St John's School

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 17 Mar 2008, 23:25

That beggars belief!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 30 Mar 2008, 14:07

Taken from the EN 29 March Schools showdown hots up

There are three options for St John's Primary – building an extension on neighbouring tennis courts, a complete new-build on site, or the less popular scenario of a new-build at the current home of Portobello High.

Now I am totally confused. The St John's Parent Council said the options were:

1. Extend and alter the existing school
2. A new school built on the tennis courts
3. A new school on the PHS site once vacated

Is one of the options a new school built entirely on the tennis courts (St John's Parent Council) or is it retention of the current site plus extension on the tennis courts (EN)?

Is a second option a complete new build on current site (EN) or refurbishment and extension on site (Parent council)?

Why can't we see the plans/feasibility studies ?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Mar 2008, 15:17

Well, I couldn't make any sense of it but I would have expected a St J parent to know what was going on.

And what about this unqualified statement?

the less popular scenario of a new-build at the current home of Portobello High

Less popular based on what exactly? The views of the 3 person 'redevelopment committee'?

Why can't we see the plans/feasibility studies ?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Apr 2008, 18:16

Further evidence that the school accommodation at St John's is not fit for purpose is provided in this article in today's EN:

Edinburgh schools fail to fit in PE

Government targets require all primary schools to provide pupils with a minimum of 2 hours of P.E. per week. Towerbank didn't do particularly well with 79 minutes but St John's did even worse, coming joint bottom out of Edinburgh's 100 primary schools with just 45 minutes.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Apr 2008, 13:08

Its hardly surprising with 420 kids, a gym hall that is also used for school dinners, xmas shows, assembly etc. A playground that you can't swing a cat in and the only remotely accessible green space is Figgate Park. When my ex taught PE there and the schhol sports were to be held in the Figgy, she had to ask both P7' classes to pick up all the dog shit first.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 May 2008, 22:57

I now have a copy of the St John's feasibility study, which I'm sure will be of great interest to St J parents:

St John's Feasibility Study Jan 08

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 22 May 2008, 17:04

Marya wrote: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.

I've just discovered the results of this survey at the bottom of my son's school bag. Judging by the number of results, only 46 households bothered to respond to the questionnaire.

The response to the statement " The School Council performs its role effectively" was as follows:

Strongly Agree 14

Agree 26

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 3

Don't know 3

A vast number of parents obviously have no interest in being consulted by the school, as they did not bother to return the questionnaire and the overwhelming majority of the 46 families, who are interested in being consulted , are evidently very happy indeed with the actions of the School Council.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Sep 2008, 12:05

From the Evening News recently:

School facing the axe seeks merger lifeline

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Oct 2008, 20:39

A further consultation on options for replacement/refurbishment of St Johns is currently taking place.

The three options are:

1. Refurbishment and extension on the school's existing site
2. New build on an immediately adjacent site - currently used by Portobello High School
3. New build on the existing site

This is not just an issue for St J parents since some of these options would require land currently used by PHS as an all-weather pitch (the old tennis courts) to become a "site works/contractors compound".

St Johns Options Consultation

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 18 Oct 2008, 11:36

Option 2. New build on an immediately adjacent site - currently used by Portobello High School

This is essentially the same as one of the options St Johns were offered under the the Portobello High School consultation. (Its been so long I can't recall if t was A,B,C or D). The initial thought was to relocate St Johns to the Mountcastle Drive end of the site but its essentially the same idea. The parents didn't go for this option the last time, they went for a School in the park. Albeit Alison Connelly and Susan Scotland ultimately made representation to the full council and asked for a refurb.

The pros and cons are laid out more fully although the decant is a bit underplayed.

It is altogether a more comprehensive, less loaded, questionnaire, there are no lies about one option being delivered more quickly than an other. It will be interesting to see what option the parents choose this time?

In my opinion option 2 is the stand out choice. Be good if we get to find out how many responses thare are and what they say.

The consultation paper makes no mention of whether the new School will be built in the grounds of PHS whilst it is still there? This is perhaps an oversight as the last consultation with the school was emphatic regarding co-location with PHS.

The School Boards' summary of the responses stated.

"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. "

If the summary of the responses is true then its a complete no-no to co- locate the 2 schools. Makes you wonder why St Johns parents have risked their childrens safety and welfare by sending them to the school over that last 50 years?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 19 Oct 2008, 12:51

1. Refurbishment and extension on the school's existing site
Pros
• The site would be available immediately if required, subject to the Parent Council’s wishes of
full school off-site decant being available.
• The retention of the existing building allows some of the sense of history and community currently associated with the school to be retained.
• The current building is well placed on the site to provide a prominent location for the school,reflecting its civic importance.
• The re-use of the existing building delivers some principles of sustainability, in particular the avoidance of dismantling or demolishing currently sound structures and the re-use/retention of existing materials.
• The ability to use the process as a live project to be observed and ‘involved’ with through the curriculum.
• There are positive and aesthetically pleasing examples of buildings having undergone partial refurbishment and extension works.

Reading the above "pros" for refurbishment it is galling that the words; education. learning, teaching, play areas, outdoor sports facilities don't get a mention. They don't feature in the "cons" either. Education is the purpose isn't it?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Oct 2008, 16:29

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/educa ... 4611699.jp

"David Manson, chairman of St John's parent council, said the proposal would leave the school looking like "Alcatraz".

He said: "We only want the two options of either refurbishing on-site or rebuilding on-site. We specifically asked that this option wasn't included because it would just be a disaster.""

For those of you not following this debate. The "disaster" David Manson refers to is a brand new school built on a larger site right next door to the existing St Johns. He depicts a brand new school as being "like Alcatraz". -

The "We" he refers to in the last statement is St John's parent council. So he means that St John's parent council specifically asked the council to drop the option of a new school on the site vacated by PHS- don't even give parents the option.

As David says- that leaves just 2 options both of which require a full decant of the School. They don't want to hear discussion about any other options. It is beyond credibility that the parent council would go against the will of the Head Teacher and Senior teaching staff so its safe to assume that they agree. Decant is the only game in town.

So there you have it folks. If your kids go to St John's or they go in the future you can look forward to a decant. Its fait accompli...............

If they get away with it.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 22 Oct 2008, 18:57

Do you know if there's been, or is expected to be, a Parent Forum meeting regarding this?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Oct 2008, 21:34

I don't but I will do some digging. What I do know is that neither a parent council nor a parent forum can override the Education Act (Scotland) 1980.

Meanwhile, lets get back to recent events. We have the chairman of a parent council portraying a new school in an adjacent site as Alcatraz and as a "disaster". And instead trying to flog a decant to the school community.

Has he read what the report to the council said about the existing St John's site in 2006?

Surely some parents or the council have to wake up and question what the motive is?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Oct 2008, 09:17

I'm led to believe there was a St John's parent forum meeting in March.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Oct 2008, 10:39

Did you attend the meeting Bellybabe?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Oct 2008, 11:45

Stephen McIntyre asks some searching questions of St J's School Council in his letter in today's EN:

Let's look at the different options for a new school

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Oct 2008, 17:44

So who is David Manson, chair of St J's Parent Council? It turns out he is a former Tory councillor, who has recently defected to the SNP.

From the EN recently:

Former Tory leaves 'irrelevant' party for Scottish Nationalists

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Oct 2008, 17:38

Ghost thinks the new school option put forward by the council is a rectangular block and therefore shite . On the other hand he thinks the rectangular block that houses the current school is great cos its made of SOLID stone. At least he admits the site is 'a bit small' It is actually less than 40% of the minimun recommended size according to a reprt to the council in sep 2006. The missed that bit of detail out of the survey. Funny that.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 27 Oct 2008, 10:59

No, Porty, I didn't attend the meeting. To be frank, like many of last year's P7 parents, I've given up. My views have not been represented at any time by the parent forum/council/whatever they're called. As DS1 won't be there much longer and it's no longer an issue for DS2, I don't have the inclination to shout into a vacuum.

St Johns has chosen to pass by a brilliant opportunity, with little parental consultation and poor communication. DS1 will either go to a brand spanking new school at Holyrood, or to a school committed to campaigning for the needs of its pupils and staff...either option will be an improvement for him.

What really galled me in the recent letter home from SJ though was the way the decant was presented as a positive thing...and the eagerness to make the most of Lismore's misfortune. Not to mention the "only a mile away" comment. Either the school has to take the kids there, as it did with Parsons Green's decant, taking a good half hour out of each end of the school day, or parents and children have to go the extra mile - fine for drivers but imagine making a P1 pupil walk an extra two miles a day to and from school...all for a refurbishment of already inadequate premises. Still, it would make for more PE.

BB

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Oct 2008, 13:01

It is totally outrageous. My main concern is that whatever decision the school community arrive at, they do so after full disclosure and evaluation by independent consultants then a statutory consultation.

David Manson informs us that the parent council "specifically asked" that a new school on an adjacent site should not be offered to the school community. What the hell gives them the right to ask that?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 27 Oct 2008, 15:32

Porty,
Here's the letter we received before the half term holiday, on the back of the newsletter dated 17th October, and which I was referring to in my earlier post.
BB

"Dear Parents,

Earlier this week you will have received a questionnaire from Edinburgh council, regarding the preferred option for St John's redevlopment. We strongly urge you to return the questionnaire, as we are keen to demonstrate to the council that St John's parents are ready for action!

We would also like to share with you the views of the parent council redevelopment committee, following many months of discussions with various professionals (architects, quantity surveyors, construction experts, teachers and school management)

The parent council are unable to support any proposal for the re-development of the existing site without an off-site decant. We believe that such a proposal would pose a threat to the children's safety and would significantly restrict the teachers' ability to provide a quality education in such conditions. We also believe that the final design would be heavily restricted by the limitations of a "phased decant", which would involve numerous temporary moves around what is effectively a building site. In addition, it would be significantly quicker to refurbish a vacant site than an occupied one.

We would prefer that Edinburgh Council ensure that an off-site decant facility be made available for the whole school, for the duration of the building works. If, as seems likely, it is confirmed that Lismore Primary will close, then this is an ideal opportunity for us to have temporary use of an existing school building, less than a mile away from our current site. The final decision about school closures will be made by Edinburgh Council by the end of November.

In respect of refurbishment/extension versus new build, we would like to make the following observations:

- Retaining the existing building (shell, at least) would allow St John's to maintain a sense of history, identity, character, and be in keeping with the local area.

- To retain the existing building would be more environmentally friendly, and in keeping with Edinburgh Council sustainability aims.

- It would be possible to achieve a design incorporatng the existing building that would be capable of delivering a first class school with many eco friendly features.

- It would be considerably cheaper to refurbish rather than new build, and there is no doubt that if we were to see the existing building demolished, the budget would not stretch to rebuilding it with stone. The council would pay more to rebuild a building made of cheaper materials.

The option of building a new school for St John's on the adjacent tennis courts causes us very real concerns because we are unsure of what Edinburgh Council would do with the existing St John's building. We are very concerned that we may end up with a new school squeezed up against a block of flats (the existing St John's building) and very close to Portobello High School which may not move for several years yet. This narrow plot would restrict the design of a new school and its facilities to fit into the tennis courts and have very poor access. You should also know that the Parent Council specifically asked Edinburgh Council not to include this option in the questionnaire for the reasons given above and that in our view it would be detrimental to your children's education if they were located for two years next to a building site with the noise and dust which would occur.

Your opinions will be taken into account in the decisions being made by Edinburgh Council in December, and therefore we hope you will be able to spare the time to make your voices heard. We believe that St John's has a very strong case for being refurbished quickly - it is vital that we make the right choice.

Kind regards,
David Manson
Chair, St John's Primary School Parent Council"

Edit: fixing typos...hopefully all remaining errors are Mr Manson's, not mine!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 28 Oct 2008, 12:11

Thanks BB.

Lava Lamp · Post by **Lava Lamp** » 28 Oct 2008, 16:24

I'm presuming here that a refurb is a cheaper, more likely to happen in the near furture option.
Is it not the case that because the council doesn't have or doesn't want to spend the money on new schools its more likely to come up with funding for a cheaper refurb - is that perhaps why this is the direction that the school council is pushing? I appreciate that they should be doing their upmost to get the best school facility possible but by persuing this more conservative goal they may achieve that goal of a fit for purpose facility this decade -ish.
A decant to Lismore doesn't seem too daunting, its just up the road? - probably closer than St J's for a bunch of kids.

Post by **wangi** » 28 Oct 2008, 18:15

Lava Lamp wrote:A decant to Lismore doesn't seem too daunting, its just up the road? - probably closer than St J's for a bunch of kids.

Isn't the logical conclusion to that statement just to close St John's...

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 28 Oct 2008, 21:15

Reading the report on the options (which to be fair is pretty badly put together) I think the School Council have fundamentally misunderstood some aspects of the report. For instance the report makes clear that all the options being considered involve using some of the PHS site, although this seems to have been overlooked.

More importantly reference has repeatedly been made to one option occupying a "narrow plot" of land. I think this is just a mistake in interpreting the report. Keep in mind that all the options include a 7-a-side all weather pitch.

Under the refurbishment or rebuilding on site options, land would be taken from PHS to provide a 7-a-side pitch. Under the newbuild option on the part of the PHS site, the new seven a side pitch would presumably end up on the existing St John's site. The fear of the school ending up on a 'narrow plot' appears to be a misunderstanding of the indicative drawing.

If they're building a new school adjacent, whilst the current school is still occupied, then the BUILDING will indeed have to be located within a narrow strip. But that doesn't mean the resulting SCHOOL will be confined to that narrow strip. The 7-a-side pitch would be on the existing site, outwith that strip, and there's no obvious reason why the exsiting St John's building would be retained.

I think the report's badly put together but it's clear when you read it, rather than just looking at the plan, that Option 2 does not involve the school being confined to a narrow plot. It would still occupy much, possibly all, of the existing site as well. It'd need to to incorporate the pitch and playground.

Given the apparent confusion it'd surely be better to seek clarity rather than dismiss options out of hand.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Oct 2008, 21:47

From today's EN Letters Page (3rd letter down):

Proposal for school is a poor option

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 29 Oct 2008, 00:05

Just to clarify, the report says;

In all cases, it is proposed that the final provision for the primary school would include an all weather, seven aside pitch. Under Options 1 and 3, this would require to be located on part of the school site currently used by Portobello High School.

A seven-a-side pitch is 40x60m. That's more than a third of the existing school site. So since Option 2 includes a pitch, and it's not being located on part of PHS, it must be going on the existing school site. Same with the playground which you'd expect to be at least as large as the pitch area.

There's just no way that they're proposing St John's be located on the 'narrow plot' indicated on the drawing. That's only indicating where the building would be.

I'm not convinced the School Council understands what's being proposed.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Oct 2008, 11:16

Can I remind those interested in this issue of the feasibility study carried out by the Council back in January, from which these options have evolved.

St John's Feasibility Study Jan 08

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Oct 2008, 11:46

From Maureen Child's latest newsletter:

Local ‘Wave Three’ Schools – Portobello and St John’s

I had the benefit of being very close to what is happening at Portobello High in their bid to have a new school, but not the other local school on the list, St John’s Primary School. I have now had the benefit of a full tour of St John’s with members of their parent council and the head teacher. I am very impressed with the way the school community use every inch of space, and what they achieve, given the constraints of the current accommodation.

I have also had a presentation on the real possibility of a new school being rebuilt within the shell of the current building (which was ingeniously designed in the 1920s with no internal supporting walls) and an extension. The plans are professional, detailed and costed. The parent council representatives calculate it will cost very much less to do what they propose than to build a new school for St John’s. But a letter went out to St John’s parents, just before the October break, seeming to push what appears to be the department’s preferred option - to build a new St John’s on top of the Portobello High School’s new all weather playing pitch!

Many parents feel that the letter totally failed to give a full enough picture of all that would be involved in each of the options and was therefore superficial and misleading. The report on the condition and suitability of each of the five school buildings, next in line for rebuilding or refurbishment, is due to come to the December full Council. I’ll be pushing for an early start for both local schools

.

Lava Lamp · Post by **Lava Lamp** » 29 Oct 2008, 11:49

wangi wrote:
Lava Lamp wrote:A decant to Lismore doesn't seem too daunting, its just up the road? - probably closer than St J's for a bunch of kids.
Isn't the logical conclusion to that statement just to close St John's...

well if there's a school up the road that's in good nick, is the right size and has the right facilities?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Oct 2008, 16:28

The council have not helped matters with the survey and in particular the way that information has been presented.

The purpose of the survey was I beleve an honest attempt to garner the views of the school community. The survey was flawed and didn't make it easy.

However, any hope of a true reflection of school views was blown out of the water by the letter issued, along with the survey, (see above) from the parent council. The misinformation, spin and (perhaps inadvertent) untruths contained therein made sure of that.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Oct 2008, 17:27

Lava Lamp wrote:
wangi wrote:
Lava Lamp wrote:A decant to Lismore doesn't seem too daunting, its just up the road? - probably closer than St J's for a bunch of kids.
Isn't the logical conclusion to that statement just to close St John's...
well if there's a school up the road that's in good nick, is the right size and has the right facilities?

As a bit of a break from the more serious debate-

It doesn't neccesarily matter what sort of nick the lismore building is in. If St John's PC and Head Teacher think its not much hassle to get there- just build a new school and make the decant last forever. Then everyone is happy, no?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Oct 2008, 21:06

From today's EN Letters Page (4th letter down):

Are children being put first at school?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 30 Oct 2008, 13:21

I've only just realised (thanks to Porty) where the confusion's come from regarding the options.

There's only one drawing in the report and it's meant to indicate ALL THREE options.

So people have looked at the indicative layout for Option 2, seen the existing school remaining as per Option 1, and assumed that under Option 2 the school would be restricted only to the narrow plot. They've missed the references to the 7-a-side pitch, which can't be shown on the drawings because it'd conflict with the different options.

Whoever it was in the Council who thought that showing three different options on ONLY ONE drawing needs their head examined.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

St John's School

Parent Council letter