New Portobello High School - on going issues

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Mar 2008, 14:04

Marya wrote:Whether you have children or not, a new school will benefit all the community for generations to come.

Yes, I agree and I made my decision on that basis.

Tactically, PPAG have always sought to create a division between parents and 'the community' as though they were two separate entities. They claim that there has been an educational consultation but no consultation with 'the community.'

The fact remains, as Porty has pointed out, that the hard core of PPAG supporters either do not have children or will not be sending them to PHS. How many of those not going to PHS will enjoy the parkland setting of the new Holyrood school I wonder?

Green space for our kids, concrete for yours. Cheers!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 18 Mar 2008, 14:59

At last night PHS parent council meeting Marilyn Maclaren didn't really offer us any clear way forward. In fact there was every indication that the Council fully intend to continue traversing up a dead end street, as far as funding a new school is concerned.

The councillor and by the sound of things many of her colleagues are unaware of the implications of the concordat that they signed with the SG. There is a distinct feeling of "what the hell have we done?". Kenny Macaskill was adamant that if they didnt agree with the content then they should not have agreed and signed it. Which seems fair enough.

One positive bit of news MM did give us: the council are committing funding NOW to resolve the Common Good issue. They say it could take up to a Year and will likely end up in Sherrif Court and in the hands of a QC, one way or anther it will get resolved.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Mar 2008, 22:02

Porty High featured in this STV video report today:

Audit Scotland claim one in three schools are not up to standard *

More from the BBC, including a link to the report in question:

Decades to fix school buildings

* (I hate to be pedantic, but shouldn't that read 'one in three schools is not up to standard'?)

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Mar 2008, 22:17

From Ewan Aitken's blog on Tuesday:

I hear that the Lib Dem side of the administration is standing firm, (there’s a sentence I never thought I’d write!), on the issue of putting a new school for Portobello on the park. that is once we get the money of course!

On this one, the Lib Dem's will have my full support.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Mar 2008, 18:32

From Ewan's blog once more:

Still no answer from our political masters...

Today schools minister Maureen Watt once again reiterated the claim that the SNP Government has given Councils £3b over three years for schools refurbishment and rebuilding. On that amount, Edinburgh would expect to get around £300m. I asked the Director of Finance today if we had received anything like that amount. He just wearily shook his head.

So I ask once again, where is the money? The SNP said they would match us "brick for brick". A year in, they have not even managed to commission one new school, (their claim of 100 projects are projects already under way when Labour was in power), Well, here’’s my brick- where is theirs? I am not holding my breath!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 27 Mar 2008, 15:50

More bad news in today's EN :

No Holyrood pot of gold for schools rebuild, parents told

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Mar 2008, 08:45

The official line from the Council:

27 March 2008

Edinburgh Takes First Step Towards Next Phase of Rebuilding Schools in the City

The City of Edinburgh Council has taken the first step towards the next phase of rebuilding schools in the city by submitting feasibility studies for five new schools to the Scottish Government.

Studies have been carried out on Portobello, James Gillespie's and Boroughmuir High Schools, St John's Primary and St Crispin's school.

Cllr MacLaren Convener of Education Children and Families said "The Council has now allocated £33m, 20% of the total cost of the five new schools, which demonstrates our absolute commitment to these projects.

I am delighted we have now submitted the feasibility studies to the Scottish Government, which were produced working in partnership with each school community. Feedback from parents and staff was extremely useful and will now inform the final business cases which will be completed by June of this year.

We have now done everything possible to ensure the delivery of these projects and I now look forward to working with the Scottish Government to identify funding mechanisms and very much hope that they can assist us to deliver these new schools in the coming years."

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Mar 2008, 15:05

Schools showdown hots up

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Apr 2008, 16:51

From today's EN:

Battle to build new Porty High on park heads for the courts

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Apr 2008, 14:10

From today's evening news. [admin: edit]

Beware, NIMBYs are at work in new school row

I AM surprised to read that Ros Sutherland, chair of Portobello Park Action Group, suggests building the new Portobello High on "one of the other locations which were considered" in the consultation for a new school.

Ros had the opportunity to suggest a site at the public meeting in Portobello Town Hall but neglected to do so, as did all of her PPAG supporters.

Ros also stated PPAG have "always supported the need for a new high school", yet they have continually threatened to drag the process through the courts, thereby denying a generation of Portobello High pupils the opportunity of attending school in a building fit for purpose.

Why are they doing this? Well Ros suggested to the city council and in the Evening News that building the school in the Figgate Park (further away from her house) would be an option.

Another PPAG supporter would deny a better education to 1450 pupils but would send their own to a school rebuilt on a green site. Another attending a university, you guessed it, on a green site is vehemently opposed to using the park.

Is this a green crusade to stop part of Portobello Park being used for a school, or is it NIMBYism of the worst kind? I'll let you decide.

William Wilson, Portobello High Street, Edinburgh

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Apr 2008, 20:45

Here's the link so you can keep tabs on the comments section:

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Beware ... 3978061.jp

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Apr 2008, 09:40

I noticed this morning that comment no. 16 has been removed. I assumed at first that it had to be one of Porty's and then I realised it was mine! I had posted to let people know that moderated discussion on this topic was available on talkporty. This was deemed to be an attempt to harvest users from the EN site.

Kind of ironic considering talkporty links to just about every Portobello-related story the EN ever prints, not to mention the fact that they nick a lot of their stories and info from us. If they checked their stats they would see that a lot more traffic goes in their direction from here than vice versa.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Apr 2008, 09:46

OK, I take it all back. In the time it took to post my rant the Editor has re-instated my post.

Jolly nice chaps at the Evening News. I've always thought that.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 15 Apr 2008, 09:54

Bob Jefferson wrote:I noticed this morning that comment no. 16 has been removed. I assumed at first that it had to be one of Porty's and then I realised it was mine! .

Think you will find that the only place I ever get moderated is right here on TP and I usually deserve it.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 15 Apr 2008, 10:53

Looks like Portobello parents aren't the only ones getting fed up waiting for funding for a new school, according to this BBC articleHigh school visit plea to Salmond

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Apr 2008, 20:02

More from the EN Letters Page (3rd letter down):

Other sites exist for new secondary

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Apr 2008, 22:19

We are used to the occasional post being deleted on talkporty, and since I have been responsible in the past for the deletion of other people's posts I can hardly complain about the deletion of my own, however the EN seem to have gone slightly overboard in deleting the entire Comments section for yesterday's Letters Page.

This is unfortunate as it means that Adelaide Brown's ridiculous suggestion that the Scottish Power site and the freightliner site were both suitable for a re-build of PHS goes unchallenged.

In the meantime, the Comments section on the previous EN letter on this topic is still live at:

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Beware ... 3978061.jp

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Apr 2008, 18:54

No comments facility on the EN Letters Page today either. In which case, we will have to deal with the letter from Oula Jones right here. I seem to recall that Oula is the captain or chair or something of the ladies golf club based at Portobello Golf Course. She writes:

Not a PFAN of the single-issue body

WHAT a shame the single-issue fanatics of PFANS insist on "the school on the park" option, when a refurbishment on site would be cheaper, quicker and more easily fulfilled.

Oula Jones, Hart Street, Edinburgh

Firstly, if supporters of PFANS are 'single-issue fanatics' what does that make supporters of PPAG?

Secondly, although Oula's letter has the redeeming quality of brevity, it is nevertheless complete nonsense. And when you hear people saying that 'everyone' now accepts that the current building needs to be replaced, remember that in fact there are many PPAG supporters like Oula who do not accept this and think it just needs a bit of 'refurbishment'.

Don't imagine for a moment that the needs of the children are the priority for these people. Their words and actions tell a very different story. The plain truth is that they couldn't care less.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Apr 2008, 19:23

yes you are correct Bob. Oula was the lady that made representation to the full council with a view to emphasising the important role that Portobello Golf Club plays. She based quite a bit of her argument around the provision of facilities for groups of hen and stag parties, the inference being that they should be given higher priority than our schoolchildren.

PFANS complied with the consultation in every way. I believe we alll were open to a better solution than the park, if one were available.

It is now a single issue but it was the 65 councillors that made it so not PFANS.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Apr 2008, 16:41

From today's EN Letters Page:

[url=http://news..com/opinion/Loss-of-parkland-a-small.3996327.jp]Loss of parkland a small price to pay for education[/url]

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Apr 2008, 13:12

Yet again there's no comments allowed I suspect they are tightening security up to avoid letters being "planted" and then trumpeted as widely held views.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Apr 2008, 03:16

Porty wrote:Yet again there's no comments allowed I suspect they are tightening security up to avoid letters being "planted" and then trumpeted as widely held views.

I'm more than ready to be proved wrong, but its a no-brainer

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 20 Apr 2008, 03:19

Once upon a time there was ............

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Apr 2008, 22:07

Remember that public consultation on the Scottish Futures Trust? SFT was the SNP's big idea to replace PFI/PPP as a mechanism to raise funds for major public buildings like hospitals and, erm, schools. It was always rather worryingly short on detail but, nevertheless, we were assured pre-election that it was the way forward for Scotland and would offer much better value for money.

Well, looks like the sceptics were right:

From the Scotsman:

SNP futures plan dismissed as 'unworkable'

From the Herald:

Experts say scheme to replace PPP badly thought out

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Apr 2008, 22:18

The responses to the consultation are available to read at:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 18161301/0

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Apr 2008, 20:58

From today's EN Letters Page, 3rd letter down, featuring the return of the Comments section:

Vanishing green space won't return

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Apr 2008, 13:21

From today's Eveing News;

Time spent on PE is not fit for pupils

PERHAPS the statistics showing Portobello High School taking the joint fourth bottom place out of the city's 23 secondary schools for the time spent on PE will give those who oppose a new high school, pause for thought. (City's high schools let down pupils, Evening News, April 19).

The statistics also conceal that the time spent on PE is reduced even further by the time required to bus the children to Meadowbank or the Jack Kane Centre.

Portobello for a new School calls on all members of the community to campaign with us for a new school to give all children in our community the high quality learning environment they deserve.
Jackie Brock, Marlborough Street, Portobello

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Apr 2008, 16:46

Stephen Hawkins has a letter in today's EN Letters Page:

No extras allowed for in school budget

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Apr 2008, 22:18

Stephen Hawkins wrote: No extras allowed for in school budget.

- For clarification, the recent feasibility study proposes that the school takes up the whole of Portobello Park, is three or four storeys high and includes sports pitches.

However, there are no community facilities included and it is made clear that anything extra to the basic school has to be provided within the overall budget.

Never! You gotta be kidding me. Any newly built facilities have to be included in the overall budget!!! I would never have thunk of that.

Hang on a minute tho' - wouldn't that be the case whatever site had been selected for the new school? The fact its on the Park makes no difference to funding for extras but at least it is one site that has room for potential. If we want additional community facilities then we will have to bid and make a convincing case.

So what is his point exactly? Does he think the community that he represents shouldn't bother lobbying for extra amenities? Is he inferring that money would be available if the school was built on a different site or is that he thinks there will be no additional money available?

Well it sure can't be the latter cos' Hawkins preferred option is a rebuild on the existing site, which would cost a whacking £15m more than a school in the park!! Then of course there is no capital receipt for the sale of the site. In effect that makes a rebuild between £25m and £30m more expensive than a SITP. That £25m would buy one hell of a lot of community amenities and he must believe the council can get that money or why would he be purveying the idea?

Stephen goes on to beg for parity for all 5 Wave 3 schools, which he says all deserve to be rebuilt/refurbished. That's rich coming from a bloke that wants to spend an additional £25m-£30m on just one school!!! (It probably equates to the cost of 3 primary schools including St John's.) The boy's obviously not thought this through properly.

I'm sure his cash strapped colleagues are going to love his idea for funding school provision for all the wave 3 schools by creating an additional £30m cost upfront. I mean isn't funding the deal breaker at the moment?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Apr 2008, 23:56

Porty, good points well made. With both Stephen Hawkins and Kenny McAskill in attendance, you should have been at the CC meeting tonight. Several of the usual suspects called for either a re-build onsite or mooted the freightliner terminal as an alternative.

The new Portobello High School on Portobello Park will have community facilities designed in. That's a fact and not something that relies upon additional funding.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Apr 2008, 09:32

Was it the usual- it wasn't a proper consultation- the freightliner site is big enough- we can decant on site- its common good - you will be walking on a dead man's grave- I bought my house, brought my child up there and am guaranteed a view over the park - we have a petition that we can interpret any way we choose to support any position- pish?

Was Diana Cairns there? Is she still insisting on financial compensation for the people of portobello?

How was Kenny, I am increasingly impressed by the man's work rate, he's everywhere! Almost a good as Maureen is and Lawrence in his pomp.

Did Mike B make an SNP appearance too?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Apr 2008, 21:12

No sign of Mike and he didn't respond to my email inviting him to submit a monthly report for publication on Portobello Online so I have no idea what he is doing on our behalf. Bit of an odd arrangement really.

We never moved beyond the well-established stalemate position on the funding of new schools. The Council has only been given 20% of what is required to replace the five 'Wave 3' schools and no more money is on offer. Kenny maintains it's up to the Council to get on with it. It's all rather depressing.

Andrew Burns comments on the current situation on his blog:

Two-tier school estate?

Serious incompetence

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 May 2008, 10:14

From yesterday's EN Letters Page:

Councillor can't have it both ways

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 May 2008, 22:49

This is a copy of the newsletter that was circulated recently by PPAG. Remember seanie's quip about PPAG's assertion that decanted pupils performed better? I had assumed he was joking, but here it is in black and white:

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 May 2008, 00:58

PPAG are really going out on a limb on Common Good. They have assumed that cos' some accountng bod in the council has moved the land from one account to another that its changed the legal status. They may be right but their track record is poor.

Apart from that, its pleasing to see how desperate they are getting, how low can they stoop? Decanting actually improves academic performance, I find that incredulous and impossible to prove. However, even if so, is academic all that matters? Could we provide a decent educational space for a comprehensive spectrum of children and not only the academics?