Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Calling the teaching area bluff!
Citation preview
Is it a cupboard? Is it a corridor? No, it’s a “Teaching Area”!
Calling their Burst Primary Bluff There are a LOT of angry people out there right now. Angry that –
1. We have been given such ridiculous plans for Burst Primary with no attention to the necessary detail,
2. We have a Head of Educational Development who doesn’t know what the maximum allowable class size is for the various age groups and thinks it’s okay to plan for the kids at Burst Primary to do PE in their classrooms,
3. We have an Education Service Manager who can’t decide how many “teaching areas” there will be at Burst Primary and continues to peddle ridiculous capacities for Burst Primary, and thinks the current space available for pupils is excessive,
4. We have a Director of Education who can only see one or two typos in the Statutory Document her department produced and believes a viable reason to close our two great schools is to give the teachers a wee bit of a hand with their CPD.
We have one parent who has submitted their corrections and complaints regarding the document on 6 SIDES OF A4!! One or two typos?? We have always maintained that Burst Primary is a ludicrous idea that doesn’t work on every level. Yet the officers have tried to bluff their way towards closure, stopping at nothing from blatant exaggeration and misleading emails to our councillors, right through to producing one of the most ridiculous official documents we have ever had the displeasure of reading. Backs firmly to the wall, rather than owning up to their bluff, unbelievably the officers are now trying to equate “teaching areas” from the original plans when Glashieburn was built in 1979 to modern day classrooms! The plan detailed below highlights how ridiculous the educational benefits statement is. The consultation document states “Curriculum for Excellence allows for a wider choice of learning experiences for pupils. The more widespread and flexible learning spaces of the combined school will provide more opportunities a variety of approaches to learning. There will be a greater range of more flexible areas where the available space can be used for investigative work and active learning”.
(fig. 1) – The officers’ vision for Burst Primary
Where exactly will these spaces be? IF you can identify the proposed flexible areas from these plans please help the officers out by emailing [email protected] We have multiple examples from the officers’ previous documents that make nonsense of these claims. Previous officer assessments tell some of this truth. The council officers’ schedules of accommodation for Glashieburn 2009 states, “In conclusion, for delivering a curriculum for excellence, realistically 14 teaching areas are required for 11 classes.” Forehill’s schedule of accommodation, also from 2009 (identical layout to Glashieburn but minus “Area 3”) – “In conclusion, for delivering a curriculum for excellence, realistically 12 teaching areas are required for 9 classes.” This also concedes that “1 teaching area should remain for interactive learning activities” and that that area “is in effect a corridor to a large part of the school.” AND refers to 2 teaching areas used as libraries – “class teaching in these spaces would be difficult as they are through points of travel around the school.” One of our favourite bits is from their 2009 Glashieburn schedule is where they identify teaching areas. How has this now become 24? The problem with bluffing is the risk that, that bluff will be called. We have all called their bluff! Rather than admitting to their folly the officers continue digging themselves deeper and deeper.
The ridiculous proposition that Burst Primary has 24 spaces that are viable teaching areas, is completely inequitable across the city. As far as we can see from the low resolution plans of Mile End we were given, it has circa 22 standard modern 3R teaching spaces and 2 nurseries. It is a magnificent facility with high ceilings creating a beautiful, bright spacious and airy interior. This of course serves as a massive contrast to what the situation would be inside Burst Primary. Importantly, as we have said, it has virtually an identical number of “teaching areas” to what the officers are suggesting Burst Primary has. Please note Mile End does host some additional facilities – we believe these are mainly in the very bottom left row of rooms. Believe it or not the above plans have had their scales matched to the centimetre with a CAD program. It’s hard to believe the officers are trying to sell us this nonsense as a being a benefit to every single child involved, quite embarrassing for them really!
The illustration below shows Burst Primary being dwarfed by 24 modern classrooms alone, reproduced on exact scale using the centre of the walls to build it. Never mind toilets, staff rooms, gym halls, canteens, kitchens, store rooms, offices, reception, libraries, computer rooms, learning support rooms, music rooms etc etc. This serves as a further illustration of how ridiculous the officers’ claims are that Burst Primary has 24 teaching areas that are fit for a modern education.
If we are going to speak facts rather than accurate visual representations, here are some FACTs based on Scottish Government data (available here -‐ http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-‐Education/schoolestatestats) Burst Primary will have the lowest internal space of any school per child in Aberdeen. We would be firmly rooted to the bottom of the league. This situation is only made even more ridiculous when you start to consider the space requirement of our 100 place nursery and our double base which we believe is fully deserving of its current space allocation. If we look forward to the officers’ predictions for 2020 school rolls and take into account the trends at certain schools they are dealing with currently, Burst Primary will still be at the bottom of the league.
Unbelievably, some of these Burst Primary “teaching areas” have just over 41m2 of useable floor space. A standard modern (eg 3R) classroom has an official area of 72.7m2 on the blurry plans we have. They can be partitioned to be an enclosed classroom circa 63m2 and have flexibility right up to 100m2+ if the whole of the adjacent teaching corridor and beyond is deployed. Is this the brilliant flexible learning spaces we are hearing about in OUR Educational Benefit Statement? The reality will be the 41m2 cramped classroom of Burst Primary!!! According to the officers’ plans presented on the 4th of September, Glashieburn very sensibly uses two of these areas for some of its larger classes currently, at least redressing some of the extreme inequality with the 3R facilities! We would be less angry if they just admitted they need to close our great schools and shoehorn the kids into Burst Primary so they can balance all their PPP / PFI project folly (http://bankwatch.org/public-‐private-‐partnerships). Instead, as mentioned, we have to endure the Director of Education standing up and telling us that it’s all about the teachers continuing professional development being a wee bit easier in a bigger school. Is it any wonder the consultation document has attracted the attention of the Plain English campaign. As always, if anyone has any doubt about the validity of the data presented here we would be happy to discuss the detail, unlike the officers these are arguments we know well. [email protected]
