New Portobello High School - on going issues

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Oct 2007, 13:39

wangi wrote:
Porty wrote:But the Scottish Government would be providing the security for the bonds, which is public sector borrowing. Seanie is right; SG may not be allowed to deploy such a financial mechanism.
...
mr magnolia wrote:CEC input to the trams is only about £45m.
I find it confusing that it's seemingly ok for Edinburgh council to contemplate borrowing £20-30M to cover shortfall in contributions for the tram, yet borrowing for education is...?

You are confused by things you don't fully understand. I don't either.

As far as I'm aware only the Treasury can provide security for this type of Bond.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Oct 2007, 13:44

wangi wrote:
Porty wrote:Theres more than one senior SNP figure privately saying that a schhols for trams swap would be welcome.
Sounds fair, I certainly know what should be the priority out of the two.

(Don't want to get into the whole tram debate - but what does it give Edinburgh? Why not increased spending in busses? Why bother with allt eh work putting down rails - just use trolleybuses...)

Democracy: Trams for Edinburgh have been agreed by both the Scottish Executive and Scottish Government. Like it or lump it its the will of the peoples' representatives. SNP lost is fair and square and backed away from full confrontation on the debate.

They now prefer to use our childrens futures as ammunition. I'd call that political rape.

Post by **wangi** » 05 Oct 2007, 13:46

Porty wrote:You are confused by things you don't fully understand. I don't either.

As far as I'm aware only the Treasury can provide security for this type of Bond.

True. I suppose it's the same question about it being ok for the UK budget to have loads of cash for London infrastructure projects, Defence spending etc etc yet we have to use a right covoluted scheme to fund simple things like schools!

I see you're pictured in the EN's latest instalment on this issue today:

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... 1593372007

THE crumbling toilet block is so unpleasant some pupils choose to pop home rather than use it.

...

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Oct 2007, 14:38

I can assure you I said no such thing, In fact I attended the photo shoot for a different purpose than that depicted by the article.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 05 Oct 2007, 16:07

both the Scottish Executive and Scottish Government

Could you clarify for readers who you mean here as the Scottish Excutive is just the old name for the Scottish Government.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Oct 2007, 16:25

Sure:

Scottish Executive took decisions and funded the rebulid of some 330 schools

Scottish Government? Lets wait and see.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 05 Oct 2007, 21:32

Think back to the original proposal, a year and a half? Two years ago?

Why did it involve relocating the Golf Course to Brunstane and developing a third of Portobello Park as housing?

To generate capital for the re-bulding of the schools.

As things stand the second wave of PPP is still a few years off being completed and there was no indication of when another round would be sanctioned by the Scottish Exec, or whether alternative financing might become available. The whole point about the original proposal was to make the rebuilding of PHS, at least in large measure, self-financing.

Given that the replacement of PHS was, after Boroughmuir, the most pressing problem in terms of school accomodation, the original proposal at least incorporated a means to finance it.

But since development on the park and relocating the golf-course was unacceptable to the community that possible financing was largely lost and so the Council, whichever political parties were control, would then be pretty much reliant on decisions at Holyrood and Westminster.

It's not an easy circle to square but it's unfortunate that the main political parties, SNP, Labour and Liberal, all seem far happier passing the buck and slagging off each other than actually trying to find a solution.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 05 Oct 2007, 22:40

I think that you're right Seanie - this is one instance where 'public opinion' has been expressed on a single issue basis (and a negative one at that), and decisions based upon those tend to come home to roost very quickly.

But that may not really bother those that take their ease whacking little balls about the park.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 Oct 2007, 12:40

Today's EN story on the schools issue:

Parents to petition Holyrood

Just tell me where to sign.....

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 06 Oct 2007, 18:01

Porty wrote:Sure:

Scottish Executive took decisions and funded the rebulid of some 330 schools

Scottish Government? Lets wait and see.

Still can't see how a change of name 4 weeks ago is relevant, but on you go!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 Oct 2007, 12:49

Today's EN article concerns SNP backer Tom Farmer urging action on funding for schools:
Get our schools sorted

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Oct 2007, 17:17

Also from today's EN:

Building new schools is about more than money

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 09 Oct 2007, 13:29

From today's EN :

High school is 'harming children's education'

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Oct 2007, 18:47

PHS parents today received a letter from PHS Parent Council, along with a suggested draft letter for parents to send to their local councillors and MSP. Hopefully, the letter will also be distributed to the parents at the catchment primaries.

* Note that a meeting will take place at PHS on Tuesday 30 October at 7pm.

Letter to Parents

The Parent Council has also written to both the Council and the Scottish Government.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 12 Oct 2007, 15:55

Taken from today's St John's newsletter

New School
You will be aware from recent press coverage that the plans for a new build for St John's have encountered a set back due to funding.

Myself and Donald Canavan, one of our parents, attended a meeting yesterday with Cllr Marilyne MacLaren and Ms Gillian Tee our Director of Children and Families.

They have assured us that there is still a commitment to improve facilities at St John's, whether through a rebuild or a refurbishment programme. A statement to this effect will be put in the local press, today or tomorrow. We will work closely with the Authority and the Scottish Government to ensure that we obtain the very best for our children.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Oct 2007, 04:41

Is that it? No money to replace St Johns and it merits one paragraph in the school newsletter? Sounds to me like they would settle for a lick of paint.

Compare this with the sentiment that is expressed in this PHS Parents Council letter to the Scottish Government:

PORTOBELLO HIGH SCHOOL PARENT COUNCIL
Chair: Ken Aitken

Portobello High School
Duddingston Road
Edinburgh EH15 1NF

5th October 2007

Dear Mr McAskill and Ms Hyslop MSPs,

REPAIR & REPLACE PORTOBELLO HIGH SCHOOL

It is with absolute astonishment that we learn of the decision of the City of Edinburgh Council, on the indication of the Government, to scrap plans to replace the school and St John's Primary School next door.

In just 150 days of this Government, you have presided over the wrecking of educational prospects of this part of the city. Every parent in the east of Edinburgh who plans to send their child to a local non-denominational school can feel less confident this week as a result of decisions you have taken or interfered with.

Portobello High School is going to stop working, unannounced and sooner rather than later from a fundamental fault in either the heating, the plumbing or the electrics or all three in all likelihood. Then what will happen? Edinburgh will struggle to find 1400 students a place in the city to learn. Four more years, at the least, will pass before a permanent replacement appears, in haste. Do you want this to happen on your watch ? Is this what the East of Edinburgh elected you to decide ?

If Scotland is to be a successful economy, it will need to value its children and smarten up its approach to education, supposedly one of your key areas for concern. These 150 days have been a disaster for schools in Edinburgh. This latest decision compounds the sense of neglect and betrayal that both Government and Council have displayed to the pupils who are too young to vote.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of the Parent Council

A letter, written in similar terms, has also been sent to the Council.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 14 Oct 2007, 20:10

Bob Jefferson wrote:For the sake of our children, please boycott the calendar.

You are joking, right? What happens if I buy 10 - do the kids all self destruct?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Oct 2007, 17:06

From today's EN:

Sums don't add up on school bill

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Oct 2007, 10:43

Posted on behalf of PHS Parent Council

Your School needs Your Support Now

Please come to a Public Meeting with our local and national politicians

on TUESDAY 30th October at Portobello High School at 7pm

to demand that Councillors and MSPs take action to build the new high school by 2011.

Stop the politicians using our school as a political football.

Please come and show your support for a new high school and make your voice heard.

organised by PHS Parent Council

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 29 Oct 2007, 12:55

A sub group of the Parent council of St John's are due to meet with Cllr Marilyne McLaren and discuss building improvements when she visits the school on Wed 31 Nov.

I've heard mention of a decant - I'm glad my son will have left the school before such an upheaval

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 31 Oct 2007, 12:07

Bob Jefferson wrote:Posted on behalf of PHS Parent Council

Your School needs Your Support Now

Please come to a Public Meeting with our local and national politicians

on TUESDAY 30th October at Portobello High School at 7pm

to demand that Councillors and MSPs take action to build the new high school by 2011.

Stop the politicians using our school as a political football.

Please come and show your support for a new high school and make your voice heard.

organised by PHS Parent Council

How'd it go then? Promised a state of the art, high quality, eco school?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2007, 15:52

Marya wrote:A sub group of the Parent council of St John's are due to meet with Cllr Marilyne McLaren and discuss building improvements when she visits the school on Wed 31 Nov.

I've heard mention of a decant - I'm glad my son will have left the school before such an upheaval

November hasn't got a 31. What do you teach?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 31 Oct 2007, 16:03

Porty wrote:
Marya wrote:A sub group of the Parent council of St John's are due to meet with Cllr Marilyne McLaren and discuss building improvements when she visits the school on Wed 31 Nov.

I've heard mention of a decant - I'm glad my son will have left the school before such an upheaval
November hasn't got a 31. What do you teach?

Oops!

In my defence I was just quoting St John's Newsletter!

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 31 Oct 2007, 20:30

I think this mostly applies to primary schools, but it is, I believe, relevant to the "debate":

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index ... 1730512007

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 31 Oct 2007, 22:50

Epykat wrote:How'd it go then? Promised a state of the art, high quality, eco school?

I certainly hope so. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend so I'm awaiting a report of the outcome. Heard anything?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Nov 2007, 16:41

The meeting started with Ken Aitken reading out the unanimous reaffirmation from the meeting of the full council last week to committment to a new PHS and other "wave 3" schools.

The meeting was well attended and had a partially impressive array of politicians. Most of whom participated in political bickering, which did not go down at all well with the audience.

Trams got a mention, the Parliament building got a mention, blame and counter blame was thrown around. Several politicians read out letters seeking to apportion/assuage blame and several politicians sought to show commitment to a new school solely by informing us that that they or their offspring attended the school. Lord Foulkes got rapturous applause, as did Kenny Macaskill. Some of the local politicians didn't do nearly as well; engendering cries of "stop waffling" and gaels of sardonic laughter.

Kenny was the best at seeming to answer questions. Stephen Hawkins gave the most evasive answers followed closely by Mike Bridgman.

The quality of the questioning from the floor was very high.

There was some debate about PPP: no politician really likes it, it has got better as authorities have learned how to manage it, Foulkes made the point that prior to PPP the City of Edinburgh built one new school a year and that has risen to one a month using PPP. The Scottish Futures Trust got a mention but there is sign of any development or detail.

Gavin Strang MP made what I believe is his first public statement on the issue, saying it was the most important issue in the community at the moment. He supported a school in the park, agreeing with a speaker who stated that there was no "good" locations available on which to build a new school. There are only bad locations; Portobello Park being the least bad. (the entire park and golf course would have been a good location, at least in my view)

A feasibility study is underway for the provisioning of all the new schools, with a target completion date of January 2008. And a bid for funding will follow shortly after. Kenny Macaskill urged Portobello to make an isolated bid as he feels we have the strongest case. He also said that he was "fairly sure" Fiona Hyslop would find the money and promised to do his utmost to make it happen. If he follows through then we couldn't really ask for much more from the meeting. The SNP budget on Nov 16th is the next millstone.

Incessant whispering whilst ones friend/colleague was asking questions was another feature on display. Jackie Brock drew a brilliant comparison between the ability to deliver an entire Olympic Village by 2012, a Commonwealth Games by 2014 and yet a new PHS will take as least as long as the Olympic Village!!!

Ian Perry intimated that he had heard that St Johns are no longer bidding for a new school. Who knows?

Footnote: Kenny MaCaskill totally trounced any possibility of a review into a preferred site for the new school, stating there have been more than enough delays and we should have no more. (more than a bit ironic) . Even Stephen Hawkins stated that he did not want to reopen the "educational" consultation. I suspect sleight of hand and what he wants is to completely set aside the educational consultation and have what he would call a full public consultation into the location. He never said that.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Nov 2007, 20:03

Sounds like it was an interesting and entertaining evening and I'm sorry to have missed it. I think I'm somewhat reassured that the SNP are committed to re-building PHS, if not all of the wave 3 schools, and that it is recognised as the top priority.

At the same time, I fear that St Johns may be throwing away a once in a lifetime opportunity to obtain a new school. The cost of refurbishment, repair and ongoing maintenance of an old building must surely compare unfavourably with a new build and all the advantages that would offer? It seems completely bonkers to me but then I'm not a St J parent so it's not my problem.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 01 Nov 2007, 22:06

Porty wrote:....Foulkes made the point that prior to PPP the City of Edinburgh built one new school a year and that has risen to one a month using PPP.

One a month?

PPP1 ran from 2001-2005 and covered 17 schools. PPP2, which started in 2004, isn't yet complete and covers 8 schools.

Whilst (less than) 25 schools in 6 years is a big improvement on one a year it's hardly one a month. Unless of course you only count the months in which schools are finished and ignore the months in which they're not.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Nov 2007, 22:23

Posted on behalf of PFANS:

A meeting of over 200 parents demanded of our local councillors to end the political points scoring and raking over the past and concentrate on the future of the school. Too much time has already been lost. This resulted in a commitment from the vice convener of Education, backed up by our SNP councillors, Mike Bridgeman and Stefan Tymkewicz, to begin now to work on the design and planning application process in parallell with the feasibility study for the school which will concentrate on the finance package to pay for the funding of the new building.

The councillors agreed to come back to a meeting with the parent council in December and demonstrate real progress by the end of January on the design/planning application process and the completion of the feasibility study by the end of January.

While we need to see real action, this commitment clearly marks the end of the drift and wasted 6 months since the election and we may at last begin to have clear proof that our local representatives really do have a commitment to the school.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2007, 13:09

"The councillors agreed to come back to a meeting with the parent council in December and demonstrate real progress by the end of January on the design/planning application process and the completion of the feasibility study by the end of January. "

This happened after I left and apparently 4 Councillors agreed that design and planning would commence immediately.

I understand that St Johns are going for a refurb and extension having conducted the usual consultation with the school community, staff, parents etc. A 1 year decant is anticpated.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 02 Nov 2007, 14:28

I couldn't make it along to the meeting although I'm eager that the community gets a new school asap. I'm very encouraged by Kenny MacAskill's stance on the issue. Well done, also, to those who are keeping the pressure up on the city of Edinburgh Council to honour their commitment to the children of Portobello.

Wonder when St John's will get around to telling parents what they have in store for their children? I know of several parents who will transfer their children to other local primaries if faced with a decant.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Nov 2007, 18:38

There might be progress on the planning process by the end of January but it's unlikely to be significant. In the absence of a clear understanding of how the school would be procured it would be impossible to embark on a full design process. The means of financing and propcurement have a big impact on the process of design and development. If they're serious about running a parrallel planning process they'd most likely have to go down the route of an outline planning application without significant design development. That would still require a lot of analysis and would be a long process.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Nov 2007, 10:50

Porty wrote:Kenny MaCaskill totally trounced any possibility of a review into a preferred site for the new school, stating there have been more than enough delays and we should have no more.

Precisely. However, PPAG are still determined to prevent the new school from being built, or at least to delay it for as long as possible. Any money that they raise through the sale of their calendar will be used to further those aims. That is why I am asking local parents, and anyone who cares about the education of our young people, to boycott the calendar.

I will also be urging local businesses not to unwittingly aid and abet PPAG by selling the calendar on their premises.

Post by **wangi** » 03 Nov 2007, 22:36

Bob Jefferson wrote:That is why I am asking local parents, and anyone who cares about the education of our young people, to boycott the calendar.

I will also be urging local businesses not to unwittingly aid and abet PPAG by selling the calendar on their premises.

I'm sure people are able to make their own mind up whether they buy a calendar or not.

And it's a bit counter-productive to try and force it otherwise...

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 03 Nov 2007, 23:06

I disagree. I suspect that many people will be suckered into buying the calendar because it has pretty pictures of local views, without realising that in doing so they will be contributing directly to a group that is totally opposed to the replacement of Portobello High School on a site that councillors unanimously decided was the best option.

Similarly, I imagine that some local traders may agree to sell the calendar without realising that in doing so they will be causing great offence to many of their loyal customers.