St John's School

[Pal of Porty]

.....Whoever it was in the Council who thought that showing three different options on ONLY ONE drawing needs their head examined.

I could not agree more - we have been saying exactly the same thing for a while.

[seanie]

It beggars belief.

I used to be an Architect and I'm well aware that lot's of people, perfectly understandably, have difficulties interpreting drawings. It's understandable since most people aren't familiar with them. Architects have a terrible habit of producing pretty drawings that are largely incomprehensible to those outwith the profession.

But trying to show THREE DIFFERENT options on ONLY ONE drawing is just ludicrous. It's difficult to think of anything more guaranteed to cause confusion.

[Bob Jefferson]

Well thank goodness someone has made sense of it. It now seems clear that there has been a huge misunderstanding regarding the 3 options and while I agree that this is in part down to a confusing drawing, I find it difficult to believe that in all the meetings that the 'redevelopment committee' and others held with Council officials, they failed to understand what was being proposed. If this is indeed the case then it is complete incompetence.

The questionnaire that has gone out to St J parents is rendered meaningless and must now be scrapped. It fails in its purpose to explain precisely what the 3 options entail and the letter to parents that relates to it, recently issued by St John's School Parent Council, is factually incorrect, based on a misunderstanding and has only added to the confusion. Frankly, the whole thing is a farce.

[seanie]

The consultation period finishes this Monday I think. It'd be a bit late in the day to issue any clarification or correction. It appears that the consultation's been carried out without people actually understanding what's being consulted upon.

Who in their right mind shows three different options on only one drawing?

[Bob Jefferson]

The results of the questionnaire will be worthless since parents have been completely misled by the letter from the Parent Council and, in any case, are unlikely to have made much sense of the Council's explanation or drawing of site options.

Their only option now is to scrap the whole consultation and do it again properly, having first explained each option very carefully to the 'redevelopment committee' so that there is no further misunderstanding.

[Bob Jefferson]

Just realised I posted the link to this recent EN letter on the PHS thread when it more properly belongs here:

Plan to put school on sports pitch a 'disaster'

[Porty]

I emailed Lindsy Glasgow who is in charge of the Wave 3 project team at the council. I believe she was directly responsible for putting the St John questionnaire together. I copied in David Manson chair of St John's parent council and Ken Aitken chair of PHS parent council. I have altered their email addresses slightly so as not to make them public. For those of you following the debate here: http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/lette ... 4639071.jp

You may wish to consider whether it is dimness or deceit?

My Email to Lindsay:

From: Stephen McIntyre
Sent: 31 October 2008 12:24
To: Lindsay Glasgow; Ken.aitken; damanson
Subject: Clarity on St John's Consultation

Ken

Thanks for the chat and providing David Manson’s email address.

Lindsay

Thank you for clarifying that if St Johns chose a new school on PHS tennis courts (Option 2) the current school building would be demolished and the existing site become part of the St John’s school campus. (Details below)

I called you earlier to seek assistance with the following question:

There is still a great deal of confusion relating to the options offered to St John’s in the recent questionnaire. I’m fairly sure I understand them now but it has taken a team of us, including an architect with experience in school design to figure it out.

Can you please confirm that all 3 options offered to St Johns in the recent questionnaire require the annexation of the land commonly known as PHS Tennis Courts. Essentially all 3 options have the same footprint?

You will note that I have copied in Ken Aitken and David Manson.

Thank you in anticipation.

Regards

Stephen McIntyre

And her response:

From: Lindsay Glasgow
Sent: 31 October 2008 12:49
To: Stephen McIntyre; Ken.aitken; damanson
Subject: RE: Clarity on St John's Consultation

Stephen,

I can confirm that the final site size for St Johns would be the same under each of the three options - requiring the annexation of the Tennis Courts. This would allow both the school building and an all weather pitch and playground to be provided for St Johns as the ultimate output of the project, wherever the building is located. I'm hoping to get further clarity on this issue set out on the web site. The consultation deadline has also been extended to 7 November.

Clearly there is an issue for Portobello High School if the St Johns project, under any of the options, were to proceed before the High School relocated, and this will require further discussion. A letter is in draft at present for Portobello parents regarding this issue.

Yesterday I also asked her to confirm the following:

From: steve.mcintyre@mpeople.co.uk
Sent: 28 October 2008 17:45
To: Lindsay Glasgow
Subject: Re: Education Act 1980

Lindsay - thank you for the link. Can I ask for conformation that if option 2 is the eventual selected option then the existing school buildings will be demolished and the existing site become part of the overall St Johns campus. This is not clear in the survey. Thank you - Stephen McIntyre

And her response:

From: Lindsay Glasgow
Sent: 30 October 2008 12:36
To: steve.mcintyre
Subject: RE: Education Act 1980

I can confirm that the whole demarked site - including that of the existing St Johns building - would be retained for future use as part of the school site for St Johns.

I would hope to make some additional information available on the web site that clarifies this for a wider audience.

Regards

Lindsay Glasgow

admin: edited for formatting

[Bob Jefferson]

The whole thing is incredible. You couldn't make it up.

I also spoke to Lindsay Glasgow today and we had a very similar exchange. I have suggested that it might be helpful to produce individual drawings for each site option, although at this stage the damage has really been done.

There is now not enough time to re-run the consultation, but clearly it will be very difficult to take the results seriously, given the woeful quality of information that parents have been provided with. I will be asking for it to be declared null and void.

[Porty]

There is now not enough time to re-run the consultation, but clearly it will .

Why?

[Bob Jefferson]

I suggested to Lindsay Glasgow that the consultation was now worthless and should be re-run. She replied that this would not be possible because of time constraints. The report is due to Council in December. But I got the impression that under the circumstances the results are unlikely to carry much weight. I still intend to press for it to be declared incompetent.

[Bob Jefferson]

The question that remains is this:

Did the re-development committee of St John's School Parent Council, comprising of Alison Connelly, Donald Canavan (ex-Tory Councillor) and David Manson (architect), misunderstand Option 2?

Or did they deliberately mislead St John's parents about Option 2 in order to promote their own preferred option and suit their own agenda?

I'll leave you to think about that.

[Porty]

Think you have the ex tory councllor and architect mixed up. The whole thing is a mix up.

[Bob Jefferson]

My apologies to the architect.

[seanie]

To be fair the report wasn't well put together and the drawing was confusing. It wasn't misleading but you had to read it pretty carefully to see what exactly was being proposed.

My guess is their reading of the report was coloured by the previous feasibility study and so they missed some aspects, albeit pretty fundamental ones.

[Bob Jefferson]

Seanie, I think that it's very generous of you to give them the benefit of the doubt. I just find it difficult to believe that the committee, and the architect in particular, misunderstood Option 2 after all the meetings that must have taken place where they presumably considered each option in detail.

[seanie]

Well Parent Councils are allowed to co-opt non-parents onto them.

Maybe I could offer my services for some Pro Bono advice?

[Bob Jefferson]

But you are a parent.

I'm anti Bono myself. I've always hated U2.

[Bob Jefferson]

I'm also intrigued in this, from Maureen Child's most recent newsletter:

I have also had a presentation on the real possibility of a new school being rebuilt within the shell of the current building (which was ingeniously designed in the 1920s with no internal supporting walls) and an extension. The plans are professional, detailed and costed. The parent council representatives calculate it will cost very much less to do what they propose than to build a new school for St John’s.

So, here we have the Parent Council lobbying a local councillor with their very own plan for refurbishment at the same time that parents are being asked to state their preference in a bungled and possibly nobbled consultation.

The plans are "professional, detailed and costed". Has anyone seen these plans? Have they been shared with St John's parents? When were they drawn up? Who drew them up?

Why all the secrecy?

[Porty]

Let us not lose sight of the fact that all 3 of the options are great for St Johns. A larger site and a better school whatever happens. I am delighted for them. I will certainly be tthrowing my weight behind PHS agreeing to cede the land before we move subject to conditions.

How can this cock up have happened?

Guys you are a tad generous/naive. I don't believe that it beggars belief it is in fact consistent with the school board behaviour during the stat consultation process. Think about it:

During that process the school board paid no heed to any of the 4 options offered to the school. Never a mention at the various representations to the council. Instead they pursued brownfield sites that were not on offer, they didn't ask the school if that's what they wanted, it was a purely personal decision and they went for it. And when that came a cropper, right at the death of the process, they opted for a refurb- without asking the school. It is no coincidence that each option they pursued also fitted nicely with the PPAG mission. St John's were represented by PPAG supporters at every turn, which still applies today.

In that process the board were not interested in the options given, they effectively deselected them just like they tried to do with Option 2.

This time around they were presented with an option they desired - what they thought was a refurb on the existing site with a wee pitch on a sliver of land that PHS doesn't use. (no way they checked out the size of a 7-a-side pitch then compared it to the overall size of the existing site). So as soon as they saw that option they went for it, and I'm bettnng they showed no more than a passing interest in the other options. They simply were not looking.They were too busy showing politicians round the school extolling the virtues of a refurbishment.And once again the option (as they understood it) suited PPAG.

They clearly thought that Option 2 was the only option that required PHS tennis courts. Initially we all did, some of us who are interested in a fair process, dug a little deeper and found the truth. St Johns parent council were not even looking for the truth, as it didn't suit them to do so.

The only hurdle appeared to be the parental survey , however they felt they were in a strong position to rubbish option 2 because they had totally misunderstood it.They asked for it to be removed and when that failed they prejudiced the survey with the accompanying letter. Rather than have an honest consultation with parents they pursued their own desire. This is totally consistent with their behaviour in the previous process.

What does beggar belief is an architect looking at the indicative site plan and alarm bells not going off when it seemed the council wanted to put the entire school and its facilities solely on the tennis courts.Are the tennis courrts smaller than the existing site there can't be much in it? If all options were being considered seriously then this would have prompted further investigation- but no, there was no need, they had the option they wanted.

Because the PPAG hats are permanently on, they interpreted our curiosity and interest in the process, as being solely PFANS motivaited. Therefore anything we said had to be wrong. They still din't look at the survey. This is evidenced as recently as last wednesday when Alison Connolly used the Evening NEws to inform all and sundry that option 2 "really is a poor option".

I re read that letter this morning and it made me think of Tom and Jerry. You lnow that scene where Tom has pulled one over on Butch the dog. it eventually dawns on Butch and his head takes the form of an Ass.

So there's no real surprise here, it is more or less the same as the last time.

For the record; I don't favour option 2 either, I just wanted a fair process. I wanted to be sure that the school got what it wanted and if it happened to be the same as what PPAG wanted, then at least it was arrived at in full knowledge and with majority support.

As far as the parent council are concerned I think they should resign. They have proved beyond doubt that the school is not best served with them at the helm. Doesn't matter much if its a misunderstanding or something worse.

[Bob Jefferson]

I agree. If they genuinely misunderstood Option 2, which I find very difficult to believe, then it is gross incompetence. If they deliberately misled parents about Option 2 then it is something far worse.

Either way, they should resign.

And for the record, I want the best possible outcome for St John's as well but parents have to be allowed to make an informed decision based on truth and facts.

And I'm also prepared to support the position that PHS should cede land to make that possible, subject to conditions.

[seanie]

As a general rule I favour cock-up over conspiracy.

Everybody has a tendency to see what they want to see; confirmation bias. Also the report lacked clarity and trying to show three options on one drawing was just daft. They saw an option they weren't keen on and accidently misinterpreted it. I can see how someone could make that mistake.

We all make mistakes. Just because this one fatally compromised the consultation process doesn't mean you have to look for a scapegoat.

P.S The tennis courts are about 0.4Ha and the existing St John's site is 0.66Ha. Even combined the site would still be below the statutory minimum, although obviously it'd be a big improvement.

[Maria]

P.S The tennis courts are about 0.4Ha and the existing St John's site is 0.66Ha. Even combined the site would still be below the statutory minimum, although obviously it'd be a big improvement.

Seanie, what do you mean by 'statutory minimum'? Is it a legal requirement or merely a guideline?

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN Letters Page (3rd letter down):

Give parents the facts on school

[seanie]

Unfortunately it's not straightforward. There are statutory 'minimum' sizes laid down in the School premises (general requirements and standards) (Scotland) regulations 1967. They're calculations based on pupil numbers. From memory the 'minimum' for St John's & the nursery would be 1.4Ha, wheras PHS would be 6.8Ha.

However the regulations always had a get out clause; you could obtain permission from the Secretary of State for Scotland to derogate from the standards. The regualtions are still in place and do apply but in reality lots of schools fall short of the minimum.

It'd also be true to say that the regulations are dated. There are more recent guidelines that are a better guide to the size schools should be. The '67 regulations have separate calculations for school/playground etc and playing fields. When you look at more recent guidelines, based on research as to what works and what doesn't, you find that the '67 act regulations tend to be a bit over generous when it comes to playing fields, but too mean when it comes to the actual size the school requires.

That's even more true with the advent of decent all-weather pitches. The reason the playing field provision was comparatively generous in'67 was they were relying on grass pitches that can only take so much wear per week. Hence the need for several to take the heavy usage of a school.

With a decent synthetic pitch the issue of wear is more or less irrelevant. You could use it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if you wanted, wheras a basic grass pitch might only sustain a few hours of use per week.

When working on school projects we didn't rely to heavily on the '67 regulations. We tended to use more recent guidelines such as Building Bulletin 82 - 'Area Guidelines for Schools'

[Porty]

Seanie thanks for all of that, it is informative and enlightening, as per usual.

"When working on school projects we didn't rely to heavily on the '67 regulations. We tended to use more recent guidelines such as Building Bulletin 82 - 'Area Guidelines for Schools'

[Bob Jefferson]

As a general rule I favour cock-up over conspiracy.

Me too. In that case, all the Parent Council have to do is to admit that they misunderstood Option 2 and subsequently misled parents, inadvertently skewing the process.

Either way, St John's parents are owed some kind of explanation. And then they can make their own minds up as to whether the present Parent Council are competent to carry out their duties.

[Porty]

As a general rule I favour cock-up over conspiracy.


We all make mistakes. Just because this one fatally compromised the consultation process doesn't mean you have to look for a scapegoat.

I spent most of the day in Porty -rugby club etc- yesterday and as you may imagne St John's came up in a number of conversations. The general consensus was deep suspicion that an architect could have looked at a drawing that showed a new school on an even smaller site than the existing and not sought to question the officals. So conspiracy.

Personally I go for cock up, mainly because it wasn't just Option 2 that was misunderstood and misrepresented - all 3 options were not fully understood. All 3 options requiring the annexation of the tennis courts was as much of a surprise to St Johns parent council as it was to us.

I totally concur that people make mistakes and should not always be made scapegoats. However, that's not the main reason I think the parent council should resign. They should resign because they attempted to manipulate the process to suit their personal desires. They have admitted this. Firstly asking the council to leave out option 2 and then the letter. They have no right to pre-judge what parents do and do not want to see whilst seeking to restrict the options available to them. They need to walk away.

Those that serve on parent councils should be commended for voluntarily giving their time. When agreeing to serve there is a duty of care and responsibility to the school. And there's no greater responsibility than the decision that St John's have to make about the school that will serve thousand of childern and staff over the next 40 years. The decision is too important to leave to just 3 individuals. Especially when the most thrawn is a mainstay of the Portobello Park Action Group. I don't know Mr Canavan or Mr Manson but I hope they take a look in the mirror and ask "do I truly have St John's school's best interests at heart and have I acted that way?" If the answer is yes than I suppose they should be given a chance to prove it

[seanie]

Well you learn something everyday.

Had to look up 'thrawn' in a dictionary.

[seanie]

Out of curiosity I looked at the consultation reportfor Boroughmuir. It shows an 'indicative plan' for the refurbishment option that's unlabelled and illegible.

Seriously. It conveys absolutely nothing.

[Porty]

Lindsay Glasgow mentioned that she was going to put more informative data on the council wedsite- is it there yet? Also has the new school consultation had mention on the st Johns website or was it just in the newsletter. ? Can't access the net from here. .

[Bob Jefferson]

Nothing new on either as far as I can see.

[Bob Jefferson]

This image from Google Earth obviously pre-dates the installation of the all-weather pitch, but I thought it might nevertheless be useful to get an idea of the current layout of the two schools and the size of the old tennis courts.

I'm still trying to get an architect's drawing of the all-weather pitch.

[seanie]

The area outlined is about 100x40m, so a 7-a-side pitch should cover about 2/3's of it.

[Porty]

Not seen the pitch but from memory it is a 5 or 6 a side pitch. Sure they wanted larger but cash was restricted as it was £60k saved from various budgets

[seanie]

5-a-side's a lot smaller than 7's. Something like 20x40m. They might've just gone for as big as they could afford and got something in between.