge (eds) Local Socialism? (London: Macmillan) pp. 215-241. BONDi, L. (1987) 'School closures and local politics: the negotiation of primary school rationalization in Manchester', Political Geography Quarterly, 6, pp. 203-224. BONDI, L. (1988a) 'Falling rolls and school costs', Educational Management and Administration, 16, pp. 199-211. BONDI, L. (1988b) 'Political participation and school closures: an investigation of bias in local authority decision-making', Policy and Politics, 16, pp. 41-54. BRAMLEY, G., and EVANS, A. (1981) 'Guide to the Block Grant', MunicipalJournal, 89, pp. 44-45 and 80-81. BRIAULT, E., and SMITH, F. (1980) Falling Rolls in Secondary Schools (Windsor: NFER). BROWN, P., and FERGUSON, S. S. (1982) 'Schools and population change in Liverpool' in W. T. S. Gould and A. G. Hodgkiss (eds) The Resources of Merseyside (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press), pp. 177-195. CORDINGLEY, P., and WiLBY, P. (1987) Opting Out of Mr Baker's Proposals (London: Education Reform Group). DENNISON, W. F. (1985) Managing the Contracting School (London: Heinemann). DES (1977) Education in Schools: A Consultative Document ( C m n d 6869), (London: HMSO). DES (1985) Report by HMI on the effects of local authority expenditure policies on the education service in England, 1984

(London: HMSO). FALUDI, A. (1973) Planning Theory (Oxford: Pergamon). FERGUSON, S. S. and BROWN, P.J. B. (1982) 'Issues related to decision-making in the planning of inner city primary school provision in the face of declining enrolment: an English example' in W. Buhr and P. Friedrich (eds) Planning under Regional Stagnation (Baden Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft), pp. 486-505. FORSYTHE, D . (1983) The Rural Community and the Small School (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press). FOWLER, G. (1981) 'The changing nature of educational politics in the 1970s' in P. Broadfoot, C. Brock and W. Tulasiewicz (eds) Politics and Educational Change (London: Croom Helm), pp. 13-28. HEALEY, P., McDoUGALL, G., and THOMAS, M.J. (eds) (1982) Planning Theory: Prospects for the 1980s (Oxford: Pergamon). HEWTON, E. (1986) Educational in Recession (London: Allen and Unwin). HOWELL, D. (1988) 'The future of local government under the Conservatives: the education service', Local Government Policy Making, 14(4), pp. 31-37. HUNTER, C. (1983) 'Education and local government in the light of central government policy' in J. Ahier and M. Flude (eds) Contemporary Education Policy (London: Croom Helm), pp. 81-108. MEREDITH, P. (1984) 'Falling rolls and the reorganisation of schools', Journal of Social Welfare Law, pp. 208-221. RUFFETT, F., and CHRESESON, J. (1984) Secondary Education: The Next Step (London: Policy Studies Institute). STILLMAN, A . , and MEYCHELL, K . (1986) Choosing Schools: Parents, LEAs and the 1980 Education Act (London: NFER-Nelson).

102

LIZBONDI

TAYLOR, W. (1981) 'Contraction in context' in B. Simon and W. Taylor (eds) Education in the Eighties (London: Batsford), pp. 17-37. TRICKER, M. (1984) 'Rural education services: the social effects of reorganisation' in G. Clark, J. Groenendijk and F. Thissen (eds) The Changing Countryside (Norwich: Geo Books), pp. 111-119.


Manuscript submitted 29 June 1988 Manuscript accepted 2 August 1988