In education, mothballing is the term used to describe a temporary closure. It typically applies to whole schools – usually very small primary schools – but can also relate to a particular stage of education and also to nursery classes.
The idea is that when a particular setting is threatened and facing closure, those responsible can instead decide to go down the mothballing route. This still means that the service in question will not be available, but the crucial difference is that it can be reopened at short notice if necessary.
So, for example, if a very small rural or island school found itself with no pupils one year, but there was an expectation of more children either moving into the area or reaching school age in the coming years, the council would likely decide to mothball the school for the time being rather than close it outright.
Although mothballing does involve closing schools and nurseries, an absolutely central principle to the process is that this is supposed to be something that happens as part of efforts to keep provision open and sustainable in the longer term. It is, at least in theory, a process by which rural education – and communities – in Scotland can be protected.
Often, the mothballing process is used as intended, and the data from some councils shows that the temporary closure of some settings is indeed protecting them in the longer term.
However, increasingly in recent years, there have been instances of councils using mothballing as a strategic financial tactic rather than a lifeline for community schools and nurseries. Ultimately, they have been accused of using mothballing as a way to achieve their true target, which is permanent closure.
Major concerns have also been raised about the extent to which local people are being consulted about the council’s plans to mothball education settings.
Last year, parents in Dumfries and Galloway battled their council over plans to mothball Dalry Secondary School, which was being pushed through without a proper policy and despite community opposition. Parents and local campaigners accused the council of pursuing a process of “managed decline” and using the mothballing process to achieve the forced closure of their school.
Earlier this year, the same council faced a significant backlash after unelected officers moved – unsuccessfully, in the end – to mothball a nursery without consulting local people.
In the Scottish Borders, the council first attempted to use a loophole with the Care Inspectorate to temporarily close a set of nurseries without officially declaring them mothballed, thereby further reducing opportunities for parent engagement.
The approach was ultimately called out in the press and by the Scottish Government, and the council instead moved ahead with cost-cutting plans to restructure how the settings operate by combining nursery and primary children into composite classes.
Aberdeenshire Council also sought to mothball several settings without consulting local communities and explicitly framed the move as being part of a “rationalisation” of services. The council ultimately u-turned in the face of significant pressure and announced that it would review its own mothballing policies, although parents were still prevented from speaking at the meeting where this was agreed.
Despite these decisions by councils, national guidance makes clear that mothballing should only be considered as a last resort when pupil numbers fall to, or very close to, zero. There is no allowance in the rules for councils to use mothballing as part of strategic changes to provision or as a means of making financial savings.
The increasingly prominent discussions and coverage of council mothballing proposals have prompted the Scottish Government to intervene.
When the issue was raised in the Scottish Parliament in April of this year, First Minister John Swinney revealed that the government was “reviewing guidance on mothballing to provide greater clarity on whether it is an appropriate action to take”.
The Herald has discovered that education secretary Jenny Gilruth “requested that officials begin consideration of a review of the guidance on the mothballing of schools in July 2024”, a move sparked by “concerns about the mothballing of Tullynessle Primary School and Nursery.” It should be noted that not only is this setting still mothballed, but also that the local council is now considering a permanent closure.
A Freedom of Information request has confirmed that nine government staff are involved in the review, and that more than 20 meetings have been held, although most have not been minuted due to being a “usual meeting between officials”.
The government’s initial response also stated that work on mothballing guidance would continue over the summer and that proposals for amendments will be put to Jenny Gilruth following “engagement with local government and other relevant stakeholders.” Officials added that they are proceeding “with a view that this can be available as soon as is possible in the autumn term.”
However, that response also redacted key information about the beginnings and development of the review, and withheld an entire document related to a meeting involving Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, Natalie Don-Innes.
Officials have now apologised for the government’s handling of this request and released the withheld document, but still refuse to release some material on the basis that it would “substantially inhibit the free and frank provision of advice”, contains legal advice, or relates to “the formulation of government policy.”
The newly disclosed document is a minute of a fortnightly ministerial portfolio meeting in which recent policy changes by Aberdeenshire and Borders councils are noted, as is the expectation of a letter from the former “seeking further clarity on the mothballing guidance review.”
The Scottish Government will have to produce and confirm new mothballing guidance, which we can only assume will become public at some point in the coming months. It seems likely that this will include amendments aimed at explicitly confirming expectations around the way councils inform and consult with local communities.
The increasingly obvious tactic of using mothballing to affect strategic changes in education provision may also be addressed by more specific qualifying factors before a temporary closure can be considered. Such a change would have to address whether or not councils are permitted to simply decide that a setting is too small – for example, if the roll falls to less than ten – and then use mothballing to force children to another school or nursery.
But all of this also raises questions about those schools and nurseries that have been mothballed in the last few years – and especially in the past twelve months.
Dozens of schools and nurseries have been mothballed since 2015, including several that have been shuttered since the review of the guidance began in July 2024.
The Scottish Government ignored calls to introduce a moratorium on mothballing while the review is ongoing, and local authority data shows that councils do not feel inclined to wait for total clarity.
And these matters do not exist in a vacuum – the government’s policies for funding childcare, for example, have been cited as a key driver for mothballing nurseries in some areas.
It is now down to the government to decide what changes are needed, and it is clear that the status quo is not an option.
