New Portobello High School - on going issues

by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Mar 2008, 22:02

Porty High featured in this STV video report today:

*

More from the BBC, including a link to the report in question:

* (I hate to be pedantic, but shouldn't that read 'one in three schools is not up to standard'?)

by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Mar 2008, 22:17

by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Mar 2008, 18:32

by **Maria** » 27 Mar 2008, 15:50

More bad news in today's EN :

by **Bob Jefferson** » 29 Mar 2008, 08:45

by **seanie** » 29 Mar 2008, 15:05

by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Apr 2008, 16:51

From today's EN:

by **Porty** » 14 Apr 2008, 14:10

From today's evening news. [admin: edit]

Beware, NIMBYs are at work in new school row

I AM surprised to read that Ros Sutherland, chair of Portobello Park Action Group, suggests building the new Portobello High on "one of the other locations which were considered" in the consultation for a new school.

Ros had the opportunity to suggest a site at the public meeting in Portobello Town Hall but neglected to do so, as did all of her PPAG supporters.

Ros also stated PPAG have "always supported the need for a new high school", yet they have continually threatened to drag the process through the courts, thereby denying a generation of Portobello High pupils the opportunity of attending school in a building fit for purpose.

Why are they doing this? Well Ros suggested to the city council and in the Evening News that building the school in the Figgate Park (further away from her house) would be an option.

Another PPAG supporter would deny a better education to 1450 pupils but would send their own to a school rebuilt on a green site. Another attending a university, you guessed it, on a green site is vehemently opposed to using the park.

Is this a green crusade to stop part of Portobello Park being used for a school, or is it NIMBYism of the worst kind? I'll let you decide.

William Wilson, Portobello High Street, Edinburgh

by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Apr 2008, 20:45

by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Apr 2008, 09:40

by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Apr 2008, 09:46

by **Porty** » 15 Apr 2008, 09:54

by **Maria** » 15 Apr 2008, 10:53

Looks like Portobello parents aren't the only ones getting fed up waiting for funding for a new school, according to this BBC article

by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Apr 2008, 20:02

More from the EN Letters Page (3rd letter down):

by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Apr 2008, 22:19

by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Apr 2008, 18:54

by **Porty** » 17 Apr 2008, 19:23

yes you are correct Bob. Oula was the lady that made representation to the full council with a view to emphasising the important role that Portobello Golf Club plays. She based quite a bit of her argument around the provision of facilities for groups of hen and stag parties, the inference being that they should be given higher priority than our schoolchildren.

PFANS complied with the consultation in every way. I believe we alll were open to a better solution than the park, if one were available.

It is now a single issue but it was the 65 councillors that made it so not PFANS.

by **Bob Jefferson** » 18 Apr 2008, 16:41

From today's EN Letters Page:

by **Porty** » 19 Apr 2008, 13:12

by **Porty** » 20 Apr 2008, 03:16

by **Porty** » 20 Apr 2008, 03:19

by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Apr 2008, 22:07

Remember that public consultation on the Scottish Futures Trust? SFT was the SNP's big idea to replace PFI/PPP as a mechanism to raise funds for major public buildings like hospitals and, erm, schools. It was always rather worryingly short on detail but, nevertheless, we were assured pre-election that it was the way forward for Scotland and would offer much better value for money.

Well, looks like the sceptics were right:

From the Scotsman:

From the Herald:

by **Bob Jefferson** » 20 Apr 2008, 22:18

The responses to the consultation are available to read at:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 18161301/0

by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Apr 2008, 20:58

From today's EN Letters Page, 3rd letter down, featuring the return of the Comments section:

by **Porty** » 22 Apr 2008, 13:21

From today's Eveing News;

Time spent on PE is not fit for pupils

PERHAPS the statistics showing Portobello High School taking the joint fourth bottom place out of the city's 23 secondary schools for the time spent on PE will give those who oppose a new high school, pause for thought. (City's high schools let down pupils, Evening News, April 19).

The statistics also conceal that the time spent on PE is reduced even further by the time required to bus the children to Meadowbank or the Jack Kane Centre.

Portobello for a new School calls on all members of the community to campaign with us for a new school to give all children in our community the high quality learning environment they deserve.
Jackie Brock, Marlborough Street, Portobello

by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Apr 2008, 16:46

Stephen Hawkins has a letter in today's EN Letters Page:

by **Porty** » 28 Apr 2008, 22:18

by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Apr 2008, 23:56

Porty, good points well made. With both Stephen Hawkins and Kenny McAskill in attendance, you should have been at the CC meeting tonight. Several of the usual suspects called for either a re-build onsite or mooted the freightliner terminal as an alternative.

The new Portobello High School on Portobello Park will have community facilities designed in. That's a fact and not something that relies upon additional funding.

by **Porty** » 29 Apr 2008, 09:32

Was it the usual- it wasn't a proper consultation- the freightliner site is big enough- we can decant on site- its common good - you will be walking on a dead man's grave- I bought my house, brought my child up there and am guaranteed a view over the park - we have a petition that we can interpret any way we choose to support any position- pish?

Was Diana Cairns there? Is she still insisting on financial compensation for the people of portobello?

How was Kenny, I am increasingly impressed by the man's work rate, he's everywhere! Almost a good as Maureen is and Lawrence in his pomp.

Did Mike B make an SNP appearance too?

by **Bob Jefferson** » 30 Apr 2008, 21:12

No sign of Mike and he didn't respond to my email inviting him to submit a monthly report for publication on Portobello Online so I have no idea what he is doing on our behalf. Bit of an odd arrangement really.

We never moved beyond the well-established stalemate position on the funding of new schools. The Council has only been given 20% of what is required to replace the five 'Wave 3' schools and no more money is on offer. Kenny maintains it's up to the Council to get on with it. It's all rather depressing.

Andrew Burns comments on the current situation on his blog:

by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 May 2008, 10:14

From yesterday's EN Letters Page:

by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 May 2008, 22:49

This is a copy of the newsletter that was circulated recently by PPAG. Remember seanie's quip about PPAG's assertion that decanted pupils performed better? I had assumed he was joking, but here it is in black and white:

by **Porty** » 02 May 2008, 00:58

PPAG are really going out on a limb on Common Good. They have assumed that cos' some accountng bod in the council has moved the land from one account to another that its changed the legal status. They may be right but their track record is poor.

Apart from that, its pleasing to see how desperate they are getting, how low can they stoop? Decanting actually improves academic performance, I find that incredulous and impossible to prove. However, even if so, is academic all that matters? Could we provide a decent educational space for a comprehensive spectrum of children and not only the academics?

New Portobello High School - on going issues

Who is online