There is an overwhelming case for the rationalisation of school provision in Glasgow because of the problem of over-provision. That is accepted by everyone but it is equally clear that the only reasons for closing one school or keeping another open should be rooted firmly in nothing other than educational requirements and the best interests of the children. The whole process is painful, with the inevitability of winners and loser. It is made more painful, indeed intolerable, by the discovery that local politicians with constituency interests appear to be willing to try to manipulate decisions for their own party political ends.
When the special meeting of Glasgow education committee takes place today, councillors should recall that the best advice from officials in the case of the Hillhead/Woodside dispute was that there are overwhelming educational arguments in favour of developing Hillhead and closing Woodside. With that in mind the councillors might like to ask why the education convener, who has the Woodside school in his constituency, has written a letter describing the political problems Labour would suffer if Woodside is closed. Officially he has asked that more than one option be considered, and there is nothing wrong with that in theory. But the impartiality and even-handedness which is implied by the extra option dissolves when the letter outlines the extremely damaging effect on the standing of the Labour Party and of Anderston if the Hillhead option goes ahead. Yes, there should be worries about the
effect on Anderston, but the fretting over the effect on the Labour Party is simply outrageous.
A public explanation for this state of affairs is now both warranted and expected, and if the Labour group on the council cannot manage to do this it will be necessary for Scottish Education Minister Brian Wilson to conduct a thorough investigation. Frankly, the conduct of the rationalisation scheme in Glasgow has been a disgrace. Factionalism and in-fighting have made a nonsense of some of the proposals and today's evidence of political interference merely compounds a sorry tale.
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