New Portobello High School- Where and how?

by **Richard Butt** » 24 Mar 2006, 15:43

re. Lawrence Marshall (and the Scottish Socialist Worker's Party's) 'two-school solution'.

Splitting Portobello into two catchment areas would be the most divisive of all the possible options and the least beneficial to the pupils. All parents living in cities are familiar with the agony of the so-called 'choice' over which secondary school to send their children to.

A recent Guardian report concludes: 'Anyone who has recently been through this hellish experience could never wish it on the next generation of parents. Under the banner of a "choice" that is largely illusory, parents and children are well and truly put through the wringer. The simple answer is that people would be much happier with a better local school and less "choice"' (http://education.guardian.co.uk/admissi ... 62,00.html).

Less choice is also what you get with smaller schools, as we heard on Wednesday. The smaller the number of pupils, the smaller the number of teachers, the smaller the number of teachers the smaller the number of subjects available to the pupils and the smaller the number of extra-curricula activities available too. Portobello high school currently offers its pupils an envious range of subjects, with its own playing fields it could increase its already diverse (and in some instances award winning) extra-curricula activities. Losing this diversity is too high a price to pay.

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 15:44

Using the same foresight as you feel the golfers and residents should have used then - what controversial council schemes in the future should Porty locals be intervening in now to protect themselves from?

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 15:49

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 15:50

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 15:56

by **Pal of Porty** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:00

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:00

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:02

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:03

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:04

PFANS doesn't have any members. It doesn't even have a youth section.

by **Maria** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:05

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:09

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:15

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:31

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:37

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:37

by **dccairns** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:43

by **Porty** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:44

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:47

by **dccairns** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:48

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:54

by **Porty** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:57

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:03

by **Epykat** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:09

by **Poppy** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:13

Here are Mr P/El P's replies to the PQs (Portly Questions - in-joke for all civil servants and Sandra!! :wink:

)

[quote]

1. In my experience I have never come across anyone approaching a Superior asking them to continue an enforcement, but on reflection, in theory they could have done. However there are conditions. They (LV) would have had to nominate some other land to be the â€œdominant tenementâ€

by **Maria** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:15

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:19

by **Poppy** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:21

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:21

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:36

by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:57

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 18:31

by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 19:03

by **Jbrock** » 24 Mar 2006, 19:12

by **Richard Butt** » 24 Mar 2006, 21:10

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Who is online