School Board hang on by their teeth...

The School amalgamated in August 2006 the School Board act states that election for a new board should commence at that time.

NINE MONTHS later we could have that School Board. But they remain - backed by the council, who should have instigated the change, laid down in legislation - but they didn't. You can only ask yourself why after you've read this site.

Check the school web site for the 'latest' :-) information...

Completed ballot papers should be returned in the envelope provided, to the Head Teacher by 3.00pm on 23rd April, 2007.

Website

No minutes have been posted.....

You can download the Parental Involvement letter here

Just keeping you informed.

Where were the Interim School Board?

Probably the most important meeting with regard to the new Bishopbriggs Academy took place in Tom Johnston House.

Where were the Interim School Board?

Only one member of the Board, Ken Low, attended and only to speak ON BEHALF of the developers.

As for the other members... Your guess is as good as mine - they were NOT at the meeting.

Over fifty members of the public did attend the council planning meeting.

It was important to them - was it important to the school board?

"Best value for the public purse" - John Morrison

From a report in this weeks Bishopbriggs Herald

Residents shook their heads in disgust and told some councillors to be 'ashamed of themselves', following the marathon meeting at Tom Johnston House last Wednesday evening.

Councillor Charles Kennedy proposed that a decision be held over for a month to take residents' views into consideration, but his amendment was kicked-out by 16 votes to seven.

Donald MacDonald said, "Setting the meeting up as a public hearing was no more than window dressing from the council to try and appease residents."

So what did the council leader, John Morrison have to say?

"The planning board has approved plans for a school that represent best value for the public purse."

"We have seized a once in a generation opportunity for the young people of East Dunbartonshire. They deserve no less."

Read the article here

Ask yourself this - If you had submitted plans to the council that required 46 conditions - just to be heard. Would YOU have been given approval? FOURTY SIX CONDITIONS - conditions that included the safety of children with the submission of a 'late' 'incomplete' travel plan?

Who's interests did the council have at heart? - the education of your children in the best possible school? Or the developers in a rush to get the project started by 'shoehorning' the building into a 'smaller' site on the 'only' space left while the old school was in 'use'. Then 'bolt on' sport facilities from local primary schools and selling off so called 'surplus' land.

Did they make their decisions on 'education' grounds? Or was it, as John Morrison said, best value for the public purse. The same purse that has just spent millions on a recycling shambles!

Morrison's Baby

The directors cut...



Or you can view it here

Stand for the Academy School Board

Elections will be held this March for a new Academy Board. All parents/guardians are entitled to stand.



Please ask your children to collect an application form from the school. It has to be completed and returned before the deadline of 3pm, Thursday March 1st.

Any parent/guardian can become a board member and it is worthwhile, you will be asked to attend meetings that help make decisions on your children's education.

Six vacancies exist and unless more than six parents apply NO elections will be held and those that apply will automatically become members.

HAVE YOUR SAY ON THE NEW ACADEMY AND THE EDUCATION OF YOUR CHILDREN - APPLY NOW.

The head teacher is NOT a member of the board, but should attend the meeting and make presentations to the board.

Approved after six hour meeting

The building will go ahead, despite various concerns, that the council agreed with!

Including the admission that the school travel plan submitted was a shambles!

Councillor Morrison and his Lib Dem colleagues had no hesitation but to vote for approval despite the amendment proposal of a two week delay for the developers to submit updated plans.

Done deal...

Look back over the last year

It's this time of year when people look back...

This time last year we had the prospect of a super new school on the location the public wanted.

But things changed when the developers suggested the new school should be built on the Thomas Muir site.

Here's what they both said in an East Dunbartonshire Council communication "Staff guidance note".

Just a small change...

Both bidders have tabled an alternative solution... this may involve changes to the site, timing, decant arrangements or design of the new school.

Remember this vital sentence...

We are unable to show you the plans for the variant... considered commercially confidential whilst the bidders are competing.

So both builders suggested , independently, an alternative proposal to build on a different plot that would change decant arrangements etc. What reasons did each give?

Below are the reason from Bidder A variant scenario...



and the reason given by Bidder B variant scenario...



Again both independent, rival bidders, scenarios.

Can you spot the difference?

Here's some clues - most letters are the same, most words are the same, they're in the same order. In fact they are almost identical.

Another amazing coincidence, no doubt!

And why could you not see the alternate plans?

We are unable to show you the plans for the variant at this stage as they have not been developed beyond a sketch site layout to prove the site has adequate land to support a new school.

You can now! The 'variant' school - at the planning office. A school proposed by the preferred bidder, it was almost identical to the school proposed on the High School site, and rejected by the Council. Could that have been the reason you were not allowed to see it?

After all, you could see the other designs, by both developers, at that time, not confidential then.

You never did see the new proposal, well not until after the Council had decided to accept it.

The public were NOT consulted - I understand this is a requirement under the Scottish Office rules on PPP.

P.S. The Interim School Board never saw the variant design - but they did agree to the Council decision - before they made it!

Access to sport facilities

When it was pointed out to the Council that the High School site could use the pitch at the Lees (see 'shared sports facilities pitch 4' post), the Council said closing the Edinburgh to Glasgow line was NOT an option. This would allow a bridge or tunnel to be used for access to the pitch area - it could be done anytime over the next two years. Under the present arrangement the pitches on the Thomas Muir site will NOT be ready when the new Academy building is occupied.

This week Scot Rail have closed the main line over Christmas and New Year - yes, the main Glasgow to Edinburgh rail line. If the Council had agreed to the use of pitch 4, this option would NOT have caused any further delay to any rail service.

Yet another excuse that has proved unfounded....

More from Evening Times

Slowly, slowly...

I see that after last week's meeting at Bishopbriggs Academy where I pointed out the school has had a web site since August.

The web site has been updated to include the 'Interim' board members. No longer just Kenneth Low as parent member of the, non existent, Bishopbriggs Academy board (see post below).

No contact details or minutes have been updated....

Unfortunately the council web site, list of schools, doesn't include Bishopbriggs Academy.

This screen capture (below) was taken on 18th December as shown on the top left.

Slowly, slowly....

Click for larger image

The Secondary 5 and 6 modern studies homework links need updating - they expired on 15/10/2006.

More soon...

Number One on Google

Type 'Bishopbriggs Academy' into Google, the world largest search engine, and this site is No1.



Maybe that's because people learn more about what's going on at the academy here than from the Interim Board or the Council?

A big thank you to all the visitors who care about what happens in Bishopbriggs.

Google are no fools!

Summary of first Academy meeting with the Parent Forum

For all those unable to attend last night's meeting.

The low turnout could have been due to the very short notice period, bad weather, middle of the Christmas season or a number of other reasons.

The meeting started with a motion on the legality of the boards position to negotiate with the council. This was noted and the meeting continued.

In the first public meeting in the five months since the amalgamation Ken Low went over the plans for the new Academy. The same plans that have, and are, available at the council offices, online and displayed at the school last month.

The original 14 days time scale to lodge objects, which has gone, is now available again due to the traffic assessment being lodged this week with planning. This plan is available to view at the council offices. As far as I am aware nobody, at the meeting, had seen this traffic plan.

The position of the school, on the site, was questioned and it was asked if this had been a compromise as the old Thomas Muir School had to remain for the pupils of a Kirkintilloch School. It was noted that to achieve the time scale the developers plan required this situation.

Access to the school was debated and parents were not happy with the present plan. This may have been addressed in the 'unseen' traffic plan.

To counter suggestions about the 'surplus land' the council have suggested that another 'shared' outdoor sports facility with St Helens (across Wester Cleddens Road) be considered. This would give the school TWO 'shared' facilities with neighbouring primary schools. The first being the pitch the council now count as part of the Thomas Muir site, the Woodhill Primary pitch.

On the internal layout of the school the width of corridors was raised. It was suggested that a 'one way' system may have to be implemented for pupils to move around the school.

These discussions took up the bulk of the meeting, which last over two and a half hours, during which time several people left. This left little time for discussion on why the Board had not held election for a new Academy board five months ago as laid out in the legislation.

One member of the School Forum questioned the lack of information given to parent by the board since the amalgamation, a requirement under the School Board Scotland Act. Ken responded that the board considered that this information should come from the head teacher. More information has been available on this site than has come for the School Board or Council.

I suggested they use the, councils, Bishopbriggs Academy web space. It has been available since August, to keep parents informed, nobody was aware it existed. At the time of the meeting it shows Ken Low as a parent member of the Bishopbriggs Academy board (see screen shot below). This position is an elected office, I don't remember the election - do you?

Eventually a vote was held, and the motion (below) carried, by the majority of parents in attendance, this requires the council to hold elections for a new Bishopbriggs Academy Board, with immediate effect.

The meeting then closed.

If anyone has anything to add please use the comment option below.

Motion carried from meeting 12th December 2006

I would therefore move that the interim Board continue to negotiate on behalf of the parent body of Bishopbriggs Academy whilst the election process for a new School Board For Bishopbriggs Academy is put into operation and I would call for the Authority to call said election with immediate effect.

Boot out the board....

This comment was sent by a reader...

The letter detailing the 'disadvantages' of holding an election for the School Board makes interesting reading....if you support lawbreaking and dictatorship that is.

One disadvantage is that for the Academy Board to continue would mean that they are breaking the law.
I’m not sure that they are setting a very good example to pupils?

Costly? The PPP team have been posting out regular newsletters, four pages and in colour. The council has found the money for this so why not for giving parents a lawful and democratic say in the running of their school. After all they pay for the school through their taxes.

If not them – who? Sandy McGarvey? John Morrison? Margaret McNaughton?

Could take up to 12 weeks to complete? This is only a problem because the Board are doing this now rather than 12 weeks ago.

Places an administrative burden on the school? Well sorry I don't think that ‘it’s too much hassle to hold an election’ is a good reason not to hold an election. Updating the electoral register...shouldn't that be a pre-requisite for the school to know who the pupils’ parents are?

Postage costs? Well the interim Board saved a lot of money by not canvassing parents’ opinions in the lead up to the decision where the school should be built, so the school really owes them one. And was the school not being given extra resources because of the amalgamation...I seem to remember Sandy McGarvey saying that, wish I had got that in writing I suppose.

Finally and I quote...'Research shows parental involvement is not encouraged by elections’. This is being said by the people who presumably put themselves forward for election to get on the High School and Thomas Muir Boards. With low turnouts at election time not even Tony Blair would give that as a reason for stopping holding elections….maybe Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe should be looking to the Academy Board for some fresh ideas!

(You might have noticed that there is nowhere on the ballot paper for the voter to put their name to ensure that only parents with children at the school vote and that those who vote do so only once. This brings to mind the old saying about elections in Northern Ireland, ‘vote early and vote often’. Not that I’d condone parents photocopying the ballot papers and handing in lots of votes for their chosen option during the Christmas holidays.)

And what about the ‘Advantages’ of just keeping things the same until next year? It would minimise disruption to the education and welfare of pupils. How can this possibly be true? The election process does not involve pupils. Communication is via the post and how can an election affect pupils Health and Happiness? No the real advantage of this option is that it allows for continuity. But how much of an advantage this is, is open to question.

The current Board have never communicated with parents at any point in the amalgamation process.
They have never sought the views of parents regarding their preference for where the school should be built and now that the PPP team is turning them over they suddenly come running to the parents looking for help.

They deserve to be booted out. At Tuesday’s meeting, assuming enough people turn up, given the short notice and the enticement of hearing about ‘minor’ problems with the school design, parents need to stand up and be counted. We have the prospect of a great new school (albeit one where children will be in danger of being run over leaving school at 3.30 pm)…now we need a Board that can match the aspirations of the school…something the current Board are clearly unable to do.

Strong stuff

thanks for your opinion

Letter from Ken Low acting chair of Academy School Board?

I have taken the liberty of letting you know what happened at the Bishopbriggs Academy Board meeting on Tuesday night re the PPP planning application.

Basically we said to Sandy McGarvey:

There was no transport statement - how could we assess traffic impacts etc. without it?

The sports full-size pitch provision for
Douglas (roll of 1,021) is 4
Bearsden (1,174) is 3
Kirkintilloch (652) is 3
Bishopbriggs (1,146) is 2

- absolutely not was our core message over this;

It also turns out one of the documents supporting pitch provision is for the first proposal of basing the school at BBHS site and selling off TMHS site completely - not even planning had picked this up;

Education (through John Simmons) insist that the PE curriculum can be delivered - our SMT say that delivery will be extremely tight and almost impossible if we lost the use of the shared area with Woodhill Primary

We want them to investigate the land opposite us to see if we can purchase/lease a strip to put a new pitch on it

We also want to move the all weather pitch up to allow us to slightly lengthen the existing natural turf pitch and to move the athletics facilities onto the grass nearer Torr Road - at the moment the long-jump is on asphalt - surely this cannot be safe (in Douglas and Bearsden the long jump is surrounded by grass)

Overall car parking spaces etc. Bishopbriggs Academy is being short-changed e.g. the Games Hall is 594m2 (33m x 18m) whereas in Douglas it is 628m2 (34 x 18.5m) - I am not too fussed about a metre either side but when the Bishopbriggs High School Games Hall was built it was either (1.4m or 4m) short with the result non of the indoor pitches met the required standards for competition so EDC spent £1 million on a hall that could not take national competitions in football, badminton etc. What a waste and I don't want that repeated again

Many of the facilities are close to the minimum standard required and the SportScotland representative stated that they would challenge councils to provide better facilities - we did however accept that the quality of the facilities were better

Sandy has been tasked with maximising the facilities but also to maximise land receipts re Council meeting of June 2006 (well if two pitches can deliver the PE curriculum then he simply is failing in his second objective with regard to Douglas, Bearsden and Kirkintilloch - he should reduce them to two large pitches and increase the land receipts on these sites but he has not done that) - we as a Board don't want that to happen to any of these sites - we should maximise the facilities on all sites and we realise that both Douglas and Bearsden have already had a net loss of one pitch due to housing development however I don't think Sandy sees us as only having two pitches as a problem and

Fnally to fundamentally disagree that any of the land at the TMHS site was surplus (we are losing a 37m x 18m small rugby pitch (7-a-side pitch) and two Multi Use Games Areas although the shared arrangement would give us back the small pitch on a shared basis).

The meeting went on from 6.30 pm for Board members only and from 7 pm for invited participant and did not close until 10.30 pm

It was at times heated but we hope we presented a balanced but forceful case.

The next steps are to:

Prepare a response to Sandy McGarvey

Meet with associated primary school board chairs (or their whole boards and PTAs if they want)

Meet with Bishopbriggs parents on the 12th December at 7 pm in Bishopbriggs Academy

Start drafting our representation to the planning department with respect to
a) the school and
b) the surplus land outline application for housing

To prepare a media campaign to keep this in the public eye over the festive season right up to the planning application hearing and to meet with councillors over this to give them our views directly.

I am supplying this information to keep primary school board chairs appraised of what is happening and to the PPP reps of Douglas, Bearsden and Kirkintilloch secondaries as we had compared Bishopbriggs Academy to these school in our presentation.

We already appreciate the help we have had from other secondary PPP reps.

We fully support all of these schools in their efforts to get better facilities for their kids in their areas - we just want to be treated equitably by EDC in terms of sports provision.

I am grateful to Susan Murray for her attendance and input - at times what she said was very telling and was not lost on Sandy McGarvey.

I would also say that we would welcome your support if possible and we will be happy to answer any queries or questions by e-mail or phone.

Thanks.

Ken Low Acting Chair Bishopbriggs Academy School Board

I have written to Ken asking who the new Academy board members are and when they were elected. The Interim School Board has, since August, time to arrange elections.

Did anyone get an information on the Bishopbriggs Academy School Board elections?

Here is how a School Board should be elected School Board Act

I spoke to the Scottish Executive this afternoon, Ken has NO right to call himself acting chair of the Bishopbriggs Academy Board.

Good to see that Ken visited the site on the 8th of December at 4.05 pm.

The power of the Internet....

Scottish Executive reply on School board

Have had a reply from the Scottish Executive on the position of the school board.

Interesting - Let's see what the council do about it.

I'm not giving too much away just yet....

What's happening with the Interim School Board?

We're now approaching December and the Interim School Board is still in place.

I understand the Scottish Executive have made a ruling - parent have to be told (it's the law).

When was this decision made and why are parents still in the dark?

Watch this space for more amazing revelations on the operation of the school boards associated with Bishopbriggs Secondary Schools.

Fair deal for Bishopbriggs?

The site that was not suitable for a school?


At the end of this term St Ninian's will close it doors and move to the old Thomas Muir School while their new school is built on their existing site.

Points to note...

St Ninian's was NOT included in the original council schools PPP plan.
The developers WANTED to build the new St Ninian's on an alternative site.
East Dunbartonshire council REJECTED this proposal and voted to keep it on its original site.
To accomplish this the council HAD to move the pupils to Thomas Muir - the original plan was to move the Academy pupils here while the Academy was built on the High School site.

Did Bishopbriggs get a fair deal?

The decision to decant the pupils from Thomas Muir to Bishopbriggs High was made BEFORE the July council PPP meeting.

Decants are part of the PPP contract and are paid for by the DEVELOPERS they would have to have agreed BEFORE knowing the council decision.

Was the decision on the fate of Bishopbriggs Academy made before the meeting?

St Ninian's were rewarded with a new school, a school NOT in the original plans. Built on their chosen site the developers alternative was rejected, unlike in Bishopbriggs. A full decant to a Bishopbriggs School, previously scheduled to be used by the amalgamated Thomas Muir and Bishopbriggs High pupils had to be agreed.


The public consultation decided the new Bishopbriggs Academy should be built on the High School site - this was rejected by the council using the Liberal Democrat Provost's casting vote.

Did Bishopbriggs get a fair deal.

As this article in the Kirkintilloch Herald says...

Thanks to determined efforts from the school board and staff, it was included in the revised plans.

Did Bishopbriggs get a fair deal?

Scottish Executive have ruled on Interim School Board

John Simmons (head of education) has written to tell me the Scottish Executive have decided on the fate of the Interim School Board.

He didn't explain what their decision was but that parents would be informed by letter.

I look forward to his letter...

Meanwhile the number of visitors to the site continues to climb - up again this week.

Please send me any comments or update - you can remain anonymous if you use the comments link at the end of each post.

Thanks again for your support - I will continue to stand up for the pupils and parents of Bishopbriggs

Interim School Board should be replaced

Under the 'School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988', there should have been elections for the new school board as soon as the Academy was established.

Section 1 - (5) A School Board shall cease to exist when the school for which they are established is discontinued.

Section 2 - (9) In relation to schools (including combined schools) which come into existence after the commencement of section 1 of this Act, the first elections under this Act shall (subject to section 20) be held as soon as is practicable after pupils first attend the school.

Section 7 - (4) An Interim Board shall cease to exist when a School Board have been established for the combined school.

I am aware that 'The Parental Involvement Act' became law on 12th September 2006 and there is a transition period.

Currently, the make-up of the Interim board is not allowed under the 'School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988' as it has too many members per pupil count.

Also the Act states - it is the duty of the board to...

...ascertain the views of parents on matters which are the responsibility of the Board.

This did not happen - when the Council planned to vote on moving the Academy site away from that chosen by public consultation parents were not consulted.

The current Interim board joint chairs wrote a letter, that other board members and parents did not see, that the Council later quoted in a press release to support their decision to build the school on the Thomas Muir site (against public consultation). The letter had been written before that vote and, to this day, I cannot understand how you can agree with a decision before it was made (behind closed doors).

It is my view that the current board are not working within the Act and should be replaced.

The School Board Act (Scotland) 1988

The Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act 2006 this is a pdf download

Council CANNOT grant planning permission for new schools

East Dunbartonshire Council cannot grant itself planning permission for the new schools. They have to apply to the Scottish Executive.

If you have any objections, make sure the Scottish Executive are aware of them.

I'm still waiting to find out from the Head of Education the result of his 'legal' enquires if the Interim school board is legal.

As of 12th September the 'Parental Involvement' act has been law and both schools are now one.