New Portobello High School- Where and how?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Mar 2006, 14:54

The â€œoptimumâ€

Mrs Mangle · Post by **Mrs Mangle** » 09 Mar 2006, 19:50

While i think this is a great thread, is it possible that the Admin can shuffle it about a little , it is now very confusing to keep up with it.

All the debating is great, although sometimes it seems to be getting rather confrontational

.

So come om Admin fix it out, i'm more than sure there is something that can be done.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Mar 2006, 19:53

Dadaist wrote:Given that you've said that PPP consultation can be sham - is a "rubber stamped" deal not also a political reality in this context?

Why on earth would you think that?

As we've already been told;

Gemini wrote:Epycat has already said, that the People of Portobello do want a new school for the children - they just don't want it to be built on
PGG. So its back to the drawing board.

The Community Council, as an entity, appears to have decided the proposals are unacceptable.

The Evening Times is constantly pointing out the huge opposition.

On Monday night the Councillors received a 2 hour barracking.

It would seem there are precious few enthusiasts beyond a handful of internet obsessives.

If I was a politician I might be reconsidering the whole thing. If the community really is so dead against it then why bother?

One way or another things will resolve themselves....

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Mar 2006, 19:57

PHS has no divine right to exist.

Closing and merging schools is rarely popular. It causes all kinds of turmoil and grief. Itâ€™s the kind of thing that politicians generally try to avoid, if only for the sake of a quieter life.

But it still happens.

And itâ€™s happened quite a lot in recent years. Largely due to financial constraints but partly influenced by PPP. A lot of LAâ€™s started out with plans for widespread refurbishment of their school estate. But PPP consortia werenâ€™t very keen on refurbishment because of the greater uncertainties and risks. And so they sometimes proposed alternatives for new-build, with a few mergers and maybe a bit of housing, to sweeten the sums. As I said before there are economies of scale. One big school is cheaper than two schools half the size.

And even if youâ€™re not building new schools thereâ€™s still a strong economic case for closing some and distributing the pupils elsewhere because the cost per m2 is far cheaper for extensions than new-build. If you re-allocate pupils you may need extra classrooms and to extend some of the facilities, but the core infrastructure is already there. That reduces the cost per pupil significantly.

The current trend is not towards smaller schools. The average roll has increased over recent years due to â€œrationalisationâ€

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Mar 2006, 19:57

We have discussed breaking it up into seperate themes but this usually ends up with a lot of cross-posting and even more confusion between parallel threads. What do you have in mind Mrs M?

kittywink · Post by **kittywink** » 09 Mar 2006, 21:57

I have heard that there is a meeting organised for parents of children attending Towerbank primary on Wednesday 15 March - don't know the time...sorry. People getting together to discuss issues in the community is an excellent means of sharing information and knowledge....however, some parents are apparently NOT being invited. Does anyone know anything about this?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 09 Mar 2006, 22:05

kittywink wrote:I have heard that there is a meeting organised for parents of children attending Towerbank primary on Wednesday 15 March - don't know the time...sorry. People getting together to discuss issues in the community is an excellent means of sharing information and knowledge....however, some parents are apparently NOT being invited. Does anyone know anything about this?

There are consultations on the 15 March at Towerbank but as a parent, I am expecting to meet my children's teachers to see how they are getting on this term. Just a normal parents' evening as far as I know.

kittywink · Post by **kittywink** » 09 Mar 2006, 22:05

I know....I don't post very often and now... here I am with a second post in less than 2 minutes! Residents in the Golf Course vicinity have had leaflets hand-delivered urging them to attend the meeting at Portobello High School organised by the School Board. This meeting is intended solely for parents of children currently attending PHS( there is a tear-off slip on the invite which was posted along with the school newsletter). Does anyone know anything about this?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Mar 2006, 22:33

If this is the case then it is very disappointing. I will be contacting the school to make them aware of this possibility. There will be a series of meetings at PHS and the feeder primaries over the coming weeks and it is very important that these parents are able to attend and make their views known without having their meeting hijacked.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 09 Mar 2006, 23:58

And it is very disappointing that some parents are apparently being excluded from the meeting on 15 March.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Mar 2006, 00:14

Be absolutely clear about this.

Whatever options are explored or discussed, proposed or rejected, at some point the decision about what to do will no longer be influenced by this community.

The dynamics will change.

At the moment these proposals are really only of local concern. Constituents and councillors across Edinburgh are unlikely to be too fussed either way it goes. If the community seems broadly in favour then Councillors will give it the green light. If the community is split down the middle or against then Councillors will abandon it. To them it wonâ€™t be worth the bad press and sniping from political opponents.

So, as far as these proposals are concerned, the local community has a great deal of influence.

But if an acceptable solution isnâ€™t found, and the situation inevitably deteriorates, then at some point the views of this community will pass into irrelevance. Because the problem will change from a local one to an Edinburgh one.

If you reach the point where PHS can no longer function, at least not without a major refurbishment, then that will have consequencies that will ripple across the city. Youâ€™ll have to decant the pupils. That is hugely expensive. Money will have to be diverted from all sorts of areas just to support that. Education projects and programmes all across Edinburgh will be disrupted. And constituents and councillors all across Edinburgh will be mighty displeased.

Theyâ€™ll want the problem of PHS to be resolved quickly and cheaply so their own projects will get back on track. And, however they decide that should be achieved, the wishes and concerns of this community will be of secondary importance to them. Theyâ€™ll look out for themselves first and foremost.

So if these proposals are unacceptable to this community then this community better put some serious thought as to what is acceptable and achievable within a realistic timeframe.

Because before long what we consider acceptable or unacceptable wonâ€™t mean diddly squat.

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 10 Mar 2006, 01:16

seanie wrote:Be absolutely clear about this.

Whatever options are explored or discussed, proposed or rejected, at some point the decision about what to do will no longer be influenced by this community.

"Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori"

Pip Pip

Rex

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 01:45

seanie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Given that you've said that PPP consultation can be sham - is a "rubber stamped" deal not also a political reality in this context?
Why on earth would you think that?

It wasn't really a rhetorical question - I wondered what your opinion was. It seemed to me that whilst the funding was done differently in this deal, there were common factors too in terms of the bodies involved (developers and local authorities) even if you did remove the profit motive - but I'm no expert which is why I wondered what your insight into it was from your experience of other deals like this with reference to the consultation process.

The Evening Times is constantly pointing out the huge opposition.

We're straying into legalistic territory here though and there's no way that I would make, nor ask you to make, specific allegations of impropriety - especially with an Edinburgh paper like the Evening News watching - I doubt if a Glasgow paper like the Evening Times is a that bothered!

Mrs Mangle · Post by **Mrs Mangle** » 10 Mar 2006, 08:56

It's hard to see who is for and against in the thread, so maybe split it that way? Or run a Poll for a week say then lock it, although that might not be the answer as it's a good thread, just a lot of confusion.

Only my opinion.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 09:38

Mrs Mangle wrote:It's hard to see who is for and against in the thread, so maybe split it that way?

Maybe we should be forced to have some sort of pro-school or pro-golf avatar or signature?

Maybe anti-school people should have to write only in capital letters?

Posts from golfers should discriminate in terms of being "junior" and being "lady" ?

Aye carumba.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 10 Mar 2006, 09:51

Oh dear, I am undecided! Now where should I post?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 09:59

Pal of Porty wrote:Oh dear, I am undecided! Now where should I post?

I'm sort of a fence-sitter too, even if on current balance of averages I'm pro-school.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Mar 2006, 10:23

dccairns wrote:And it is very disappointing that some parents are apparently being excluded from the meeting on 15 March.

Can you clarify which meeting they are apparently being excluded from and why you think this is 'very disappointing'?

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 10 Mar 2006, 10:35

is there not a degree of hypocricy going on here re meetings. as far as i am aware, for example, PFANS actively encouraged supporters to attend the golfers meeting last monday "in numbers". is this fair policy for them, but not for any other group?

Mrs Mangle · Post by **Mrs Mangle** » 10 Mar 2006, 10:45

Dadaist,

If i offended you with my suggestions this was not my intention, these were merely my suggestions.

I'm for the school being re built on the Golf Course, at least there is a proposal to re locate the course, other groups/clubs don't get that.

Education before leisure, works every time for me.

The golfers in the hall on Monday night were not even the slightest bit interested listening to the state that the school is in, oh yes they might have been interested if it was not harmful to their course.
In my opinion they were a crowd of nimby's.
Btw, whatever we say, this thread is very confusing.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 10 Mar 2006, 10:47

the scare mongering going on is fantastic by the way. i'm almost frightened to log in and read the latest episode.

Emma · Post by **Emma** » 10 Mar 2006, 10:58

I'm a Towerbank parent and know of no meetings on the 15th March other than parents' night - consisting of individual consultations between parents and teachers - obviously not appropriate for the masses to attend!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 11:00

Mrs Mangled

I find it amusing that you say these are just your suggestions, and have "not confrontational" as part of your signature, and yet call your neighbours "a crowd of nimby's" - highly confusing indeed!

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 10 Mar 2006, 12:36

Bob Jefferson wrote:
dccairns wrote:And it is very disappointing that some parents are apparently being excluded from the meeting on 15 March.

Can you clarify which meeting they are apparently being excluded from and why you think this is 'very disappointing'?

I have been advised by a Parent of St. John's, that PFANS had a meeting
with the Local reps. Is this true?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 12:44

bbbrown wrote:the scare mongering going on is fantastic by the way. i'm almost frightened to log in and read the latest episode.

I know what you mean. I wasn't scared til seanie started - and his self-admitted scaremongering has an educated quality!

Fence-sitting is starting to look attractive now that the worst-case scenarios have been spelled out by both camps - support and you will be ripping the heart out of the community - the green beating heart - and oppose and you will risk losing the very existence of a high school in Portobello.

Amidst this backdrop of civil war are being played out some love-hate relationships - is that not the plot of "Gone With The Wind" ?

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 10 Mar 2006, 12:57

bbbrown wrote:is there not a degree of hypocricy going on here re meetings. as far as i am aware, for example, PFANS actively encouraged supporters to attend the golfers meeting last monday "in numbers". is this fair policy for them, but not for any other group?

PFANS did not actively encourage supporters to attend the GOLFERS' MEETING last Monday. As far as I know, no PFAN leaflets were dropped through letterboxes or handed out at school gates. There was not even a PFAN plug on Radio Forth. The one or two PFANS who did attend the meeting were perhaps interested in the proposed development of the Portobello Golf Course. However, they were obviously disappointed as the presentation never took place due to a very large number of residents from the surrounding Golf Course site dominating the meeting!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 13:18

Mate of Marya wrote:
bbbrown wrote:is there not a degree of hypocricy going on here re meetings. as far as i am aware, for example, PFANS actively encouraged supporters to attend the golfers meeting last monday "in numbers". is this fair policy for them, but not for any other group?
PFANS did not actively encourage supporters to attend the GOLFERS' MEETING last Monday. As far as I know, no PFAN leaflets were dropped through letterboxes or handed out at school gates. There was not even a PFAN plug on Radio Forth. The one or two PFANS who did attend the meeting were perhaps interested in the proposed development of the Portobello Golf Course. However, they were obviously disappointed as the presentation never took place due to a very large number of residents from the surrounding Golf Course site dominating the meeting!

MoM, from the text advertising the meeting posted on this website, the meeting was open to the public. Even if it was a golfer's meeting, can you really blame a large number of residents turning up?

When they did turn up, Ewan Aitken or one of the grown-ups decided to change the meeting to a Q&A - are you saying this is the fault of the residents who came to what they thought was a public meeting?

I was there the whole time too. The meeting was dominated by ....

....

.... people putting their hands up and asking questions.

So what is your specific complaint against a resident who has done nothing wrong except turn up to a public meeting and ask a question? How exactly is that dominating anything?

You can certainly comment on the relative numbers in the crowd from various camps, factions, cliques, groups, parties and clubs - but that's what public meetings are.

I'm a resident and I stood at the back. Are you accusing me of dominating something?

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 10 Mar 2006, 13:21

Dadaist,

nice pictures of Portobello Park on the other thread by the way.
you get a real feeling of being out in the countryside, yet actually you are bang in the middle of the city...i cant help feeling sad that it is, in all probability, going to be just another sprawl of flats and houses soon...

Mrs Mangle · Post by **Mrs Mangle** » 10 Mar 2006, 13:22

Dadist

I called them nimby's because from feeling in the hall on Monday night the would have been supportive of the school being built on top of a mountain anywhere in fact, so long as it was In my back yard, people don't like change and more so when if affects them.

Confrontational, many have called me it, but then change their mind, and they say Humanly Passionate, simple.

To clear up any confusing, these people are not my neighbours, i certainly wouldn't like to have neighbours like them.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 13:26

Mrs Mangle wrote: Dadist

I called them nimby's because from feeling in the hall on Monday night the would have been supportive of the school being built on top of a mountain anywhere in fact, so long as it was In my back yard, people don't like change and more so when if affects them.

Confrontational, many have called me it, but then change their mind, and they say Humanly Passionate, simple.

To clear up any confusing, these people are not my neighbours, i certainly wouldn't like to have neighbours like them.

Thank you very much indeed for your answer, and have a nice day.

Mrs Mangle · Post by **Mrs Mangle** » 10 Mar 2006, 13:27

And you.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 13:33

bbbrown wrote:Dadaist,

nice pictures of Portobello Park on the other thread by the way.
you get a real feeling of being out in the countryside, yet actually you are bang in the middle of the city...i cant help feeling sad that it is, in all probability, going to be just another sprawl of flats and houses soon...

I agree entirely. It's just I have a 2 year-old who I want to have a school to go to, and now seanie says she might not have one.

Here we are accusing our neighbours (go find a dictionary if you think that means someone who lives next door - to me it means fellow human on the planet) of being this or that depending on whether they do or don't support this or that - and justifying applying that accusation as a default label which has to be disproved, rather than the finger-pointer proving it.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 10 Mar 2006, 13:44

Dadaist wrote:Amidst this backdrop of civil war are being played out some love-hate relationships - is that not the plot of "Gone With The Wind" ?

Frankly, my Dear, I don't give a damn.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 13:49

Pal of Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Amidst this backdrop of civil war are being played out some love-hate relationships - is that not the plot of "Gone With The Wind" ?
Frankly, my Dear, I don't give a damn.

I was actually thinking of the sort of 3-way male love-hate relationship I have with Bob and Porty, even though we're all in relationships - so Brokeback Mountain could come into play as well.

Gone With The Mountain?

Broke Wind?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Mar 2006, 13:57

From today's EN:

Children's future is most important issue of them all

Better alternative for Portobello

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Is it possible ?