New Portobello High School- Where and how?

by **Dadaist** » 28 Feb 2006, 12:59

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Feb 2006, 13:28

Brian, up until now it is difficult to believe you have read this thread, in any detail.

I'm reluctant to prolong the debate on PPP mainly because it is no longer a funding option. However, I am interested to know how COEC have performed within the PPP projects that already complete or underway? Are they any good at it?

by **bbbrown** » 28 Feb 2006, 13:30

Is the land around Duddingston Primary school a possibility for the site of a new St Johns Primary School?
This would be more sensible than sighting St Johns with PHS, especially given the way some pupils of PHS treat the St Johns primary school kids...

by **Charles** » 28 Feb 2006, 13:33

Iâ€™m a bit confused.
If, as Seanie insists, PPP is such an unequivocal disaster, why are we supporting a council who are just rolling out a new PPP programme involving the building of a whole tranche of new schools? Why are they be allowed to do so, and why is the population at large not up in arms? Surely we wouldnâ€™t want to trust a council which was taking us down a route that has already been proven to fail. Does that not make us question their judgement?
As Brian McCrow suggests, it is that the problems are more in the execution than the principle, and that is something from which lessons can be learned, and can be done properly the next time.
So could the council provide more information about why they have not pursued PPP for Portobello High? Why did Portobello high not make the list for the upcoming PPP? What was the criteria for selecting which schools were included, and why did Portobello not qualify? The effect for all the schools on â€œthe listâ€

by **Charles** » 28 Feb 2006, 13:37

by **Dadaist** » 28 Feb 2006, 14:15

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Feb 2006, 14:16

by **bbbrown** » 28 Feb 2006, 15:30

by **Brian McCrow** » 28 Feb 2006, 15:33

by **Dadaist** » 28 Feb 2006, 15:54

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Feb 2006, 16:29

by **bbbrown** » 28 Feb 2006, 16:35

by **Dadaist** » 28 Feb 2006, 16:49

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Feb 2006, 16:51

by **Dadaist** » 28 Feb 2006, 16:53

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Feb 2006, 16:58

by **Dadaist** » 28 Feb 2006, 17:02

by **Brian McCrow** » 28 Feb 2006, 17:15

by **PortyMan** » 28 Feb 2006, 17:17

by **Dadaist** » 28 Feb 2006, 17:21

by **Dadaist** » 28 Feb 2006, 17:32

by **Brian McCrow** » 28 Feb 2006, 17:38

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 28 Feb 2006, 18:05

by **Dadaist** » 28 Feb 2006, 18:12

by **Brian McCrow** » 28 Feb 2006, 18:38

by **PortyMan** » 28 Feb 2006, 18:47

Hi,

I'm not 'slagging' anyone off for unsubstantiated statements, nor am I criticising them for stating their thoughts, opinions or beliefs.

I'm simply saying that this forum is replete with statements which stem, quite simply, from what people think. And, thus, should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Apologies for any offence. None intended, as I tried to indicate.

I shall keep an eye out for any useful information that might appear here but as I don't really feel inclined (or have the time) to partake in tit-for-tat point scoring, I think I'll keep my views for elsewhere.

by **seanie** » 28 Feb 2006, 18:55

by **seanie** » 28 Feb 2006, 19:03

by **Dadaist** » 28 Feb 2006, 19:49

by **seanie** » 28 Feb 2006, 22:29

by **seanie** » 28 Feb 2006, 23:07

a little article by Andy Wynne of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. It's brief but it outlines some of the ways the Public Sector Comparator has been manipulated to give PPP the illusion of value for money.

by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Feb 2006, 23:12

This thread is exhausting and even I'm having problems keeping up with the posts. Incredibly, it has already attracted more posts than the Superstore thread, which has been running for two and a half years and the views rate is increasing at a phenomenal rate. If nothing else this debate has been a huge success for the Portobello Matters forum.

Here's the latest onslaught of opinion from the EN letters page. Note that the first link actually has 3 seperate letters under one ill-fitting heading, including one from the chair of PHS school board:

You can look forward to further EN coverage tomorrow.

by **seanie** » 28 Feb 2006, 23:49

by **Dave Connelly** » 01 Mar 2006, 00:24

Having read through this thread I have found difficulty in determining what some of you actually want. Let me be clear and honest about what I want and donâ€™t want.

I want a decent education for my children.

I want class sizes to be under 30 pupils.

I want their education to be in Portobello.

I want more information about the proposals for building or developing.

I want to see all of the reports so far regarding the movement of the schools.

I want Portobello to benefit from any financial gain that the council makes.

I do not want to loose part of the Portobello ward to Craigentinny.

I do not want housing built on the golf course or the course to move.

I do not want 5 year old children sharing a dining room or facilities with 17 year olds.

I do not want Portobello/Brighton/Quarry/Rosefield/Abercorn parks to be lost to the community.

I will not gain financially from any of the developments in the short or long term.

What about You :?:

by **Pal of Porty** » 01 Mar 2006, 00:35

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

land at duddingston

Re: land at duddingston

funding

Re: funding

Â£6 Million for a primary

Re: Â£6 Million for a primary

Clarity and Honesty

Who is online