St John's School

[Pal of Porty]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

Just realised I posted the link to this recent EN letter on the PHS thread when it more properly belongs here:

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

But you are a parent.

I'm anti Bono myself. I've always hated U2.

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

Let us not lose sight of the fact that all 3 of the options are great for St Johns. A larger site and a better school whatever happens. I am delighted for them. I will certainly be tthrowing my weight behind PHS agreeing to cede the land before we move subject to conditions.

How can this cock up have happened?

Guys you are a tad generous/naive. I don't believe that it beggars belief it is in fact consistent with the school board behaviour during the stat consultation process. Think about it:

During that process the school board paid no heed to any of the 4 options offered to the school. Never a mention at the various representations to the council. Instead they pursued brownfield sites that were not on offer, they didn't ask the school if that's what they wanted, it was a purely personal decision and they went for it. And when that came a cropper, right at the death of the process, they opted for a refurb- without asking the school. It is no coincidence that each option they pursued also fitted nicely with the PPAG mission. St John's were represented by PPAG supporters at every turn, which still applies today.

In that process the board were not interested in the options given, they effectively deselected them just like they tried to do with Option 2.

This time around they were presented with an option they desired - what they thought was a refurb on the existing site with a wee pitch on a sliver of land that PHS doesn't use. (no way they checked out the size of a 7-a-side pitch then compared it to the overall size of the existing site). So as soon as they saw that option they went for it, and I'm bettnng they showed no more than a passing interest in the other options. They simply were not looking.They were too busy showing politicians round the school extolling the virtues of a refurbishment.And once again the option (as they understood it) suited PPAG.

They clearly thought that Option 2 was the only option that required PHS tennis courts. Initially we all did, some of us who are interested in a fair process, dug a little deeper and found the truth. St Johns parent council were not even looking for the truth, as it didn't suit them to do so.

The only hurdle appeared to be the parental survey , however they felt they were in a strong position to rubbish option 2 because they had totally misunderstood it.They asked for it to be removed and when that failed they prejudiced the survey with the accompanying letter. Rather than have an honest consultation with parents they pursued their own desire. This is totally consistent with their behaviour in the previous process.

What does beggar belief is an architect looking at the indicative site plan and alarm bells not going off when it seemed the council wanted to put the entire school and its facilities solely on the tennis courts.Are the tennis courrts smaller than the existing site there can't be much in it? If all options were being considered seriously then this would have prompted further investigation- but no, there was no need, they had the option they wanted.

Because the PPAG hats are permanently on, they interpreted our curiosity and interest in the process, as being solely PFANS motivaited. Therefore anything we said had to be wrong. They still din't look at the survey. This is evidenced as recently as last wednesday when Alison Connolly used the Evening NEws to inform all and sundry that option 2 "really is a poor option".

I re read that letter this morning and it made me think of Tom and Jerry. You lnow that scene where Tom has pulled one over on Butch the dog. it eventually dawns on Butch and his head takes the form of an Ass.

So there's no real surprise here, it is more or less the same as the last time.

For the record; I don't favour option 2 either, I just wanted a fair process. I wanted to be sure that the school got what it wanted and if it happened to be the same as what PPAG wanted, then at least it was arrived at in full knowledge and with majority support.

As far as the parent council are concerned I think they should resign. They have proved beyond doubt that the school is not best served with them at the helm. Doesn't matter much if its a misunderstanding or something worse.

[Bob Jefferson]

I agree. If they genuinely misunderstood Option 2, which I find very difficult to believe, then it is gross incompetence. If they deliberately misled parents about Option 2 then it is something far worse.

Either way, they should resign.

And for the record, I want the best possible outcome for St John's as well but parents have to be allowed to make an informed decision based on truth and facts.

And I'm also prepared to support the position that PHS should cede land to make that possible, subject to conditions.

[seanie]

As a general rule I favour cock-up over conspiracy.

Everybody has a tendency to see what they want to see; confirmation bias. Also the report lacked clarity and trying to show three options on one drawing was just daft. They saw an option they weren't keen on and accidently misinterpreted it. I can see how someone could make that mistake.

We all make mistakes. Just because this one fatally compromised the consultation process doesn't mean you have to look for a scapegoat.

P.S The tennis courts are about 0.4Ha and the existing St John's site is 0.66Ha. Even combined the site would still be below the statutory minimum, although obviously it'd be a big improvement.

[Maria]

[Bob Jefferson]

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

[seanie]

Unfortunately it's not straightforward. There are statutory 'minimum' sizes laid down in the School premises (general requirements and standards) (Scotland) regulations 1967. They're calculations based on pupil numbers. From memory the 'minimum' for St John's & the nursery would be 1.4Ha, wheras PHS would be 6.8Ha.

However the regulations always had a get out clause; you could obtain permission from the Secretary of State for Scotland to derogate from the standards. The regualtions are still in place and do apply but in reality lots of schools fall short of the minimum.

It'd also be true to say that the regulations are dated. There are more recent guidelines that are a better guide to the size schools should be. The '67 regulations have separate calculations for school/playground etc and playing fields. When you look at more recent guidelines, based on research as to what works and what doesn't, you find that the '67 act regulations tend to be a bit over generous when it comes to playing fields, but too mean when it comes to the actual size the school requires.

That's even more true with the advent of decent all-weather pitches. The reason the playing field provision was comparatively generous in'67 was they were relying on grass pitches that can only take so much wear per week. Hence the need for several to take the heavy usage of a school.

With a decent synthetic pitch the issue of wear is more or less irrelevant. You could use it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if you wanted, wheras a basic grass pitch might only sustain a few hours of use per week.

When working on school projects we didn't rely to heavily on the '67 regulations. We tended to use more recent guidelines such as Building Bulletin 82 - 'Area Guidelines for Schools'

[Porty]

Seanie thanks for all of that, it is informative and enlightening, as per usual.

"When working on school projects we didn't rely to heavily on the '67 regulations. We tended to use more recent guidelines such as Building Bulletin 82 - 'Area Guidelines for Schools'

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[seanie]

Out of curiosity I looked at the for Boroughmuir. It shows an 'indicative plan' for the refurbishment option that's unlabelled and illegible.

Seriously. It conveys absolutely nothing.

[Porty]

Lindsay Glasgow mentioned that she was going to put more informative data on the council wedsite- is it there yet? Also has the new school consultation had mention on the st Johns website or was it just in the newsletter. ? Can't access the net from here. .

[Bob Jefferson]

Nothing new on either as far as I can see.

[Bob Jefferson]

This image from Google Earth obviously pre-dates the installation of the all-weather pitch, but I thought it might nevertheless be useful to get an idea of the current layout of the two schools and the size of the old tennis courts.

I'm still trying to get an architect's drawing of the all-weather pitch.

[seanie]

The area outlined is about 100x40m, so a 7-a-side pitch should cover about 2/3's of it.

[Porty]

Not seen the pitch but from memory it is a 5 or 6 a side pitch. Sure they wanted larger but cash was restricted as it was £60k saved from various budgets

[seanie]

5-a-side's a lot smaller than 7's. Something like 20x40m. They might've just gone for as big as they could afford and got something in between.