New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 08 Mar 2006, 17:56

Marya wrote:
Epykat wrote:
Franck wrote:Giving the children a new school with mental/physical stimulation on site and possibly a chance to educate them on environmental issues and healthy lifestyles within the campus.
And I'm sure that if that's what the Council was proposing there would be little or no argument. However, add to that a mini housing scheme and then people's backs go up.
Would you accept the two schools being built on the golf course Epykat if there was no housing (other than that being built on the old schools' sites)?

Yes I would (although I'd prefer it just to be PHS with St. John's expanding onto the old PHS site)

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Mar 2006, 17:59

Franck, I would just like to say that your recent posts have been very refreshing. The impression being given is that the golfers are up in arms about losing their course and I'm quite sure that one or two of them may be. On the other hand, I'm certain that many will see this as a great opportunity to establish a new, improved facility within a few minutes drive. It seems a small price to pay for the huge benefits that will arise for thousands of children for generations to come.

Meanwhile, Portobello Golf Club will survive and prosper - it is a community of golfers, not a patch of green.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 08 Mar 2006, 17:59

Just another wee thought.

The council owned the land the pitz is sited on,right? So, if the development of the golf course goes ahead, why not incorporate a new astroturf facility with it, owned and run by the school (and therfore the council) contribute the money from the sale of the pitz to the whole proposal and reduce the amount of space taken up by housing? I'd rather have new flats built on the pitz site than new houses on the golf course.

I know it wont make a huge dent in the potential build cost, but every little helps and I think I'm right in saying the amount of housing on the park is a major factor in the debate.

Charles · Post by **Charles** » 08 Mar 2006, 18:04

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Charles wrote: Is there reliable measurement of the existing site available or is your figure of 66% an estimation?
Its not my figure, it is based on Seanie's knowledge of the guidelines, which he quoted and Wangi's measurement of the site. It is a reliable estimate. However, rather than be concerned about the reliability lets concentrate on the principle. May I ask you again:

Why should we cram the children, teachers and staff into a facility that is just 66% of the miminum standard when we have the opportunity, finance and space to build the best educational facilities for the schools in the community?

Because the "opportunity, finance and space to build the best educational facilities for the schools in the community" comes at a very high (non-cash) cost to the community for which it is providing these facilties.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 08 Mar 2006, 18:05

Epykat wrote:
Marya wrote:
Epykat wrote: And I'm sure that if that's what the Council was proposing there would be little or no argument. However, add to that a mini housing scheme and then people's backs go up.
Would you accept the two schools being built on the golf course Epykat if there was no housing (other than that being built on the old schools' sites)?
Yes I would (although I'd prefer it just to be PHS with St. John's expanding onto the old PHS site)

This is also quite interesting. Before any of this came about, I've always thought St.Johns could do with purchasing those state of the art tennis courts the High School uses so frequently

.Balancing the cost of buying them and regenerating St.Johns on site to the reduction in the saleable value of the combined schools and the reduction in the built cost and land used on the golf course could be an option to explore.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 18:10

Alison Connelly wrote: No I don't really have anything to add except that I was unaware that this meeting had started off as a meeting just for the golf club to view the proposals for their new course.

So now you know, does it change your view on what transpired at the meeting?

Alison Connelly wrote:The leaflet did not provide an agenda - just a date and time.

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

Just â€œa date and timeâ€

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 08 Mar 2006, 18:29

Charles wrote:Because the "opportunity, finance and space to build the best educational facilities for the schools in the community" comes at a very high (non-cash) cost to the community for which it is providing these facilties.

I agree, there is a high 'non-cash' cost and it is our children, not to mention the staff, who have been paying it now for many years. Your option of only giving them 66% of the recommended space required (wherever that may be located) guarantees that they will continue to pay for many more years to come.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 08 Mar 2006, 18:31

Epykat wrote:...I'd prefer it just to be PHS with St. John's expanding onto the old PHS site

Me too Epykat

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 08 Mar 2006, 18:34

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 18:40

Pal of Porty wrote:
Epykat wrote:...I'd prefer it just to be PHS with St. John's expanding onto the old PHS site
Me too Epykat

If there was money to get two new schools on the above basis. Your suggestion would get my vote too Epykat.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 Mar 2006, 18:48

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Pal of Porty wrote:
Epykat wrote:...I'd prefer it just to be PHS with St. John's expanding onto the old PHS site
Me too Epykat
If there was money to get two new schools on the above basis. Your suggestion would get my vote too Epykat.

The only fly in the ointment (aside from the total lack of cash for this, of course

) would be that the St John's kids would have to be decanted somewhere. Otherwise it does sound a real vote winner.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Mar 2006, 18:56

Charles wrote:I was also interested in the points made at the meeting on Monday that Portobello High is bigger than the optimum, and if we are committed to providing the best possible education perhaps we should also address this issue. It may be that if PHS was the "optimum" size, a good, fit for purpose building could be provided on the current site, if the council were able to negotiate the funding (perhaps through the Scottish Executive or through traditional borrowing?)

There are no official recommendations, guidelines or targets as to what constitutes an "optimum" size. The factors involved are too varied and contextually sensitive. BB95 represents, pretty well, the current thinking about the future of our schools. Nowhere is "optimum" school size even hinted at. There are exemplar schools as small as 600 and as large as 1800. Notions of an abstract "optimum" size have little influence compared to other factors.

If anyone at Mondays meeting claimed that PHS is bigger than the optimum then they were dressing up speculation as fact.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 19:17

Alison Connelly wrote:I can't understand what more detail they could have expected, had the councillors not been sidetracked by other questions.

Alison don't you appreciate that it was you and all the other non-golfers that attended the meeting under false pretences? You have the leaflet producer to thank for that. Your chance to air your views at a public meeting will come, lets hope the golfers get another chance.

There is a very good reason (and this is your quote) "I can't understand what more detail they could have expected, had the councillors not been sidetracked by other questions"

The reason you can't understand what more detail they could have expected is you never saw the presentation, noone did.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 08 Mar 2006, 19:22

Bob further to the 30,000 figure quoted for annual golf club users:

Bob Jefferson wrote:MoM, the figure of 30,000 is one that has been given by Culture and Leisure. As has already been pointed out, this equates to around 80 customers a day.

I hunted this website and could not find the figure of 30,000 quoted anywhere. I sent an e-mail to Ricky Henderson and he is going to send me more information.

Not that this is of utmost importance but I just want to know what the figure of 339 customers relates to. Do 339 customers use PGC a day, a month or a year? How does the figure of 30,000 relate to the 339? There cannot be an average number of customers per day/month as the figure must correspond with the golf season and indeed the weather.

I apologise for being such a bore, you can all go back to sleep now. I'll keep you all informed.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Mar 2006, 19:36

I feel that there are one or two personal differences beginning to creep back into this thread and while I appreciate that there is a lot at stake here I think we should try to focus on the matter at hand.

Monday's meeting is history. I still don't know what percentage of the Golf Club membership are for or against the proposal - perhaps they could hold a ballot once they have more detail about the proposed new course. It does seem that a large number of residents of Park Avenue and its environs are against the proposal, though by no means all, while agreeing that PHS needs to be replaced. If it can be demonstrated, and it can, that the Council's proposal represents the only opportunity to replace the school then they must back the proposal or accept the label of nimbyism.

One or two posts (and I can't be bothered finding them) have made vague insinuation that certain individuals may make financial gain from the proposal. This is a serious charge and I would ask the posters concerned to elaborate.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Mar 2006, 19:39

MoM, thanks for this. It would be good to get some clarification on the survey and I think that it is very important that we check facts and sources.

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 08 Mar 2006, 19:46

Well, well, lots of interesting posts... and people try to claim that the 'public' meeting achieved nothing?

It would seem the leaflet for the meeting was such a powerful persuader of opinion that some were frightened to attend! (Maybe there's a career in advertising awaiting...).

Although it contained something more than just a time and date it was hardly an agenda? It made a statement on the proposed development and asked a couple of (admittedly 'coloured') questions then gave the location, date and time of the meeting and then 'COME ALONG AND GIVE YOUR VIEWS'.

Admittedly it's not as unbiased as the PFANS poster...

Franck's posts were very interesting... they persue the same ribald notion that PFANS promotes. That we are somehow talking about 'a school in a park'? And what a lovely image that is... Unfortunately it's not exactly - how does Stephen put it? Accurate. The school will be in the middle of a housing estate.

So. WARNING. The following is not 'factually accurate' - it is a series of questions posed as an example. I expect to be shot down in flames by people who do this for a living. But I'd like some facts and asking for them is the only way I know!

Stephen & Seanie can do the sums (cos they're the only ones who can). But we need to raise Â£43 million? (That was Councillor Perry's figure for both schools) To be funded from the profit from the building project. Now, how much profit you get in a new house is a mystery to me. But for illustrative purposes lets say that the council can sell houses at an average 75000 pound profit? (Sounds pretty good to me, optimistic even).

That means they require to build 574 houses/flats? A lower profit margin means more houses, greater means less. Presumably mixed housing? So say, a guess, 50% family, 20% elderly, 20% single, 10% some other group I'd otherwise offend by omitting.

That's two-hundred and sixty, roughly, family houses. Say average 2 kids per? That's 520 kids wanting to go to school. Now, if they're all pre-teen... that's more than St John's can handle. If there's a mix, then they might only half fill it, and a good chunk of the high school.

Now some houses may be occupied by current Porty folk moving house, but I'd guess most would go to people new to the area (there has to be some influx... houses aren't in that great a short supply in Porty?).

There are no plans to build any other facilities e.g. dental practices, doctor's surgeries, kid's playparks, shops (convenience, fast-food, etc) that I've heard of? (Oh, and the 'big' park has shrunk to a large garden).

So we have something in the order of 1500 to 3000 people moving into the area, mostly in close proximity to the school? Many with children they, rightly, expect to attend the 'local' school.

No improvement in access for those coming from Joppa (they can cross the footbridge, ok?). Stanley Street & Hope Lane as the main route into the school/housing estate/community centre/football pitches (the tree-line on PA is staying, we're told, so no access there). Restricted parking on Milton Road (soon to be bus laned). Increased traffic throughout (or do we sell houses and grant places at school to non-driving families only?).

Remind me again why this 'school in the park'

is such a great benefit to the community? Clue me in as to why you are soooo surprised the people living round the park are opposed, not to a new school, but to development of the park? Tell me how you will react when the new school is completed and your kids can't get in because preference is given to those who live right beside the school? How will you feel when your kids have to travel across Portobello to find a place big enough for a kick-about (cos the new residents of PA maybe won't want 'ball games' in their park!)?

My figures, as I say are fiction, come back with better ones, but answer the questions.

A final point...

Pal of Porty:

there is a high 'non-cash' cost and it is our children, not to mention the staff, who have been paying it now for many years. Your option of only giving them 66% of the recommended space required (wherever that may be located) guarantees that they will continue to pay for many more years to come.

The education provided at Porty is excellent as many parents and pupils (and staff) will testify. My child hasn't 'suffered' nor have my neighbors (at Holyrood, also being rebuilt). A shiny new school won't make your kids smarter. The council didn't think they were suffering enough, otherwise how could they fail to provide funding for any new development?

Not everyone thinks a 'campus' style school is such a great idea. Some kids like the compact nature of Porty, it's easy to find your way around and the stairs offer great excercise (and all the kids use them, unlike the sports facilities).

That's no reason not to rebuild, but if you've ever tried shopping in an American style 'sprawl' Mall you might have some idea of what I'm getting at? I went to Craigmount (before it was rebuilt - and it's younger than Porty too! ) and it had a combination of high-rise and seperate buildings, I never minded, but getting from the PE block to the Chemistry labs was a bit of a sprint (and took longer than the drive to Jack Kane!).

All I'm trying to say is the funding issue is a political one. And with a little imagination an excellent school can be provided without destroying public land - forever.

Ah well... Fire away.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 08 Mar 2006, 19:54

PortyMan wrote: and the stairs offer great excercise (and all the kids use them, unlike the sports facilities).

Just a quickie, but hey, why should we expect any disabled kids or staff to want special treatment anyway?

Edit - wasn't thinking about staff.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Mar 2006, 20:10

PortyMan wrote:There are no plans to build any other facilities e.g. dental practices, doctor's surgeries, kid's playparks, shops (convenience, fast-food, etc) that I've heard of?

I think we have space for new residents in our community. I think our local high street will prosper from the extra business this will generate. I think some of our charity shops will become bona fide businesses to cater for the new families.

The fact is that, as yet, no-one knows how much housing will have to be built to raise the money required and your figures are pure speculation though I'm sure that this kind of number crunching is happening right now and that this information should be available soon.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 08 Mar 2006, 20:35

Bob Jefferson wrote:
One or two posts (and I can't be bothered finding them) have made vague insinuation that certain individuals may make financial gain from the proposal. This is a serious charge and I would ask the posters concerned to elaborate.

Portobellosite wrote: Having read through this thread I have found difficulty in determining what some of you actually want. Let me be clear and honest about what I want and donâ€™t want.

I want a decent education for my children.

I want class sizes to be under 30 pupils.

I want their education to be in Portobello.

I want more information about the proposals for building or developing.

I want to see all of the reports so far regarding the movement of the schools.

I want Portobello to benefit from any financial gain that the council makes.

I do not want to loose part of the Portobello ward to Craigentinny.

I do not want housing built on the golf course or the course to move.

I do not want 5 year old children sharing a dining room or facilities with 17 year olds.

I do not want Portobello/Brighton/Quarry/Rosefield/Abercorn parks to be lost to the community.

I will not gain financially from any of the developments in the short or long term.

What about You

Mark Twain wrote: Honesty is the best policy - when there is money in it. - Mark Twain
US humorist, novelist, short story author, & wit (1835 - 1910)

Bob,

I may have published the above, but oh my goodness these were not barbed comments in any way or form aimed at anyone in particular.

They were genuine pleas to find out more information. Iâ€™m shocked

and surprised

that anyone has taken offence. Please let me know who the individuals are and I will most humbly and unreservedly apologise. Indeed I will even lay forth my credentials for all and sundry to peruse at their leisure in an effort to make amends.

Then again, maybe it wasn't me you were worried about.

Let all ye come forth and bare thy soul
____________________________________________________________

It takes your enemy and your friend, working together to hurt you to the heart; the one to slander you and the other to get the news to you
Mark Twain again. Sorry.

bluebanana · Post by **bluebanana** » 08 Mar 2006, 21:18

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.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Mar 2006, 21:22

PortyMan wrote:Stephen & Seanie can do the sums (cos they're the only ones who can).

I'd barely know where to begin. That's hugely complicated. The average profit on a housing unit varies wildly depending on what it is ,where it is, and the unit cost to develop. But it's worth pointing out that developers spend millions of pounds aquiring sites, then millions more developing them before selling them on at a healthy profit. That healthy profit will be even greater if you don't have to purchase a site in the first place.

As to the total number of units that's a far from straightforward calculation. There is a housing shortage in Edinburgh as you may have noticed from property prices. There are probably numerous combinations of housing types you could develop in order to meet your target. But they'll also factor in a consideration as to an appropriate density per Ha.

Now a spec housebuilder, looking at a big bit of greenspace, would probably to squeeze in lots of 4 & 5 bedroom detatched houses. They represent a pretty good return. Doing that you may get 25-30 Dwellings/Ha.

But that's a pretty inefficient use of space and doesn't really target needs. More sustainable urban densities are in the 50-70 Dha range, though that requires a substantial number of flats. When you get to the city centre you get very high density rates of 100+ Dha.

I'd guess they'd probably go for a mix of the low and medium with a density between 40-60 Dha. If they're talking about 7 Ha that'd be 280-420 dwellings. That's pretty vague I know but it's far from straightforward. But I also think they'd try to develop a mix that reflected the population of the area.

If so the figure of 50% families is way over the mark.

Here you can find the North East Edinburgh Area profile. Table 8 gives household by type and indicates that 23% of households have children. If you look at the next table you'll see that for owner occupation the figure is around 19%. So your estimated impact on schools is probably exagerated.

However all this is highly speculative. I've already said what kind of proposition I'd regard as pretty good. But I want to see the detail of the actual proposals. The actual proposals mind. Not fictional ones.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 08 Mar 2006, 21:32

PortyMan wrote:...My figures, as I say are fiction......

Agreed

PortyMan wrote:The education provided at Porty is excellent as many parents and pupils (and staff) will testify. My child hasn't 'suffered' nor have my neighbors (at Holyrood, also being rebuilt). A shiny new school won't make your kids smarter. The council didn't think they were suffering enough, otherwise how could they fail to provide funding for any new development?

There are many people who believe the education at Portobello to be excellent but that does not mean to say that it cannot be improved. Shiny new schools most definitely do not make kids smarter but if properly managed they must surely contribute positively towards creating a better environment for learning.

And with regards to PHS not making the funding round - just because you are not the sickest patient in intensive care, it does not mean that you are healthy.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 21:46

I will try and address your other points please reciprocate.

PortyMan wrote: Well, well, lots of interesting posts... and people try to claim that the 'public' meeting achieved nothing?

Where was this claim made and who are the people who made it?

PortyMan wrote:It would seem the leaflet for the meeting was such a powerful persuader of opinion that some were frightened to attend! (Maybe there's a career in advertising awaiting...).

Although it contained something more than just a time and date it was
hardly an agenda? It made a statement on the proposed development and asked a couple of (admittedly 'coloured') questions then gave the location, date and time of the meeting and then 'COME ALONG AND GIVE YOUR VIEWS'.

You issued the leaflet in your own name although you may have had a mandate to do so from Portobello Golf Club. Did you have a mandate?

Your invite encouraged people to attend to air their views on a wide range of issues. Did you make contact with the guest speakers at the meeting to inform them what you had done in order that they could prepare?

Were the council informed that it was a public meeting?

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 08 Mar 2006, 21:52

PortyMan wrote:
Franck's posts were very interesting... they persue the same ribald notion that PFANS promotes. That we are somehow talking about 'a school in a park'? And what a lovely image that is... Unfortunately it's not exactly - how does Stephen put it? Accurate. The school will be in the middle of a housing estate. .

Nothing like a bit of accuracy,eh? I wonder how accurate your school in the middle of a housing estate statement is? I doubt anyone is prepared to accept the whole of the park being turned over to development.

PortyMan wrote: Remind me again why this 'school in the park' is such a great benefit to the community? Clue me in as to why you are soooo surprised the people living round the park are opposed, not to a new school, but to development of the park? Tell me how you will react when the new school is completed and your kids can't get in because preference is given to those who live right beside the school? How will you feel when your kids have to travel across Portobello to find a place big enough for a kick-about (cos the new residents of PA maybe won't want 'ball games' in their park!)?

The residents you refer to in Park Avenue are no doubt opposed to any development in the park because they feel threatened by increased traffic, a change in view(although I cant see that being so major-the sacred tree line dictates you cant actually see too much of the park itself) a short term reduction in the price of their own home & maybe a wee bit pig-headedness to change.

The increase in demand for schools is an interesting point.The Evening news front page tonight highlights the difficulty St. Johns & Towerbank face already. Portobello is never getting smaller from now, its always going to expand whether its flats at the pitz, off Brunstane road or potentially along Seafield Rd at the current car salesrooms. Maybe this is another reason to built new,bigger & better schools geared up to cope with Edinburghs/Portobellos increasing population.

The 'kickabout' arguement is flawed.Firstly, the remaining park will not be owned by residents of the much vaunted Park Avenue, I understand it will be council owned and a public space.Secondly,kids donot play football on the golf course & the pitches in the park are being kept.We also have Brighton Park, Rosefield Park,Figgate Park,The Jewel,Daisy Park,Quarry Park,Jack Kane, the beach & a new green space potentially on the 'old'school sites. Debate is good, an essential part of a decision like this.Sweeping statements and scaremongering do no-one any favours

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 08 Mar 2006, 21:57

Bob Jefferson wrote:I feel that there are one or two personal differences beginning to creep back into this thread and while I appreciate that there is a lot at stake here I think we should try to focus on the matter at hand.

...

If it can be demonstrated, and it can, that the Council's proposal represents the only opportunity to replace the school then they must back the proposal or accept the label of nimbyism.

One or two posts (and I can't be bothered finding them) have made vague insinuation that certain individuals may make financial gain from the proposal. This is a serious charge and I would ask the posters concerned to elaborate.

There's more than one serious charge here, so I would like to ask you some questions Bob.

1. Are you saying that a personal difference is undesirable but having a difference with an entire street is not?

2. Are you saying that one can apply a label of nimbyism by default which must be actively disproved by the target, but that in order to apply a label of cronyism one must actively prove it first?

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 08 Mar 2006, 22:00

Dear contributors,

I have read this forum with great interest and wish to convey my
Con-graa-tuu-la---tions
to one and all on such a wonderfully healthy debate.

"You've got the formula just right. If only more people on web forums realised that it's possible to be healthily vulgar without descending to schoolboy smut."

I know how difficult it is to keep your youngsters away from the old laptop these days with their â€œmessengerâ€

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 08 Mar 2006, 22:09

PortyMan wrote:
The education provided at Porty is excellent as many parents and pupils (and staff) will testify. My child hasn't 'suffered'. . .

I'm alright Jack.

I was talking to your son's football coach on Sunday he is my tennis partner. I shared your views that on-site playing fields were unneccessary, as the football team are top of the league and as he is part of the succesful team, your son was living proof. The profanity filter prevents me from publishing his exact response.

He informed me that anything that would make it easier for kids to participate in sport both during and after school would be welcome. He informed me that with the exception of your sons team there are no other football teams in the school that turn out consistently. I know that you will recognise him as a honourable person and one of the few teachers that give their own time. He assured me that given on-site playing fileds he would be able to give more of his valuable time. His colleauges would see him giving more time and would be more likely to help out. The same applies to parents. The same applies to older kids helping coach younger kids

He is convinced that more childern would participate, some children don't have the bus fare to attend after school training at the Jack Kane. Their parents don't have cars. He loved the idea that when a big game or even just an ordinary game did come along it could be played at the school, attracting bigger crowds and in turn inspire more participation. Although he is not a PE teacher he described the lost PE time as much more than the 1/3rd widely published.

His rugby counterpart at the school, another excellent teacher and a long-time friend of mine echoes the same thoughts. To me the views of the 'doers' are very valuable. You may not believe me? Why not ask him the next time you see him.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Mar 2006, 00:47

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Dear Mr Stroud...

... The real threat is that, if we do not understand and agree the urgency and importance of finding a replacement High School building for the children of this area there may, one morning, be no school for them to go to. You will then be looking around for people to blame...

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Fraser
On behalf of the School Board

Have any of you considered that?

Have you really considered the possible implications?

There's an absolute statutory requirement to provide education. There's absolutely no statutory requirement to provide that education exactly where it is. And certainly not in "optimum" sizes.

Look elsewhere. Look at the fraught exercise in combining campuses in the west. That wasn't driven by philosophy. It was driven by economics. There are economies of scale. And PHS isn't Edinburgh's only school that still needs addressed.

Since fiction/scaremongering seems to be de rigeur I'll engage in a little of my own.

Defeat these proposals. Whip up the anger against these "rubber stamped" deals. Paint dreadful pictures of the appaling concrete jungle we'll endure. Tell everyone that we shouldn't replace the currently crap buildings because the crap buildings we replace them with will need replacing. Invent wonderful alternatives that ignore political and financial realities as if irrelevant.

But keep the golf-course where it is.

And if in 5 years there's a major system failure in PHS, which by most accounts seems inevitable, then what do you do? You decant. Somehow. Necessity kicks in. De-canting on site makes no sense if major work is required. So spread the pupils about a bit. And once you've spread them about then why bring them back?

In those circumstances I'd consider re-jigging the catchment areas across Edinburgh. There are other school that also need attention. If my options were limited I'd look to build 2 or 3 "mega-schools" on the periphery and reconfigure the catchments to conform.

No Portobello High necessary.

Now I think that's a slim possibility. But there are communities that have been faced with that as a reality.

It's obvious that these proposals come at a cost. But rejection of these proposals is not cost free.

Post by **wangi** » 09 Mar 2006, 00:55

seanie wrote: Have you really considered the possible implications?

There's an absolute statutory requirement to provide education. There's absolutely no statutory requirement to provide that education exactly where it is. And certainly not in "optimum" sizes.

Look elsewhere. Look at the fraught exercise in combining campuses in the west. That wasn't driven by philosophy. It was driven by economics. There are economies of scale. And PHS isn't Edinburgh's only school that still needs addressed.

Now now Seanie, you seem to be getting carried away a touch

You'll note a combined campus at Dalkeith and I think a lot of people in this thread have actually questioned the continuing good/neccessity/point of sectarian education...

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 09 Mar 2006, 01:12

seanie wrote: Whip up the anger against these "rubber stamped" deals.

and

seanie wrote: ignore political and financial realities

Given that you've said that PPP consultation can be sham - is a "rubber stamped" deal not also a political reality in this context?

Keir Hardie · Post by **Keir Hardie** » 09 Mar 2006, 08:59

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.

Blue Banana
I am very interested to hear of your decant experience. Could you give a bit more background information? Was the decant planned, or in response to an emergency of some sort, and how long were you decanted for? Was it for a total rebuild? Also what quality/type of decant accommodation was provided? Was the location close to the catchment? Was the affected school within Edinburgh, and was a recent experience? How many pupils were affected? Were the pupils as badly affected by the stress as the staff, given that the staff have to deal with the issues, and to some degree the pupils just "go along with it". I would imagine that with the upcoming schools programme in Edinburgh, a number of schools will be facing a decant situation in the near future.

Keir Hardie · Post by **Keir Hardie** » 09 Mar 2006, 09:02

To all you teachers and education experts out there, what factors contribute to the "optimum" size is for a high school?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 09 Mar 2006, 10:12

seanie wrote:There are no official recommendations, guidelines or targets as to what constitutes an "optimum" size. The factors involved are too varied and contextually sensitive. BB95 represents, pretty well, the current thinking about the future of our schools. Nowhere is "optimum" school size even hinted at. There are exemplar schools as small as 600 and as large as 1800. Notions of an abstract "optimum" size have little influence compared to other factors.

Does this help Kier?

Keir Hardie · Post by **Keir Hardie** » 09 Mar 2006, 14:05

Pal of Porty wrote:
seanie wrote:There are no official recommendations, guidelines or targets as to what constitutes an "optimum" size. The factors involved are too varied and contextually sensitive. BB95 represents, pretty well, the current thinking about the future of our schools. Nowhere is "optimum" school size even hinted at. There are exemplar schools as small as 600 and as large as 1800. Notions of an abstract "optimum" size have little influence compared to other factors.
Does this help Kier?

I've had a look at this document (BB95), but it focusses more on design/build aspects of schools. It doesn't really address educational issues. I was really meaning the views of teachers and educational experts on factors such as sense of identity, sense of community and so on which I believe will be affected by the size. If a school is very large it probably becomes much more difficult to feel "significant" as a pupil (or teacher, for that matter). What I'm really asking about is the ethos of the school, and the impact that size has on it. I don't know if there are "official recommendations", but I wonder if there are people (who have experience of these things) who have opinions to share on what is best? :

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Hurrah for democracy