St John's School

[Maria]

[Maria]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

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



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]

[Bob Jefferson]

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:

[Maria]

[Bob Jefferson]

From the Evening News recently:

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

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]

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]

"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]

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

[Porty]

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]

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

[Porty]

Did you attend the meeting Bellybabe?

[Bob Jefferson]

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

[Bob Jefferson]

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:

[Porty]

[bellybabe]

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]

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]

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]

[Lava Lamp]

[wangi]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

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

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

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.

[Bob Jefferson]

[Lava Lamp]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

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

[seanie]

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.