New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Mar 2006, 13:24

One more:

Asked if St John's could be rebuilt at Holyrood: "No, amongst other reasons, there is not enough space as its green belt"

I wished I could say that you heard that one here first.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 17 Mar 2006, 13:53

Asked if Power League would feature on the park? "No way. I do not think people would find that acceptable, it will not happen" (think he actually made a slitting his wrists action at this point)

i dont see why this is seen as such a hot potato...i'm all for sport, (believe it or not) and it would make sense (to me at least) to have the facilities there, which could be used by school kids...

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Mar 2006, 13:57

OMG bbb we almost agree!! There should be pitz style facilities not as many and not a partnership with Power league. They have made too much money already from us. Plus, I think if you ask the residents of West Bank etc, as neighbours Power League are PITA.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 17 Mar 2006, 14:36

They have made too much money already from us

hardly power leagues fault i would hazard a guess......

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Mar 2006, 16:02

That's a good guess.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 17 Mar 2006, 16:18

On Timing " We had hoped for occupation by 2009 but with the requirement for the bedding in of the new golf course (2 years) combined with a seamless transition for the golfers the earliest is likely to be 2010".

it would be stupid to hold things up for this. if its going to happen at all, then screw the golfers.. get on with it ...get it built.....

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Mar 2006, 16:37

I agree. However, if they ever get to meet the golfers they are going to offer them a simultaneous transfer of courses. Apparently a new course takes 2 years to "bed in" before it can be played on. Thi was mentioned around about page 25

And in my quote, DOH!! (the DOH's for me not you)

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 17 Mar 2006, 16:54

bbbrown wrote:
On Timing " We had hoped for occupation by 2009 but with the requirement for the bedding in of the new golf course (2 years) combined with a seamless transition for the golfers the earliest is likely to be 2010".
it would be stupid to hold things up for this. if its going to happen at all, then screw the golfers.. get on with it ...get it built.....

Great community spirit shown here, well done.

It may not be the most important aspect in all of this, but they do merit consideration.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 17 Mar 2006, 16:56

OMG bbb we almost agree

I agree

what is the world coming to....

ps..

i'm still naffed off at the park falling to the developers. it leaves a distinctly sour taste..there aint enough green left in the world, but we still carry on carving it up regardless.....nobody seems to take it seriously.....

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Mar 2006, 17:14

bbbrown wrote:i'm still naffed off at the park falling to the developers. it leaves a distinctly sour taste..there aint enough green left in the world, but we still carry on carving it up regardless.....nobody seems to take it seriously.....

On the contrary I don't think there is the slightest chance of this happening.

Even your lampooning me post from a few weeks back, drawing attention to how rarely used Brighton Park is, doesn't appear to have made any difference.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 17 Mar 2006, 17:18

On the contrary I don't think there is the slightest chance of this happening.

i dont understand that...the slightest chance of what happening?

if the school gets built on the park then we lose 70% of Portobello Park...whatever way you dress it up...that is a fact.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Mar 2006, 17:33

bbbrown wrote:
On the contrary I don't think there is the slightest chance of this happening.
i dont understand that...the slightest chance of what happening?

The school moving to Portobello Park. The minute the anti-brigade come up with a viable alternative, the games up the pole. That's all they need to do. You think they may have worked that out by now?

bbbrown wrote:if the school gets built on the park then we lose 70% of Portobello Park...whatever way you dress it up...that is a fact.

Its not a fact. You are against (I presume) and will say 70%, I am for and will say 50%. The council proposal or as much as is known about it is 56% . (33% housing at 17.5 acres, 2 schools without playing fields 12 acres) = 55.6% of 53 acres.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 17 Mar 2006, 17:39

The minute the anti-brigade come up with a viable alternativ

i thought the whole point was that there is no such thing as a viable alternative...so how can they come up with one?

Jean Douglas · Post by **Jean Douglas** » 17 Mar 2006, 17:40

I have been following this thread since the beginning, but this is my first post

Stephen McIntyre wrote:The meeting was excellent and very well run by the school board. I guess there were about 60 parents at the meeting. Which is disappointing in one way.

The councillors did ok in the initial talk. They did provide quite a bit more information, which was not supposed to happen. The info mostly related to the PPP process and quite a bit of dialogue on the horrors of decanting. Some parents had experinced this with their children at Parsons Green.

I don't think you can use the decant experience at Parsons Green as an example, beacuse it was in response to an emergency, and there was no opportunity to make adequate plans

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Andrew Fraser stated that he had evidence that decanting impaired academic performance and that he was prepared to defend that. (this statement was made in our discussion group).

I have looked online at the exam results for St Thomas and for Firrhill (both decanted)over a few years and I can't spot any significant fluctuation. On what statistics was Andrew Fraser's statement based

Stephen McIntyre wrote:We split into groups and councillors floated between groups. We had Ewan Aitken in our group for a while. ....... It gave everyone a chance to speak. I think only one person in our group did not contribute verbally.

Was it you who didn't speak, Stephen? Were you too shy?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Mar 2006, 18:05

bbbrown wrote:
The minute the anti-brigade come up with a viable alternativ
i thought the whole point was that there is no such thing as a viable alternative...so how can they come up with one?

Put it this way. Let's say you really, really, really wanted to prevent something from happening and all you need to is come up with an alternative strategy, that delivers a similar result to that which you are trying to prevent.

What would you do?

a) Leave it up to someone else to fix it for you.

b) Leave it up to someone you didn't trust to fix it for you

or

C) Fix it yourself?

I suggest you would fix it yourself. I am firmly of the opinion that noone actually wants to develop part of Portobello Park. All that is needed to prevent it is a viable alternative. I embrace anyone that can bring it on.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Mar 2006, 18:19

I think that goes for all of us. No-one actually wants to develop the golf course but after 1035 posts on this subject we are still waiting for a viable alternative and, increasingly, people are beginning to realise/accept that this is most likely because a viable alternative simply does not exist. I would love to be proved wrong.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Mar 2006, 18:24

Jean, if you have read every post on this thread then I think you probably deserve a medal. Re 'decanting', did you read the first-hand accounts by bluebanana and David S? The subject of decanting was discussed at the PHS meeting last night and I think all the parents in my group, including several from Park Avenue, were totally against the idea.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 17 Mar 2006, 18:25

Jean Douglas asked

Was it you who didn't speak, Stephen? Were you too shy?

Not a bad joke for a newbie, Jean!!!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Mar 2006, 18:28

Jean Douglas wrote: Was it you who didn't speak, Stephen? Were you too shy?

Welcome Jean

Are you sure you have been following this thread?

Excellent quoting technique for a newbie.

Jean, I can't throw any light on what Andrew Fraser's defence may have been? I do trust his integrity tho. What I can say is that "decant" sort of rolls off the tongue.

I believe the following relates to Firrhill:

bluebanana wrote:Hi,
I've been asked to comment on my experience of decanting pupils.

My personal experience of decants is not good. In fact, as a primary school teacher with over ten years of experience I would say that it had very damaging effects upon pupils, staff and parents. There were gains, such as support from HQ and lots of resources were provided for us, but nonetheless it was a traumatic expereince.

Pupils lost a minimum 50 mins a day contact time moving from school site to decant site (often it was 60 mins, excluding tidy up time). Conservatively that's over four hours a week...over an average term of 9 weeks - 38.5 hours.

However, the quantity of teaching time was less of an issue than the quality of what was provided. We were all killing ourselves to provide what we should but knew at the same time that it wasn't what we would want to provide in normal circumstances.

The new resources were great but there was no time to become familar with them...from staffroom chat I would say that we (the staff) were all struggling to manage the situation and had grave concerns about the emotional experience of the pupils. Most managed, but frankly "managing" is not what I'd want for a pupil in a school. Some appeared to thrive..enjoying the excitment and making the most of the gaps. Some, perhaps the ones who remain in my mind, were totally lost. Those who were able to communicate their concerns were heard, and some were even moved from the school by concerned parents. The others i can't comment on.

Without a doubt it was one of the worst experiences of my career and I remember thinking at the time "maybe this is what it was like during the war", dramatic as that may sound. Now, I look back on it as a learning experience, but one I experienced as difficult even as an adult with some measure of control, and one I would definitely not want for my own children.

Blue Banana.

Last night there were several teachers who had experienced decanting, one said that if he was faced with it again, at Portobello he would look to retire. If it can be avoided and in this case it can, I don't see why any children should be dis-advantaged.

(Cue Portyman...... no doubt his nephew was decanted at Firrhill and can do Trig)

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Mar 2006, 18:52

Re Powerleague, their core business may be football but I'm sure they make a lot of their profit from the bar. Do we want licensed premises next to a school? I think that would be wholly inappropriate and I would be very reluctant to back any proposal that included this as part of the deal.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 17 Mar 2006, 20:35

I agree Bob. Royal High has a bar, within the rugby club, which is on the school campus. It just doesn't sit right with me and knowing quite a few members there, I think they would rather the bar was elsewihere. The rest of the facilities are to be envied tho.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 17 Mar 2006, 21:14

Stephen said

The rest of the facilities are to be envied tho.

Financed by Messrs Safeway, Madam Rumour tells me, when they bought the Piershill site!

Poppy seizes her over-sized spoon and stirs madly

Post by **wangi** » 18 Mar 2006, 00:32

Bob Jefferson wrote:Re Powerleague, their core business may be football but I'm sure they make a lot of their profit from the bar. Do we want licensed premises next to a school? I think that would be wholly inappropriate and I would be very reluctant to back any proposal that included this as part of the deal.

How so, do you not agree we have a lesson to learn from our continental cousins?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Mar 2006, 07:32

If you mean in terms of educating young people to use alcohol in a more responsible fashion then most certainly. Frankly, I could use a course in that myself.

The fact that the Powerleague is not going on the golf course site does of course raise the interesting question of where it will go, given that the Council has undertaken to find an alternative site within the Portobello area, but let's keep speculation on that matter on the appropriate thread before we head off on another tangent.

Jean Douglas · Post by **Jean Douglas** » 18 Mar 2006, 11:18

Stephen Mcintyre wrote:Excellent quoting technique for a newbie.

I might be new but that doesn't mean I can't use a computer

Jean Douglas · Post by **Jean Douglas** » 18 Mar 2006, 11:26

Bob Jefferson wrote:Jean, if you have read every post on this thread then I think you probably deserve a medal. Re 'decanting', did you read the first-hand accounts by bluebanana and David S? The subject of decanting was discussed at the PHS meeting last night and I think all the parents in my group, including several from Park Avenue, were totally against the idea.

I did read their posts but I would like to know what statistical evidence they have. If there were only 60 parents in total at that meeting your group must have been smaller - hardly a large enough sample group,to draw a conclusion

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Mar 2006, 11:58

It's not just about exam results. A decant of PHS would mean that kids would be dispersed to schools around Edinburgh. They would be separated from their friends, they would have much further to travel, they would be in unfamiliar surroundings. There may only have been 60 parents at the meeting the other night - that's apathy for you - but if you were to suggest a decant you wouid have hundreds of very angry parents.

Some parents, who could afford it, would send their kids to private schools to avoid a decant situation. Others would sell up and move into a different catchment area. The teachers don't want a decant, the parents don't want a decant and the kids certainly don't. Some schools are forced into this situation. We have a viable alternative.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 18 Mar 2006, 12:35

seanie wrote:the strategic brief setting out the aims, elements & parameters of the project could be significantly influenced by the community via the consultation process, if engaged with actively.

seanie, I'm sorry it has taken me a while to get round to reading another of your excellent installments as we have had troublemakers over at G&TT

I'm happy to take your conclusion at face value - I sort of understand now at what stage in everything the community involvement comes in and how it could even - gasp - influence what we get! Just imagine the finished product though - the difference between it and what they are putting up with at PHS and St John's is huge.

Thanks, again, for your time and trouble.

Post by **administrator** » 18 Mar 2006, 13:04

The administrators would like to remind everyone that adherence to the posting guidelines is a condition of use of the POL forums; these guidelines have now been updated and can be read here. Please ensure you are familiar with the guidelines. We are aware that feelings are running high on this thread and although we have not received any formal complaints, we are monitoring the situation, and will act on breaches of guidelines. Although all guidelines are important, we would like to draw particular attention to guidelines 1 and 10. We would also like to remind users to try and remain on topic.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 18 Mar 2006, 13:41

Thanks for posting these

Stephen McIntyre re Mr Aitken wrote: Asked; If St Johns does remain in situ, would that mean more housing would have to be built on the park to compensate for the loss of profit on the St John's land? "no, as we would not have to build a new primary school. This is the only proposal that includes a refurbish or rebuild of St John's there are no other plans"

A feasability study for the rebuild of St Johns on the present site was commissioned by the council and produced in November 2004.

A number of alternative rebuilds were looked at with an estimated cost of under Â£3 Million. Which would clearly save money on a complete rebuild of the primary School.

To quote

"The feasability study for St Johns primary school confirms the potential for developement of an exciting project, with a combination of newbuild and refurbishment, capable of giving optimum support to educational and community activities within inspiring surroundings. It will not only rival best examples of recent newbuild schools in matching the latest curriculum needs and technology, but will also reflect the particular character of this school and be flexible to meet the challenges of future change"

Perhaps Mr Aitken was not informed about the councill study.

Stephen McIntyre wrote: Asked: If you could move the schools to the park without building houses there, would you do it? "Unequivocally"

That is a step forward.

last comment moved to portobello online multiple ID bit to keep this thread to the point.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 18 Mar 2006, 14:10

Jean Douglas wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:Jean, if you have read every post on this thread then I think you probably deserve a medal. Re 'decanting', did you read the first-hand accounts by bluebanana and David S? The subject of decanting was discussed at the PHS meeting last night and I think all the parents in my group, including several from Park Avenue, were totally against the idea.
I did read their posts but I would like to know what statistical evidence they have. If there were only 60 parents in total at that meeting your group must have been smaller - hardly a large enough sample group,to draw a conclusion

Jean where are you going with your decant analysis? Lets say there is no statistical evidence to support the theory that decanting pupils over long periods impairs their performance. Are you saying or do you believe that decants have a zero effect or maybe even improve performance?

I have only known two "people" challenge the premise that decant has an overall negative effect, yourself and Keir Hardie. Nothing wrong with a challenge but what do you hope to prove?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 18 Mar 2006, 14:17

Portobellosite wrote:Thanks for posting these

Stephen McIntyre re Mr Aitken wrote: Asked; If St Johns does remain in situ, would that mean more housing would have to be built on the park to compensate for the loss of profit on the St John's land? "no, as we would not have to build a new primary school. This is the only proposal that includes a refurbish or rebuild of St John's there are no other plans"
A feasability study for the rebuild of St Johns on the present site was commissioned by the council and produced in November 2004.

A number of alternative rebuilds were looked at with an estimated cost of under Â£3 Million. Which would clearly save money on a complete rebuild of the primary School.

To quote

"The feasability study for St Johns primary school confirms the potential for developement of an exciting project, with a combination of newbuild and refurbishment, capable of giving optimum support to educational and community activities within inspiring surroundings. It will not only rival best examples of recent newbuild schools in matching the latest curriculum needs and technology, but will also reflect the particular character of this school and be flexible to meet the challenges of future change"

Perhaps Mr Aitken was not informed about the councill study.

I honestly don't know. If it turns out to be the case that that St Johns opt out of the proposal. I hope they get the money they need. Having had a feasibility study carried out doesn't mean there is mony available. EA did not seem to think so.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 18 Mar 2006, 15:14

Several posts have been moved from this thread in order to maintain thread discipline. They can be read over on the Portobello Online forum under the topic Posts discussing multiple IDs

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 18 Mar 2006, 16:06

Stephen McIntyre wrote: Having had a feasibility study carried out doesn't mean there is mony available. EA did not seem to think so.

You are absolutely right on that, I dont know where the money would come from, however it seemed to me to be a good idea to spend less on what appears to be a fairly well though out proposal than build a whole new school at maybe twice the cost. The palns should be available for all to see.

Maybe the councill can tell us where.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 18 Mar 2006, 17:37

Portobellosite wrote: The palns should be available for all to see.

Maybe the councill can tell us where.

Don't know what you mean, are the council secreting the plans?

I was unaware of the study and it does bring a new dimension to a St John's solution. I agree it should be part of the consultation with the ST J community. I wonder if the plans included outdoor sports facilities?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Rebuild of St Johns

Re: Rebuild of St Johns

Re: Rebuild of St Johns

Re: Rebuild of St Johns