New Portobello High School- Where and how?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 22 Oct 2006, 22:45

Alison Connelly wrote:At the parents consultations evening, back in May/June, parents were asked if they had views on the provision of new facilities for St John's. It wasn't a questionnaire, but an open question. The responses were not "published", but were reviewed by the school board, and views expressed by parents have been listened to.

Another interesting way of doing it - excluding anyone who can't attend. I only knew about this because Marya told me about it. I didn't even have the opportunity to respond since other commitments prevented me attending that parental consultation, and I had no idea there would be anything there about the reprovisioning of the school.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 22 Oct 2006, 22:55

removed

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Oct 2006, 00:35

Bob Jefferson wrote:I found this in my inbox on my return from holiday from the producer at Talk 107. Anyone know if the show went ahead? Maybe we could get a copy.

Hello!

We would like to spend an hour of Wednesdaysâ€™ Mike Graham show (10-11am) looking at the issue of the new Portobello High School. We felt Wednesday would be an appropriate day to take a look at the arguments for and against the options with the final public meeting taking place at Portobello Town Hall.

Iâ€™d be grateful if you would give me a call on my mobile as we are keen to speak to you and would also welcome your thoughts on who else we could interview.

Does anybody listen to Talk 107? Sorry - I meant does anybody *here* listen to Talk 107?

Yes, to find out if this went ahead we need to find the listener. Sorry - I meant *a* listener!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Oct 2006, 10:03

Alison Connelly wrote: You are mistaken. St John's board have not previously sent out any questionnaire on co-location. At the parents consultations evening, back in May/June, parents were asked if they had views on the provision of new facilities for St John's. It wasn't a questionnaire, but an open question. The responses were not "published", but were reviewed by the school board, and views expressed by parents have been listened to.

I stand corrected. Its still very strange that the responses are not public knowledge and that for some time after this meeting the School Board were still "unable to declare a position" on the basis that there had been no consultation with parents. This is such an important issue for the St John's School community total transparency is appropriate. Was there an update on the meeting distributed to pareents?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 23 Oct 2006, 10:11

Alison Connelly wrote:I can't remember for sure, as it was a few months ago, but I think there was also something in the school weekly newsletter at around the same time, inviting comments from parents. I'll see if I can find any back copies of the newsletters to check.

I do remember there being a little bit in the newsletters at the time inviting comment, you're right. But this is the first time I've heard that the question at the parental consultation was the same as what was in the newsletter.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Oct 2006, 10:14

Bellybabe wrote:
Alison Connelly wrote:I can't remember for sure, as it was a few months ago, but I think there was also something in the school weekly newsletter at around the same time, inviting comments from parents. I'll see if I can find any back copies of the newsletters to check.
I do remember there being a little bit in the newsletters at the time inviting comment, you're right. But this is the first time I've heard that the question at the parental consultation was the same as what was in the newsletter.

Was there an update or feedback on the results of the meeting/ consultation?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 23 Oct 2006, 10:22

If there was, my copy must have gone the same way as the letter... I have no idea at all what other St John's parents think - other than those who post here.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Oct 2006, 11:30

Alison Connelly wrote: Also, for clarification, the decision to issue a questionnaire came after the statutory meeting on 4th Oct, and after the letter issued to parents in September ......

This is sleight of hand. The meeting on October 4th was not a statuatory meeting, it was the scrutiny panel meeting. There was no requirement for the councils decision, taken at the meeting on September 11th, to be scrutinised, as the decision was unanimous. The meeting on September 11th could and should have been the last meeting to date but the council voluntarily took the decision to scrutiny in order to avoid any questionmarks over the decision. This entire process could have taken place WITHOUT any input on behalf of St John's.

ST Johns School Board do not have a great track record so far in this process.

May 9 2006 : Full executive meeting, There were deputations from PPAG, PFANS, Duddingston Village Preservation Society, Portobello Golf Club, Portobello High School Board but nothing from St Johns.

September 11th 2006: Executve plus Education. There were deputations from; PFANS, PPAG, Portobello High School Board but nothing from St Johns.

So we have two important meetings concerning the re-provisoning of St Johns and the board don't value them enough to send representation.

October 4th 2006: The additional "Scrutiny" meeting. There are deputations from PPAG, PFANS, Portobello High School Board and finally St John's show up.

However, as has already been documented St John's turned up to pitch for two brownfield sites that were not part of the consultation and made not a single mention of three central catchment sites on offer. St Johns School Board were quite happy to pitch for brownfield sites WITHOUT ANY reference , guidance or consultation with the wider school community. They ultimately failed and indeed were told where to get off by the council. So St John's School Board lost the entire tiime from Sept 11th to October 4th when they could have been conuslting parents on the options that WERE on offer.

Alison Connelly wrote:The questionnaire finally went out on Friday 13th (perhaps that's where we went wrong , with a return date of no later than 25th October - 12 days. Not really our fault about the holiday.....

Contrast this with the good practice of Portobello high School Board. Their questionnaire went out around October 1st and had to be returned by October 10th. It focuses on the options that were on offer. So the Portobello Q was completed before St John's was circulated. It takes time to compile results and PHS have yet to make the findings public, which I am certain we will.

Alison makes a light reference to Friday 13th. I don't find it funny. I.m sure the teachers among us will agree that the friday before holidays is among the worst times to effectively distribute school mail. Even if it gets home its largely forgotten in the holidays. The board wasted more than a month including a huge chunk of the six week consultation period.

I don't believe that the Board have done anything like as well as they could have for St Jons.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 23 Oct 2006, 12:08

removed

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Oct 2006, 12:15

Alison Connelly wrote:
St John's school board were represented at the meeting on 12th September at the City Chambers. They presented a deputation - 3rd out of 4. You remember the other 3, but must have fallen asleep during St John's .

I honestly don't remember that. My profuse apologies. Did you speak?

I also apologise for getting the date of the scrutiny meeting confused with the statuatory meeting on October 4th. As you say it was the 28th of September. Still doesn't excuse pitching for brownfield sites without parental consultation.

The friday newlsetter angle is not good. A new school is a stand-alone matter of paramount importnace. And in any case there were quite a few other fridays between Sep 12th and October 13th. As I say you picked one of the worst days in the school calendar for efficient communication with parents.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 23 Oct 2006, 19:30

Alison Connelly wrote:....that because your are in the mortgage business, you would generate extra business from new residential property developments locally. However I daresay you would only gain a percentage of any new mortgages locally, so you would only really gain substantially if there was a huge amount of development.

As I too am a local Mortgage Broker, I feel I must respond to this point. Ultimately for all local businesses there must be some correlation between the number of potential customers that live in the locality and how well the business does. Any building of houses in order to 'fund' a new school would therefore potentially increase the number of customers that use the Portobello High Street. I confidently predict however that the difference this would bring to the turnover of any local broker would be absolutely negligble.

To imply that Porty's motive for securing a better educational future for all the children in our community is self profit through additional housing being built is commercially ridiculous. If profit was his motive then surely he would be better served by putting all the hours of effort spent securing a new school into development of his business.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 24 Oct 2006, 22:55

Some posts have been removed from this thread as they were OT.

Bellybabe - on behalf of the mods

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Oct 2006, 13:33

Portobello High School Questionnaire.

PHS surveyed three groups using the same questinnaire for each. The results have been collated and were ready today in time for the School Board response to the consultation paper. As a parent, I requested the results.

Pupil Response

Option A- 25.6% FOR

Option B- 41.2% FOR

Option C- 32.2% FOR

74.4% FOR School In the Park.

Staff Response

Option A- 10.2% FOR

Option B- 35.9% FOR

Option C- 53.9% FOR

89.8%% FOR School In the Park.

Parental Response

Option A- 12.5% FOR

Option B- 19.3% FOR

Option C- 67.2% FOR

87.5% FOR School In the Park.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Oct 2006, 17:25

Stephen, many thanks for posting this very interesting information and well done to PHS on having conducted these polls and publishing the results so quickly.

No-one can now be in any doubt that the school community of parents, children and teachers is convinced of the case for a school in the park. Moreover, there is a clear overall preference for Option C.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Oct 2006, 15:22

None of the results are particularly surprising but as you say it is affirmative for school in the park. With option C being more desirable than option B with 2 groups, the pupils favouring B over C.

And of course No new school was not an option.

PHS also asked for a response from two other groups, although not in questionnaire format. Those groups were:

8 members of the Senior Managment Team at PHS (S.M.T)
Support Staff at PHS: which I believe number 13.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 26 Oct 2006, 18:51

Any guesses as to what the St John results will look like? Is there a consensus of sorts?

I hear wildly different things depending on who I talk to.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 26 Oct 2006, 19:23

The deadline for handing it in was extended to today, so there isn't any news yet!

Nobody has spoken to me about it at all, probably because I give off "Oh God, don't start talking abut that, i get more than enough of it online..." vibes

. So I know what i said, i know what Marya said, and I know what one other parent said...but that's all for now.

BB

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 26 Oct 2006, 19:24

The School Board put out a reminder yesterday, Seanie, to urge parents to return completed questionnaires by today, so I doubt if anyone is in a position to say as yet what, if any, consensus has been reached.

From my conversations with parents there certainly seems to be a sudden, last minute, interest in the options on offer, but whether this will be reflected in completed questionnaires being filled in and returned is anyone's guess!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Oct 2006, 21:42

Marya wrote:From my conversations with parents there certainly seems to be a sudden, last minute, interest in the options on offer,

Let us hope that this talk is walked.

Marya do you know if the staff and/or pupils in the upper school were invited to complete questionnaires?

(great avatar by the way)

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Oct 2006, 22:13

seanie wrote:Any guesses as to what the St John results will look like? Is there a consensus of sorts?

I hear wildly different things depending on who I talk to.

My guess is that there will be a lowish response.

I can't envisage anybody other than hardcore Parkies going for the "none of the above-no new school option". However, I'm pretty sure that the hardcore will all respond. In the event of a really low turnout they could have a big influence.

Four options was already a lot and the introduction of a fifth "no new school" option by the Board, diluted the chances of a clear outcome even further.

Of the options that do include a new school, my guess is Bingham is a non-starter. Even the Board, who are sitting on the fence, ruled it out prior to any consultation with the school community. That leaves three options and my guess is re-build on the current PHS site will be the favoured. As we know, this option does not involve co-location, which is a concern of some parents.

I will be more than happy to be proved wrong, as long as they opt for a school somewhere.

And before I get nailed by Alison for calling Parkies hardcore. By hardcore I mean the types that would have no new school or move the new school to an off-centre site, in preference to the existing site, to keep schools off the park.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Oct 2006, 17:03

From the PPAG website:

[quote]Dear Park Supporter

Please see the latest bulletin below.

PLEASE WRITE TO THE COUNCIL NOW to save the park

The Educational Consultation on Portobello High School and St.Johnâ€™s Primary will close on 30 October. If you want to save Portobello Park and Golf Course it is essential that you write in to let the Council know what you think of their proposal to build on them. Otherwise, the green space of the park and golf course will be lost for ever. Please ensure that every member of your household writes in to the address below

Only Option A for PHS with St Johnâ€™s built on a brownfield site guarantees that the Golf Course and Park will NOT be built on.

Portobello High School can be rebuilt on site (option A) alongside the existing building, without a decant, like Holy Rood High. The Figgate Park or Portobello Park could provide playing fields for Option A, thereby eliminating the need for bussing. St Johnâ€™s could be rebuilt on one of the brownfield sites rejected without adequate reason. The PowerLeague site and the former Scottish Power site have been dismissed for spurious reasons - ask for these to be properly assessed for St Johnâ€™s.

Option C is being promoted by some for PHS but St Johnâ€™s could still end up being built on the Golf Course. The two consultations are deliberately kept separate and no plans are shown for what the combined result might be. Option C ignores the existing football pitches and Portobello Thistle will not have the same access if these are for the school. Option C does not mean that the Golf Course will be saved for our children and future generations.

The Park and Golf Course could both be lost with a vote for option C.

Some serious concerns are:

Housing on the Golf Course and Park has suddenly disappeared. It could reappear just as suddenly. This is a short term strategy until after next Mayâ€™s elections. Tell the council that if the housing reappears they need to start the whole consultation from scratch, including site options. People need to know the implications of their choices - at the moment we are being asked to make decisions in a vacuum.

There is no indication from the Scottish Executive that funding will be made available so what assets will be sold to pay for the schools?

The decision on the sites is to be made four days before Christmas at the same time as the contentious proposal for the Tramway System. There is a danger of it being â€œburiedâ€

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 27 Oct 2006, 17:28

Obviously the Trades Description Act does not apply to leaflets!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Oct 2006, 19:32

In any case, PPAG's plan is about to be scuppered.

Without wishing to pre-judge the issue, it seems likely that St Johns parents will vote for a re-build on the existing PHS site. They don't want co-location and Bingham Park seems to be a non-starter.

If this is the case then both Options B and C are available for PHS. PHS parents have already overwhelmingly voted for a school in the park, and for Option C in particular.

In other words, we have a solution that the vast majority of parents are happy with. It avoids a decant for PHS, it saves the Golf Course and it offers both schools the opportunity to build excellent facilities for the 21st century.

The PPAG leaflet is, as PoP suggests, a combination of half-truths, untruths and pure fantasy. It is the last desperate act of a discredited group, purporting to be the voice of the community, that has lost its way, backed itself into an indefensible corner and resorted to scaremongering and lies.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 27 Oct 2006, 22:24

Portobello High School can be rebuilt on site (option A) alongside the existing building, without a decant, like Holy Rood High.

How?

How on earth is that possible?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 27 Oct 2006, 22:25

By giving the kids three years off school?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 27 Oct 2006, 23:07

The existing school is squeezed onto an inadequate site of 2.4Ha.

If St Johnâ€™s were relocated to an as yet unidentified brownfield site a potential area of 3.5Ha would exist.

The existing PHS buildings occupy about 1.9Ha of that area.

So to build a new school alongside, without requiring a decant, would mean shoehorning a new high school onto the even smaller 1.6Ha remaining.

Itâ€™d take 2-3 years to build and then another 6 months to a year for the existing school to be demolished and redeveloped for school use.

Itâ€™s nuts.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 28 Oct 2006, 00:46

I read the quote that "PHS could be built alongside the existing building, without a decant, like Holy Rood High" with some puzzlement. You'd think this statement implies Holy Rood had already been rebuilt successfully.
In fact it's still a while before they will even begin work on the site as all tenders had to be resubmitted to some irregularities.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Oct 2006, 10:31

Deperate from Park Avenue wrote: The PowerLeague site and the former Scottish Power site have been dismissed for spurious reasons - ask for these to be properly assessed for St Johnâ€™s.

This leaflet confirms that PPAG were manipulating ST John's School Board in an attempt to move the school to a brownfield site. They have a least one representative on the board.

Apart from the "spurious" lie, in a way this statement encapuslates the PPAG campaign. The Powerleague site was preserved as recreational space after local residents fought to keep it that way: build on your park not ours.

If portyman looks back at his earlier posts and my responses, he will find the one about how hijacking the golfers meeting seemed a smart move at the time but ultimately this type of dishonesty would bring PPAG down. If it does, they deserve it.

It is not selfish to want to preserve one's local park indeed in many cases it is honorable to do so. Selfish begins when you want to build on another park and/or recreational space. And selfish contimues when you campaign on a dishonest basis to the detriment of our children's education.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Oct 2006, 10:33

Bob Jefferson wrote: Without wishing to pre-judge the issue, it seems likely that St Johns parents will vote for a re-build on the existing PHS site. They don't want co-location and Bingham Park seems to be a non-starter.

Do you have information?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Oct 2006, 10:54

No, it's just a prediction based on the limited conversations I have had with St J parents coupled with a bit of commonsense.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Oct 2006, 11:36

So as Seanie says it is all rumours.

Up until now SJSB have not divulged any of the results of the "consulting" they have done . So we may never know the result. If they follow form we will get a statement along the lines of "there was no strong support for any option, some people opted for no new school". If there is a low response, which is guaranteed by the MO deployed by the board, and there are say 30 for the pHS site and 10 for others. We won't get to know the numbers but the statement will be someting like "the PHS site was favoured but it was from a very low response and we don't get the impression that its representative of the whole school. So we cant declare a position. "

This is not a personal attack, Alison has been invited to tell us why the board were pursuing poorer sites for the school, she has no answer. Alison Connelly and perhaps one other ( i don't know the others)have engineered this situtation brilliantly to suit the PPAG cause. If there is another explanation then lets hear it. She is quite prepared to compromise the school but not the park.

There cannot be another school in edinburgh whose board wouldn't jump at the chance of a new school. Wouldn't hesitate to get behind the teachers and the pupils and do everything in their power to make it happen.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Oct 2006, 12:01

I disagree. I'm confident that St Johns school board will do the right thing and publish the full results. It is important evidence as far as the statutory consultation goes and, whatever the personal interests of individual board members, St Johns parents are entitled to this information.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Oct 2006, 12:04

I hope you are correct.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 29 Oct 2006, 12:29

Porty wrote:There cannot be another school in edinburgh whose board wouldn't jump at the chance of a new school. Wouldn't hesitate to get behind the teachers and the pupils and do everything in their power to make it happen.

I must admit Porty that I'm flummoxed by the lack of response so far from the whole St John Community. Here's hoping that my feelings are wrong and lots of folk send in their questionnaires and email/write by tomorrow. I had hoped that the St John's Parish Sunday newsletter may have at some point urged parents to voice their opinions, but there's been no mention of the process at all as far as I'm aware - oh, except for an advert for PPAG's 'Picnic in the Park'.
When I plucked up courage today to voice my concern, I was told no-one has asked to put anything in the newsletter and I should have said something sooner

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Oct 2006, 13:24

I thought that the Cardinal had given support to the co-location plan? I have spoken to 3 teachers at St John's over the last few days (not Jan, she no longer teaches there) and they feel that they have been given very little information about the options that are available.

I have written to the Head and copied her in on the PHS response in the hope that we get a similar result (one way or another) from St John's.

I was mistaken about the St John's deputation at the meeting in early September. I thought they didn't have one but now I do recall. They focused on the refurbishment that had been costed at Â£3 million back in 2001/2002 rather than a new school.

I know I keep harping on about why they have used both of their opportunities to pitch for something other than a new school in one of the given locations. Other than Alison I don't believe any parent, pupil or teacher has come forward and asked for St John's to be located at either the Scottish Power Site or Powerleague. Was there any support for this at statuatory meeting?

Marya wrote: When I plucked up courage today to voice my concern, I was told no-one has asked to put anything in the newsletter and I should have said something sooner

I find that obscene. Surely the prospect of a new school should have a momentum of its own and be uppermost in the minds of the parishoners. It shouldn't take someone to "voice concerns" to get a mention in the newsletter. It should be front page, every Sunday.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello