New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[bellybabe]

[Alison Connelly]

[Dadaist]

[Porty]

[bellybabe]

[Porty]

[bellybabe]

[Porty]

[Alison Connelly]

[Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

[bellybabe]

Some posts have been removed from this thread as they were OT.

Bellybabe - on behalf of the mods

[Porty]

Portobello High School Questionnaire.

PHS surveyed three groups using the same questinnaire for each. The results have been collated and were ready today in time for the School Board response to the consultation paper. As a parent, I requested the results.

Pupil Response

Option A- 25.6% FOR

Option B- 41.2% FOR

Option C- 32.2% FOR

74.4% FOR School In the Park.

Staff Response

Option A- 10.2% FOR

Option B- 35.9% FOR

Option C- 53.9% FOR

89.8%% FOR School In the Park.

Parental Response

Option A- 12.5% FOR

Option B- 19.3% FOR

Option C- 67.2% FOR

87.5% FOR School In the Park.

[Bob Jefferson]

Stephen, many thanks for posting this very interesting information and well done to PHS on having conducted these polls and publishing the results so quickly.

No-one can now be in any doubt that the school community of parents, children and teachers is convinced of the case for a school in the park. Moreover, there is a clear overall preference for Option C.

[Porty]

None of the results are particularly surprising but as you say it is affirmative for school in the park. With option C being more desirable than option B with 2 groups, the pupils favouring B over C.

And of course No new school was not an option.

PHS also asked for a response from two other groups, although not in questionnaire format. Those groups were:

8 members of the Senior Managment Team at PHS (S.M.T)
Support Staff at PHS: which I believe number 13.

[seanie]

[bellybabe]

[Maria]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

From the PPAG website:


[quote]Dear Park Supporter

Please see the latest bulletin below.


PLEASE WRITE TO THE COUNCIL NOW to save the park


The Educational Consultation on Portobello High School and St.John’s Primary will close on 30 October. If you want to save Portobello Park and Golf Course it is essential that you write in to let the Council know what you think of their proposal to build on them. Otherwise, the green space of the park and golf course will be lost for ever. Please ensure that every member of your household writes in to the address below

Only Option A for PHS with St John’s built on a brownfield site guarantees that the Golf Course and Park will NOT be built on.

Portobello High School can be rebuilt on site (option A) alongside the existing building, without a decant, like Holy Rood High. The Figgate Park or Portobello Park could provide playing fields for Option A, thereby eliminating the need for bussing. St John’s could be rebuilt on one of the brownfield sites rejected without adequate reason. The PowerLeague site and the former Scottish Power site have been dismissed for spurious reasons - ask for these to be properly assessed for St John’s.

Option C is being promoted by some for PHS but St John’s could still end up being built on the Golf Course. The two consultations are deliberately kept separate and no plans are shown for what the combined result might be. Option C ignores the existing football pitches and Portobello Thistle will not have the same access if these are for the school. Option C does not mean that the Golf Course will be saved for our children and future generations.


The Park and Golf Course could both be lost with a vote for option C.

Some serious concerns are:

Housing on the Golf Course and Park has suddenly disappeared. It could reappear just as suddenly. This is a short term strategy until after next May’s elections. Tell the council that if the housing reappears they need to start the whole consultation from scratch, including site options. People need to know the implications of their choices - at the moment we are being asked to make decisions in a vacuum.

There is no indication from the Scottish Executive that funding will be made available so what assets will be sold to pay for the schools?

The decision on the sites is to be made four days before Christmas at the same time as the contentious proposal for the Tramway System. There is a danger of it being “buriedâ€

[Pal of Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[bellybabe]

[seanie]

The existing school is squeezed onto an inadequate site of 2.4Ha.

If St John’s were relocated to an as yet unidentified brownfield site a potential area of 3.5Ha would exist.

The existing PHS buildings occupy about 1.9Ha of that area.

So to build a new school alongside, without requiring a decant, would mean shoehorning a new high school onto the even smaller 1.6Ha remaining.

It’d take 2-3 years to build and then another 6 months to a year for the existing school to be demolished and redeveloped for school use.

It’s nuts.

[SoupDragon]

I read the quote that "PHS could be built alongside the existing building, without a decant, like Holy Rood High" with some puzzlement. You'd think this statement implies Holy Rood had already been rebuilt successfully.
In fact it's still a while before they will even begin work on the site as all tenders had to be resubmitted to some irregularities.

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

I disagree. I'm confident that St Johns school board will do the right thing and publish the full results. It is important evidence as far as the statutory consultation goes and, whatever the personal interests of individual board members, St Johns parents are entitled to this information.

[Porty]

[Maria]

[Porty]