New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Discussion and debate on the issues affecting Portobello
Locked
User avatar
Dadaist
Posts: 6159
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 19:42
Location: on the fringes of Portobello

Post by Dadaist » 01 Mar 2006, 10:16

June Keppie's EN letter seems to be following a pattern in terms of letter content from golfers - I hope this is down to the editing from the Evening News and not an insight into the psychology of the golfer :

Here is my crude analysis of June's letter :
paragraph about golf - golf and the elderly

paragraph about golf - golf and the young

paragraph about golf - golf and history

tiny mention of school

paragraph about golf - golf and walking

paragraph about golf - accessibility and the new course

paragraph about golf - the tragedy of loss

paragraph about the school

paragraph about golf - golf, walkers and dog walkers
I think if you're going to talk about golf - fine. But, whether it is the fault of the editor or the fault of the writer, the proportion of golf argument to school argument in this letter is hopelessly weighted towards golf, which makes it look like the writer cares more for golf than education, which I am sure is not the case.

User avatar
bellybabe
Posts: 1662
Joined: 18 Apr 2003, 13:25
Contact:

Post by bellybabe » 01 Mar 2006, 11:35

A lot of this seems to be going round in circles, doesn't it?

bbbrown, a good many pages back I explained why, in my personal opinion of course, the current site would not be big enough for rebuilding St John's. Your post which came immediately after asked isn't the current site big enough. St John's is overcrowded; this is a simple fact. It is a small school with a small amount of outdoor space. Some of that important outdoor space was lost last year so that the hall could be extended and a new TU classroom added. To build a big enough school on the existing site would probably take away all outdoor space. That seems ironic to me since much of the argument for not building the golf course seems to hinge on the encouragement of outdoor exercise. A lot of what I'm reading both here and in the EN letters page seems to be saying that outdoor space and exercise are very important, but the kids don't need it themselves!

Nobody has as yet answered my query about the Jack Kane centre, but it is to be redeveloped, and a football barn is, I believe, part of the plan for it, but that loses more outdoor space - the space we currently farm out our kids to from PHS. Whilst many people think it is acceptable to send them there for PE, losing much of their PE time in the process, nobody seems too bothered about what happens when that resource is redeveloped - at least in terms of the children's need/right to open air space for exercise. The same with Meadowbank - it's no secret that we're going to lose that soon too. Then where will the children go? There are many people stating over and over again that we should be encouraging the use of green space for fitness, to combat the growing problem of obesity, and yet that argument is being used against giving the children a school with playing fields the whole community can make use of.

Building a smaller PHS and sending half of the kids to Castlebrae is another suggestion, as is rebuilding St John's at Duddingston primary. Presumably moving St John's there - further from Portobello - would cause a catchment problem with St Theresa's or somewhere. It sounds a lot like trying to get rid of the problem by getting rid of the kids! (i.e. If we build a school further away, it's no longer a Portobello problem....) Why is it we're not happy for the people who currently use the golf course to have a move that is accessible to the majority since it is not much further away and many of those people drive there anyway, and yet we're happy to send 1800+ children further away, the vast majority of whom don't drive :wink: ?

Why should the children go out of Portobello for their schools when people feel so strongly about people who use the golf course not having to go further afield? What message are we giving here about how much we value our children and their education and their future? What are we saying about their position in our community?

As for experience of decanting, I've asked someone with first hand experience to let us know about the decant of Parsons Green pupils five years ago, which was for a much shorter period of time than would be required to build a new school. What I do know of that myself is that nobody was happy with its effects and it did disrupt the children's education, as I've described much earlier in this thread.

This is a very difficult issue for our community to face, and clearly feelings are running high (I freely admit mine are!). There are no easy answers here. But I really feel uncomfortable with the way we are suggesting children tolerate what adults don't want to.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

Paula
All I really need is love, but a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt!

-Lucy Van Pelt (in Peanuts, by Charles M. Schulz)

Brian McCrow
Posts: 224
Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 12:11
Location: Portobello

Post by Brian McCrow » 01 Mar 2006, 13:02

I did some teaching practice at PHS in 1966/7 and the Moray House view was that it was the fore-runner of new schools. Personally, I found it very big and impersonal.

I have been interested in the arguments for and against PPP. We have tended to see the arguments against as Seanie is obviously well placed to provide the counter data. I suspect there is some political bias in the selection of the data.

As I've said before I know that Outsourcing works. The Government is pushing PPP so presumably they have some valid data to support this approach. I also know that Local Authorities don't have the necessary skills/manpower to build and manage large public building projects - the Scottish Parliament is a recent example.

There may be examples where PPP projects haven't delivered on time, quality and cost however one shouldn't reject an innovative approach to public building replenishment in total just because some have not delivered. If we took this argument to its conclusion we would never commission a builder to build anything as we all have experience of it going wrong hence we should never start a new building.

Instead we should learn from what has gone wrong so we can do it better next time.
If PPP will stop us from selling the ground on which the present school sits then I'm for it as THE solution.

Alison Connelly

Post by Alison Connelly » 01 Mar 2006, 13:10

..
Last edited by Alison Connelly on 08 Nov 2006, 15:27, edited 1 time in total.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Post by seanie » 01 Mar 2006, 13:50

Brian McCrow wrote: I also know that Local Authorities don't have the necessary skills/manpower to build and manage large public building projects - the Scottish Parliament is a recent example.
Local Authorites routinely build and manage large public building projects. That is one of their functions. They have teams of experienced professionals who do just that, and for the most part pretty well.

It may have escaped your attention Brian but the Scottish Parliament was not built and managed by a Local Authority. Hence it is a spectacularly poor example of their supposed inadequacies.

The Scottish Parliament was ultimately managed by MP's and MSP's. And they, unlike the professional staff of Local Authorities, have little experience or understanding of design, construction and procurement.

An entirely unrealistic completion date was chosen and in order to achieve it a procurement method was picked that was, in every other respect, totally innappropriate. And having done that they utterly failed to understand the implications of the contract type chosen, exacerbating problems with prevarication and trivial changes.

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Post by Bob Jefferson » 01 Mar 2006, 15:29


User avatar
Dadaist
Posts: 6159
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 19:42
Location: on the fringes of Portobello

Post by Dadaist » 01 Mar 2006, 15:36

Bob Jefferson wrote:Today's EN coverage:

The classroom riddle driving a town apart
Two websites? What's the other one apart from this?

Even though I disagree with them, I fully support the right of the golfers to club together in this manner. You need real drive when it comes to taking on the Council.

edit -> You need a good set of balls too.
Last edited by Dadaist on 01 Mar 2006, 15:39, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
wangi
[admin]
Posts: 3442
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37
Contact:

Post by wangi » 01 Mar 2006, 15:38

Bob Jefferson wrote:Today's EN coverage:

The classroom riddle driving a town apart
What are the two websites?

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Post by Bob Jefferson » 01 Mar 2006, 18:02

I think the other one might be this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1549

Thanks for the link btw Gary and sorry I had to repay you by voting against your campaign.

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Post by Bob Jefferson » 01 Mar 2006, 18:07

From the Sound Off section of the EN letters page today:

Exciting opportunity

THE existing schools at Portobello are unfit. We need to do something urgently and this proposal at least seems feasible. We need more information to decide, but this is an exciting opportunity to develop first-class schools that would provide our children with the chances they deserve and benefit our whole community.

Sean Watters, Brighton Place, Portobello

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Post by Bob Jefferson » 01 Mar 2006, 20:12

Gary has been busy. He has produced a leaflet advertising the public meeting in Portobello High School this coming Monday. Rather ironic you might think that PHS has been chosen as a venue when Gary's campaign threatens to scupper the only realistic opportunity to build a replacement school in the forseeable future.

However, at least he has managed to arrange a public meeting, which will give local people a chance to air their views. You might imagine that a public meeting of this type would be organised by Portobello Community Council. It probably would, were it not for the fact that the Chair, the Vice Chair and the Secretary are all totally opposed to the proposal. The Chair's view is that the Portobello community has already expressed its view on this matter when the questionnaire from last October's public meeting on the future of the Powerleague site indicated that our top priority is to preserve green spaces.

My opinion of this questionnaire, as I have posted previously, is that it is of little value and certainly tells us nothing about how people feel about the Council's proposal. Sure, it came out top of the list of priorities but that was a list that did not include 'Build decent schools for our kids'. If 'Cancel Third World Debt' had been on the list, we would probably have made that our top priority. The list was taken from the list of actions from the Community Development Plan. Funnily enough, I don't remember 'Preserve green spaces', while being an admirable sentiment, ever being an action.

Nevertheless, this result is being used as the basis for Portobello Community Council not to hold a public meeting in the Town Hall.

For those of you who haven't seen Gary's leaflet, here's the text:
Save Portobello Golf Course and Park!

You may have heard of Edinburgh Council's plans to relocate Portobello High School, St John's Primary School and a new housing development on the Golf Course and sports ground. The park has also been mentioned as a possible relocation site for the Pitz/Powerleague soccer pitches.

Although we hear that a substantial amount of 'green space' is to be retained, how much will there be after the construction of two 'low-rise' schools and enough housing to pay for them? And what guarantee do we have that the remaining 'green space' wont' become necessary for development in the very near future?

150 years a Golf Course & park - soon to be a housing estate?

Public Meeting
Portobello High School
6th March 2006 - 7:30pm
COME ALONG AND GIVE YOUR VIEWS
(A footer gives Gary's address and a link to the Action Network site)

User avatar
Dadaist
Posts: 6159
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 19:42
Location: on the fringes of Portobello

Post by Dadaist » 01 Mar 2006, 20:22

I am waiting for the creation of "Golfers 4 Justice".

I just wanted to flag that idea up - I don't want to tee anyone off though. There's a fair way to go with this whole campaign before anyone gets to raise a cup to victory.

Some people may think I'm off my trolley, and of course they are entitled to their views, but it'll be a while before the time comes round to pin the label of victory on the correct lapel.

btw Bob - I know we have a lot of people viewing this forum - why don't you create a poll? (and get agreement on the wording of the poll choices first!)

Something simple, like - "at this stage, do you support the Council's plan"?

User avatar
Epykat
Posts: 3915
Joined: 04 Dec 2003, 22:35
Location: Portobello, Edinburgh
Contact:

Post by Epykat » 01 Mar 2006, 20:46

I'm getting a bit concerned at the way this thread is going :? . People are entitled to their opinions and should be allowed to air them without being put down on a public forum in such a derogatory way. They are entitled to set up Public Meetings to air those opinions (don't see the Council rushing to organise anything). I'd rather see the meeting in the Town Hall rather than the school, however, the Chair, the Vice Chair and the Secretary of the Community Council don't feel inclined to organise that - for their own reasons. If you really want a meeting Bob - organise one but don't expect everybody at it to be on your side!
Enough of your nonsense - get back to the Play Pen!

User avatar
Dave Connelly
Posts: 258
Joined: 18 Apr 2003, 15:31
Location: Portobello
Contact:

Vote on the park

Post by Dave Connelly » 01 Mar 2006, 22:17

Vote on the park

I found this link on a poster and think it would be a good idea for people to vote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1549

Does anyone know why this hasn't been highlighted in open forum before?

Can we luanch our own poll?

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Re: Vote on the park

Post by Bob Jefferson » 01 Mar 2006, 22:24

Portobellosite wrote:Vote on the park

I found this link on a poster and think it would be a good idea for people to vote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1549

Does anyone know why this hasn't been highlighted in open forum before?

Can we luanch our own poll?
I did, just a few posts ago.

I'm happy to organise a poll, but we need to think carefully about the wording, as Dadaist has alreay indicated, and definitely not while England are playing Uruguay.

User avatar
wangi
[admin]
Posts: 3442
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37
Contact:

Re: Vote on the park

Post by wangi » 01 Mar 2006, 22:24

Portobellosite wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1549

Does anyone know why this hasn't been highlighted in open forum before?
Eh, look at the previous page?

Why wasn't it highlighted? Best ask the person who put that site/page together.

EDIT: Does anyone think an X vs Y polarised confrontation is that best we can manage here? The issue is far more important and complex than that. And such polarisation will do little for the community...

User avatar
Dadaist
Posts: 6159
Joined: 05 Jul 2004, 19:42
Location: on the fringes of Portobello

Post by Dadaist » 01 Mar 2006, 22:33

Epykat wrote:I'm getting a bit concerned at the way this thread is going :? . People are entitled to their opinions and should be allowed to air them without being put down on a public forum in such a derogatory way.
If you're concerned about a post, complain about it. This is an internet discussion forum and as such there will always be robust and lively debate. If you've got an opinion - say it. If it's challenged - defend it. I think things have gone famously so far.
They are entitled to set up Public Meetings to air those opinions (don't see the Council rushing to organise anything). I'd rather see the meeting in the Town Hall rather than the school, however, the Chair, the Vice Chair and the Secretary of the Community Council don't feel inclined to organise that - for their own reasons. If you really want a meeting Bob - organise one but don't expect everybody at it to be on your side!
I think Bob's been extremely open about what he thinks and where he stands whilst letting everyone have access to opinions from every camp. I saw nothing wrong with what he said about the CC - he was just being honest. I would prefer honesty to po-faced non-derogatory "more tea vicar" debate you'd like to see - but hey, I respect your opinion.

We're faced with a highly divisive, complicated and long-term issue and I think Bob, this forum and it's users have brought out the Branston, rather than getting in a real pickle.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Post by seanie » 01 Mar 2006, 23:26

Those interested in appropriate sizes for schools could try to get hold of a copy of Building Bulletin 82 - “Area Guidelines for Schoolsâ€

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Post by seanie » 01 Mar 2006, 23:30

For Nursery accommodation BB82 is more sparse in its recommendations, reflecting the relatively recent growth and greater variety of provision. For a nursery sharing access facilities with a primary the following guidelines are given;

Minimum Site Area = 15m2/pupil

Minimum External Play Area = 9m2/pupil

No minimum building area is given but the minimum activity space is given as 2.3m2 /pupil, with activity space being 50-60% of the total area.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Post by seanie » 01 Mar 2006, 23:31

For a secondary school of 1450 pupils BB82 gives the following guidance;

Minimum Site Area Formula = 14,000+56N = 14,000+56(1450) = 95,200m2 (9.5Ha)

Minimum Gross Area of Buildings = 1200 + 5.5N + 2.5n = 9,175+2.5n (n = number of 6th form pupils)

Minimum Outdoor Social Space = 1800+2.8N = 5860m2

Minimum Outdoor Hard Games Area = 300 + 1.8N = 2910m2

Statutory Minimum Playing Field Area = 60,000m2

Again the remainder of the area will be taken up by miscellaneous items.

As for teaching areas the requirements in secondary school are more varied. Around half of the curriculum can be accommodated in general teaching areas, the others requiring dedicated facilities. General classroom sizes would again be mostly in the 60-70m2 range, with a number of larger and smaller rooms.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Post by seanie » 01 Mar 2006, 23:38

So taking the primary and secondary school together, leaving aside the nursery, the minimum recommended site area would be around 11.2Ha. Playing fields can be accommodated off-site so taking them out of the equation the recommended minimum site area would be around 4.7Ha.

I’d be surprised if the current site is much more than half that.

So saying there’s “plentyâ€

Jbrock
Posts: 34
Joined: 28 Oct 2005, 20:27
Location: Portobello

Post by Jbrock » 02 Mar 2006, 00:40

Many of us have been discussing how we can ensure that the council brings forward proposals that can provide the basis for a detailed discussion on the option of the two schools in the Park.

Inevitably, people feel very strongly. I understand a campaign group has now been set up to save the golf course on Portobello Park. This PFANS campaign leaflet explains our aim of providing a fair share of the park for everyone. PFANS will urge the council to bring forward the evidence and facts that support the option of the schools in the parkland setting - but also to address the various questions that people have been asking about what other options have been considered and why they have been rejected.

I know the discussions over the next few weeks/months/years will be robust but I hope we can all bear in mind that although our perspectives and views about the future will differ, we are lucky to live in a local community where people care so passionately about its identity. Sorry about the platitude - but I do hope we can respect each others' views, even though we may disagree fundamentally with them.

Poster

User avatar
wangi
[admin]
Posts: 3442
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37
Contact:

Post by wangi » 02 Mar 2006, 10:04

seanie wrote:So taking the primary and secondary school together, leaving aside the nursery, the minimum recommended site area would be around 11.2Ha. Playing fields can be accommodated off-site so taking them out of the equation the recommended minimum site area would be around 4.7Ha.
25% of the GC/park site is roughly 5 Ha...

Brian McCrow
Posts: 224
Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 12:11
Location: Portobello

Post by Brian McCrow » 02 Mar 2006, 10:49

I think the present size of PHS population is too big at 1450 pupils

Why not split the PHS so that the Portobello resident kids remain on the present site and the out of Portobello resident kids have a school built near the Jack Kane centre. This would reduce the amount of travelling for the out of Portobello kids and provide access to more playing fields and sports facilities.

bbbrown
Posts: 107
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 14:21

questions, questions

Post by bbbrown » 02 Mar 2006, 11:57

seanie...thanks for curing my insomnia, i slept like a log after a few lines of that :lol: (for the forum police..this is not a personal attack, just an
attempt at humour)
I note that what you posted is guidance. Is it at all binding in regards to any red tape?
Brian, I agree about pupil numbers at PHS. It would make sense to try and reduce these. I asked a question a while back about why parents refuse to send kids to CastleBrae for example. I have not heard any reasons yet.
i wonder if there is any guidance relevant to maximum school pupil numbers?
Also, I was interested to hear that there are schools proposed as part of the redevelopment of Craigmillar. Maybe this will take some of the pressure of PHS in future.

User avatar
Stephen McIntyre
Posts: 483
Joined: 06 Feb 2006, 17:53

Post by Stephen McIntyre » 02 Mar 2006, 12:23

Alison Connelly wrote: and will pupils gain more from access to playing fields throughout the school day than they will lose through the loss of the amenity during their leisure time?- they are members of the community to be affected by the loss of Portobello Park too, so in one way, what we give with one hand (a new school) we take away with the other (a large park and a pleasant local environment).
Alison, what do you mean by the "loss of Portobello Park"?

User avatar
Stephen McIntyre
Posts: 483
Joined: 06 Feb 2006, 17:53

Post by Stephen McIntyre » 02 Mar 2006, 12:36

Brian McCrow wrote:Why not split the PHS so that the Portobello resident kids remain on the present site and the out of Portobello resident kids have a school built near the Jack Kane centre. .
Brian, as a former member of Portobello Community Council you ought to be aware that Portobello High School is not located in the Portobello Ward. So, how would your proposal work exactly?

Alison Connelly

Post by Alison Connelly » 02 Mar 2006, 13:16

..
Last edited by Alison Connelly on 08 Nov 2006, 15:27, edited 1 time in total.

Brian McCrow
Posts: 224
Joined: 16 Sep 2003, 12:11
Location: Portobello

Post by Brian McCrow » 02 Mar 2006, 13:17

Stephen

I was really thinking about how to split the school into two more manageable schools so used the Portobello/elsewhere approach as an example rather than being a literal split.

I don't know the precise catchment area but you might say that pupils who are a certain distance from the current PHS location continue to go there and others who are closer say to Craigmillar go there.

There may be other schools, which some pupils may be closer to.

I was trying to think outside the box to solve this problem i.e. rather than relocate this big school (which I think in today's educational thinking is too large) we split it into smaller units, which are easier to locate, are better educationally, reduce pupil travelling times and give better access to sports facilities.

User avatar
Stephen McIntyre
Posts: 483
Joined: 06 Feb 2006, 17:53

Post by Stephen McIntyre » 02 Mar 2006, 13:54

Brian McCrow wrote: There may be other schools, which some pupils may be closer to.

I was trying to think outside the box to solve this problem.
Get back in the box and i will get Dada to come round and nail it shut. :D :lol:

User avatar
wangi
[admin]
Posts: 3442
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37
Contact:

Post by wangi » 02 Mar 2006, 13:56

Brian McCrow wrote:I was trying to think outside the box to solve this problem i.e. rather than relocate this big school (which I think in today's educational thinking is too large) we split it into smaller units, which are easier to locate, are better educationally, reduce pupil travelling times and give better access to sports facilities.
Edinburgh school catchment review: http://www.schoolcatchments.edin.org/ - "Portobello: Having looked at current and future catchment numbers we are assuming that no changes will be required here. It should be noted that, if necessary, the school may still be included at a later date."

User avatar
Stephen McIntyre
Posts: 483
Joined: 06 Feb 2006, 17:53

Post by Stephen McIntyre » 02 Mar 2006, 14:00

Thanks Alison,

Firstly, I must correct an error in a previous post. After discussion with Wangi and some calculatiions by him ( as you may have gathered he is a sort of expert in this type of thing) I now accept that Portobello Park is closer to 50 acres in total and not 34 as I previously stated.

Alison, so that we can extend the discussion on the "loss of portobello Park" can we establish that we are in agreement on the following calculations by Wangi and Seanie:

Wangi calculates the area of PP as approx 20 hectares. (49 acres)

Seanie calculates that the recommended minimum size for two schools like PHS and ST Johns is 4.79ha (11.83 acres) without playing fields and with playing fields as 11.52ha. (28.2 acres)

We don’t know what the council’s plan for housing are but for the purposes of this exercise lets assume its 30% of the entire 20ha Park. (14.82 acres)

And, can we please work in acres rather than hectares? I can’t envisage hectares but I believe a football pitch is about an acre. Using
http://www.onlineconversion.com/area.htm I get 1 hectare to be equivalent to 2.47 acres. Is that all ok by you?

User avatar
Pal of Porty
Posts: 2136
Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
Location: Old Folks Home
Contact:

Re: questions, questions

Post by Pal of Porty » 02 Mar 2006, 14:44

bbbrown wrote: I asked a question a while back about why parents refuse to send kids to CastleBrae for example. I have not heard any reasons yet.
While education is not solely about attaining exams and most certainly not about league tables, perhaps parents are still a little concerned by this:

Castlebrae - 32% of children attain 5 or more Standard Grades (lowest of all secondary schools in Edinburgh). They have no mark to register for Higher Grade because fewer than 5 pupils pass 3 or more exams.

Portobello - 70% Standard Grade and 26% Higher.

Happy to help 8)
Justice delayed is justice denied.

bbbrown
Posts: 107
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 14:21

questions, questions

Post by bbbrown » 02 Mar 2006, 16:32

i guess this is not the place to debate CastleBrae. suffice to say that if it performed better, presumably local parents would be happier to send their kids there , thus taking at least some pressure of PHS etc. I trust the local authority is on the case....

User avatar
Pal of Porty
Posts: 2136
Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
Location: Old Folks Home
Contact:

Re: questions, questions

Post by Pal of Porty » 02 Mar 2006, 16:46

bbbrown wrote:i guess this is not the place to debate CastleBrae.
I couldn't agree more. :lol:
Justice delayed is justice denied.

Locked