by seanie » 21 Dec 2006, 23:35
I thought the kids from PHS all gave excellent presentations.
The St John's presentation was troubling. This debate's been going for some time now, long predating the statutory consultation, and I was suprised by today's submission. Personally I feel some regret. PFANS' aim was for new schools plural. But in our consultation response we said nothing about St John's. That wasn't because there weren't St John's parents involved in PFANS or opinions expressed on the matter but we felt unable to say much because we had no idea what St John's, collectively, wanted; be it parents, children, staff etc.
In that absence we didn't feel comfortable making a case for a particular option.
And as it turns out I still have no idea what St John's, on balance, wants. We've had demands to look at brownfield sites that aren't viable, ignoral of the options presented for consultation, comment on where PHS should go, questionnaires that are confidential and then, on the very morning of a decision, that refurbishment is preferable. Something that's not been mentioned before.
The St John's deputation complained today that St John's hadn't been listened to in the consulatation. But even if listening carefully it'd be difficult to discern a coherent position.