Today's meeting at Club Romano was a great success! It was well-attended with over 50 parents, parishioners, residents, councillors, press and other interested parties. The presentations were well received and everyone participated in an open, fair, informative and reasoned debate.
We are delighted that so many people came to listen and ask questions, despite the lure of the sunny weather outside the club - thank you.
We hope that the handouts at the meeting will provide you with information to help you write to your local Councillor, who is an elected member of the Education Committee. This information will be published on the website in the near future. The Director's report is anticipated imminently and we look forward to reading this.
We have added a proforma letter to the website and you can print it or download and modify it if you wish to share your concerns with your local Councillor, or to one of the 5 non-elected members.
The consultation period ended on 6 April, but we anticipate that the Committee will vote on the proposal at the next meeting, which is scheduled for 27 April. Therefore it is very important that you write to your Councillor urgently. We have already sent them the handouts but please let them know of any specific or additional concerns that you may have.
The list of all 29 Councillors and their contact details (phone, address, email, surgery dates/times) is available on the Dundee Council website.
Please also continue to raise awareness of the concerns about the size and suitability of the site by sharing this information with your friends and neighbours.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really, really hope that people reading this blog who are in favour of the move write to their councillors as well as this group of extremists.
ReplyDeleteNot everyone has internet access so how on earth would people who were in favour of the meeting know about it unless they came back on this blog - after it said no more comments please? Clearly what has happened is the moaners have got together and said let's have a meeting to rally support and have told all their mates to come along to and bump their gums on the subject. I knew nothing of this metting and would most certainly have been there to voice my support. How many turned up? 50 people!!? Assuming there were on average 2 per family that's a whole 25 families that are against this proposal.... you're clutching at straws and after it had died down and people were getting back to normal you've stoked the flames again. Let the people who know what they're doing do their jobs. Stop butting in! Please!! Stop saying stupid things like the site's too small (it's not), there's scarey people around (some post on this blog1) and the most ridiculous point that the school is further away from the church - it will be 500 metres away for crying out loud - do you want them to be able to see the church from their desks!!? Maybe some of you should start taking your kids to church in your own time and let the school concentrate on educating them - take some parental responsibility. Or is this to do with the racists element within your group that spoke up at the first meeting - "I don't care if you think I'm a racist, but....". Imagine not wanting their kids to mingle with other cultures!!? It's downright racism whatever way you look at it. Think about the big picture - not about your religious bigotries and insecurities. Jobs, investment, prestige, learning environment...
I urge the parents that support the move - and this is most certainly the majority - please drop your councillor a wee line. His details are: -
Fraser MacPherson - fraser@frasermacpherson.org.uk
Phone : Home Number - 01382 459378
A simple (quick) email will be all it takes to say how much in favour you are of the move. I'm sorry but unlike this lot, I don't have a template you can use (by the way, nice unbiased letter you have on the site). A simple 'I'm in favour' I'm sure will suffice.
Good luck and don't let this lot spoil it for our kids and for the West End of Dundee... let's prove that not everyone is a militant and knows better that the decision makers in Dundee. Let's not have a mini Ford happening again...
Thank you to the parents who organised this meeting. It was done very professionally and the facts presented were credible. I left the meeting with much more information than what has been shared by the council and school. One question I have is why is the school, parent council and diocese not concerned about the issues that were raised in the meeting?
ReplyDeleteHi Fed Up - why are you so emotional that you have to use words such as extremists or militant? What about democratic? What these parents are doing is what everyone should be which is to question what is being presented and not accept things as they are, especially if there are flaws. So many bad decisions are being made all around the country because councils have railroaded the consultation process and decisions. Look at Bellfield Nursery - they shut it down and then after a year say that park Place Nursery cannot manage as it is bursting through its seams. Is this not what the parents said at that time? Why didn't they do their homework? The Council presents that new schools have increased educational attainment - where is the proof of this? The Courier today presented an article that states that though pupil spend has doubled that there is not sight of this? If the council wishes to make statements - then back it up with proof - this is the way to get the public to trust their word and their decisions.
ReplyDeleteFed Up - Those who came were not 2 per family as majority had to leave one to look after the kids. And this is in addition to those who are already not in support of the proposal due to the nature of the proposal itself. Out of curiosity - you mention that the supporters are majority - are you able to share a number? It is easy to say this but unless there is proof then any number can be made up (those who have specifically said so rather than assuming those who have not said anything or who are apathetic are in favour.
ReplyDelete'Fed up' - well said. Just what I was thinking. With the adverts and publicity in the paper over the weekend I would think 50 people is a poor show especially as that also included parishioners, press, councillors. So really you have the support of maybe 25 families out of at least 350 families if you include Park Place - not really a majority.Maybe the school, church and parent council are going about their business through the correct procedure and not ramming their views down peoples throats.
ReplyDeleteFed Up for President!!!
Yes - Fed up for president! Oh how did you get voted by the way? From people who stayed quiet and have no feedback? I find it most interesting why the process used in the Polls is not used to establish who is for an not for the proposal in this situation? In a vote, someone who does not submit a ballot is not deemed to be in favour of a candidate. How then is it being established that there is a majority for the proposal? Only numbers speak - it is always good to criticise those who are speaking up but then only when you show the proof that there is a majority that I will believe this. Why don't you send out a letter to tall the parents asking for their views and getting a true vote - yes, no, not interested. There is nothing to lose doing this, is there?
ReplyDeleteDon't you think that that is exactly what the Council, Diocese and Parent Council did though which is to ram this proposal through the process? DCC put together this proposal from options they could not justify and is telling everyone to take it or leave it (so much for a consultation), the Diocese never consulted anyone and just informed that they are in support of the proposal (still have not clue why), and the Parent Council refuses to represent the views of all the parents which is their responsibility to do so (whether it is a group of parents or 1). All information should be made avilable to the stakeholders - in favour or not infavour and it is up to parents to accept or reject the information.
ReplyDeleteHello, I am so very shocked that such people exist in this day and age to use terms as 'extremists' for people who have questions on a school issue. How ignorant. I do hope that all people are allowed views as long as done so in respect and honour for another human being. I worry why some poeple in favour seem to be so extradionarly aggressive verbally. I so far have not seen the group who are questioning the new school use any form of abuse. It looks like their thing is the site etc and not a person or persons. I have read all the reports here and it seems fair and factual. It scares me to see such overt pushyness from people using ufair terms for a group of parents like 'bigetories' who are entitled to a say. So have some respect and thank folk for doing the councils job...we are all adults. If we disagree then disagree. If we agree then agree. Enough cowardly nasty comments.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Fed Up - a turnout of 50 people must be viewed as at least disapointing, especially as there appeared to be a significant amount of church parishoners with no stakeholding in the school. I welcome and acknowledge everyones right to express their opinions, I don't think we need to be spoon fed for making our opinions known to councillors. Let the parents express their own views and dont try to rail road the minorty viewpoint as we kept hearing at the consultation meeting at St Joseph's.
ReplyDeleteThere weren't many more people than that at the St Joseph's Consultation meeting and Jim Collins was pleased at the good turnout. For that event every patent in the schoo lwas aware of the meeting. As for Park Place there were only three parents present and at the Park Place Nursery Consultation only about 9 parents showed up! Now those are what I'd class as a disappointing turnout.
ReplyDeleteHow many current or potential future stakeholders were there in attendance? Some of the attendees looked as if they had been bused in from the five ways club.
ReplyDeleteThe narrow minded and ageist remarks above obviously come from someone who isn't aware of the full definition of the word stakeholder. I would have inserted the meaning here but I would not want to be accused of spoon feeding anyone...
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me as parents we have really only two alternatives here.
ReplyDelete1. We go for a new dedicated St. Joseph's RC School built on the existing campus with enough capacity for whoever wishes to send their children here (Catholic and non-Catholic). The strong bond between the School and Parish due to its proximity, reinforcing Christian values, that has existed for over 100 years will be guaranteed.
or
2. We have a new shared facility St. Joseph's RC School (albeit with another excellent school) built on a poor quality site half mile away from the parish community of St. Joseph's which will restrict admission to children of residents of a section of the West end only due to the limited spaces which will be available.
I wonder which to choose.
I really wish that people who contribute in the blog provide input that is productive and related to the discussion on hand rather than criticising and name calling. For those who are in favour of the proposal - please do share what your thoughts are about why this is the case as this will be welcomed and will assist parents who log on read both sides. If you also wish to counter some of the concerns then by all means do and provide some facts and explanations as to why rather than just general comments. If we keep the discussion to on of respecting each others views, then it is healthy and we all learn from it.
ReplyDeleteI've posted another response in the 'meeting' blog but while I'm here I thought I would answer this one too....
ReplyDeleteVeritas - I agree with you 100%. My problem unfortunately is this blog is not being used for that. All we're getting on here is half truths and exaggerations. The size of the site is no worse than the 2 existing sites combined (and this based on the design of the existing schools which will most definitely been improved upon to free up even more space). We're getting told of paedophiles and drug addict in the flats in Peddie Street which have absolutely no substance. Then we're hearing about the school being 'at LEAST' 3 stories high. So it will definitely not be one or 2 stories high - it will be at least 3 stories high? Where did this come from? This was a throw away comment by Jim Collins in response to someone's question on what they would do if space was at a premium. They would build up. And I am still trying to grasp why a certain amount of stories is a problem here. I then read the unbaised letter to the education committee stating there will be over 600 parking spaces needed!! Where oh where has this come from? This has been discussed to death before - both schools are over subscribed and the numbers will come down - do we see 300 cars at St Josephs every morning. No we don't.
I'm sorry Veritas, but some of the posts on this site are just plain silly. And what gets me the most about this is it gives a wrong impression of how things are going to trun out. It's just propaganda (Status Quos comments are a prime example of being selective with the truths) - there's really no other way to describe it. And the jury's still out for me on the real reasons for the objections - I think a lot of it is to do with sharing a site but that wouldn't get wide spread support so certain individuals are trying to drum up fear in other areas.
I can't give facts on the new school, so I'm sure someone will pick me up on this. But I do know that the other PPP schools are amazing - the kids are in a great environment and take pride from being in that environment. I also listen to teachers when they say that given the facilities they can do so much more with our kids to educate them in the best possible way. Call me crazy but I'm just not all that bothered with the fact that the school could be on 3 levels or it's 500 metres away from the church. And I'm most certainly not bothered that the schools will share a gym, a hall and a playground with Park Place.
Just my views.
Well done, Fed Up. A very sensible approach.
ReplyDeleteDear 'fed up'
ReplyDeleteI think I know why you are fed up. It's because you are depressed. And the reason you're depressed is because you've not come to terms with reality. So PLEASE listen to the facts, open your mind and you can even change your name to 'EXCITED'. Whoopee.
Hi Fed Up - thanks for your comments above. I am happy that we agree on something =). Having Please allow me to respond to some of your questions above and hope you can also assist clarify some of your questions.
ReplyDelete1. What makes you say that the questions/concerns are based on half truths? Can you outline why you think this is the case? Everything has been taken as mentioned from existing Government Regulations so I do not understand what makes you think that it is being made up.
2. Why do you say that the drug addicts and sexual offenders (never said they were peadophiles) has no substance and why is it exaggerations? This information was passed on by residents around the area, taken from newspaper articles, and sources who cannot be named. It may not be a concern for you and for some other parents, but likewise it may be for others. It can be managed by the Council if the proposal goes through but the concern was that DCC did not even know about it and did mention that they were going to check it out. If this research was not done, then DCC would not have been aware of this.
3. The statement of the site being too small is not based on visuals but again on the Government Regulations, School Capacity provided by DCC and Sports Scotland guidelines. Until today, there has been no formal statement from DCC saying that the computations are wrong and are waiting for this statement if it is indeed wrong.
Can you clarify and provide more detail around your statement of: "The size of the site is no worse than the 2 existing sites combined (and this based on the design of the existing schools which will most definitely been improved upon to free up even more space)."?
4. The GIFA numbers that we have calculated (from information provided by the Council) results in less space per student in the new site for St. Joseph's and even less for Park Place. The other schools get a lot more space than what Park Place and St. Joseph's will be getting.
5.Parking spaces - I have not seen the letter quoting 600 parking spaces so I cannot comment on that. However, that fact that it has been discussed to death means that it really is a major concern not only for parents byt residents alike. And until DCC come out with a convincing response, then it will always come up. Their track record with the other new schools has not exactly been good - hence the articles about parking in these school coming out in the newspapers - Grove, Craigowl as the more recent examples.
6. On the 3 levels - JC specifically mentioned that he cannot confirm if the school will only be in 3 levels. I was told that there was discussion about this at the PPN consultation and it was intimated that it will be definitely be 3 stories. If this is wrong, then please provide some information to confirm that this is not the case.
7. On the other PPP schools (shared on not shared, denominational or non-denominational alike), I have also heard otherwise. There is a report available from Edinburgh Council (I think or another council) about PPP schools which may be of interest to you - which formed the main arguments for stopping the project. I have also been told by teachers who work in these schools that they have been instructed that they cannot in any way provide any negative comments about it. I can understand their situation and only feel for the democracy in this country if they are unable to speak up because they might lose their jobs.
8. On propaganda - I am not sure where you are getting this from as all the cards and information has been laid openly on the table for everyone. All information has been shared with DCC, the school Head Teacher, Diocese, Councillors, and Parent Council - nothing has been kept at all. All concerns have been accompanied by an explanation and point the reader to valid references.
We are both in agreement that a new school is great (this was never disputed) but in the aim to get one, ensure that it is a good one, built properly and that we all get our money's worth.
May I ask if all the concerns are backed up by facts and information provided by the council - what is it about these that make it so unbelievable to you?
I look forward to our continuous dialogue and discussion. Hope to hear from you soon. =)
Fed Up - how about meeting up for a coffee or lunch so that we can have a good discussion about this face to face rather than on the blog? It's an open invitation that I hope you will take up.
ReplyDeleteHi Veritas - good comments. Let me try to explain where I'm coming from...
ReplyDelete1. I'm not sure all the points that have been debated here are regulations. Outdoor space is recommendations as is the directive on number of floors. If we are talking regulations there's no way this will happen without complying with the relevant regulations.
2. I'm not suggesting there are no drug addicts or sex offenders in the area (and others have talked about peadophiles in earlier posts) but what I am getting at here is the way it's been portrayed. What are we talking here? 1%, 10%, 50%? Does one bloke know someone who knows someone that rents in Peddie Street? And how does that compare to any other area in the city. If it's big then maybe we do have a problem. But I know the area very well and has never came across in my mind as being all that different from any other area in Dundee. This in mind is scaremongering. I could turn it round and ask if the people on here are so concerned why has no one got concrete percentages?
3. I am not disputing that the size MAY be too small based on guidelines - but only JUST and only JUST because of the current number of kids at both schools. When the numbers go down there will be more area per child than recommended. But again these are guides and not regulations. St Josephs does not meet these guides currently. As someone earlier said, how could it - it's an inner city school. We have people on here including the massive car park and football pitch in the overall calculations, which is just misleading because the kids can't use either area to play in at break times. They only use the pitch under supervision and when timetabled.
I think someone in earleir posts outlined the areas in greater detail.
4. But these numbers are based on existing roles and we know both schools let in children that are not in catchment.
5. I partially agree with the parking but the access just now isn't exactly great if you've ever seen Bellfield Street at 8:45 in the morning. But again - this is minor to me. I'm more concerned with my child being educated in a great environment and would happibly walk them to school if I had to.
6. 'Intimated' is not fact though and that's my bug bear. How anyone can say this just now without having detailed plans is beyond me. Plus why raise this as an issue unless it is to sow a seed a fear into people's minds.
7. Well I would utterly disagree with this one - so I'm sorry. I know a lot of teachers and their children who work and are educated in these schools andthey all say the same. They love it. Yes there have been some teething problems (Craigowl comes to mind) but these schools are sized based on future roles and the roles will drop in a couple of years and the schoos are perfect. Downfield is an amazing school for example.
8. I use the word propaganda because the information is very very one sided. Checklists on the web site saying why you're against the proposal is a clear indication of this. This site has only been used to highlight the bad. Nothing is said of what the teachers think and communicated in the first meeting. Nor the fact the church is 100% behind the move. Or the fact the kids are looking forward to it. This is just brushed aside.
Thanks for taking the time to reply and hats off to you for sticking to the point - although I don't agree with you, at least you're being level headed about it!
Hi Fed Up - many thanks for your comments and for sharing where you are coming from and I appreciate our differences of opinion. I am also hats off to you for sticking to your point - but then that is not a bad thing - that is what makes the world an exciting place.
ReplyDeleteHere are my thoughts from your responses:
1. The regulation is land and student capacity. This is the document that is being circulated to the councillors and to DCC. I agree about levels - there is no current regulation about this. This school will be the first PPP school with three levels if this goes ahead. Some parents like this and some don't. Sports Scotland are guidelines as I pointed out above, so I am not going to dispute this - however, would it not be great to use this opportunity to find a place or situation where this can be implemented.
2. I am not sure how else this could have been mentioned. It was not meant to scaremonger - unfortunately that is the word the Telegraph used and has stuck. I am sure that percentages if this is really necessary can be taken through the freedom of information act.
3. Hence the request for DCC to come out with other options that can address all of these. Today, there is only one option which is being presented as the only option.
4. Then the proposal should not be using the current numbers in the proposal but the new numbers. This is misleading.
5.This opinion differs amongst parents.
6.Likewise,it also then puzzles me how people can be in favour of a proposal without any detailed plans. There are issues and questions because the proposal is not tight and not comprehensive. All DCC has to do is address all of these.
7.I also disagree with this as this is not what the newspapers are reporting from around Scotland. We have to agree to disagree on this one.
8.This can also be said of those in favour. The Church or School has never explained why they are in favour of the proposal and how this will impact the parents. I also get the feeling that questions and concerns are bad which they shold not be. The site has been developed to highlight indeed the areas of concerns and why there are parents not in favour with the proposal as it stands. We believe that there is more the council should offer for the school estate of the west end but they have not put enough effort to explore this.
To everyone who is against the proposed move to a new site I have one question. The council have stated that they need to sell the land St. Joseph's is currenly on to fund the building of a new school. If you want the school to remain on the exisiting site where is the money coming from to do this? The teachers have stated that the school is now not suitable for modern day teaching. I have read lots of views and concerns about why the school should not be moved. Do our children not deserve to be taught in suitable surroundings?
ReplyDeleteExactly. You are right -our kids deserve to be taught in suitable suroundings. Then why is is that special permission has to be got for the council to use the logie site.Because its less than the children are entitled to space wise. If its less then entitlement then you need to make sure you do your best to follow through on your principles and get more than the council will offer--alot less than the min.
ReplyDeleteSo where do you propose the suitable site is while still raising the money needed by selling the St. Joseph site? Failing a suitable suggestion (as I don't think there is one) where is the money coming from to rebuild on the existing site?
ReplyDeleteCan anonymous 6:48 share what modern day teaching should be as I am not familiar with this? Does this impact attainment levels? I would like to understand the connection as I am happy with the teaching at St. Joseph's in it current form. I would love to see the class sizes decrease as I do see the impact of education with smaller class sizes.
ReplyDeleteOne of the options presented (of 4) was to refurbish the schools - this was half the cost of building a new school campus. If the council was so strapped for cash - this could have been one.
ReplyDeleteDundee High is an old building but people still send their kids there compared to newly built schools. It has smaller class sizes, has been refurbished and money spent on facilities to support modern day teaching. Why can't this be replicated in St. Joseph's?
ReplyDeleteThe head teacher stated at the St. Joseph consultation meeting that the school was "no longer suitable for teaching in the 21st century" so perhaps you need to address that question to her. No one questioned her at this meeting so I can only assume that you agree with her or could not be bothered to attend and have since decided to jump on the trouble making bandwagon.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6:48pm said, "The council have stated that they need to sell the land St. Joseph's is currenly on to fund the building of a new school."
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't seem to agree with the council's proposal document 69-2009, where they say,
"This project can be funded from capital receipts (£2.05m) and prudential borrowing from revenue savings £0.6m) and the balance (£7.65m) will have to be funded from capital receipts from the sale of school sites vacated as part of the PPP
project."
Note that the term "PPP project" does not refer to this proposal because it is not PPP. At the St Joseph's consultation meeting it was confirmed that the £7.65m is already available.
Please continue the discussion on this question to the new entry called "The £10.3m question" at:
http://westendparents.blogspot.com/2009/04/103m-question.html
To anonymous 7.19 - Now I know exactly what other people in this blog have said about the manner of how some people write or 'speak'. My question was a genuine one as I am not from the education background and I just wanted to know what this means. You do not need to be sarcastic with your rerponse about not attentding consultation meetings and creating trouble. Parents have other commitments too as you also may experience. That is why it has been good for me to read through the discussions and the only time I ask - I get this.
ReplyDeleteAppreciate if anyone else in the blog who does not consider asking questions as troublemaking can shed light on what this means? Thank you.
I have decided not to post any more to this blog as it seems to be futile. We're not getting anywhere with this and it is so one sided it's painful. I'd rather not be associated with any of these discussions. People who are for to the move just get shot down with the same lame rhetoric. It smacks of militant people going about their business in completely the wrong way.
ReplyDeleteI just hope that no lasting damage has be done to the parents and children of the school. This is causing a massive divide in the school (I'm sure the protagonists will staunchly reject this view) and for that reason alone, I'm bailing out.
One final point, we are all aware of the group instigating this 'debate' and on a personal note I am incredibly surprised that a couple of people I know of are involved. I would have thought more from them. Good luck all those that stick with the blog.
Over and out.
Sorry to hear about you bailing out Fed Up - I was enjoying our conversation and discussion as it was nice hearing another person's point of view which I respect. Whether I agree or not of course is a different question but I am sure that you feel the same way and have stated this.
ReplyDeleteAgain if the arguments were so lame then DCC should by now have shut these down a long time ago. Still waiting for confirmation that they are.
If you know of the people who are invovled then you should resepct their views. I know folk who agree with the proposal and has not changed my view at all towards them as this is entirely their opinion.
Thank Veritas - Logged back just now to see if anyone would comment (too nosey for my own good!).
ReplyDeleteAppreciate your comments. I just wish some of the others could take a leaf out of your book and do this sensibly although I'm not holding out much hope :)! Maybe you can teach them a thing or two!
It's very hard to respect the views of some of these people blogging, I can't deny that (hence the need for me to give up here). Having said that I respect your views and understand your concerns - even though I don't agree :)
Like I said, good luck to all - hoping that we all come through this unharmed.
Dear fed up
ReplyDeleteI dont think you really have to worry so much. I think its difficult all round. We must remember that sometimes different view points jar but if we behave decently and honestly then democratic debate is a good thing and healthy. Talking about ideas is healthy. I doesn't matter the view taken but what matters is discussion without thinking everything will fall apart. I think that the council obviously needs to get people together again, to talk. Please dont worry about division. If you have the capability to unite then do all in your power to encourage free but respectful debate. That is what pulls a society togehter. Honest open respectful talking. It would have been good to be part of that instead of doing this thing on the web. Something is wrong when someone like me feels unable to say how i'm feeling- my friends wont be happy with me if I oppose the proposal, its awkward for me, my husband, my kids. Thats why I just want it over with soon and a meeting could clear up misunderstandings or allow for persuasion on either opinion. Who would be able to bring all together. Who is a calm, level headed leader? I feel like child waiting for a sensible grown up to sort out this squabble...a gentle kind equally loving parent who hears bothsidesfairly.
Are you there mother earth?