The West End Parents group did not contact the Evening Telegraph to request this publication.
Whilst we acknowledge the additional publicity this article generates, it would appear that our aims may have been misunderstood. The article states:
1. "Parents opposed to a new shared primary school campus in Dundee's West End..."
- The West End Parents are not opposed to a new school, nor to a shared campus: we simply have some serious concerns about the size and suitability of the proposed site for bring two primary and one nursery school together.
- Nowhere on the website do we make this claim. The statement, as written by the Tele, is self-evident but our Questions and Concerns document does not make any "danger claims", we are simply asking the Council to check whether sex offenders and drug addicts are in the vicinity of the proposed site. This is not intended to be scaremongering: the question was posed to the Director of Education at one of the consultation meetings and he has promised to investigate this with the Police.
- No allegations have been made. We have only posed the question, asking for information regarding the truth from the Council. Our sources have asked to remain anonymous (for obvious reasons) and we have asked the Council to check. Time is running out for the consultation process and we felt there was no alternative choice but to include these questions on the public website. If the claims are untrue, please let us know. What do local residents think?
- Yes, this is a fact. However, we did not intend this to be social commentary on the type of residents of tenement housing. Many of us, like the concerned commenter last night, live or have lived in tenement housing. The point is there are multiple residences overlooking the play areas of the new site. The current site for St Joseph's does not have this concern and Park Place is only partially overlooked.
- Please, please read the cited references and make up your own mind. If there are other relevant documents, please provide citations for these in the related blog post. We have made these claims based on the regulations that we have identified, either within the group or following discussion with the appropriate Council or Government body.
- When asked about this at consultation meetings, the Director of Education responded that there are "special privileges" that can be dispensed by the Government for sites such as this in an "inner site environment".
- The School Premises Regulations (Scotland) 1967 as amended in 1973 and 79 do indeed include clauses such as 7(6):
Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is impracticable or would be unreasonable to apply the standards prescribed in this regulation to a particular school building. the area of the site for that school building shall be such as may be approved.
- However, is this what we aspire to for the children in a new build?
- Our Questions and Concerns document is not a religious document. While we anticipate that some parents from St Joseph's school and parishioners from the adjacent church may have concerns in regard to the proposals, we represent the views of a group that have questions and concerns about the size and suitability of the new site.
- This is untrue in the case of Park Place Primary, Park Place Nursery and St Joseph's Primary schools: the Council's roll projections (section 4.3) indicate anticipated growth - 436 pupils for 2008/09, 445 for 2011/12.
- At consultation meetings, the Director of Education also stated that there is an expectation that rolls for Park Place Nursery will rise by 20-40 places.
- Yes, please do make your views known to the Council, but only after you have been able to make an informed decision. If you have any questions, contribute to the discussion on this website, or call Ms Ross Pond on 01382 435161.
Thank-you for taking the time to clarify the group’s position regarding the Evening Telegraph article printed in last night’s paper.
ReplyDeleteInitially, I was pleased that the issue was picked up and I was not surprised that it had been sensationalised.
But, my partner and I’s concern results from the misrepresentation of the group’s aim and parents who read the article and may not go to the website (or have access to the internet) to see the material collated by West End Parents. Therefore, we hope parents who do not have internet facilities can access the material by other means.
We shall be writing our letters today to Gillian Ross-Pond.
And remember:
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery everyday. Never lose a holy curiosity. “ Einstein, Albert
Source: http://quotationsbook.com/quote/9525/
I'd just like to comment on the 'projected roles'. These roles are based on existing children in the schools. In section 4.6, it states that over 50% of pupils at St. Josephs and almost 70% of pupils at Park Place are not in the catchment area. So if only pupils in the catchment area were allowed in to the new schools, that would make the total number of pupils for St. Josephs to be 129 and 57 for Park Place. Both schools have this power if role numbers are too high. Please bear this in mind.
ReplyDeleteoh dear! I have currently a child in St.josephs and have applied for my son to start after the summer.......Am i overreacting or misreading the above blog :have i got to start making arrangements for my boy to go elsewhere? I thought the new school was sopposed to cope with the current numbers and more. So this leaves me in a bit of an unhappy moment.
ReplyDeleteNo, I think you should apply for your son to go to St Joseph's, as it is an excellent school, which I'm sure that you are aware of this.
ReplyDeleteWe are not trying to scare anyone. The intention is to flag up these issues to ensure that the decision making process is as rigorous and comprehensive as possible.
This in reply to comment April 1, 2009 10:13 AM
ReplyDelete"we hope parents who do not have internet facilities can access the material by other means."
Does the evening Telegraph and/or Courier have a Letters page - maybe that is the way to go.
As an outsider, but an interested party in what happens to the education of the children in Dundee, my main concern is to do with how you are being presented and how you are presenting your arguement.
ReplyDeleteIt can and unfortunatley for your case look as though it is the location of the school (not being within touching distance of the University etc) and the schools being built in an area that does not suit those who send their children to the schools as it is further for them to travel or is not deemed to be a "nice" enough setting.
My initial feeling when reading the newspaper article and this website is that the only solution that your group would settle for is to have the current buildings be replaced on the existing sites. the previous posting has some relevant points to make, a school that has between 50 and 70% of its pupils living outwith its catchment area has a small schools roll, regardless of the actual numbers attending as the children who live outwith the catchment area should be attending the school where they live. I fail to believe that 70% of a school role have exceptional circumstances or have siblings already attending the school.
It is with these factors that you will fail to convice many of your case to avoid the move to Blackness Road, this is without bringing in the issue of drug dealing and sex offenders in the area. Drug dealers and sex offenders live in every neighbourhood, your own neighbour may well be one for all you know.
It can only be admired that West End Parents are making such efforts to ensure that their children will be provided with the most suitable of facilities for their education. I think your highlighting of the issues concerned can only lead to a more positive outcome. Any parent wants the best for their child, and your concerns as parents need to be addressed in a satisfactory manner - no one could reasonably disagree with that.I'm sure that if the Council is genuinely concerned for the children's welfare they will give serious attention to any misgivings you have at present.
ReplyDelete