New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Dadaist]

in order to maintain thread discipline

oo-er!

[Jean Douglas]

It's not just about exam results. A decant of PHS would mean that kids would be dispersed to schools around Edinburgh. They would be separated from their friends, they would have much further to travel, they would be in unfamiliar surroundings. There may only have been 60 parents at the meeting the other night - that's apathy for you - but if you were to suggest a decant you wouid have hundreds of very angry parents.

Some parents, who could afford it, would send their kids to private schools to avoid a decant situation. Others would sell up and move into a different catchment area. The teachers don't want a decant, the parents don't want a decant and the kids certainly don't. Some schools are forced into this situation. We have a viable alternative

Of course I agree with bluebanana that “decantsâ€

[PortyMan]

Hello fans...

Received a copy of the PFANS promo leaflet…

(I'd post a copy, but I don't think I can?)

A leaflet must have on it the name and address of the printer. http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-right ... ions.shtml

I’m not sure an anonymous email address counts for this purpose?

Seems only Gary ‘Leaflets & Ponies’ Gowans is willing to put his name to anything (except, of course, any posts on this forum!).

No doubt the PFANS reps will show that the law doesn’t apply in Portobello, if so my apologies… Carry on.

I see they’re still calling it ‘a parkland setting’, though they’ve dropped it from the main banner.

Cue Portyman...... no doubt his nephew was decanted at Firrhill and can do Trig)

How did you know? You stalking me? Should I be worried?

"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." (Homer Simpson)

So that’s decanting considered and rejected?

I might suggest that we could learn from the previous ‘difficult’ experiences and get it right this time. But, it is much easier not to bother.

The minute the anti-brigade come up with a viable alternative, the games up the pole. That's all they need to do. You think they may have worked that out by now?

Assuming (always a bad thing) that you mean the ‘Save the Park’ people when you say ‘anti-brigade’? (I don’t recall any posts saying they’re opposed to a new school, per se? For some reason the phrase ‘anti-brigade’ evokes an image of a band of Maggie Smith-like ladies with bags full of knitting… ).

Why do we have to come up with an alternative?

We're objecting to PFANS wanting to build the school on the park.

(I'm using ‘PFANS’ as a loose generic term, of course).

We don’t need to give PFANS alternatives. The failure to reach agreement with the ‘community’ on building on the park may make realising that dream difficult or impossible. PFANS need to find alternatives if they still want the school to be built. I’d have thought they would have worked that one out? The councillors seem to have got their heads round the concept?

A new school would be great, but we don’t want it (and more importantly, it’s associated housing scheme) on the park. We have actually suggested alternatives, but PFANS don’t like any of them. That’s a shame, but it remains their problem. We don’t like their idea. They don’t have any others. Stalemate.

Its not a fact. You(bbrown) are against (I presume) and will say 70%, I am for and will say 50%. The council proposal or as much as is known about it is 56% . (33% housing at 17.5 acres, 2 schools without playing fields 12 acres) = 55.6% of 53 acres.

(my emphasis).

Surely not? I thought the whole point was to build schools with playing fields? Or are you ‘counting’ the playing fields as ‘public park’?

Besides...Is that only 5.5 acres for playing fields? What about the ponies? Where would they go?

[Maria]

Holy Rood High was opened in November 1971 to accommodate a school of 1300 children. By the late 1970s the roll had exceeded that number and for a few years was rather cramped. The current roll, I believe, is about 1050 and all the original buildings are still in use......When HRHS moves into their new building in 2008 the present building will be demolished. Would it not be feasible to extend its life for a further 2 years to accommodate PHS while its new school is under construction?

The present Holy Rood is cramped and could not accommodate the roll of PHS. Explanation has already been given in this thread of how curriculum changes since 1971 (IT, social inclusion, pupil support base, Personal and Social Development instruction,smaller class sizes in key subject areas as well as practical subjects etc.) have resulted in many of the present accommodation problems. In addition, the new school will be built on part of the footprint of the old school so even less accommodation would be available for a decant.

Regarding the site for the new PHS – since the proposed site on the golf course for the two schools is to be, roughly, the same size as the present PH site and St. John’s jointly, perhaps St John’s could be moved and the entire area used for PHS.

How would you fund this and where would you decant the St John's pupils?

Since some green space has to be lost I suggest rebuilding St. John’s on Rosefield Park.

Why is that preferable to the much larger area of the golf course (you are still close to the Railway line and the busy Harry Lauder Road is your neighbour) and how would you fund this?

Expense would be saved in not having to resite the Golf Course.

OK, but the cost of resiting the Golf Course is considerably smaller than building a Primary School and new Secondary School. It wouldn't add much to the pot.

Playing fields could be upgraded in the Park Avenue site which is near PHS

How would you fund this?

and the planned development of housing on the remainder of the park could go ahead to raise money.

Ah! So to recap, you would build a school on one greenspace and a massive housing development (it would need to be to cover building and upgrading costs of over 40 million pounds) on another greenspace and not build a new Golf Course.

I'm sorry Jean, but where are the advantages in all of this?

[Epykat]

The minute the anti-brigade come up with a viable alternative, the games up the pole. That's all they need to do. You think they may have worked that out by now...

So if this 'game' ever does end up up the pole will there be vigilate groups of 'pro-brigaders' prowling the streets of Portobello and Park Avenue or digging up the golfie with their bare hands? And what about the fence sitters? Will they be let off by the 'pro-brigade' or strung up by the 'anti-brigade' for being so indecisive? This really is getting ridiculous

[Maria]

Hello fans...

Received a copy of the PFANS promo leaflet…

(I'd post a copy, but I don't think I can?)

It's already been posted here PortyMan

[Stephen McIntyre]

.

Its not a fact. You(bbrown) are against (I presume) and will say 70%, I am for and will say 50%. The council proposal or as much as is known about it is 56% . (33% housing at 17.5 acres, 2 schools without playing fields 12 acres) = 55.6% of 53 acres.

(my emphasis).

Surely not? I thought the whole point was to build schools with playing fields? Or are you ‘counting’ the playing fields as ‘public park’?

Welcome back. No, I am not counting the playing fields as public park. I am counting them as not being bulit on. Based on the premise that buildings, however small, are not particularly desirable on playing fields.

And to Jean, the space allocated for new school buildings and leisure space (not playing fields) is 12 acres. The current site the schools sit on is about 7 acres. So we are talking a 70% increase in footprint plus playing fields.

[seanie]

A new school would be great, but we don’t want it (and more importantly, it’s associated housing scheme) on the park. We have actually suggested alternatives, but PFANS don’t like any of them. That’s a shame, but it remains their problem.

Er...no.

The problem is not PFANS.

The problem is the reality of the existing schools. Their inadequate and deteriorating condition, and the limited funding and site options that constrain solutions.

And that is a problem that affects, and increasingly so, the children of this community that use those schools.

I think that should be regarded as a problem for this community as a whole.

Crap ideas with no basis in reality don't really cut it as alternative solutions to that problem.

[Stephen McIntyre]

I don't think you can use the decant experience at Parsons Green as an example, beacuse it was in response to an emergency, and there was no opportunity to make adequate plans

Let me get this straight:, the Parsons green decant is irrelevant even although it involved: bussing, temporary classrooms, inadequate classrooms, minimal additional facilities, the uprooting and reconfiguration of a school community that lasted for 2 years and so on.But its ok for you to use:

Twice in my 33 years of teaching I have taught in schools experiencing ut serious accommodation problems with solutions similar to decants– one involved split sites, a couple of miles apart, and the other necessitated the closing of a large part of the school while major remedial work, lasting about a year, was carried out. Both were fairly large High schools. Of course there were problems. It was not always easy and we were glad when the problems were resolved but on both occasions there were many positive aspects during that time for both staff and pupils. I will expand on thise if anyone wishes.

I wish you to expand on what you are trying to prove regarding decants? Its a simple question. Your inference is that whilst there are problems, overall it is a positive experience. Previously you alerted us all to the requirement for statistical evidence to support statements about decants.. Can you oblige?

The proposal we have on the table means we will not have to decant 2500 children for perhaps 3 years. You infer that decant is an overall positive experience. Which, contradicts every other opinion Ive heard on the subject most of which have come from teachers and management staff who have lived through planned decants. I respect your view but personally speaking I believe it is founded in fantasy. I suspect No-one would choose decant if it could be avoided. Would you?

[Mate of Marya]

I was just wondering how many "anti-brigade" people or "save the park" people actually have children of school age who could benefit from the proposed new PHS, bearing in mind, some will opt for the private school option or indeed the new Holyrood High School.

[Mrs Mangle]

I believe most of the Anti New School people are, Golfers and Residents of Park Avenue and surrounding Streets, i maybe wrong here, but at the first meeting which was full of them, Golfers and Residents, they were not interested in the bad state of the building they were sitting in, nor were they interested in the Health & Safety of the children of Portobello High, let alone them of St. John's. As long as the selfish individuals were not troubled or put out then the impression they gave was they didn't give a damn about the schools or the pupils.

One person at the meeting said " 10 years ago i moved from the City to my present home, at the time my Lawyer assured me that nothing would ever be built on the Golf Course, what do you ( Ewan Aitken ) suggest now ?"
Hello that was 10 years ago, when Porty started to fall apart, maybe she should have consulted with a Fortune Teller way back then.
No matter what the arguments for and against are, as i've said all along Education first, sport a very close second.
Before anyway thinks i have a kid at one of these schools, i haven't, i'm just for children having a Healthy and Safe Education with as litle disruptions as possible.

[Mate of Marya]

Surely all parents of PHS pupils or prospective parents are interested in finding out more information regarding the proposal to build a new PHS and will attend the meeting on Wednesday at 8pm in Towerbank Primary School. I would assume that anyone not interested in the proposal will not attend the meeting since they don't have children who attend or will be attending PHS. This would allow all interested parties to find out more information from the local councillors. A lot of people are complaining about lack of information from the local council regarding this proposal. It would be beneficial for all if everyone at the meeting let the councillors speak! I am sure everyone will get the opportunity to voice their opinions.

[Dadaist]

Why isn't the meeting coming up as an event on the front page?

I know it's probably advertised on the PFANS private forum, but I don't have access to that.

Are all the details I need - this coming Wed, 8pm, Towerbank Primary?

[Bob Jefferson]

I think that people are taking a number of different positions on the proposal and that it is misleading to label people as simply 'pro' or 'anti'. I also believe that opinions will shift as the facts become more widely known. As users of this forum, it is easy to assume that everyone else understands the proposal but clearly that is not the case.

As an example, conversations I have had with people recently demonstrate that not everyone understands that the golf course site is to be developed by EDI and that the Council has already given an assurance that all of the profit from the various land deals will be ring-fenced. That is quite different from selling off land to a private developer.

Many are asking for 'evidence' that no alternative site exists, that the existing schools cannot be re-furbished or re-built on site but I can't help feeling that no independent option appraisal would satisfy some, because it would not provide the answer they want. Nevertheless, the Council must continue to try to convince the doubters. As an example of this, some people doubt the validity, and the motive behind, the Golf Course questionnaire. You will recall that this document undermined the argument that the new course would not be within walking distance of Portobello by demonstrating that only 4% of golfers currently walk. Dirty tricks by the Council or a routine survey employing tried and trusted methodology? Let's get the facts.

Some, like Epkat, don't object to a school or schools being built on the golf course - they just don't want the housing. I understand this position but I don't understand how the huge funding gap this would leave could be met. This is the cue for another group of people to start banging on about the Council, the Scottish Exec, Blair, Iraq etc. I don't necessarily disagree with these sentiments but they don't actually help to solve the 'here and now' issues we face. My own view, for what it's worth, is that we don't pay enough tax in this country and that's why our public services are failing but people won't vote for that because they want their cake and they want to eat it too. Whatever - these are reasons for supporting one political party or another and largely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Yes, of course your local councillor will express sympathy with your viewpoint and take on board everything you say and promise to explore all options - that's their job. Just don't expect them to pull off a deus ex machina solution because life isn't that simple.

At the meeting the other night I asked Ewan Aitken where a new PHS would come from in the forseeable future if the community rejected the proposal. He was very reluctant to answer. I pressed him on it and he said that he didn't want to be accused of scaremongering. I insisted that it was more important that he was honest with people. Reluctantly, he admitted that there is, in his opinion, no prospect of a new school under these circumstances. This may not be what some people want to hear but it doesn't make it any less true.

Jean's concern is for the wider community. Mine too.

[Mate of Marya]

Why isn't the meeting coming up as an event on the front page?

I know it's probably advertised on the PFANS private forum, but I don't have access to that.

Are all the details I need - this coming Wed, 8pm, Towerbank Primary?

No-one now has access to a PFANS private forum.
PFANS did actually organise this event. It is a public meeting. Councillors Ewen Aitken, Ian Perry, Lawrence Marshall, Maureen Child and Andrew Fraser, Chairperson PHS schoolboard and a member of St Johns schoolboard have been invited.
This information should have been distributed to parents from all PHS feeder primaries and St Johns via the schoolboard.
I would like to point out that no PFAN publicity accommpanied the information regarding the meeting as Headteachers cannot be seen to show any predjudice towards a specific group.
So, 8pm Towerbank Primary Wednesday 22 March.
See you there.

[Dave Connelly]

Don't know what you mean, are the council secreting the plans?

No, not at all, (except maybe the early aquisition of the land at Brunstane)

I think it would be good to let everyone see the feasability study to see what already has been looked at.

[Dadaist]

No-one now has access to a PFANS private forum

What happened?

[Bob Jefferson]

I don't want this thread heading off on another tangent so I have addressed this issue in an announcement on the main forum. (MoM - for this reason I have deleted your reply)

[Jean Douglas]

The present Holy Rood is cramped and could not accommodate the roll of PHS. Explanation has already been given in this thread of how curriculum changes since 1971 (IT, social inclusion, pupil support base, Personal and Social Development instruction,smaller class sizes in key subject areas as well as practical subjects etc.) have resulted in many of the present accommodation problems. In addition, the new school will be built on part of the footprint of the old school so even less accommodation would be available for a decant.

Not the info I have been given. Are you sure of your facts? My recent info is that current roll is 1050 and present capacity is 1200, and that the new school will not be on the existing footprint I know that this contradicts info posted earlier by Mate of Marya so which is correct?

How would you fund this and where would you decant the St John's pupils?

No decant necessary – build St John’s first. Use money planned for building St John’s on Golf Course.

Why is that preferable to the much larger area of the golf course (you are still close to the Railway line and the busy Harry Lauder Road is your neighbour) and how would you fund this?

If there were a school on Rosefield Park, children would not enter campus from Harry Lauder Road nor could they have easy access to the railway. Advantages? On its own campus less congestion at the golf course at school times (primary children are usually dropped at school so more cars) nearer the centre of Porty with public transport there. If a new school is to be built why would it cost so much more in Rosefield Park.
Expense would be saved in not having to resite the Golf Course.

OK, but the cost of resiting the Golf Course is considerably smaller than building a Primary School and new Secondary School. It wouldn't add much to the pot.

No idea as to the proposed cost of acquiring and fully developing the large Brunstane site with golf ccurse, roads ,park etc. Enlighten me please.

Ah! So to recap, you would build a school on one greenspace and a massive housing development (it would need to be to cover building and upgrading costs of over 40 million pounds) on another greenspace and not build a new Golf Course.

Ah! I suggested building the houses already proposed on the parkland (and leaving the golf course where it is) which has been promised as tasteful and in keeping with the surrounding properties but now, without the school on the same patch it is heralded as “a massive housing developmentâ€

[PortyMan]

Hello fans...

Received a copy of the PFANS promo leaflet…

(I'd post a copy, but I don't think I can?)

It's already been posted here PortyMan

Thanks for that, Marya. It's not quite the same thing (my leaflet was handed out at the school), but this doesn't indicate any name/address either.

[Stephen McIntyre]

No, not at all, (except maybe the early aquisition of the land at Brunstane)

Many commercial transactions are conducted in confidence and this can be for a variety of reasons, it is commonplace. I don't think you are inferring that the council were trying to dupe the electorate in any way but I hope you accept confidential commercial transactions are a neccessary mechanism.

I think it would be good to let everyone see the feasability study to see what already has been looked at.

I thought you had quoted from it earler! I had not appreciated that it was not in the public domain, I agree with you, it ought to be.

[Jean Douglas]

Let me get this straight:, the Parsons green decant is irrelevant even although it involved: bussing, temporary classrooms, inadequate classrooms, minimal additional facilities, the uprooting and reconfiguration of a school community that lasted for 2 years and so on.

I did not say it was irrelevant, I said it was not comparable as planning time was limited. I maintain that a temporary inconvenience is preferable to the permanent loss of the Golf Course and Park.

I wish you to expand on what you are trying to prove regarding decants? Its a simple question. Your inference is that whilst there are problems, overall it is a positive experience. Previously you alerted us all to the requirement for statistical evidence to support statements about decants.. Can you oblige?

The proposal we have on the table means we will not have to decant 2500 children for perhaps 3 years. You infer that decant is an overall positive experience. Which, contradicts every other opinion Ive heard on the subject most of which have come from teachers and management staff who have lived through planned decants. I respect your view but personally speaking I believe it is founded in fantasy. I suspect No-one would choose decant if it could be avoided. Would you?

Where do you get 2500 children to decant ( are you including the Holy Rood pupils?) I did not say it was an overall positive experience. My message was that it was not all bad. Of course I would not choose decant unnecessarily and would only favour it if the WHOLE school could move together. Would you choose to build on the golf course if you thought it could be avoided? I will remind you I have taught for a long time and there is little scope for fantasy in the classroom. One other point is that if it were feasible to decant to the HR campus it might be a good opportunity for the two schools to build a close relationship which could certainly benefit the whole community.

My data regarding exam results came from www.scottishschoolsonline.gov.uk. Where did your evidence of negative academic impact come from?

[Jean Douglas]

I was just wondering how many "anti-brigade" people or "save the park" people actually have children of school age who could benefit from the proposed new PHS, bearing in mind, some will opt for the private school option or indeed the new Holyrood High School.

How many of the “build on the parkâ€

[Jean Douglas]

I believe most of the Anti New School people are, Golfers and Residents of Park Avenue and surrounding Streets, i maybe wrong here, but at the first meeting which was full of them, Golfers and Residents, they were not interested in the bad state of the building they were sitting in, nor were they interested in the Health & Safety of the children of Portobello High, let alone them of St. John's. As long as the selfish individuals were not troubled or put out then the impression they gave was they didn't give a damn about the schools or the pupils.

The vast majority of people do care about the children. They are a vital part of our community. Education is extremely important but in this case we are being asked to choose, for our children, a new school in exchange for part of their heritage. There is more to education than a shiny new building. What are we teaching our children about integrity and moral responsibility when we are prepared to use a legal loop-hole to build on land gifted to the Portobello community for recreational use only. The donor clearly intended that condition to be honoured for all time yet we are prepared to ignore that to solve an immediate need. I am all for a new school but another way should be found. This issue should not divide the community we should work together to solve it.

[Mate of Marya]

[/quote]Not the info I have been given. Are you sure of your facts? My recent info is that current roll is 1050 and present capacity is 1200, and that the new school will not be on the existing footprint I know that this contradicts info posted earlier by Mate of Marya so which is correct?

Hi Jean,

The current roll is 1050 and the original capacity was 1200. However, the present HRH is cramped and could not accommodate the roll of PHS. There are already classes at HRH being taught in Temporary Teaching Units. During the new build a few subjects will be in TTU's. You must also take into consideration that the HHS school role fell to 480 in the early 90's as you will know, and the extra space was used for luxuries like conference rooms, quiet rooms etc., These no longer exist. Such spaces have been clawed back as the school role increased.

[Mate of Marya]

I must be going crazy!

I just submitted the same post twice.

[Stephen McIntyre]

My recent info is that current roll is 1050 and present capacity is 1200, and that the new school will not be on the existing footprint I know that this contradicts info posted earlier by Mate of Marya so which is correct?

Mate of Marya.

If there were a school on Rosefield Park, children would not enter campus from Harry Lauder Road nor could they have easy access to the railway. Advantages? On its own campus less congestion at the golf course at school times (primary children are usually dropped at school so more cars) nearer the centre of Porty with public transport there. If a new school is to be built why would it cost so much more in Rosefield Park.

Personally I would have no problem with a school in rosefield park.

Jean, your suggestion of a school in rosefield park sounds good untiil one realises that rosefield park is not even big enough for a full size football pitch let alone a school without sports facilties. Have you ever been there? Its about half the size of the current st johns site.

It is clear that in your desperation you are prepared to say anything, regardless of the sense it makes. Your most recent suggestion for a school would give Mother Hubbard claustrophobia (sp) and you are trying to sell us decant like its the new Kumon.

removed rude question

[Mate of Marya]

I was just wondering how many "anti-brigade" people or "save the park" people actually have children of school age who could benefit from the proposed new PHS, bearing in mind, some will opt for the private school option or indeed the new Holyrood High School.

How many of the “build on the parkâ€

[Stephen McIntyre]

Where do you get 2500 children to decant ( are you including the Holy Rood pupils?)

I calculated that during the 3 year decant, 3 years would leave school and 3 years would join school In other words its not the same 1900 pupils, it "rolls" 2500 seems a reasonable figure. You obviously forgot about the leaving and joining bit.

Would you choose to build on the golf course if you thought it could be avoided?

Categorically not. That's why I am keen for someone, anyone to come up with a viable alternative.

I will remind you I have taught for a long time and there is little scope for fantasy in the classroom.

All I can say is you more than make up for that when you get home.

My data regarding exam results came from www.scottishschoolsonline.gov.uk. Where did your evidence of negative academic impact come from?

I did not make a claim about negative academic performance. The data you post the link to says nothing about the academic effect of decant on individual pupils, nothing whatsoever.

[Bob Jefferson]

[quote="Jean Douglas"]How many of the “build on the parkâ€

[Maria]

How would you fund this and where would you decant the St John's pupils?

No decant necessary – build St John’s first. Use money planned for building St John’s on Golf Course.

But I repeat, where would we get that money from? The golf course option frees up the the current St John's and PHS sites for housing which will contribute roughly 1/3 of the total building cost of the new schools . Under your proposal there would be no source of funding except for housing on the golf course (remember you are retaining the current playing fields). Your building and running costs will also be higher as the two schools would not be sharing boiler house etc. This means the council can borrow less against 'projected savings'.

I suggested building the houses already proposed on the parkland (and leaving the golf course where it is) which has been promised as tasteful and in keeping with the surrounding properties but now, without the school on the same patch it is heralded as “a massive housing developmentâ€

[Maria]

I was just wondering how many "anti-brigade" people or "save the park" people actually have children of school age who could benefit from the proposed new PHS, bearing in mind, some will opt for the private school option or indeed the new Holyrood High School.

How many of the “build on the parkâ€

[Dadaist]

Jean - welcome

You're doing well talking to 4 of our regular posters (including 2 administrators) simultaneously!

Don't be disheartened when Stephen Mcintyre starts using words like "desperation" on you - stick to your guns.

One of the things you may be attacked on is use of language as opposed to its content. People might try and trip you up or make it look like you have contradicted yourself - but don't worry - even if you do, it doesn't mean that your other points are invalid.

Watch out for people trying to steer the topic, distract you with nit-picking or simply ignore things you've said or questions you have asked.

An example would be constantly forcing you to come up with an alternative solution when all you were doing was pointing out your opposition to the current one. Don't if you don't want to - after all, you're just an individual and not the council!

One really interesting thing to do is look back over what you have posted and check out not the things which have been attacked (which were the weak points which people go for automatically) but the things which were ignored outright - for example (and correct me if I'm wrong) your point about the morality of exploiting a legal loophole to be able to build on the land - this got an audible groan from a large number of people at the infamous "hijacked" meeting - maybe you were there.

I'm sure you will appreciate that you have a vocal and intelligent opposition who could use a variety of tactics to dishearten, undermine credibility, distract, distort or any number of argumentative tactics, or perhaps accuse you of using them yourself.

I don't support your view, but when I log on here and see someone taking on all-comers, I feel that they deserve a note of support!

[Stephen McIntyre]

..... or who ,personally, are not likely in some way to benefit directly from this project?

This is the third or fourth suggestion or implication that one or some people stand to personally gain, financially or in some other way from this proposal. Portobellosite alluded to this and someone in the hairdresser told me that he might be your son in law. What are you getting at?

[Mate of Marya]

What was Jean waiting for?
She could have been posting ages ago.........