St John's School

[Bob Jefferson]

Until now, the future of St John's has been lumped in with discussion of a new PHS. To some extent, this was excusable since the process of finding sites for replacing both schools was inextricably linked. Since that is no longer the case, I feel that a St J's thread is long overdue.

Not so long ago, a plan was put in place by the Council to re-build St John's on the site to be vacated by PHS. Astonishingly, the group representing the school told the Council that they preferred a refurbishment. You may recall the discussion we had on this subject with Alison Connelly, a member of both St John's PTA and PPAG. This dual membership led some to believe that there was a conflict of interest. St John's could only move to the vacated site if PHS went on Portobello Park, which of course PPAG completely opposes. (admin: slightly edited)

Since the Council is strapped for cash anyway, it seems highly unlikely that they will go ahead with re-building a school whose parent representatives don't appear to be interested.

Meeting with Cllr Marilyne MacLaren

There will be a meeting on Wednesday 20th February in the City Chambers, to discuss the feasibility study carried out on St John’s.

Anyone heard the outcome? Anyone thought about where their kids might be decanted to while they patch up, sorry refurbish St John's?

Kids taught in corridors, temporary units well past their sell-by date, heating failures. And they turned down the chance of a new school.

Has the St John's PTA/Parents Forum served parents well and acted in their best interests at all times in this matter? Or is it a closed community to the extent that dissent is not considered acceptable? Does anyone dare to speak out?

[mr magnolia]

...the process of finding sites for replacing both schools was inextricably linked. Since that is no longer the case....

I've missed this bit, Bob.

can you explain what you mean?

ta

[Bob Jefferson]

I meant simply that St John's could only be re-built on the vacated PHS site if PHS was built on Portobello Park. From memory, re-building at the Jewel was also considered but was never really an option and there was also an option for St John's to go on Portobello Park, with or without PHS.

Until the Council made its decisions, various permutations existed and it made sense to consider the two schools together. Now that those decisions have been made we can look at the prospects for each school individually. In some ways, St John's has played second fiddle in the whole debate but there was nevertheless a recognition that it too required to be re-built.

PHS parents can now look forward to a new school in the park and a 21st century community facility we can all be proud of. What are St John's parents left with? A gift horse that left the paddock some time ago.

[Maria]

As a parent of a pupil at St John's I can say that I was very surprised at the complete lack of interest expressed by most parents in the possibility of a new school. While trying to gather support for PFANS I was aware that lots of parents were wary of being part of the campaign for the new High School, party I believe because they didn't want the two schools to be built alongside each other in the Park, as was first mooted - certainly several parents raised concerns about this at the consultation meeting - and partly, because they didn't really believe that funding would be made available, after years of campaigning by previous parent bodies at the school had resulted in little reward.

The same consultation meeting also suggested that there was support from parents and senior school staff for a refurbishment and extension rather than a new build. This is not a plan I would favour, for some of the reasons Bob has already stated; a new extension would cut down on available playground space, no amount of refurbishment can really alter the cramped size of the old classrooms and, of course, it all requires a decant. However, it is a plan that seems to have the support of the Head Teacher and those who are willing to act as parent representatives . I'm relieved that my child is in his final year at St John's, but if he was lower down the school I would have tried harder to promote more parental interest and argued the case for a new build much more vociferously.

[Porty]

I totally concur with the comments made by Marya. (admin: edited)

My understanding of the St John's position, which I recently derived from a council Rep, is that ST J are still part of Wave 3 and are at liberty to request a new school or a refurb. I guess the parental body and senior staff believe that a substantial refurb is likely to happen more quickly, in fact more likely altogether as it will cost approximately 50% less. They could well be right about this but it is coincidence rather than design.

I do know that one of our recent meetings at a PHS parental group it was revealed that St Johns had requested to pinch the unused Tennis Courts, which are a fair size in relation to the School's existing footprint. However, PHS, which as we know is already cramped, turned down the request as they have managed, though prudential budget management, to scrape together enough cash (around 60K) to install an Astroturf football facility on the tennis courts. (subject to planning permission etc)

Presumably if ST J is refurbished in the next 5 Years there shall be no additional land available to them. Which is a great pity as the staff and pupils, who do a sterling job, deserve the best they can get. On the other hand it will mean that there will be more PHS land to sell for housing and if the new council stick to the promise of the old one, then there will be a larger contribution, which ought to accelerate the day that JCB's move in on Portobello Park. Which I hope will be a Friday as there's a party at mine that night.

[Maria]

Parents of pupils at St John's have been invited to a meeting in the school on Thu 6 March at 7 o'clock. The first part of the meeting is an informative presentation about the schools' new smartboards, while the second part of the meeting will be

....an update on the progress which has been made on plans to modernise St John's

The invitation adds

...there will be a presentation of the options for achieving this which have resulted from the City of Edinburgh's feasibility study, which was recently completed.

Parents will have their opportunity to ask questions and give their views on the various options which will be passed on by the parent council to councillor Marilyne MacLaren..

Parents were also given an abbreviated copy of the feasibility study. The conclusions which have been drawn are, I assume, those of the parent forum and not of the council, but this is unclear. The 'only workable option' according to this communication is a demolition of the nursery to create a contractor's compound and the erection of a two storey block to be built parallel with and adjacent to the existing school building. A decant would be needed.


edit: changed term 'parent council' to 'parent forum'

[Porty]

It is good news that information and an update is scheduled. How and when were the invitations made?

Decant instead of a new school? Decant instead of an extended and refurbished school? Guess it depends on what the feasibility study says and whether speed has been given a higher priority than the end result.

Please keep us updated Marya.

[Maria]

How and when were the invitations made?
.

Parents received the info last Friday Porty. Pupils took home a letter from the parent forum.

There seems to be a fear that a new build has to wait until after the PHS situation is resolved so delaying things for an unacceptable 10+ years.

[Porty]

I can well understand that fear.

[Porty]

What went down?

[Maria]

Don't know so far Porty. I couldn't make it last night and haven't spoken to any other parents as yet.

[Jock]

I'm a parent of a St John's pupil. The Parent Council at St John's have not included parents in the decision to push for a refurbishment and it has simply come down to a few members of the Parent Council pushing ahead with their choice for a refurbishment without looking for any feedback from St John's parents. Hardly surprising really when one member of the Parent Council is a member of the PPAG. No amount of refurbishment will being St John's up to an acceptable standard and I'm sure that most parents would opt for a new school - if they were ever asked! A lot of parents might move their children from St John's rather than have their education disrupted by a decant. What's next for St John's then - closure? Portobello High and St John's both desperately need new schools and it would be great for everyone in the Portobello community to see the 2 schools come together on this.

[Bob Jefferson]

Jock, you have my sympathy and I'm sure a lot of other St J parents feel they have been railroaded into this without proper consultation. Were you at the meeting the other night? What are other parents saying about refurbishment and decant? More to the point, where would the kids be decanted to?

[Jock]

Hard as it is to believe, I don't think many parents are aware of the Parent Council's push for a refurbishment and decant. Discussions have been kept to a select few and there has been very little information made available to the parent group as a whole. You basically have to either go looking for the information because no-one is providing any. Can't think of any empty "local" schools available for a decant - anyone else aware of any?

[wangi]

Can't think of any empty "local" schools available for a decant - anyone else aware of any?

I'm sure Castlebrae High has some space...

[Porty]

Lismore may be available soon, which will be plenty time for St Johns. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the whole shebang wete relocated up there.

Jock has there really been no information distributed amongst the school community? I thought there had been at least some mention in pupil mail and the school newsletter? I do recall the day we attended the meeting of full council at the city chambers and to the surprise or perhaps horror of the majority,the St Johns reps bid for a refurb rather than a new school. We were all gobsmacked and I'm certain that there was no remit from the broader school community for this demand.

As for the PPAG influence? Its pretty much been done to death here on TP and on POL . Despite their claims of speaking for a "significant majority" PPAG are largely made up of one extended family (small but extended) and a few others. And most of those are in the PNB.

[Bob Jefferson]

PNB?

Doesn't Brunstane have spare capacity?

[Porty]

Portobello Nay Brigade- I think its about time we had a who's who?

[wangi]

erm...

[Porty]

I meant in the Schools debate not necessarily here on TP. Probably not a good idea on reflection.

[Lava Lamp]

As a St Johns parent I do find Jocks comments that no information has come from St Johns Parent Council regarding the position with a new/refurbished school puzzling, and I've nothing to do with the council, and don't live near Porty Park!

There have been a number of meetings recently regarding the Schools and the Parent Councils recommendation being proposed to the Edinburgh Council and I have always been made aware of these through digging in my kids bags and finding leaflets and letters. I recall last year completing a survey regarding school rebuild/refurbish and attending several meetings at St Johns which were reasonably well attended (and heated!).

The attendance at the latest meetings is poor, I think the rebuild/refurbish timescales involved and the lack of apparent funding available gives the impression to many parents that nothing is going to happen until there kids have left St Johns - so it ain't their problem. I also think that the push for refurbishment is on the basis that funding for a new school is not going to be made available where as funding for refurb will happen.
Why do I come to that conclusion - politics - SNP council don't want PFI (fair enough) and aren't going to come up with anything else (not fair enough) so that the finger can be pointed at the previous administration. Funding for refurb will ultimately be nessesary and will happen. Decant of the whole school to Lismore or another Edinburgh primary seems likely.

[seanie]

Did the results of the survey ever come to light?

[Bob Jefferson]

The previous Council considered that St John's required to be replaced, not refurbished. If the PTA/Parent Forum had pressed their case and campaigned for a new school, as PFANS has for PHS, then they would still be in the frame.

What did they have to lose? The worst case scenario for St John's was a situation where there was insufficient funds forthcoming for all five Wave 3 schools and they had to settle for a refurb.

I don't think we ever did see the results of the survey. I would certainly be very interested to see how many completed forms it was based on. Very few I suspect.

[Porty]

Did the results of the survey ever come to light?

No- in fact there were 2 surveys, the first one had more response than the second, from memory the first survey results were suppresed as events overtook the purpose of the survey.

[Lava Lamp]

My recollection of the results were that a refurb on location was the option supported by a small majority of St Johns parents and that that was fedback to parents through a letter distributed via the ever reliable kids schoolbag method.

I recall at the meetings that I attended a reluctance for co location with a new PHS, not a concern that I had experienced, but there was certainly a number of parents concerned at bullying, rubbish getting thrown in to the St Johns playground and swearing and abuse getting shouted through the railings by the PHS pupils.

I take my hat off to your positive slant Bob in indicating that a new PHS is 'still in the frame'

[Porty]

My recollection of the results were that a refurb on location was the option supported by a small majority of St Johns parents and that that was fedback to parents through a letter distributed via the ever reliable kids schoolbag method.

Really? I cant recall a refurb being one of the options on the survey. The first public mention of refurb (instead of a new school) by the school board was at the meeting of the full council on Dec 21st.

I think what Seanie means by "published" is info like:

How many survey were completed?
How many went for Option A, B and so on
General comments etc

A bit like the then School Board did at Portobello, its called transparency. St John's parent council have been at best opaque when it comes to the community they serve.

Here's how the SJSB reported the results of the survey:

"The board has now reviewed the responses, and the main findings are as follows:

There is universal acknowledgement that our current building fails to satisfy fitness for purpose, and that upgraded facilities are urgently required.

The clear majority of the St John's Community are not in favour of co-location with the High School, for reasons of pupil safety and welfare.

There is a widespread desire to minimise the loss of green space"

Sod all about about what the community actually wanted and no numbers to back it up. I made an FOI request to see the results but the council could not deliver them as SJ would not release them.

[Maria]

St John's website contains all the newsletters going back to August 2006 so anyone can check the facts for themselves if they so wish.

There are periods where months go past (from 19 Jan 2007 until 31 August 2007, for example) without any mention at all of the future of St John's in newsletters.

There is evidence that the school board acted prior to consulting parents. For example, in a letter dated 25 September 2007 telling of the City of Edinburgh Council consultation meeting to be held in October parents were informed

St John’s School Board have already asked that the Council consider 2 brownfield sites for St John’s (the current Powerleague site on Portobello High Street, and the Scottish Power site near the Kings Road roundabout).

There are also mentions of meetings or visits with promised feedback which is then never given. For example, we were told in the bulletin dated Friday 14 December 2007

There will be a meeting at the City Chambers on Wednesday 19th December at 5.00pm to discuss the feasibility report for St John’s School. I will attend this together with representatives from the parent council. You will be receiving up to date information following this meeting.

No report of this meeting was given to parents. Did it go ahead or not?

More recently on Friday 8 Feb 2008

Meeting with Cllr Marilyne MacLaren
There will be a meeting on Wednesday 20th February in the City Chambers, to discuss the feasibility study carried out on St John’s. Members of the Parent Council and I will attend. The next parent forum meeting will take place on Thursday 6th March

Parents have been given no information as to the outcome of either of these two meetings.

The Parent council today published a list of their members and sub-committees - Alison Connelly, Donald Canavan and David Manson are listed as members of the 're-development committee'. Only 3 members for such an important committee? Why?
We are told the next meeting will be on 17 April, but there are no minutes of the last meeting or information as to where they can be viewed.

So, yes, Lava lamp, there has been some informing of /consultation with parents, but it has been patchy and in my opinion and that of several other parents, woefully inadequate.

[Porty]

There is evidence that the school board acted prior to consulting parents. For example, in a letter dated 25 September 2007 telling of the City of Edinburgh Council consultation meeting to be held in October parents were informed

St John’s School Board have already asked that the Council consider 2 brownfield sites for St John’s (the current Powerleague site on Portobello High Street, and the Scottish Power site near the Kings Road roundabout).

I must admit this was the one that got me. And you have to consider the context in which the statement was made, as if the School Board were already taking action against the unfair council offer:

One of the options St Johns had was a new school a couple of hundred metres away from the existing site, a new site that was completely separate from the newly relocated PHS. It wasn't a greenfield site, in fact it was an existing school site. No need to compromise on ones green or for that matter brown credentials. In every way it was a golden opportunity; new school located almost exactly where the old one was, no conscience issues on building on green space, no parental or special needs issues exacerbated by a remote relocate, and so on and so on. So what did the School Board do when offered such an opportunity?

The St John's school board, without any consultation, blew that site out and instead took it upon themselves to pursue 2 remote sites that were unavailable in the foreseeable future!!! And then they f****** trumpeted their prowess in doing so. Not even clever enough to cover their self-interest tracks.

I know there has been apathy among the parental body of both schools but it stretches the realms of credibility that any member of the St John's community, (senior teacher, teacher, staff, parent or pupil) stepped up and requested a potential relocation of St johns to powerlegue or scottsih power. Readers, are you aware of anyone among you that wanted either of those sites for St John's?


Can you imagine the thought process that led the school board to the pursuance of these more remote and unattainable sites. All i can come up with is this.

"if we accept the offer of a new school on the perfect adjacent site, then we are increasing the chance of having PHS on Portobello Park" - I know it makes all sorts of sense for St John's but lets find somewhere else to put the School - quick!!!"

St Johns school board had no mandate, had no business considering anything other than the sites they were offered. Whose interests did they prioritise? It is no mystery. and it certainly wasn't the school's.

[Maria]

To be fair, reasons were given as follows

This would allow the new Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the existing site. An advantage for St John’s of one of this is that St Johns would be relocated first, which means that St John’s would get its new school more quickly, but also that it would be guaranteed the first “bite” at the funding.

The disadvantages, of course, were that the Scottish Power site would have had to be purchased from BL Developments by the COEC (expensive!) and the Power League's generous lease would have meant finding a suitable alternative green space for it locally (difficult).

[Maria]

St John's parents have been issued with a questionnaire asking 'How well are we doing?'. If you are such a parent and haven't seen it , have a rummage at the bottom of your child's school bag.

There is an opportunity on the questionnaire for parents to state whether they believe that the Parent Council 'performs its role effectively', citing 'fund raising' and 'communication between school and parents', as examples. While I believe they have been excellent in doing the former, I believe that the latter has been poor. How many of you knew that a decant was being proposed I wonder? There is also suggestion of creating a Parent Council website, which would be a positive step in the right direction.

Questionnaires are to be returned by Thu 20 March.

[Porty]

To be fair, reasons were given as follows

This would allow the new Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the existing site. An advantage for St John’s of one of this is that St Johns would be relocated first, which means that St John’s would get its new school more quickly, but also that it would be guaranteed the first “bite” at the funding.

The disadvantages, of course, were that the Scottish Power site would have had to be purchased from BL Developments by the COEC (expensive!) and the Power League's generous lease would have meant finding a suitable alternative green space for it locally (difficult).

So in other words the School Board opted to pursue an undeliverable option (s) rather than seriously consider the peachy proposition put to them by the Council. Furthermore, to make a claim that this would deliver a new school more quickly, is at best misleading and at worst a lie. Why mislead the community you are supposed to represent?

No survey results, no feedback as promised, representations without consultation etc

[Maria]

I would like to think that parent representatives and senior school management believed that they acted in the best interests of the school. However, I am firmly of the opinion that communication with the parent body has been inadequate. I hope that this will change and that, in return, more parents will take an interest in the future of the school.

I admit that I could have probably taken more of an active interest, but it isn't always that easy to attend meetings, especially at short notice. I suspect that this is common to a great deal of parents, especially working ones.

[Jock]

The turn-out at St J's Parent Council meetings is very small because the parent body as a whole are not being informed of the big issues. I first heard that St J's were pursuing a refurb at a PHS meeting and as a St J's parent I find this unacceptable. It simply isn't good enough to add a paragraph of information on to the newsletter every couple of months - the Parent Council appear to be genuinely surprised when a handful of parents turn up at the monthly meeting! I think we should be looking to other school's Parent Councils to see how they manage to keep parents involved and interested. We don't actually need to look too far as PHS seem to have a well organised inclusive Parent Council with fantastic support from parents. I've completed my "How well are we doing" questionnaire - teaching is fab but the management/communication needs to improve FAST.

[Maria]

Jock, I heard today from another parent that the Parent council were going to take a show of hands at the last meeting as their only form of consultation with parents over the most recent feasability study. Do you know if that is the case? Surely it can't be!

[Jock]

Didn't even bother with a show of hands as there was no discussion of the possibility of a new school, just which style of refurb all 15 of us would prefer!! The Parent Council haven't looked for consultation/opinions up until now and don't seem to be starting any time soon.