New Portobello High School- Where and how?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 30 May 2006, 21:03

I'd expect staff have an interest in the location and form of any new school.

Personally I wouldn't give it a great deal of weight but it's a still a legitimate interest.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 30 May 2006, 22:55

One thing that seams to be coming out ever stronger as the debate goes on is the pressing need to get a school built. One arguement is about the location, but I do hope that the councillors don't delay and stall and get on with the consultation and decision making.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Jun 2006, 16:54

From today's EN Letters Page:

Realistic option for Portobello

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 02 Jun 2006, 20:48

Bob Jefferson wrote:One voice that hasn't been heard so far in this debate is that of the PHS staff. We can all speculate on the condition of the building and its fitness for purpose but no-one knows better than the people who actually work there. Here are the results of a staff survey conducted a few weeks ago:

Portobello High School Staff Survey Results

Receiving 'Hot off the Press Report's in duplicate now'

As said repeatedly, PHS was not considered for PP2, because it was not considered to be in such bad state of repair as other schools?
Now we have the Teacher's putting their twopence worth in.. I'm sure
there are many people who could complain about working conditions, in their place of employment, my old boss's response to this would be 'Put up or Shut up' As an aside, I hear that some pupils at PHS, take great
pleasure in ripping the sinks out of the cloakrooms, along with other acts
of vandalisms, and before you jump on this, I am sure it happens in all schools.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Jun 2006, 21:16

Gemini wrote:Receiving 'Hot off the Press Report's in duplicate now'

I'm not sure whether you are referring to the fact that I replaced the text I originally posted with a link to the pdf that I finally got to work, or the fact that this post is duplicated (without comment) on the New Schools document archive. Either way, I can't see why this should cause you to roll your eyes.

Gemini wrote:As said repeatedly, PHS was not considered for PP2, because it was not considered to be in such bad state of repair as other schools?

I think we have dealt with this point, repeatedly. Do you accept that PHS needs to be replaced?

Gemini wrote:Now we have the Teacher's putting their twopence worth in.. I'm sure
there are many people who could complain about working conditions, in their place of employment, my old boss's response to this would be 'Put up or Shut up'

This is an extraordinary statement. I thought your sympathies lay with the workers. Would you like to re-think it?

Gemini wrote: As an aside, I hear that some pupils at PHS, take great
pleasure in ripping the sinks out of the cloakrooms, along with other acts
of vandalisms, and before you jump on this, I am sure it happens in all schools.

Thanks. I'll file this quote along with Stephen Hawkins' remark about the advantage in decanting pupils to prevent them from dismantling the new school as quick as it goes up.

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 02 Jun 2006, 22:15

Did you know that brunstane school would like brunstane and lismore to have a nice new school in the golfie and houses could then be built on the two sites at bingham and magdalene

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Jun 2006, 22:34

Gemini wrote:As said repeatedly, PHS was not considered for PP2, because it was not considered to be in such bad state of repair as other schools?

As posted earlier in this thread;

I had a closer look at the Prioritisation Scoring for PPP2.

14 schools were given a score reflecting a number of factors, the higher the score the greater the priority. Of those 14 Portobello ranked 11th overall, but 6 of those 14 ranked as unsuitable for PPP. Discounting them Portobello ranked last.

When it comes to the individual categories for the 14 schools, Portobello scored highly on matters relating to the school itself:

For Fitness for Purpose only 3 schools ranked worse and 9 ranked better.

For Accessibility only 1 school ranked worse.

For Condition only 2 schools ranked worse, 10 ranked better, with Holyrood the same.

Judged on those three criteria alone only one school ranked as a higher priority â€“ Boroughmuir.

However Portobello scored low on the remaining categories:

For Demand (catchment numbers) Portobello scored low with a forecast decline in line with the city average. 9 schools ranked higher, some considerably so, and 4 ranked lower.

For Developing Disadvantaged Areas Portobello scored very low with a comparatively advantaged intake. Only 2 schools were better off and 11 were worse.

For Community Facilities Portobello scored low with 9 schools ranked higher, 2 the same and 2 lower.

For Assisting Estate Management Portobello was one of 4 schools to score 0 (in part due to anticipated decline in demand).

So whilst PHS was rated as a lower priority by some PPP2 criteria, it was clearly one of the most urgent in terms of physical condition. That situation can be expected to deteriorate as time progresses.

Saying things, whether repeatedly or with sincerity, does not make them true.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Jun 2006, 22:42

For empasis;

For Condition only 2 schools ranked worse, 10 ranked better, with Holyrood the same.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 02 Jun 2006, 23:02

Izzie wrote:Did you know that brunstane school would like brunstane and lismore to have a nice new school in the golfie and houses could then be built on the two sites at bingham and magdalene

And why not? There's plenty of room.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 02 Jun 2006, 23:23

For new schools to be built any time soon, theyâ€™ll have to be in large measure self-financing. Theyâ€™ll require development to generate capital.

Iâ€™m still unclear on the extent of potential housing up at the new Brunstane site, but assuming thatâ€™s a constant leave it to oneside. The proposals for developing the schools involve developing the existing site of 3.5Ha and around 6.3Ha of the park, and even then thereâ€™s a shortfall to be made up.

Now throwing Lismore/Brunstane into the equation adds to the complexity of the project in all sorts of ways, but the most immediate implication is an increase in project costs. Youâ€™re building another primary school so thereâ€™s an additional Â£5million plus funding to be sourced from somewhere.

And the funding problem is only exacerbated if you simultaneously decide not to put housing on the Park. Thatâ€™s 6.3Ha of development funding taken out of the equation. The shortfall is increased dramatically. And how is that to be made up? By building at Lismore?

I donâ€™t think so.

Itâ€™s not a big site. Maybe 1.5Ha. It might go a fair way to funding the new merged school but it might not cover it. It certainly isnâ€™t going to make much dent in the increased shortfall. If you developed housing at the Brunstane school site as well you might start to claw some back but 6.3Ha is a big area to take out of the funding equation.

Since the proposed landtake for PHS and one primary school already compromises the golf-course, an increase to two would erode it further. Itâ€™d need to be moved or reduced in size. Move it and thereâ€™s the obvious opportunity to develop housing to fund the schools, but with additional housing development elsewhere you may be able to reduce it in scope. Thatâ€™s a potential route. To try and distribute the housing required around the catchment to avoid concentration in a particular area.

But Lismore/Brunstane adds difficulties in terms of site, planning, timescales and increases total project costs. Project costs that will all but certainlty have to funded, in large measure, by housing development.

The site for the schools is a very important issue. But it's irrelevant without site(s) for housing. Housing development is the only realistic way of generating the capital to fund the schools in the forseeable future.

So if people agree we need new schools, and there seems to be some agreement on this, then we have to look at the requirement for housing as part of the package. It's not an optional extra. It's fundamental.

If the housing's unacceptable then we don't get new schools. At least not within the next decade or two,

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 04 Jun 2006, 17:01

Gemini wrote: Now we have the Teacher's putting their twopence worth in..

God forbid people should dare to speak about their working conditions... I mean, look what trouble all those unions caused when the workers complained about losing limbs in cotton mills... So what if miners die from mining-related illnesses...

Gemini wrote:I'm sure there are many people who could complain about working conditions, in their place of employment, my old boss's response to this would be 'Put up or Shut up'

"Put up or shut up" usually means do something about the situation - what do you think the teaching staff should be doing? I find it amazing that you think it's not on for people to complain about their working conditions. By that token, i suppose it was good that nobody complained about the state of Parsons Green, even though the asbestos ceiling tiles fell down, but then luckily, the children whose desks they fell on were out of the classroom at gym or something. And hey, we should all just put up with poor working conditions. And wait till something goes seriously wrong - when we can simply blame the council for not doing anything sooner.

Your old boss sure sounds like a caring guy/gal. Did you used to work for Nike? Funnily enough i can't read your comments without hearing them in Tony Blair's voice...or perhaps Maggie T's.

Not being in favour of the new proposal is one thing - we can all have our opinions; but I fail to see why people like you and I, who don't have to work there, or maybe don't have children there or going to go there, are entitled to express opinions and yet some of those most directly affected aren't. It's the most right-wing thing I've ever heard you say.

And of course, if the teachers shouldn't be allowed a voice, presumably the parents shouldn't, or the children, or the golfers, or the residents, or the footballers... Or is it only people with a differing opinion from yours you want to silence?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Jun 2006, 13:07

From today's EN Letters Page:

Park should be last resort for school site

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Jun 2006, 16:46

From today's EN:

Anger at lack of action on school safety

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Jun 2006, 23:02

So to recap, in the last few days we have the publication of the results of a questionnaire in which PHS staff are unanimous in their view that the school needs to be replaced and now we have the revelation that not only is the building unfit for purpose but that it is in fact a fire hazard.

I can well understand that the school and the Council would wish to down-play the situation. After all, parents might start questioning whether it is safe to send their kids there. There may be a question of liability.

Suffice to say that this is yet another symptom of a failing building, a building that has reached the end of its useful life. Coincidentally, a tour of the building for members of the Community Council was scheduled for this evening. Let's hope that everyone is now satisfied that we need a new school without any further delay. I don't want any more of my money being wasted to patch up a school that should have been demolished years ago.

Post by **wangi** » 05 Jun 2006, 23:28

From a long and interesting email I got today:

... Our family moved to Ontario Canada in Dec/65 and I havnâ€™t been home since
...
Is Portobello high school still a multi story mistake, or have they imploded it yet?
...

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 Jun 2006, 13:52

From the EN Letters Page today:

Portobello issue is not just about cost (fifth letter down)

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Jun 2006, 14:49

Bob Jefferson wrote:From the EN Letters Page today:

Portobello issue is not just about cost (fifth letter down)

"There is much more at stake here than finance and it would be short-sighted to make the selection based on cost alone. "

It would be short-sighted to think that making the decision based on cost alone is even a remote possibility.

Whatever it costs, IMHO the school should be in the park. It is the best location for the education of the community's children.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Jun 2006, 17:31

From today's EN Letters Page:

Don't let a minority hold back the future

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Jun 2006, 13:11

From Saturday's EN Letters Page:

School failing to meet basic safety standards

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Jun 2006, 13:27

From Monday's EN Letters Page:

Put park to better use

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

From today's EN Letters Page:

School decision must be made without delay

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Jun 2006, 12:49

From today's EN Letters Page (8th letter down):

School on site of golf course not done deal

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 25 Jun 2006, 15:06

Bob Jefferson wrote:From today's EN Letters Page:

Don't let a minority hold back the future

Ah! So that's the nub of the argument? The school should replace the park because I've got bay windows (and dare to look out of them!)?

Well, why didn't you just say that before... Can't argue with that? Surely?

(Maybe this explains PFANGS (People for absolutely no green spaces) hatred of green space... It clashes with their complexions!!

)

I had left some time to see if anyone from PFANGS would distance themselves from this rather bizarre letter, but no joy. Not even a diatribe from Mr McIntegrity detailing all the howling innacuracies in the letter... No established trees? No established trees! How old do they have to be to be considered established?

Anyway, keep up the good work PFANGS.

I only logged in to post something else... go see that, it's much more positive. Glad to see the 'debate' continues...

Regards,

Yesterday's person (a fair share of sandy space for all, I say!)

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Jun 2006, 12:06

PortyMan wrote:I had left some time to see if anyone from PFANGS would distance themselves from this rather bizarre letter, but no joy.

I have been leaving some time to see if anyone from PFANS (

) associated themselves with this letter, but no joy.

Post by **wangi** » 06 Jul 2006, 09:45

http://www.pbase.com/wangi/image/63008971

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Jul 2006, 13:14

wangi wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/wangi/image/63008971

Did you take that on your stag night?

(and where did that white bit come from?)

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 06 Jul 2006, 19:51

Excellent post sir. just the right level of satire that you are so good at. I will now avoid looking out of my front windows in case I wake up to find a monstrous erection on the bowling green. It's ages since I looked at the forum and I find it absolutely amazing that the same people are still banging on about the park and the school. Are you really up to another ten years or so of this 'debate'? If so, good luck to you all.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 06 Jul 2006, 21:47

A dozen posts in a month, the majority being links, falls a little short of "banging on about the park and the school."

However I'm sure it's just a lull....

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Jul 2006, 10:29

tom nimmo wrote:Excellent post sir. just the right level of satire that you are so good at. I will now avoid looking out of my front windows in case I wake up to find a monstrous erection on the bowling green.

You are setting me up aren't you?

Post by **wangi** » 07 Jul 2006, 22:17

Porty wrote:You are setting me up aren't you?

Glad someone knew what you were on about, because I didn't. Cell in York didn't look quite so green

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 08 Jul 2006, 19:20

tom nimmo wrote:It's ages since I looked at the forum and I find it absolutely amazing that the same people are still banging on about the park and the school. Are you really up to another ten years or so of this 'debate'? If so, good luck to you all.

Probably

bathst2 · Post by **bathst2** » 09 Jul 2006, 22:38

I've been sitting on the sidelines on this one for much longer than I expected....I think because in the wake of unity against the superstore I am now shocked by the level of aggro going on between people.
Having a son about to go to PHS i am concerned about the potentially substandard conditions he and pals are going to be in let alone the safety concerns. As the same boy has been keen on golf it seems more than a shame to lose such a useful, easliy accessed facility. hence something of an impasse on my part in joining either campaign.
The solution to me from the start was that a new high school (I'm not convinced St johns needs a new site maybe just a rebuild on same site but I am not qualified to comment)with playing fields etc and a small golf course can both be accommodated on the site inquestion...the problem is the hiving off land for housing...but then I'm obviously getting naive in my old age!!??

tom nimmo · Post by **tom nimmo** » 10 Jul 2006, 17:42

I'm not quite sure why Porty would think I am 'setting him up' when I was only pointing out that I don't fancy the prospect of seeing a monstrous erection on the bowling green. I was replying in what I thought was a witty way to Portyman's comment about his bay window (a fine example of a bay window it is too) and the hilarious letter which was published in the Evening News recently. Relax Porty, not all posts are aimed at you. I passed by the golf course this morning and it struck me how lucky we are in Portobello to have such a green space. There were a fair number of golfers, kids were playing football up at the pitches and the sun was shining. Wonderful!

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 10 Jul 2006, 22:01

bathst2 wrote:...the problem is the hiving off land for housing...but then I'm obviously getting naive in my old age!!??

This is a problem a lot of people have with the proposals - and no, I don't think you're naive - just realistic

PS Welcome to the debate

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Jul 2006, 09:19

Epykat wrote:
bathst2 wrote:...the problem is the hiving off land for housing...but then I'm obviously getting naive in my old age!!??
This is a problem a lot of people have with the proposals - and no, I don't think you're naive - just realistic

PS Welcome to the debate

Agree totally with both of you and welcome bathst2.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

portyman's bay window

Re: portyman's bay window

Re: portyman's bay window

Re: portyman's bay window

school and community

Re: school and community

Re: school and community