New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Oct 2006, 20:54

Marya wrote:At the start of the meeting the Chair of the school board explained that the Board did not want the school re-built on Bingham Park, for a variety of reasons not least because of its position in relation to the catchment area.

That narrows it down to 3 options then.

The consultants explained if a co-location was required they would prefer for St John's to be situated on Milton Road, rather than on the Park Avenue side.

Interesting. Did they offer any explanation for this arrangement?

A small number (3?) asked about building on other sites or refurbishment

Though not the School Board presumably, who spoke positively for the school getting renewed?

The Board agreed that this was a good idea and said that they would gather the views of parents before such a meeting. However, it remains unclear at the moment how they intend to do this.

Some kind of poll perhaps?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Oct 2006, 21:28

Out of interest, I have just carried out my very own, small sample, unscientific poll of SJ parents. My findings suggest that a re-build on the PHS site is the preferred option. I can understand this. It means the school would only be moving a few feet. The site offers all the space a re-build would require and would still leave a surplus that could be developed.

Although my preference up until now was to co-locate the two schools, I am beginning to think that PHS on Portobello Park and St Johns re-built onsite might be just as good if not better.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 05 Oct 2006, 22:27

I can see why keeping St John's on site has advantages but there is a question of timescale. There might be possible to begin the redevelopment prior to the relocation of PHS, and so shorten the programme, but it might not be the quickest option. On the other hand it might deliver a good solution.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 Oct 2006, 08:26

I really feel for the staff on this, as this option involves the greatest delay in delivering a new school and it is obvious that they are really keen to have a new school. However, it is a credit to the school that parents feel that their children receive an excellent education from the staff despite the fact that the school is woefully cramped and outmoded.(Occupies a site of .66 hectares while the new school would be built on 1.5 hectares.)

As I stated earlier, this is the option I felt drawn to, which is why I asked what it would be like for St John's if they had to live alongside firstly, a demolition (the tower itself may take 22 weeks to demolish) and then secondly, a construction site. I still have concerns about how disruptive this may be although the consultant did reassure me that no-one would be likely to be crushed under a steel beam!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 Oct 2006, 08:40

PortyMan wrote:1) The 'bussing' issue gets a lot of press, but in the main, the children are bussed to Jack Kane ONCE a week (if at all). Swimming, badminton, basketball, etc all take place at Portobello. Football and Hockey take place at JK on an astroturf surface. No games are played on grass. (The new Holyrood, for example, would still be bussed for swimming).

No evidence has been provided by the council to show that PHS children are suffering physically from the lack of on-site pitches. (Far from it, running up and down 8 flights of stairs seem to have kept them very fit Apart from those who can't quite hold their bladders for a whole flight... )

It would be useful to get some hard facts on this and opinion from PE teachers. I know for a fact that my S2 son is being bussed to JK every week for PE. Yesterday they played badminton for all of 15 minutes, hardly enough time to warm up, before being bussed back to PHS again. It's just not good enough. We don't need 'evidence' to support this - it's plain commonsense.

As for the toilet provision at PHS, I don't think we should be making light of this. It's a disgraceful situation and if we experienced the conditions that these kids have to put up with in our own workplace we would be quick to complain.

Onsite pitches will enable a variety of sports to be enjoyed outdoors, almost all year round, which will free up the gym halls for other sports activities.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Oct 2006, 09:51

bbbrown wrote:. The board rep spoke positively for the school getting renewed, saying they were not plumping for any option at present cause they are still seeking, and getting, the views of the parents. There was no stress on any particular site.

Which is a sea change from the emphasis on Powerleague and Scottish Power at last week scrutiny panel. I'm not surpised that you dont't know why a school board would push for a new school off-centre catchment school when they are being offered a centre-catchment school.

bbbrown wrote:. ll I can say is that it was a very positive meeting. The council presented the options and committed to a new st johns, either along side PHS or stand alone

I am really pleased that it was positive. And to learn that the parties committed to a solution is growing in number.

As for hidden agendas? I have a very wise friend who has been following the debate closely. Right from the beginning she has been telling me that as this unfolds and more information becomes available the truth will become more and more difficult to mask. The real interests of people will be divulged and the hidden agenda's will no longer be hidden. The girl is spot on.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Oct 2006, 10:06

PortyMan wrote:J

5) Numbers games. Some of you like the challenge of doing hard sums...

1200 pupils
That's 200 pupils per year-stream.
Over say 30 - oh, let's be generous 40 years - that's 8,000 children.
8,000 - that's quite a few kids, but not quite as many as many might have imagined (less than the number of kids who have been educated at the existing school...).
.

Portyman, let's not get personal. What is the significance of the above calculation? I really don't get it.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 06 Oct 2006, 10:46

"I am beginning to think that PHS on Portobello Park and St Johns re-built onsite might be just as good if not better."

Nail...Head...Hit...

The idea of co locating PHS and St Johns has never been a popular one, certainly not with the parents I converse with. A bit like the idea of housing on the golf course.
I think the mood from the consultation meeting was very much that st johns on the site vacated by PHS would be a grade A good idea. Maybe St johns could even inherit those good bits of PHS..like the PE hall, (how about the pool?)

The consultants at the meeting did not indicate any real financial benefits of co location, neither educational benefits. The timing issue? I dont think there is quite the same rush for St johns as for PHS so a time delay would not be detrimental

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Oct 2006, 11:01

bbbrown wrote:"I am beginning to think that PHS on Portobello Park and St Johns re-built onsite might be just as good if not better."

Nail...Head...Hit...

The idea of co locating PHS and St Johns has never been a popular one, certainly not with the parents I converse with. A bit like the idea of housing on the golf course.
I think the mood from the consultation meeting was very much that st johns on the site vacated by PHS would be a grade A good idea. Maybe St johns could even inherit those good bits of PHS..like the PE hall, (how about the pool?)

The consultants at the meeting did not indicate any real financial benefits of co location, neither educational benefits. The timing issue? I dont think there is quite the same rush for St johns as for PHS so a time delay would not be detrimental

Spot on bbb, I hope. IMHO St John's should grab the oppo with both hands.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 Oct 2006, 11:07

bbbrown wrote:"I am beginning to think that PHS on Portobello Park and St Johns re-built onsite might be just as good if not better."

Nail...Head...Hit...

The idea of co locating PHS and St Johns has never been a popular one, certainly not with the parents I converse with. A bit like the idea of housing on the golf course.
I think the mood from the consultation meeting was very much that st johns on the site vacated by PHS would be a grade A good idea. Maybe St johns could even inherit those good bits of PHS..like the PE hall, (how about the pool?)

The consultants at the meeting did not indicate any real financial benefits of co location, neither educational benefits. The timing issue? I dont think there is quite the same rush for St johns as for PHS so a time delay would not be detrimental

So, presumably if you favour St Johns re-built onsite and you don't want anything built on the Golf Course, then you must support Option C for PHS? What have we been arguing about?

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 06 Oct 2006, 11:25

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Oct 2006, 12:13

Alison Connelly wrote: [You are talking complete rubbish. St John's School Board have never said they had a preferred choice.

Alison can you point out where I have said that St John's school board had a preferred choice? And if you fail to do so can you please apologise for the "rubbish" insult.

Alison Connelly wrote: You are correct that questions were raised as to why Powerleague and Scottish Power sites had been excluded

In common with all school boards SJSB have a purpose and that is to further and preserve the educational interets of the school. They are not a campaign group . Their responsibilty is the school and NOTHING else and ought to be doing the best for the school.

So, why were SJSB raising questions in relation to sites that are non-central to the catchment when there were already being offered a choice of three centre-catchment sites including the existing site? For example was there a demand from parents to move to either Powerleague or Scottish Power? You are correct that we are all in the dark regardiing the behind the scenes going on with SJSB.so enlighten us please.

It would also be interesting to know what changed between last thursday's scrutiny meeting, when SJSB focused almost entirely on Scottish Power and Powerleague and by wednesday BEFORE any parental consultation, these options were dropped?

Porty wrote:The board is in the grip one or two indivuduals who have something other than the best educational interests at heart

Alison Connelly wrote:is grossly unfair, and given that it is directed at me,

As per, you omitted the "in my opinion" bit. And i stand by my opinion. If you think I'm the only one that holds that opinion you are sadly mistaken. However, why do you believe that it is grossly unfair and what makes you think it is directed at you?

Alison Connelly wrote:because you are hell bent on intimidating me, and others who may not always agree with you, into silence. Keep trying!!

On the contrary, I believe it is things like the truth, reality and facts that you find intimidating. i'm just the messenger. You regularly retreat into silence. For example why did you not address the points that Marya made several posts ago about St John's school board?

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 06 Oct 2006, 12:31

For what it is worth, this sort of rubbish does nothing for the topic, or indeed POL.

why dont you guys just

A) grow up?
B)pm insults to each other?

Bob...

I remain entirely unconvinced as to the merits of building on public green space.
I remain entirely unconvinced with the idea that green space is thriving, indeed increasing, before our very eyes.

Personally, I think all the arguing and all the out cry will be more than worth it if we lose the smallest possible area to Plaster board and tarmac.
That most likely means PHS on the corner of the park and st johns on the site vacated.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 06 Oct 2006, 12:49

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 06 Oct 2006, 12:56

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 06 Oct 2006, 12:59

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Oct 2006, 13:07

Alison Connelly wrote:
Nothing changed between the scrutiny panel on Thursday and the meeting on Wednesday, other than Bill Millar of the Council offered an explanation (as you heard at the scrutiny panel) as to why Powerleague and Scottish Power sites were ruled out - the first time we had been given this information.

This information has been debated time and time on here, the aditional costs , the long-lease, the non-council ownership.Its not the first time you were given the information it was the first time you listened. The councillor that delivered the info left you in no doubt.

You still have not explained why SJSB were even asking questions about a non -central site for the school?

[/quote]

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 06 Oct 2006, 13:09

The Council report did rule out The Scottish Power site on cost grounds in relation to PHS;

3.22 The cost of acquiring these sites, including the disturbance claims resulting from the relocation of the businesses would be extremely costly and alternative locations would be required for the various businesses. This is deemed not feasible or deliverable and the sites have therefore been discounted.

And in the earlier report;

The sites, if taken together, would be large enough for the two schools but neither of these sites, which are heavily developed, are in the Councils Total ownership and there is no funding for the substantial purchase costs or relocation of employment. The sites are located close to the northernmost boundary of the Catchment Area.

It shouldn't really come as a suprise that the aquistion costs also rule it out as a site for St John's.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 06 Oct 2006, 13:17

Alison,

for what it is worth....

there is a saying something along the lines of dont let persons of questionable parentage grind you down.

i think it may apply here.

As a st johns parent, it has never crossed my mind that the board has some ulterior dark and sinister motive and judging by other parents i converse with, it has not crossed their minds either.

At the end of the day, i think the council, parents, kids may be able to suss things for themselves.....

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 06 Oct 2006, 14:00

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/lette ... 1481232006

"Let green space take school's place" Fifth letter down.....

What a fgantastic idea. Would be a nice way to thank the community who have had to put up with the horrible tower block in their area all these years. A new St Johns Primary in a beautiful new park....

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 Oct 2006, 14:11

I feel that there is little to be gained at this juncture by harping back and would prefer that the discussion moved forward in a constructive manner without any intervention/Moderation. For example, some of the concern I voiced previously about lack of communication from the Board was addressed by Dave posting a copy of a letter issued to parents by the St John's Board. It was most unfortunate that I hadn't received this letter. It may have been my son's doziness or a simple failing by the class teacher to issue the letter (I know I'm not the only parent not to have received the letter), but whatever the reason I would have certainly not criticised the board for total lack of communication had I been aware of the letter's existence and for that I apologise.

I am pleased that the St John's Community is now concentrating on making the best choice from the sites on offer. I was also reassured by the firm commitment, expressed by council officials and Cllr Burns, to the future of St John's. I have not made up my mind where I want St John's to go. I like the thought of a Parkland setting but also understand why some parents want the two Schools on separate sites. If option A was selected by St John's parents I would hope that there would be attention paid to creating a pleasant and green environment around the new building in addition to providing a much needed all weather pitch.

Alison is there any proposal by the School Board to canvass parents to find out , for example, if most would prefer not to be co-located with PHS? I know that parents are being urged to write to the council but will that help the School Board in their next meeting with officials? Will you get feed back from the council prior to your meeting with them?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 06 Oct 2006, 15:57

Alison Connelly wrote:
bbbrown wrote:Personally, I think all the arguing and all the out cry will be more than worth it if we lose the smallest possible area to Plaster board and tarmac.
That most likely means PHS on the corner of the park and st johns on the site vacated.
What about St John's on the corner of the park (taking up even less room) and PHS on the site vacated

I am glad to see you both recognise that the community is going to have sacrifice some green space in order to have the two new schools that many people appear to want. This is unfortunate and a result of many mistakes in the past but that is the way it is.

P.S. Does this mean that you will both have to withdraw your names from the PPAG petition?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Oct 2006, 16:35

Marya wrote:Alison is there any proposal by the School Board to canvass parents to find out , for example, if most would prefer not to be co-located with PHS? I know that parents are being urged to write to the council but will that help the School Board in their next meeting with officials? Will you get feed back from the council prior to your meeting with them?

Beautifully put.

Surely SJSB are not solely asking for the school community's views via the council?

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 06 Oct 2006, 16:43

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Oct 2006, 16:47

Alison Connelly wrote:
The school board at St John's have decided to draw up a questionnaire, (as I believe PHS have also done), to distribute to all parents next week. A meeting is planned for Monday night to prepare it, and I expect we will include space for individual comments which we will ensure are passed back to the council. A meeting has also been arranged between the school board and David Fenton to discuss the co-location issues/concerns, although this meeting is not until after the October break.

Good move. Have you seen the PHS one? Its war and peace.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 06 Oct 2006, 17:33

Alison Connelly wrote: What about St John's on the corner of the park (taking up even less room) and PHS on the site vacated

It seems that, debate wise and hopefully in reality, we are closing in on either St John's or PHS in the park. I appreciate your wish to use the minimal green space in this. However surely it has to be PHS. Of the two schools it's the one needs the space and it would stop decant. Surely we're not going to ask the council to build PHS on an unsatisfactory plot with decant, whilst St John's goes to green space?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 Oct 2006, 18:24

Alison Connelly wrote:The school board at St John's have decided to draw up a questionnaire, (as I believe PHS have also done), to distribute to all parents next week.

Sounds like a good idea.....the downside of course being the collating of the responses! Hope you haven't any plans for the holiday week

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 Oct 2006, 18:47

bbbrown wrote:I think the mood from the consultation meeting was very much that st johns on the site vacated by PHS would be a grade A good idea. Maybe St johns could even inherit those good bits of PHS..like the PE hall, (how about the pool?)

bbb I know that one parent did, in fact, ask if that was possible, but I can't remember quite what the reply was, can you?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Oct 2006, 13:40

From EN Letters Page 7 Oct 2006:

Planning policies are clear on parks

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Oct 2006, 20:48

Alison Connelly wrote: You keep repeating this nonsense that the board "focused almost entirely on Scottish Power and Powerleague" which is not true.

I was referring specifically to the SJSB deputation references to potential sites. The only sites mentioned were Bingham, Power league and Scottish Power. That is the truth

Alison Connelly wrote: The board indicated that they welcomed a new building, and that this was desperately needed. It also indicated that it considered it's need to be urgent. It also said that it did not like the Bingham Park option. So stop trying to put emphasis where there was none, and accept that you are wrong, wrong, wrong

I agree that SJSB did welcome a new building, they did agree that it was desperately needed, they did indicate that it was urgent and they did not like the bingham option. However, what they didn't do was mention one of the other three sites offered in the consultation. When it came to discussing potential sites the entire focus was on Power League or Scottish Power. That is the truth.

I have been wracking my brains trying to see what possible advantage there could be to moving St Johnâ€™s school off centre-catchment to one of those sites? There are none, the new school would poorly located and therefore worse off . One group whom would benefit from St Johnâ€™s being located on one of those sites would be the Portobello Park Action Group. As it greatly reduces the threat of a school in the park.. Option A would save the park. So even although the choice would not be best for St Johnâ€™s it would be best for PPAG.It may be a coincidence but it is the truth

If one looks at the letter that the SJSB sent home to parents, which Dave Connelly kindly published. The same pattern can be observed. Each option is listed, there is a negative comment on bingham with little or no comment on any of the other sites and a distinct lack of positive comment. However, when it comes to the Power League and Scottish Power sites St Johnâ€™s School Board are positively effusive.

â€œAs part of the consultation process, the Council have promised to listen to the views of parents. The Council have confirmed that contributors are welcome to bring other suggestions to the debate. St Johnâ€™s School Board have already asked that the Council consider 2 brownfield sites for St Johnâ€™s (the current Power league site on Portobello High Street, and the Scottish Power site near the Kings Road roundabout). This would allow the new Portobello High School to be rebuilt on the existing site. An advantage for St Johnâ€™s of this is that St Johns would be relocated first, which means that St Johnâ€™s would get its new school more quickly, but also that it would be guaranteed the first â€œbiteâ€

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Oct 2006, 21:14

Alison Connelly wrote:You are correct that questions were raised as to why Powerleague and Scottish Power sites had been excluded, and the board said that they were disappointed that no brownfield sites had been identified, but at that point very little information had been provided as to why they had been excluded (if you don't count the harsh micro climate). Anyway, as Bill Millar explained , the main reason for excluding them is the cost of acquisition, and this was not provided as a reason in the council documents because as we all know, they are not considering funding at the moment. (alhtough they have counted them out on grounds of cost)

That's not entirely true. The summary reports were admittedly sketchy but the feasibility report itself did highlight the issue of costs in relation to the Scottish Power site.

From the report;

f) Site 6(a) Baileyfield (Scottish Power) and Site 6(b) Baileyfield (Standard Life)

....As neither of these sites are in CEC ownership, and have multiple ownership however, there are cost and timescale implications which are considered to be insurmountable barriers for developing a school here.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 09 Oct 2006, 07:39

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 09 Oct 2006, 08:05

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 Oct 2006, 10:44

Alison it doesn't stack up.

St John's were never "guaranteed the first "bite" of the funding" it is a complete falsehood and I'm certain that knuckles got rapped for publishing it. It is also grossly misleading to state that SP or PL provided the quickest route to new schools. The sites are not available. Who wrote that letter?

You are basically saying that St John's School Board were worried that the council had no funding. In other words they didn't believe the option on the table were real. So they decided to come up with a strategy to pursue two sites that were more than twice as expensive and which may never become available. If the council have no funding how does St John's School Board expect them to pay for much more costly schools on the power league or scottish power sites? It doesnt' stack up.

Apart from all of that. St John's School Board had centre-catchment options on the table. Did they canvass parents views prior to pursuing off-centre locations? We both know that the answer to that question is NO.

As I said previously. St John's opting for PL or SP obvioulsy suits the Portobello Park Action Group's objective. There doesn't seem tp be any advantage to St Johns. Unless you can enlighten us?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 09 Oct 2006, 14:03

From the EN, 9 Oct. 2006:

Public meeting on options for Porty school