New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 07 Mar 2006, 11:45

This Council report from Nov 2003 is worth reading re. school catchments:

http://www.schoolcatchments.edin.org/pd ... review.pdf

It states that the Craigmillar population is to doubled over the coming years and PHS is already overcrowded. But there isn't a review of the PHS catchment area being planned.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 07 Mar 2006, 11:56

I was very disappointed by the poor performance of the public figures who spoke at last nights meeting and appeared to be unprepared for the mild whipping that ensued. There were no adequate answers to the numerous questions asked of them.

[quote]â€œDivide and conquerâ€

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Mar 2006, 12:19

McCrow - if you're going to start cutting and pasting data (or typing it in) from another source, you need to state your source and preferably provide a link - that way, we know where it has come from in order to check that it hasn't been edited, and read around it if we want.

Your "Schools plan back on track" post and "New Dalkeith High School - PPP on time, to budget" carry no source nor demarcation between / indication of something which has been written by you, and something which has been written by someone else.

You are fond of demanding high standards from everyone around you - I say charity begins at home.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Mar 2006, 12:23

Portobellosite wrote:I was very disappointed by the poor performance of the public figures who spoke at last nights meeting and appeared to be unprepared for the mild whipping that ensued. There were no adequate answers to the numerous questions asked of them.

I thought that they did their best in the circumstances. They had come prepared to give a presentation to a group of golfers and had to completely abandon that and instead hold a very impromptu 'question and answer session'. Wonder when the golfers will be able to hear what the possibilities for the new course are?

Alison Connelly
Our slightly defensive stance could be dated back to the point at which the councilors who called a meeting for all the "affected" primary school boards forgot to invite a representative from St Johns.
A gaff by the Council, maybe, a ploy perhaps?

Why do you think this would be a ploy Portobellosite?

On the question of the Scottish Power site
When asked about the possibility of that site being used for the schools, there was no mention by the speakers of the sites acquisition by

BL Developments,

Why should there be? An explanation of why this site was unsuitable had been given.

Perhaps the council should take a leaf from their book and consult people first.

Isn't this what is happening?

*edit - tidied up quotes

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Mar 2006, 12:33

Brian McCrow wrote:New Dalkeith High School - PPP on time, to budget

I'm puzzled by your posts Brian. PPP is not an available option for a new PHS.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 07 Mar 2006, 12:40

bbbrown wrote:seanie...

from a reliable council source

A new and larger golf course would be created on land in the Brunstane area, along with some housing.

How on earth do you expect me to conclude from the above post that the source is not yours? You are making a clear statement about a reliable source.

If I misquote people, which I do from time to time, in err, I am quick to acknowledge and apologise.

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 07 Mar 2006, 12:50

Marya

The point I am making is that PPP has worked successfully and recently contrary to negative comments from elsewhere. I would prefer that PPP is used for a new PHS rather than selling off the community asset i.e. the current school site. I would like the Council to tell me why PHS didn't make it onto the PPP2 list especially as we are now being told that the building is in such a poor state and it's over its pupil population limit.

Like others I'd like an OPEN debate with the Council where all factors are considered.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 07 Mar 2006, 12:50

Marya wrote:I'm puzzled by your posts Brian. PPP is not an available option for a new PHS.

...And I suspect that no matter what happens, many people will be glad of that.

It's all very well giving one example of a school supposedly doing well from PPP. But what about the others? Knox is a PPP school; the sports hall is behind schedule...they don't have one. The school had to be closed on occasion during building because of the dangerous nature of a building site. The school has no lockers for the children whatsoever, nor does it have any playground-type space where the children can go at break and lunch, which means all children end up roaming the streets of Haddington - even children for whom that is not a safe option. But the bits that work are nice, I believe.

Lockers, playground, gym hall...all pretty basic requirements of a secondary school.

The PPP discussion really has little relevance to this topic, but as I've just done, I'm sure we can all find bits and pieces to prove our own point of view of it. Either way, we're not getting it...not for PHS and St John's.

Paula

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 07 Mar 2006, 12:54

Dadaist

Are you calling my honesty into question?

If you were a gentleman I would demand satisfaction at dawn in Portobello Park with pistols.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Mar 2006, 12:56

Brian McCrow wrote:Dadaist

Are you calling my honesty into question?

If you were a gentleman I would demand satisfaction at dawn in Portobello Park with pistols.

Hopefully we can get our duel in before the build, sir!

No, just a request to put stuff in quotes or tell us where it's from - please!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Mar 2006, 12:59

Marya wrote:
Brian McCrow wrote:New Dalkeith High School - PPP on time, to budget

I'm puzzled by your posts Brian. PPP is not an available option for a new PHS.

Brian is fighting a propaganda war for PPP. Like those Japanese soldiers in the 70s that they found on the islands that still thought it was the war - somebody needs to tell him that for PHS, the PPP is over.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 07 Mar 2006, 13:02

[quote="Portobellosite"]I was very disappointed by the poor performance of the public figures who spoke at last nights meeting and appeared to be unprepared for the mild whipping that ensued. There were no adequate answers to the numerous questions asked of them.

[quote]â€œDivide and conquerâ€

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Mar 2006, 13:03

Brian McCrow wrote: I would like the Council to tell me why PHS didn't make it onto the PPP2 list especially as we are now being told that the building is in such a poor state and it's over its pupil population limit.

Go ask them then. Be sure and tell us what they said.

Like others I'd like an OPEN debate with the Council where all factors are considered.

Agreed.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 07 Mar 2006, 13:12

Dadaist wrote:
Brian McCrow wrote: I would like the Council to tell me why PHS didn't make it onto the PPP2 list especially as we are now being told that the building is in such a poor state and it's over its pupil population limit.
Go ask them then. Be sure and tell us what they said.

Like others I'd like an OPEN debate with the Council where all factors are considered.
Agreed.

Brian, you are wasting your time trying to talk up PPP. There is no more PPP planned for the future. There was a proscriptive scoring system used to determine which schools did qualify for PPP and which didn't. Lawrence offered to get a copy at the recent CC meeting. To the layman, myself included, the process will no doubt be baffling. For example I can't understand why Holyrood, a newer school, made it onto the list. It doesn't matter.

PPP is done and dusted, we need new schools.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Mar 2006, 13:15

Stephen - you really missed yourself at last night's concert. The security was minimal, the band were a bit out of tune but the crowd rocked out anyway. It was free as well - as some of the best gigs are - why you no come?

Portobellosite is quite accurate in saying that the public figures who spoke were unprepared for the can of whupass that the crowd opened and that some of the answers were inadequate - when an inadequate answer was given, you got to hear the almighty groan.

I think that Ewan Aitken showed Dalai Lama levels of patience with some of the slurs being aimed at his office - in fact I was upset that Graham Kitchener wasn't there filming him - maybe nobody wants to commission that documentary!

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 07 Mar 2006, 13:21

Dadaist

For completeness

Dalkeith High School comment -

www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2004/02/5018

Forrester

http://egfl.net/News/News/schoolplans.html

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Mar 2006, 13:22

Brian McCrow wrote:I would like the Council to tell me why PHS didn't make it onto the PPP2 list especially as we are now being told that the building is in such a poor state and it's over its pupil population limit.
.

This request was made both at last night's meeting and at the last Community Council meeting Brian. My understanding is that the point scoring results from the group of Headteachers etc. who drew up the list of schools for inclusion in the second round of PPP can be made available.
However, I don't see what value there is in viewing this material. I believe the PHS School Board (which includes a charted Surveyor), the teachers, pupils, parents and Councillors, who tell me that the school urgently needs replaced.

There will be no PPP3 for the next decade at least and PHS cannot wait that long.

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 07 Mar 2006, 13:34

Bellybabe

The Scottish Executive has allocated Â£2Bn to PPP2 so they must think that it's working.

My first full-time teaching post was at Knox Academy so I was very sad to hear their problems. I believe that the builder went bankrupt and I would hope that it will soon be sorted out.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Mar 2006, 13:39

From today's 'Evening News'.

Community backlash puts high school plans in doubt

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 07 Mar 2006, 13:44

Dadaist wrote: Stephen - you really missed yourself at last night's concert. The security was minimal, the band were a bit out of tune but the crowd rocked out anyway. It was free as well - as some of the best gigs are - why you no come?

My daughters 16th birthday celebration. I knew things were going off as I drove past about 8:30 and the place was jammed with parked cars.

Dadaist wrote: Portobellosite is quite accurate in saying that the public figures who spoke were unprepared for the can of whupass that the crowd opened and that some of the answers were inadequate - when an inadequate answer was given, you got to hear the almighty groan.

I don't doubt Portobellosite. Was there an agenda? I get the feeling everyone made up their own expectations.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Mar 2006, 13:55

Sorry you missed it and hope you had a nice time.

There was no agenda - which is why Rev Aitken did well on his feet for 2 hours batting the questions - although I'm not sure if he has ever had to preach to so many unconverted before.

Of course everyone had their own expectations!

edit -> spelled "unconverted" as "uncoverted"

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 07 Mar 2006, 13:57

Marya wrote:From today's 'Evening News'.

Community backlash puts high school plans in doubt

A 5-hole course!!! Maybe that's how they arrive at the inflated usage figures?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 07 Mar 2006, 14:03

Dadaist wrote:Of course everyone had their own expectations!

My point is; where did they get them from? If I invited you round for tea tonight but didn't tell you I was doing a curry. Meanwhile, you are looking forward to sausages and mash. Whose fault would it be that your expectations were dashed?

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 07 Mar 2006, 14:06

is it not the case that the PHS school board favoured option under PPP
was a rebuild on the current site?
that being the case, why is it not possible without PPP?
i have yet to hear a good reason as to why it is not possible to rebuild on site...apart from vague opinions that it is too small etc, etc...
it looks like the current 9 storey block footprint could be accomodated at least ten times on site. reducing to a four storey building on that sort of scale would give more than adequate facilities. is that not logical?
the pitches at portobello park could be improved, thus stopping the
bussing of kids to Jack Kane (how stupid is that) instead they could walk
or jog round the corner.

people are genuinely out raged at the thought of at least 70% of
Portobello Park vanishing under concrete.....its not just the golfers...
the council under estimate local peoples opposition to losing
a valuable amenity (as demonstrated last night)
apart from two or three on this site, i've yet to hear much support for building on Portobello Park...(how about a poll on the forum?)

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Mar 2006, 14:16

bbbrown wrote:is it not the case that the PHS school board favoured option under PPP
was a rebuild on the current site?

It would be good to hear from someone who could shed light on that bb.

that being the case, why is it not possible without PPP?

Lack of money

It also leaves St john's out in the cold.

(how about a poll on the forum?)

Anyone can set up a poll bb, but how would you word it? I would vote for retaining green space but I would also vote for new schools so what does that tell anyone ?:?

*edit - sorted quote

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Mar 2006, 14:16

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Of course everyone had their own expectations!
My point is; where did they get them from? If I invited you round for tea tonight but didn't tell you I was doing a curry. Meanwhile, you are looking forward to sausages and mash. Whose fault would it be that your expectations were dashed?

Imagine if you thought you were going to an anti-war meeting and ended up at a Q&A with George Bush!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 07 Mar 2006, 14:34

Dadaist wrote: Imagine if you thought you were going to an anti-war meeting and ended up at a Q&A with George Bush!

. Where did the thought come from?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 07 Mar 2006, 14:44

bbbrown wrote:

the council under estimate local peoples opposition to losing
a valuable amenity (as demonstrated last night)
apart from two or three on this site, i've yet to hear much support for building on Portobello Park...(how about a poll on the forum?)

Last night's meeting was supposed to be a presentation to the golf club folk, was it not? So not everyone would have seen the importance of attending it as a member of jane public. I don't think that fact many people attended a meeting last night orginally intended to be for a certain group of people can be said to show there is little or no support for the proposals. You may indeed be right - but last night's meeting was not necessarily a fully representative section of local people.

Paula

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 07 Mar 2006, 14:48

bbbrown wrote: is it not the case that the PHS school board favoured option under PPP was a rebuild on the current site? that being the case, why is it not possible without PPP?

Bbb I am not aware that anyone is claiming that building on the existing site is impossible. Can you give us a source?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Mar 2006, 14:49

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote: Imagine if you thought you were going to an anti-war meeting and ended up at a Q&A with George Bush!
. Where did the thought come from?

What was the text that came up on the main page of this site when you clicked on the link for the meeting? It's gone now as the event is in the past - but I'm sure I read that it was a public meeting organised by someone who is anti-school, for people to put their views across. And something about golf too?

I'm sure I'm not imagining this.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 07 Mar 2006, 14:51

Dadaist, I believe you have just identified the origin of the false expectations.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 07 Mar 2006, 14:58

it was a public meeting organised by the golf club to get peoples opinions.
i reckon those opinions were pretty clear. there are other meetings coming up, one by pfans in st johns i think. i, for one, will be interested to hear the views of supporters for building on the golf course...

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Mar 2006, 15:00

Dadaist wrote:What was the text that came up on the main page of this site when you clicked on the link for the meeting? It's gone now as the event is in the past - but I'm sure I read that it was a public meeting organised by someone who is anti-school, for people to put their views across. And something about golf too?

I'm sure I'm not imagining this.

The info to which you refer Dadaist, was taken from the leaflet/poster compiled by Gary Gowans (and posted on p26 of this thread by Bob).

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

Someone called Gary stood up, on behalf of the golfers (I think he was an office bearer of Portobello golf Club) at last night's meeting . I didn't catch the surname so I'm not sure if it is the same chap.

*edit - added the word 'poster'

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 07 Mar 2006, 15:08

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Dadaist, I believe you have just identified the origin of the false expectations.

Cool! Well, anyways my expectations of how enjoyable the gig would be were overfulfilled. My cup of fun positively runnethed over.

Most public meetings I've been at before (in my limited experience) have been very one-sided - in that they were attended by those sympathetic to the cause subscribed to by the people doing the meeting. This can lead to repeated questions and a bunch of people standing up and saying "I'd just like to agree with what Harry just said" etc etc

They can also be easily led, plus when everybody in the audience agrees with the speaker they are much less likely to truly question what is being said - easier just to clap and agree. Dissenting voices are few, and can not only be shouted down by the crowd but rebutted quickly by a chair and speaker who sense things are veering off the script.

Whereas last night, the dynamic was very different. The guy who spoke from the school board was very polite, and in a different setting with a different audience probably makes a whole lot of sense - but he seemed to be at the wrong meeting - what we got was Rev Aitken versus the golfers/antis/locals with a peppering of pros/council loyalists. Fascinating.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 07 Mar 2006, 15:11

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

That tone would be enough to deter many people in favour of the proposal from attending - hence my comment that last night's meeting might not be a representative section of the whole community. If a year or so ago someone had put out an advert for a public meeting saying "We want Tesco! Stop the anti-capitalists ruining Portobello's future by blocking this important development!", I don't think I'd have felt encouraged to attend.

P

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Poor performance

Re: Poor performance

Re: Poor performance