Save Scalloway School

[jz]

Well the education comitee is there to look at education ...

 

There is currently no such thing as the education committee in the SIC. It may be reinvented some time in the future.

[amno]

oh well, i stand corrected

[EM]

If all the Councillors seem to think the present AHS is perfectly adequate...

Where does that idea come from? First I've heard of such an opinion.

It's been said many times in the past couple of weeks, in the context of the Scalloway secondary closing, by AHS parent council members as well as councillors. Will be interesting to see if they change their minds again and decide the AHS is not adequate again once scalloway is closed.

I think this is a case of people mixing up what the AHS is adequate for. Nobody as far as I am aware claims the AHS buildings are adequate for continual use over the coming decades, nor that they are perfectly adequate now. In terms of whether or not they are adequate to accomodate the extra pupils from Scalloway is another matter entirely.

 

In terms of capacity I am inclined to accept the argument that the AHS is adequate to take the pupils given that it is bigger now than when it used to have a significantly larger roll.

[unlinkedstudent]

^^^^ Thank you Stilldelin and Trowie for your links.

 

Whilst on one I found a link to school design which mentioned that pupils don't like dining rooms being used for multiple purposes (Noise of say setting up/clearing away dinner being an example) and the other link has dining area as a non-teaching area, there appears to be a contradiction. One link encourages schools to be redesigned and to take into account the use of a school building for community use also and encourages the flexible arrangement of the floorspace (Including space such as dining areas being used for teaching). Now whilst that report also highlights the fact the kids don't like it, to me, that is just poor management - allow the timetable to take into account the time to clear the dinner set up away. The other link does say to take into consideration non-teaching areas such as dining areas; however, a dining area doesn't have to be a dining area from the minute the school opens until it closes.

 

In other words, yes, take "into consideration" the dining space which is what they have done for Cullivoe - if tables aren't fixed/screwed to the floor, then that area, in principle, could be used for lessons outside of dinner time.

 

I don't agree that Scalloway should be closed at present, especially in light of the fact that Anderson needs refurbishing/rebuilding/whatever the SIC end up doing (I have this vision of pupils using the Mareel at this rate for some lessons).

 

I don't think pupils should have to eat at their desks.

 

Does the Scottish legal system allow for judicial review? Me thinks parents could consider getting together, chip in, instruct a solicitor, find a barrister prepared to take on the case on a pro bono basis and take the SIC to the cleaners (Sorry, Court) if they are ignoring statute. I can't help but wonder what is classed as a "rural school" though when one compares pupil numbers with those in mainland Scotland.

[Guest Anonymous]

(I have this vision of pupils using the Mareel at this rate for some lessons).

 

If the folks at SAT had not been so up their own arsess then the £12million spent on mareel could have been spent on the school and every thing that is going to be in mareel could have been at the new school. the garison could of had a face lift and baffles could be put in the clickimin for the acoustics. But who cares about saving money when it does not come out their pocket.

 

I can think of stronger words for those folks at the arts trust but I would probably be banned

[Mattie]

The Shetland Councillors need a good kick up the bottom!

Scalloway High School is a great school and there was no need for taking it away from the Scalloway Community.

That large faceless cattle shed called the Mareel is a joke.

The council {'f' it was funny in Father Ted 'eck'} off money good style on a load of pointless crap.

But when it comes to realisitc things like schools.

Shut them to save money?

Shutting schools won't save the Council money.

Maybe their idiotic dreams and realisations for Shetland might save a few quid in the pocket!

[Ghostrider]

Okay, I'll put my neck on the block and say it, seeing as no-one else has. (Just make sure the damn blade is sharp when you drop it in reply, I don't wanna end up being only half beheaded, either do it right, or don't bother. )

 

Problem = Education expenditure exceeds education budget.

 

Possible alternative solution to simply keying up some buildings and carting kids off and cramming them in those that are left further away = Last in, first out.

 

Let me explain where I'm coming from. Since compulsory public funded education was established in the late 19th C. the level and spread of services it provides had grown immensely.

 

We can't realistically go back to the start when kids started school at 6 or maybe 7, wrote on slates, brought a peat from home for the fire, and could leave school for good whenever they passed the "leaving exam", regarless what age they were, but can we really justify everything we've got right now when there just isn't money to pay for it all?

 

Could reducing service level to that of say 30 years ago not be both feasible and realistic? In 1980 there was no nursery provision, do we really need a situation where kids can in practice go to "school" a maximum of sixteen years at the taxpayers expense, when 30 years ago it was only 13 years. I have no doubt nursery provision is useful and appreciated by parents, but is it really cost effective? On an educational level what advantages has your average 5 year old gained from it that their equal 30 or 50 years ago missed out on?

 

In 1980, as best as my memory serves the AHS was the only school in Shetland with 5th and 6th year's. 5th year I *think* was split in to three classes, so assume 100 max, and 6th year I *think* was just one class, so 35 max, giving an absolute max of 135 people. How may people are in 5th and 6th years today? I'm betting its considerably more.

 

As I see it from about aged 6 to 15 are the "core" years for education, and I would tend to see it as "wrong" to attempt to maintain current service levels by cutting overheads and bussing young kids all over the countryside in all weathers, adding probably an hour or more each end of their day, without first at least attempting to curb or cancel the growth and associated expense that has occured in the more recent years in publically funded education provision outwith those "core" years.

 

I'm not advocating denying anyone an education that is keen to obtain one, however from what I've been told much of the Nursery provision doesn't exactly constitute much more than a free toddler-sitting service, and that 5th year anyway, is not altogether an unpopular option for some just because "its there". Yet, its "okay" to expect 5 year olds to leave home on winter mornings in twilight, if not darkness, whatever the weather, for a long bus ride, and then another back home, where they again arrive in darkness. To provide that glorified toddler-sitting service and allow those 5th years to exercise their option to stay in education, not necessarily because they have the first clue what they will do with any qualification they may gain when its finished, but because "they can".

 

Weird logic to me that. If cuts need to be made with anything, consolidate the core provision and trim off the fat is usually considered a logical first step, not try and maintain everything, fat and all, from a depleted kitty, by making people travel further and take more out of fewer points of supply.

 

Shetland produced plenty of well-educated, talented and able people before there was any nursery provision, and when only those with the talent, aptitude and drive to know where they were going, and to follow it through considered remaining in full time education beyond age 16. I don't see that a reversal to something similar today shouldn't be equally a success. Nurseries and "on demand" full time education to age 18 are laudable ideals, but in a time of austerity, they're IMHO unjustifiable expenses we cannot afford at the moment, and certainly not at the cost of making highly questionable changes to the education provision of kids in the mainstream years.

[JustMe]

While I think it was wrong to close Scalloway Junior High before the new AHS is built I do wish people would stop going on about the money spent on Mareel as if this could instead have been spent on education. It could not. Arts, Charitable and Recreational trust money comes from the deal struck with the oil companies at Sullom Voe and is there to give the residents of Shetland things they would not get from the SIC. In fact if the SIC and the trusts were to find a way to spend trust money on education there would be a danger that the Scottish Government would find a way to stop all but the bare minimum of core funding to the SIC until all the trust funds were emptied........and we would not want that.

[WiiMan]

I do wish people would stop going on about the money spent on Mareel as if this could instead have been spent on education. It could not. Arts, Charitable and Recreational trust money comes from the deal struck with the oil companies at Sullom Voe and is there to give the residents of Shetland things they would not get from the SIC.

 

If only that were true. £5 million of the £6 million pledged by the SIC came from the Capital Programme which is exactly where money from the school would come from. The other £1 million from the Shetland Development Trust.

 

JustMe seems to be confusing Council Reserves with the Charitable Trust which is supposed to make provision over and above what the Council provides for.

[JustMe]

Well yes.......and no. I had forgotten that there was an SIC financial input into Mareel but if that was from the Capital Fund it actually makes no difference to the school closure programme which is designed to save money from the education budget.

[trowie246]

In other words, yes, take "into consideration" the dining space which is what they have done for Cullivoe - if tables aren't fixed/screwed to the floor, then that area, in principle, could be used for lessons outside of dinner time.

 

 

 

I don't think pupils should have to eat at their desks.

 

 

Obviously the canteen areas in small schools are used for other purposes - ie music, art etc. The point is that schools service are saying that these areas which are dedicated canteen areas with occasional other use would be removed and be turned into dedicated classrooms where pupils would be expected to eat their lunch at their desks. There no longer would be a separate dining area. This would be the case at Uyeasound school as they only have 2 rooms, one classroom and one kitchen/canteen/social area. If I remember correctly their capacity was the same as Cullivoe, 60 pupils.

 

In my opinion it is a bit deceitful for schools service to imply to the general public that schools are so empty and I'm not sure that people realise that in order to fit in all the pupils that they say they can schools would have to be drastically altered (which costs money) and dedicated areas would be taken away from pupils.

 

When I grew up our house had no inside toilet or running hot water. It didn't kill me and I knew no different. However, I wouldn't want to go back to it now and I certainly wouldn't want it for my children. You say that pupils shouldn't have to eat at their desks and I fully agree with you.

[trowie246]

 

Could reducing service level to that of say 30 years ago not be both feasible and realistic? In 1980 there was no nursery provision, do we really need a situation where kids can in practice go to "school" a maximum of sixteen years at the taxpayers expense, when 30 years ago it was only 13 years. I have no doubt nursery provision is useful and appreciated by parents, but is it really cost effective? On an educational level what advantages has your average 5 year old gained from it that their equal 30 or 50 years ago missed out on?

 

In 1980, as best as my memory serves the AHS was the only school in Shetland with 5th and 6th year's. 5th year I *think* was split in to three classes, so assume 100 max, and 6th year I *think* was just one class, so 35 max, giving an absolute max of 135 people. How may people are in 5th and 6th years today? I'm betting its considerably more.

 

 

Anyone who has been following the schools debacle will know that it is the secondary education in Shetland that is expensive, not primary. I don't know about nursery.

 

At my JHS there was no 5th and 6th year. There was a very limited number of o'grades that could be sat at the end of 4th year, woodwork/metalwork, technical, home economics? Don't know if there was anything else. The vast majority of pupils went to AHS for 3rd year. I think this system worked extremely well, don't know how it would fit in now with curriculum for excellence and hub schools. I would think it would be much cheaper than the present situation.

 

As for nursery schools I wouldn't want them cut altogether but I don't know why it has to be a primary school teacher teaching the bairns. I think it used to be called playgroups with playleaders. Are there not one or two still in existence in Shetland?

[shetlandlass1]

The teaching ratio at Scalloway has been affordable for many years. So why has it now been decided we cannot continue to have this education? Probably because the council has run out of money. But why should the children at Scalloway be the ones to pay for that?

 

I think that this is precisely the point - the cost of education in Shetland is NOT and has NOT been affordable for many years. Nobody wants to see schools close, but with successive councils preferring to raid the reserve fund and borrow money rather than make the tough decisions, it's time to face up to the fact that we can't afford the level of services we have now, and that the irresponsible behaviour of previous councils has brought us to the point where our continued overspending means we are very close to having our council taken over by central government.

 

As custodians of Shetland for the next generation we need to stop fighting amongst ourselves and find a way to make sure that we show we are worthy of retaining our autonomy. After a shaky start, (most of) the Councillors are trying to do what is right for Shetland as a whole.

 

We think this is bad enough (and it is) but I'd hate to see how many schools are closed if central government gets its hands on the Council, the Reserve Fund and the Charitable Trust.

 

I was educated here, and believe that Scalloway provided an okay education, but that AHS is what challenged me to do better and prepared me for adult life. I think every Shetland bairn should have that opportunity, and that our college drop-out rate would be lower if our teenagers had time to become acclimatised to a larger school system ahead of going to college/university.

 

This must be the most unpopular council ever, but I grudgingly support those (other than the few who are looking after their own bank balance by going for the popular vote to make sure they get back into council next time round) for being willing to look to Shetland's future rather than taking the easy way out - continuing to spend and leaving it to future generations to make the tough decisions when there is no money left.

 

So given that we do need to find these savings (or risk having our council run from Edinburgh) …. let's focus on finding solutions rather than rubbishing one another's points of view.

 

So what really impacts quality of education? Should we spend the budget we do have on teachers and equipment in classrooms or spend money on maintaining an additional school building?

 

Rather than complain and stomp our feet like bairns about how terrible it is, what would we propose be done to save 700,000?

 

Would we prefer to close a number of small primary schools in order to achieve the same savings and keep Scalloway JH open? Are the people of Whiteness/Weisdale/Burra willing to lose their primary schools in order to keep Scalloway JH open? Probably not.

 

If not Scalloway to close, then where would the we propose the savings be found? Perhaps there is a North or South Mainland primary school that could close to save sending teenagers over the hill from to lerwick? I am guessing that is a "no" too.

 

We need to start acting like the custodians of Shetland's resources for the future otherwise we could see future generations of Shetlanders learn about us as "the generation who lost everything that was built for Shetland in the 70's with the arrival of oil".

 

Our continued overspending/raiding of our reserves could finally give central government the opportunity it has been looking for to gain access to what is left of the Reserve fund, the Charitable trust and all future oil income. If that were to happen, this school closure will seem like nothing in comparison with what is to come.

[amno]

thats just the problem shetlandlass alot of people are not interested in this and are simply saying do not close my local school!

scalloway is 7 miles from lerwick and theres only 100 odd pupils it is as they say in the trade "not cost effective"

the money in the pot is surely everyones money so how can you justify a handfull of pupils in areas where there are alternatives ie yell and unst to cost 10 times that of a pupil in lerwick, what makes them so special???

[peeriebryan]

If the folks at SAT had not been so up their own arsess then the £12million spent on mareel could have been spent on the school and every thing that is going to be in mareel could have been at the new school. the garison could of had a face lift and baffles could be put in the clickimin for the acoustics. But who cares about saving money when it does not come out their pocket.

 

I can think of stronger words for those folks at the arts trust but I would probably be banned

The various national funding bodies who support Mareel wouldn't / couldn't simply divert the allocated funding to build a school or acoustically treat a sports centre.

 

All the points re: the Garrison, Clickimin, putting a licensed venue in a school etc have been covered at great length over the years, including the Mareel thread on Shetlink where I suggest any further posts on this subject should be made.

 

Bobdahog, as ever, the invitation to meet my colleagues at Shetland Arts and I to discuss your concerns is still open, despite your persistent abuse.