Item no 7*3

+ EDI BVRG H N Report no I ‘I 0/04-05 CSec THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL Cd% I

Craigmou nt/F orreste r Catchment Area Review : Recommendations on Consultation Process

City of Edinburgh Council 24June2004

Purpose of report 1 To consider the decision of the Executive of 18 May 2004 on the CraigmounVForrester catchment area review. Main report 2 At its meeting on 18 May 2004 the Executive considered the attached report by the Director of Education advising of the outcome of the statutory consultation on the catchment review proposals within the Craigmount and Forrester catchment areas. 3 Councillor Rev Ewan Aitken, seconded by Councillor Anderson moved that: (a) Option 1 as identified in the Consultation Paper be recommended to the First Minister for approval. (b) the changes be implemented prior to the August 2007108 Start of Session, subject to the approval of the First Minister. (c) siblings of pupils from Gylemuir who currently attend Craigmount High School be given priority over other siblings of pupils who do not reside in the Gylemuir catchment area when making a placing request to Craigmount. This arrangement to operate for 6 years from the date the changes are implemented. 4 Councillor Dawe, seconded by Councillor Lowrie, moved as an amendment, that the Director of Education report to the next Education Executive on delaying the change to single feeder status for Gylemuir Primary School for a further period beyond the two years’ delay suggested. 5 On a division, the motion by Councillor Rev Ewan Aitken was approved by 13 votes to 2. 6 The Executive’s decision has been called in to the Council in terms of Standing Order 58. The lead signatory is Councillor Whyte. Recommendations 7 That the Council consider the Executive’s decision as detailed in para 3,above.

JoK n turt

Appendices Report no E1633103-04IED by the Director of Education

Contactltel C Riley 529 4830

Wards affected See attached report

Background Minute of the Executive of 18 May 2004 Papers + 6DINBVRGH + THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Recommendations on Consultation Process f Executive of the Council * 1%May 2004

1 Purpose of report

1.I Reference is made to Report E1388103-041E presented to the Executive on 13 January 2004 which outlined catchment review proposals within. the Craigmount and Forrester catchment areas. The Executive approved that public consultation on those proposals be undertaken from 27 January 2004. The purpose of this report is to advise the Executive of the outcome of the statutory consultation and recommend how to proceed.

2 Consultation Arrangements 2.1 The consultation was carried out in terms of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, as amended 1981, and the Regulations made thereunder. The Regulations require a consultation period of not less than 28 days, and if chosen to be held, public meeting(s) are to be held not less than 14 days after the commencement of the consultation period. The consultation paper was distributed and the proposals advertised on 26 January 2004, with the consultation period deemed to have commenced on 27 January, and continued until 3 March 2004. Public meetings were held in Craigmount and Forrester High Schools and Gylemuir and Roseburn Primary Schools between 9 February and 12 February 2004. The records of the meetings are attached to this report at Appendix 1.

2.2 Correspondence (in the form of letters and emails) was received from 292 members of the public. Of this number 62% were in support of the proposals, 31% objected to a Gylemuir re-alignment, 1% were explicitly in favour of Option 2, 1% were Gylemuir residents voicing support for Forrester HS and the remaining 5% were various other requests and issues. A summary of all letters and emails received is attached in Appendix 2.

Timing of ImDlementation 2.3 In response to the vast amount of correspondence received during the consultation requesting the implementation of changes be delayed, the Council has given this careful consideration (see section 4.7). Consideration has now been given to delaying the implementation of the proposals for two years - ie from August 2005 to August 2007. If the construction of the new 1

16 Forrester High School could be fast-tracked with the aim of completion by August 2007 (one year early), the implementation of the catchment changes would coincide with the opening of the new school. Gylemuir would feed solely to Forrester from August 2007 onwards.

2.4 This report addresses the main issues raised during the consultation process. Appendix 3 contains answers to additional individual questions raised during the consultation process (either in the form of a question asked at a public meeting or in a letter or email) which are not directly answered in this report. *

i 3 Summary - Response to Consultation 3.1 Issues Raised

The following issues, deemed relevant to this consultation, were raised during the consultation process either as a question asked at a public meeting or in a letter or email. These issues form the basis of this report. These are discussed in Section 4.

PART 1: BACKGROUND

1. Human Rights 2. Right to Parental Choice 3. Dual Feeder Status 4. Populatidn Data and Forecasts 5. Scale of Review: Cluster by Cluster Basis vs. Simultaneous City Wide 6. Capacity of Craigmount High School 7. Timing of Review and Craigmount Catchment Numbers 8. Planning Issues

PART 2: FEEDER PRIMARY SCHOOLS

9. Gylemuir and Roseburn Catchment Areas IO. Gylemuir Residents’ Suggested Alternative High Schools for Roseburn Primary School: Forrester, Tynecastle and Broughton High Schools 11. Gylemuir Residents’ Suggested Alternative High School for Hillwood r Primary School: Forrester, Queensferry, Currie and Balerno High

Schools i 12. Gylemuir Residents’ Suggested Alternative High School for Corstorphine Primary School: Forrester High School 13. Publicly Suggested Partial Re-Alignments of Primary School Catchment Areas

3.2 ProPosed Recommendations

Having taken the above viewpoints into consideration, the following recommendations are being made: That Option 1 be implemented. Of the 3 Options put forward, Option 1 is considered to be the best option that would relieve accommodation

2 17 pressures likely to be experienced by Craigmount High School whilst maintaining the overall aims of the catchment review. That changes be implemented in August 2007 - being two years later than originally proposed - so as to give parents more time to plan for the changes. This is in response to the vast amount of correspondence received concerning this and Council’s recent advice that an August 2007 completion date could be achievable for Forrester High School. That the siblings of pupils from Gylemuir who currently attend . Craigmount High School be given priority (over other siblings who do not reside in the Gylemuir catchment ’area) when making a placing request to Craigmount. This arrangement is to operate for 6 years from the date the changes are implemented. With the implementation of Option 1 it is expected that there would be sufficient places available at Craigmount to accommodate these siblings.

4 Main report - Issues Raised During Consultation This following section describes the main questionslissues raised during the consultation process received either as a question or statement made during one of the four public meetings or in a letter or email received during the consultation period. For consistency purposes, each main heading in this section has the issue raised in italics, an explanation in normal text and a conclusion at the end of it which is in bold. Answers to all other questionslissues raised during the consultation process are given in Appendix 3 of this report.

PART 1 : BACKGROUND

4.1 Human Riqhts

Throughout the consultation, concern was expressed by members of the public who considered that the proposals breach their Human Rights.

4 It is the view of the Council’s Legal Services Department that the Council is not breaching the Human Rights Act 1998 in its conduct in respect of carrying out the catchment review. Protocol 1, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that no person shall be denied the right to education. The review does not deny this right.

Once a decision has been reached on the catchment review, there is no right of appeal or right to request an independent review of the process under the statutory instruments prescribed by the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. However, parents have a right of appeal on placing requests through the normal annual placing procedures.

It is the Council’s view that no one is being denied the right to education as a result of the catchment review.

3

18 4.2 Ricrht to Parental Choice Throughout the consultation, concern was expressed by several parents who were of the view that the proposals remove parental choice’.

Parents have a right to ‘parental choice’ which is enshrined in legislation. Under Section 28A of the Education (Scotland) Act 1981, parents have the right to express a preference for a particular school and it is the Council’s duty to accommodate this wherever possible. Parents will usually be offered a place in their catchment school, however, parents also have the right to make a request for a place in another out-of-catchment school. Once a parent has made an-application for a place in a non-catchrnent school, the Council must honour this request unless (among other things which are described in Appendix 4):

To meet this request the Council would have to employ an additional teacher or incur additional expenditure, for example, on an additional classroom.

The Council is statutorily obliged to provide an education and it chooses to endeavour to provide a place at a child’s catchment school. However, this does not mean there is a guarantee to attend the catchment school. The Council is not obliged to operate catchment areas but it is their chosen method to manage demand for school places.

The proposals being put forward for the Craigmount and Forrester catchment areas do not seek to remove ‘parental choice’ however, it is proposed to remove ‘dual feeder status’ which is a separate issue and is discussed below in 4.3.

It is Council’s position that the proposals do not remove parental choice as the rights of parents to choose a school for their children is set out in Scottish national legislation, namely the Education (Scotland) Act 1981.

4.3 Dual Feeder Status Throughout the consultation, concern was expressed by several parents at the proposed removal of the ‘dual feeder’ status associated with the Gylemuir catchment area.

Of the 98 primary schools that the City of Edinburgh Council administers, dual feeder arrangements exist within the following 6 school catchment areas within the city: Blackhall Primary School (feeder to either Broughton or The Royal High) Ferryhill Primary School (feeder to either Broughton or Craigroyston) Forthview Primary School (feeder to either Broughton or Craigroyston) Gylemuir Primary School (feeder to either Craigmount or Forrester) 4

19 Prestonfield Primary School (feeder to either Castlebrae or Liberton) Roseburn Primary School (feeder to either Broughton or Craigmount) The potential removal of dual feeder status across the City through the catchment review would give all parents in the City the same rights when choosing a school for their children.

This would bring the rights of parents who live in the above six catchment areas into line with the remaining 94% of the City, who have a single catchment school but still have the right to parental choice through normal procedures, as set out above in 4.2.

There are two main reasons for seeking to remove dual feeder arrangements. Firstly, it is beneficial to all parties, particularly the pupils, to have a clear relationship between each primary school and a particular secondary. This allows for a clear transition, in terms of curricular activities, making the move from primary to secondary more comfortable for the pupils.

Secondly, the removal of dual feeder status would mean that, even where there is pressure on a secondary school, catchment area intakes are more likely to be guaranteed a place at their catchment school.

Gvlemuir - What Dual Feeder Status Means

It is true that by removing dual feeder status the Council would be cutting back on administration. However, it is not administration at Council level that will be cut back, rather it is the pressures that dual feeder status brings to a school and more critically to the teaching staff.

A summary of the extra work loads, resources and planning that Gylemuir Primary is currently subject to under dual feeder status is as follows:

Both High Schools (Craigmount and Forrester) require strategic planning for Modern Languages to address the balance of pupil numbers in FrencWGerman for SI. One High School requires the alternation of entire P6 and P7 year groups to learn French/Gennan alternatively. The other High School requires that Gylemuir split the year groups to achieve a balance. There are different focuses of development for each High School. Parallel School Policies devised and implemented in, for example,. Science, I.C.T. and Modern Languages. This involves the use of different resources, formats for planning pupil work and assessment. Required to release twice the number of teachers to participate in working groups for Cluster (Craigmount & Forrester school clusters) Development Plan Staff attending both Craigmount & Forrester staff in-service courses Staff workload - P6 and P7 staff have 2 different formats to prepare sets of documentation for transition. For example: one School wants Functional Writing marked while the other wants Imaginative Wriiing unmarked. Head teacher is out of school 2 mornings per month to attend different High Schools.

5 20 High Schools operate different Transition Arrangements with regard to transition arrangements for Special Needs children. Both schools involve different types of group to organise for Special Needs via Pupil Support Groups. Therefore Gylemuir Primary has to complete 2 different sets of documentation and arrange separate meetings on separate days with High School staff.

It is testament to the hard work of staff that parents are unaware of the difficulties.

Staff of Gylemuir Primary School have a strong relationship with staff from both Craigmount High School and Forrester High School. Overall Gylemuir would benefit from being associated with one secondary school only, as the much duplicated effort currently incurred would be avoided. The move to a single feeder school would give Gylemuir staff an opportunity to build on the good relationship they already have with Forrester and continue to provide coherence in curricular criteria.

It is Council’s position that the operation of dual feeder areas throughout the City should be discontinued so as to improve liaison between primary and secondary schools and improve management of school places.

4.4 Population Data and Forecasts Throughout the consultation, concern was expressed by members of the public that the proposals were flawed due to a falling birth rate within the City and the forecast information on Craigmount High School.

The City is currently expecting an overall decline in primary pupil numbers and this will follow through in the secondary school numbers from 2006. However this is a City wide trend and there are wide variations at local levels. In order to predict the way in which the population might move in future, an analysis is presented below of trends over the previous 20 years. This demonstrates that the number of pupils in the Craigrnount catchment area has remained stronger than the City-wide average.

It should be noted that new housing only plays part of the picture in terms of the number of pupils in a catchment area. The majority of turnover in pupils arises from population movements in the established housing stock. In the period 1981 to 2001, there was an overall decline of 16% in the number of pupils (5-15year olds) in the City. The decline in the Craigmount area was 10% - much less than the City-wide average. These falls in population were all experienced in the 1980s. By the 1990’sthe population had started to increase again. Between the Census in 1991 and 2001, the pupil population had increased by an average of 9% across the City. In comparison Craigmount catchment had increased by 14%. This means that the increase in Craigmount catchment was 56% above the average increase in the City.

6 21 Between 1981 and 2001 Craigmount increased its share of the City’s total pupil population from 6.3% to 6.8%. The majority of this increase occurred between the 1991 and 2001 Censuses. This demonstrates that the pace of change in Craigmount has increased in more recent years. It is anticipated that this pace of change will continue in the area.

Accordingly it is anticipated that Craigmount will remain an area of strong demand for family housing, and declines in this area will be well below the trend for decline across the City.

Historic SI Patterns within the Gvlemuir Catchment

About 8 years ago, Forrester High School was the preferred choice of high school (over Craigmount) by Gylemuir parents and for years since then, the choice between Forrester and Craigmount was fairly even. However, in recent years, more Gylemuir parents are choosing Craigmount over Forrester which has increased the overall numbers going to Craigmount. Recent trends are shown in the following .chart:

P7 Gylemuir Pupils Destination Secondary School

I 70 v) P 60 50 rc 40 8 30 E Z= 20 10 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year

The above chart shows the marked swing in choice of secondary school within the Gylemuir catchment area. This increase in numbers choosing Craigmount has contributed significantly to the accommodation pressure being experienced at Craigmount in recent years. This has made the management and planning of places in Craigmount High School difficult.

Forecast Information

The Council released appropriate information on the forecasts as part of the consultation -that is that Craigmount can be expected to have an intake of 260 every year, which will result in a roll of 1400. A further forecast was prepared which showed that if the intake was repeatedly raised to 280, a roll

7 22 of 1515 could be anticipated. This information was outlined in the consultation paper.

There has however been use of the 2002103 based forecasts for arguments against the review which are not appropriate as they do not come with the necessary background information as to how these figures should be used. Crucially for Craigmount, the background data for the 2002/03forecasts was based on trends from the preceding 3 years which reflected the previous school intake limit of 240. Accordingly the forecast population would have reflected this artificial suppression of the intake as the intake limit of the new school is 260. These older forecasts were not released as a part of the consultation exercise.

It should also be noted that the 2002/03 based forecasts were based on the Housing Land Audit which included sites with planning consent in March 2001. Accordingly the forecasts do not include any of the 175 new children anticipated through the new housing - nor would we expect them to until they secure planning consent. However for the purposes of catchment scenario planning it would be ill advised to ignore these sites.

It is Council’s position that the population within the Craigmount catchment area has experienced lower declines and higher increases than the City wide average and it is expected to remain an area of strong family demand in the future.

4.5 Scale of Review: Cluster bv Cluster Basis vs. Simultaneous City Wide

Several letters and emails were received questioning why the catchment review is being carried out on a cluster by cluster basis and not on a simultaneous City-wide basis.

This is an issue that was examined when considering how the review should be undertaken, and it is appreciated that there are some constraints in considering schools on a cluster basis. However it would be an unworkable task to undertake the review across the entire City at the same time.

This approach was set out in the Executive report entitled Smart Schools initiative: Edinburgh Schools Catchment Review which was ratified by the Council Executive on 04 November 2003. That Council Executive report states that “it is recognised that as work progresses for each cluster, there may be implications for neighbouring clusters. Thus stakeholders should be aware of reviews being undertaken at neighbouring schools as well.”

Considerable thought has been given to the geography of the city to identify the clusters. For example, at the schools bounding this area, Broughton and Craigroyston High Schools are expected to accommodate pupils from the new Waterfront development at Granton. Once this development is complete, it is expected that both schools would be at capacity as a result of this expected increase in the local population. The Royal High is operating close to capacity and the Council would not want to increase this catchment 8 23 area. Forrester on the other hand has spare capacity which can be used to alleviate accommodation pressures elsewhere.

The Council appreciates that carrying out the review on a cluster by cluster basis does create some limitations in the process, but it is the only way to move forward on a task of this size.

4.6 Capacity of Craiamount Hiah School Throughout the consultation, parents questioned the capacity of Craigmount High School, the possibility of building another school to serve the area and the number of non-catchment pupils currently in the school.

ODtimum Capacitv of Hiah Schools Within the City

It is the view of the Education Department that the optimum size of a secondary school is 900 pupils. Our experience leads to the belief that a school with a notional capacity of 900 has the ability to deliver a broad curriculum whilst maintaining a strong ethos within the school, providing the optimum educational experience.

Capacitv of Craiamount Hiah School

Craigmount High School'was designed for 1400 pupils, which makes it the largest notional capacity of any school in Edinburgh, along with Portobello High School. This is substantially larger than what the Education Department considers to be the optimum size and the Department specifically wished to .avoid designing any secondary schools larger than a capacity of 1400.

Prior to the rebuild of Craigmount through PPP, the notional capacity of the school was 1250 and this was expanded to 1400 to accommodate rising catchment pupil numbers. However, it was considered inappropriate to go beyond that size.

Two Smaller Schools

With regard to building 2 schools for the Craigmount area, this would require the identification of a new site with an approximate area of 5.7 hectares. The likely cost of a new site and new high school building would be around f40 million, although the figure could be higher than this depending on the value of the site and any site conditions that would inhibit development. This would not represent a good use of Council resources when spare places exist in neighbouring Forrester which is well located to serve part of the Craigmount area.

Further to this the Council is not starting with a blank sheet and must recognise the limitations and consider what is already in place. To build a school of 900 pupils for Craigmount would mean that 400-500pupils who are currently already in Craigmount would have to be separated and placed in

9 24 another school. This is not a position that the Council would promote for any school. It would also mean the second school would have a roll of less than 750, which is lower than the optimum size and this could limit the range of the curriculum available.

Non-catchment Pupils in Craiamount

The capacity of Craigmount is 1400 pupils and this allows an annual SI intake of 260. If there are less than 260 SI catchment pupils in any given year, the Council is legally obliged to grant placing requests. These places would be vacant places in classes that have already been formed by catchment pupils and would not add to accommodation pressures at the school. Once non-catchment children are in the school the Council would not force them to change schools.

In addition if catchment numbers are over 260 and the Council took the decision to raise to 280 then places would again be filled by non-catchment pupils. 280 is necessary as class sizes. rise in increments of 20 - an additional one pupil would meaman entire new class.

Under Options 1 and 2, affected Gylemuir parents would have the right to make a placing request to Craigmount under the above legislation and, if there are places available in any given year, the Council would honour those requests. Siblings of pupils from Gylemuir who currently attend Craigmount High School would be given priority (over other siblings who do not reside in the Gylemuir catchment area) when making a placing request to Craigmount. It is proposed that this arrangement is to.operate for 6 years from the date the changes are implemented.

Current Roll of Craiamount Hiah School

The following table shows the current roll of Craigmount High School:

Stage SI S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Total. Craigmount 279 260 241 256 197 102 1335 High School

The ability of Craigmount to accommodate higher catchment intakes both in 2003 and in future years depends on the stay on rate. As the stay on rate increases, the school has less flexibility to accommodate larger intakes in the lower school. As a result, Craigmount High School may not be able to accommodate all its catchment population in future years. The Education Maintenance Allowances (EMAs) are due to be introduced for S5 pupils in August 2004 and S6 pupils in 2005. Evidence from local authorities who have piloted EMAs (East Ayrshire, Dundee, Glasgow and West Dumbarton) suggest EMA are likely to increase the number of students staying on in S5 and S6.

It is Council’s position that:

It is not appropriate to extend Craigmount High School beyond the notional capacity of 1400 or build an additional school. 10 25 The granting of placing requests, when annual SI catchment numbers allow it, does not contribute to accommodation pressures experienced by the school. Priority in placing requests to Craigmount should be given to siblings in Gylemuir for a period of 6 years.

4.7 Timina of Review and Craiamount Catchment Numbers During the consultation period, several suggestions were received concerning the timing of the review and the implementation of proposed changes. Correspondence was received suggesting that the implementation of changes should co-incide with the opening of the new school at Forrester.

The catchment review is something the council would not embark on lightly without substantial evidence that a change would be necessary. The Council has been planning a city wide catchment review to address shifts in population within the City since 2000. This has resulted in some schools in the city experiencing difficulty accomodating high catchment numbers and other schools having spare places available. Work was carried out at a strategic level and the Council was reluctant to react to isolated increases in catchment numbers on an ad-hoc basis, which can lead to being in a perpetual state of review. A report went to the Executive of the Council in June 2000 and there has been wide press coverage ever since as the proposals b,egan to take shape. The Council had approved the proposals for a catchment review on a cluster by cluster basis in October 2003. Craiqmount Catchment Numbers

Catchment numbers have been increasing in the Craigmount catchment . area for some time and it is for this reason that the school was extended from 1250 to 1400, and indeed the reason why this area was the first area to be reviewed.

Prior to the new school building opening in August 2003, the former Craigmount High School building had a notional capacity of 1250 which permitted an SI intake limit of 240. The new school now has a notional capacity of 1400 which allows an SI intake of 260. When the new school opened in August 2003, and the pupils transferred into the new building, the school was able to increase the intake to 280 for one year in the knowledge that the existing pupil population was a lot less than the new capacity of the school. There are lower numbers in the senior year groups of the school allowing a larger SI intake for one year only. Indeed, the intake limit was able to be increased to 260 in two of the three years leading up the new school opening to accommodate high numbers of catchment pupils in the knowledge of this additional capacity that would be available once the new school opened.

11 26 Craigmount has suffered from repeated accommodation pressures with the old intake of 240 having to be increased twice and the first intake of the new school having to be increased from 260 to 280. Proiected Craiamount Catchment Numbers

The following table shows the numbers of catchment pupils currently in P5, P6 and P7 who attend CEC primary schools and currently reside within the catchment area of Craigmount. Given that Craigmount High School has an SI intake limit of 260, there is a need to reduce the.size of the catchment.

Current Primary Stage P5 P6 P7 Pupil Numbers in Craigmount 296 284 293 Catchment

Suaaested Delavs in ImDlementation of Changes The Council has given careful consideration to the suggested delay of implementation of changes proposed in this catchment review, namely, the suggestion that the implementation of changes should co-incide with the opening of the new school building planned at Forrester High School.

As mentioned throughout this report, the increase in the Craigmount catchment population has resulted in the expected SI numbers being higher than the intake limit for the capacity of Craigmount High School. Any delay in the implementation of changes could result in the roll at Craigmount High School breaching its notional capacity. This is not a decision the Council would take lightly in the knowledge of spare capacity available within Forrester High School. . However, the Council appreciates that any change such as the one proposed for the Gylemuir catchment area is a major change for families living in the area to deal with and having more time to plan would be beneficial for the affected families.

The Council has given consideration to the expected construction time for Forrester High School to assess if this could be speeded up in any way. During the early planning for the PPP2 project, Council had allowed 24 months for the construction of a secondary school. However, recent discussions with prospective bidders have indicated that this is now an excessive length of time and that a secondary school could be constructed in a timescale several months shorter than this. The timetable for PPP2 anticipates that an agreement between the Council and the chosen contractor would be signed by the end of October 2005 with construction expected to commence immediately after that date. This is also a more compressed timescale than originally anticipated, following further consideration of the PPP procurement process. Given the possibility of achieving an August 2007 entry date for the new Forrester High School, the Council could endeavour to reach an agreement with the chosen contractor

12 27 specifying that construction of Forrester High School is prioritised. If for any reason an agreement is not signed by October 2005, the Council could endeavour to reach an agreement with the chosen contractor allowing construction to commence in advance of the signing of the agreement in order to achieve the goal of an August 2007 entry date. Such an agreement would not be unprecedented in PFI projects.

0 The Council will not have a clear indication of commencement and completion dates for Forrester High School until a preferred bidder has been appointed (end May 2005).

Discussions with staff at Craigmount High School indicate that the increase in the school roll resulting from delaying catchment review changes (potentially an additional 20 pupils per year for two years - 40 in total) could be accommodated within Craigmount High School for two years only, after which time the SI intake limit would have to be reinstated at the school's design limit of 260.

The Council appreciates parents' concerns about the timeframe for the implementation of changes. In response to these concerns and in light of new knowledge of possible construction timeframes, it is considered that the implementation of the proposed catchment changes could be delayed for 2 years. It is hoped that this would coincide with the opening of the new school at Forrester High School. This would ultimately give affected parents more time to plan for changes.

4.8 Plannina Issues Throughout the consultation, concern was expressed by members of the public that the Council is continuing to approve planning applications in the Craigmount area when the school is reaching capacity.

As part of planning for City growth as set out in the Structure Plan, the Council is required to identify areas for new development within the City. As part of the identification of new sites, options are being explored for the release of new sites in the Craigmount catchment area. Windfall sites are also considered an important element of meeting the needs of the City's housing land supply. Accordingly the Council must consider releasing land for development.in this area of the City.

The Planning system is based on a presumption in favour of development. Accordingly the Council must have good reasons for refusing any planning applications, and these are liable to be tested at planning appeal. The Planning Committee takes into account many material considerations when determining a planning application, including school capacity, however it is unlikely that education capacity alone is sufficient justification for refusal. When assessing potential housing land allocations in Local Plans, information on school capacities is taken into account, but again is only one factor in determining how appropriate the site is for housing development.

13 Land being developed in the future is privately owned land and the following private developments have recently been given planning permission. Total high school numbers expected are calculated using the same methodology as the Council’s developer contributions policy. The following table shows sites which currently have planning permission:

Further to this, the Council is aware of proposed private developments within housing allocations (HSP 5, 6 and 7) identified in the Lothian and Regions Structure Plan (likely to come on stream after 2006),and the Queen Margaret University Campus.(likely to come on stream after 2007).

Overall, the Council is anticipating around 175 high school aged children from new housing developments in the area. The catchment review process must account for these numbers to ensure that a thorough assessment has been made.

The nature of this City wide catchment review is to take account of all eventualities and recommend action that will see appropriate catchments being in place for the longer term : 10-15 years.

It would not be appropriate for the Council to ignore these potential land releases in its strategic review of catchment areas - if it waited until each

secured planning permission a series of incremental ad-hoc reviews would 8 be required which would exacerbate the uncertainties parents face in a catchment review.

# It is the Council’s position that potential land releases need to be accounted for as they will exacerbate the existing accommodation pressures at Craigmount High School.

14 29 PART 2: FEEDER PRIMARY SCHOOLS

4.9 Gylemuir and Roseburn Catchment Areas

Throughout the consultation, a large amount of correspondence was received from Gylemuir residents questioning why Gylemuir catchment area was targeted for change and queried why other primary school catchments were not proposed for change.

A large amount of correspondence was received from Rosebum residents supporting the proposal for the Roseburn catchment area to have sole feeder status to Craigmount High School.

All primary schools in the Craigmount and Forrester Cluster were considered under this review and each was detailed in Section 4 of the Consultation paper. It was the Council’s view that, based on catchment numbers, Option Iwas the most suitable solution to accommodation problems at Craigmount High School.

Roseburn Support for Options 1 and 2

An overwhelming response was received from Roseburn parents indicating that the majority of Roseburn parents choose Craigmount for their children because:

Craigmount is easily and safely reached on a short bus journey as opposed to a more complex journey to reach Broughton. Travel to Tynecastle is considered by Roseburn parents to be difficult - the Russell Road route has little pavement provision and dangerous crossings

Few Roseburn pupils attend Broughton.

Drum Brae, East Craiqs and Fox Covert Primarv Schools

In response to several letters received about Drum Brae, East Craigs and Fox Covert Primary Schools, these three schools were all assessed with all the other primary schools which feed to Craigmount. However, it was considered that these three catchment areas within the northern part of the Craigmount catchment are appropriately sited geographically to feed into Craigmount High School. Accordingly, no proposals were put forward to alter their status as feeding to Craigmount High School. Aligning these schools with any other secondary school would not be appropriate given their proximity to Craigmount. The Royal High School catchment area adjoins the northern boundary of the Craigmount catchment area. The catchment population within The Royal

15 30 High School catchment area is an appropriate size for the school and accordingly re-aligning any new pupils there would not be feasible. Pupils from New Housinq

A suggestion was made that the new housing in this catchment (eg. Queen Margaret College campus) should be associated with The Royal High School. Please see the illustration below. This would result in an island in the middle of the Fox Covert catchment area feeding to the Royal High while the remainder feeds to Craigmount. This would not be tenable and the whole catchment area would require to be realigned to make this work - as indicated above there is insufficient capacity'at the Royal High to do this.

Potential Catchment Anomaly Should Queen Margaret College Campus be Re-aligned to Royal High Catchment Area *~!?~!~~~~*

,..<.I..

Cialomount C rtohrnent

Parental Choice Patterns in the Roseburn and Gvlemuir Catchment Areas

Although percentages of parental preference for Craigmount HS within the Roseburn and Gylemuir catchment areas are similar, the issue is actual catchment numbers and the Council's desire not to split up catchment areas. Consideration also has to be given to viable alternative schools. Figures quoted in the Consultation Paper are based on the total number of catchment children residing in the Craigmount and Forrester catchment areas. The Craigmount catchment area (including Gylemuir and Roseburn) contains 293 P7 pupils currently attending a CEC school who will be entering S1 at the August 2004 Start of Session. Craigmount High School has the capacity to take in 260 SI pupils each year. To solve the accommodation 16 31 issues which are immediate and will increase with new housing developments, the Council is striving to reduce the.size of Craigmount's catchment area to enable the catchment population to be accommodated within the school and to accommodate new developments. This amounts to a reduction in SI pupils by around 50 each year. Moving Roseburn would not solve the entire problem as the number of P7 pupils (currently attending a CEC school who will be entering SI at the August 2004 Start of Session) residing in the Roseburn catchment area is 26 compared to 86 in the Gylemuir catchment area. If the Council were to move Roseburn, they would also have to move another part of the catchment to create the number of places in the school that it needs.

Location of Forrester Hiah School

Given that one of the aims of this review is to remove dual feeder status, the implication is that Gylemuir should be solely aligned with either Forrester or Craigmount. Forrester High School is located 'within the Gylemuir Catchment area. Therefore, if Gylemuir catchment was to feed solely to Craigmount High School, Forrester High School would be located outwith its own catchment area and this is a situation that the Council would want to avoid. Please see the illustrations on this page and the following page.

This is not a logical situation and one which the Council would not propose. It would also require another primary school catchment area to be realigned to Forrester to create the required space in Craigrnount - and the pupils would have to walk through Gylemuir catchment to reach Forrester.

Such a proposal would not be in accordance with the aim to ensure that high schools are placed as centrally as possible within their catchment area so that they are accessible to all.

Cralgmount & Forrester Catchment Area Proposal: Gylemuir feeding to Forrester EDINBVRGH* m CIW w tbinwn mcit

32 Note: The white areas would be the resultina Forrester Catchment Area and the grev area would be the resultina Craiamount Catchment Area

Craigmount & Forrester Catchment Area Notional: Gylemulr feeding to Craigmount *EDINBVRGti* 111 rvnm IEmWI'L (I",,

Secondary School Locations A Craigmount High School Forrester High School Note: The white areas would be the resultina Forrester Catchment Area and the clrev area would be the resultina Craiamount Catchment Area

CaDacitv of Forrester Hiclh School to Accommodate PuDils from Gvlemuir Forrester has been chosen as a target for Public Private Partnership investment and the school would be rebuilt with a capacity of 900. Based on current catchment population figures, there should be capacity in Forrester High School to accommodate Gylemuir pupils.

Currently, a significant number of placing requests are made to Forrester (24%). If intakes at Forrester increase to accommodate the Gylemuir pupils then fewer placing requests will be granted. This will displace non- catchment pupils back to other schools which have capacity to accommodate them.

The roll at Forrester currently comprises 487 catchment children not from Gylemuir catchment. Accordingly there would be 413 places available for pupils coming from the Gylemuir catchment if the school is rebuilt for 900 pupils. The growth would be incremental over a number of years as it would only affect the SI intake each year. Accordingly this would result in less placing requests being available to non catchment pupils at Forrester. It is also recognised that not all pupils from the catchment area will choose to attend the school, particularly if there are priority placing procedures in place. 18 33 This would leave room for all Gylemuir pupils plus any further housing developments - though at present there are none to consider in the area. The brownfield site of the old Forrester building would not be available for housing development, as it would be required for reinstating playing fields.

It is the Council’s position that:

The pupil population within the Gylemuir catchment area is of a size that would relieve accommodation pressure from Craigmount, and,

Gylemuir children will not cause an over-crowding problem at Forrester High School.

4.1 0 Gvlemuir Residents’ Suanested Alternative Hiah Schools for Roseburn Primarv School : Forrester, Tvnecastle and Brounhton Hiah Schools

Throughout the consultation, a large amount of correspondence was received from Gylemuir residents suggesting alternative feeder arrangements for Roseburn Primary School.

It is noted that a /age amount of correspondence was also received from Roseburn residents who support the proposal for the Rosebum catchment area to have sole feeder status to Craigmount High School.

Alternative Options

A number of key factors must be assessed before Forrester, Broughton and Tynecastle would be considered as viable options for Roseburn pupils. Most importantly:

0 If Roseburn was re-aligned some other way it would only partially solve the problem of overcrowding at Craigmount as indicated in 4.9. Given our desired aim of realigning entire primary school catchments, this would then mean that two primary school catchments would have to be realigned rather than one.

It is also worth considering the links that children in the Roseburn area have with the Roseburn and Corstorphine area. Immediately after school many pupils are involved in activities such as Brownies and Cubs at St Anne’s Church hall in Corstorphine - again easily accessible along Corstorphine Road. Forrester If Roseburn was re-aligned to Forrester, pupils would have to walk through the Craigmount catchment area to get to school.

19 34 Forrester High School is located within the Gylemuir Catchment area. If Gylemuir was re-aligned solely to Craigmount, Forrester High School would lie outwith its own catchment area as indicated in 4.9. It would also conflict with the aim of placing high schools as centrally as possible within their catchment area.

Brounhton

The City-wide context of the catchment review must be considered. Broughton High is already close to capacity and any space that is available will be filled by children from the new Waterfront Development that falls within Broughton's own catchment area. Even if spaces were available, while geographically Broughton might be closer than Craigmount, the journey from most areas of Roseburn to Broughton High is complex and time consuming. The vast majority of Roseburn pupils are based around an easily accessible bus route to Craigmount. Tvnecastle

While Tynecastle is undoubtedly geographically closer to Rosebum (as the crow flies) than Craigmount, the journey to Tynecastle is considerably more hazardous.

The main route to Tynecastle for Roseburn pupils is along Russell Road. This road has no crossings and little pavement provision passing underneath two railway bridges and it is mainly an industrial area, not overlooked by housing, making it a difficult route for pedestrian traffic in terms of safety. For Rosebum pupils who live in the North, West and South West of the catchment area Russell Road is a considerable distance and a complex journey with no direct bus route.

This route was considered so hazardous by teachers that swimming lessons for Roseburn children at a pool in Dalry were cancelled as the journey there was considered dangerous.

In considering travel to and from Craigmount High School it must be noted that most of the Roseburn Primary School pupils live on, or immediately around, the main bus route (Corstorphine Road) to Craigmount.

The staff at Roseburn would have to establish links with a school that no links currently exist. In contrast to Gylemuir which has strong established links with both Craigmount and Forrester.

It is the Council's position that Forrester High School is appropriately sited for the Gylemuir catchment area.

20 35 4.1 1 Gvlemuir Residents’ Suaaested Alternative Hiah Schools for Hillwood Primarv School : Forrester, Curry and Balerno Hiclh Schools Throughout the consultation, correspondence was received from Gylemuir residents suggesting alternative feeder arrangements for Hillwood Primary School.

Hillwood Primary School is located at the western extremity of the Craigmount catchment area, and at 7 km (4.01 miles) from the High School, it is the area furthest away from the school. Hillwood catchment area covers a large geographical area, principally serving the village of Newbridge and Ratho Station. The nearest secondary schools to this catchment area are Craigmount, Forrester, Queensferry, Balerno and Currie High Schools and Wester Hailes Education Centre. Over 90% of the secondary aged pupils residing within Hillwood choose to go to Craigmount High School. This is as a result of the only direct bus links from NewbridgeIRatho Station being to Craigmount High School. Any other secondary school is further away and difficult to get to from this community because of lack of direct bus routes (see table below).

Given these roll numbers and the transport linkages in this area, it is not proposed to change Hillwood’s association with Craigmount High School.

Distances from Hillwood Primarv to Balerno, Currie & Craiqmount

School Distance from Hillwood Primary School (Mi/es) Balerno High School 6.80 , Craigmount High School 4.01 Currie High School 5.92 Queensferry High 4.40

As is the case with Roseburn, if Hillwood Primary was re-aligned some other way it would only partially solve the problem of overcrowding at Craigmount. We need to move around 250 pupils out of Craigmount to make places available for the new developments. Moving Hillwood would only move around 63 pupils out and we would therefore need to re-align another portion of the high school catchment to make the desired number of places ava iI a ble.

If Hillwood was re-aligned to Forrester, pupils would have to walk through the Craigmount catchment area to get to school.

It is the Council’s position that the current practice of Hillwood Primary School feeding to Craigmount High School is logical, given the transport limitations and the low catchment population in this area.

21

36 4.1 2 Gvlemuir Residents’ Suggested Alternative High School for Corstorphine Primaw School: Forrester High School Throughout the consultation, correspondence was received from Gylemuir residents suggesting alternative feeder arrangements for Corstotphine Primary School.

Firstly, it is important to point out that Craigmount High School is located within the Corstorphine catchment area. While the primary school itself is geographically closer to Forrester than Craigmount, it is located in the south of its own catchment area, which stretches in an east west direction along Corstorphine Road, and up Drum Brae. c

To realign Corstorphine with Forrester would result in Craigmount High School being located outwith its own catchment area (see illustration below). It would not be appropriate to have a school located outwith its own catchment as would be the case under that suggestion. Further to this, Corstorphine pupils would have to walk through the Gylemuir catchment area to reach Forrester.

GDINl3VRGH * Craigmount & Forrester Catchment Area .“CP ,,11,1W1“11,*11 ,l*.l..L (6ytemuir feeding to Craigmount & Corstorphine to Forrester)

A Craigmount High School 0 Forrester High School

Note: The white area would be the resulting Forrester Catchment Area and the qrev area would be the resulting Craiqmount Catchment Area

It is the Council’s position that the current practice of Corstorphine Primary School feeding Craigmount High School is logical, given the location of the High School within the catchment of the Primary School.

22 37 4.1 3 Publiclv Sunnested Partial Re-Alinnments of Primary School Catchment Areas During the consultation period, several requests were received suggesting that small parts of primary school catchment areas are re-aligned to Craigmount High School. In order to address the suggestions made, the Council has considered catchment numbers so that a thorough assessment could be made. 4.1 3.1 Fauldburn Area - Suqgested Re-Aliqnment to Craigmount Location This area lies within the Clermiston and The Royal High catchment areas. Located in the southern extremity of the Clermiston catchment area, the area is comprised of the streets of Fauldburn, Fauldburn Park, North Bughtlinfield, North Bughtlinrig and North Bughtlinside.

Direct pedestrian routes from the Fauldburn area to both Clermiston Primary and The Royal High Schools exist. However, due to the layout of the roads in this area, car journeys to both Clermiston Primary and The Royal High Schools is onerous and involve driving through another catchment area (East Craigs) to reach the catchment schools.

PuDil Numbers

A total of 46 secondary aged pupils currently reside within this area and parental preference is shown by stage as follows:

Craigmount 11 24% Forrester 1 2% Total 46 100%

It is clear from the above table that the majority of parents within this area take up their place in their catchment school - The Royal High School. Conclusion

It is acknowledged that the driving routes from Fauldburn to both Clermiston and The Royal High are onerous, however, increasing the Craigmount catchment to include another 46 pupils would be detrimental to aim of reducing the size of the Craigmount catchment area.

It is Council’s position that, due to large numbers involved, it is not appropriate to extend the Craigmount catchment area to include Fauldburn.

23 38 4.13.2 Corstorphine Streets - Suaaested Re-Alianment to Crainmount Location

This area lies within the Carrick Knowe and Forrester catchment areas. Located in the western extremity of the Carrick Knowe catchment area, the area is comprised of the Corstorphine Park Gardens, Corstorphine House Avenue and Sycamore Terrace. * A central point in the area is 0.34 miles to Carrick Knowe and 0.45 miles to Corstorphine, 0.94 miles to Forrester and 1.21 miles to Craigmount. It is acknowledged that there may be pedestrian routes within the area that h would make the walking journey to Corstorphine less than these distances, however, these distances alone are not long.

Pupil Numbers

A total of 3 secondary aged pupils currently reside within this area and parental preference is shown by stage as follows:

I SCHOOL 1 S1 I S2 I S3 I S4 I S5 I S6 1 The Royal High 11 Forrester High 11 I1

The above table shows that parents of 2 of the 3 high school pupils within this area take up their place in their catchment school - Forrester, with the third pupil going to The Royal High School.

A total of 20 primary aged pupils currently reside within this area and parental preference is shown by stage as follows:

I SCHOOL 1 P1 I P2 I P3 I P4 I P5 I P6 1 P7 1 I Corstorohine 14 14 I1 12 I1 IO IO I Carrick Knowe 12 12 11 11 10 11 11 TOTAL (6 (6 I2 13 11 11 I1

The above table illustrates more younger children coming through in the future. 61% of parents in this area choose Corstorphine over their c. catchment school, Carrick Knowe Primary School. Corstorphine Primary School has a notional capacity of 469 and the current roll of the school is 41 5 (Start of Session Roll 2003). It is considered that this level of population could be accommodated within Corstorphine Primary School.

Conclusion

The catchment numbers expected to be coming through in the future are considered significant. It is not considered appropriate to extend the Craigmount catchment area to accommodate this area when the purpose of this catchment review is to reduce the size of the Craigmount catchment area. Although there would be spare capacity in Corstorphine Primary School to accommodate this number of pupils,

24 39 there would be insufficient capacity within Craigmount to accommodate these future numbers.

4.1 3.3 Gyle Park Gardens Area - Suqqested Re-Aliqnment Solely to Craiamount Location

This area lies within the Gylemuir and CraigmounVForrester catchment areas. Located within the northern extremity of Gylemuir catchment area on the southern side of Glasgow Road, the area is comprised of Gyle Park Gardens and the properties which front the southern side of Glasgow Road between Gyle Park Gardens and Meadow Place Road.

The area is geographically closer to Craigmount High School than it is to Forrester High School. Houses in the Glasgow Road and Gyle Park Gardens area are an average of 0.4 miles from Craigmount and more than 1 mile to Forrester.

To align this area with Craigmount without splitting up feeder arrangements for Gylemuir Primary School would require realigning the primary school boundary as well, to place this area within the Corstorphine Primary School boundary.

PuDil Numbers

15 secondary aged pupils currently reside in this area, 100% of which currently attend Craigmount. The breakdown by stage is as follows:

SCHOOL I s1 1 s2 1 s3 1 S4 I S5 1 S6 TOTAL Craigmount (4 13 16 10 11 11 I15 A total of 19 primary aged pupils currently reside within this area and parental preference is shown by stage as follows:

Conclusion:

It is the Council’s position that splitting up the Gylemuir catchment area would not be in keeping with the overall aims of the catchment review. This area is located closer to Gylemuir Primary School than to Corstorphine Primary School and the majority of pupils in this area take up their place in their catchment school - Gylemuir. Accordingly this area should remain within the Gylemuir Primary School catchment area.

25 40 5 Financial Implications There are no significant financial implications arising from this proposal.

6 Conclusion 6.1 It is concluded that Option 1 as identified in the Consultation Paper is the only workable scenario that could relieve the accommodation pressures likely to be experienced by Craigmount High School in the immediate future.

6.2 In light of new knowledge of possible construction timeframes, it is considered that the implementation of the proposed catchment changes could be delayed 2 years for August 2007. It is hoped that this would coincide with the opening of the new school at Forrester High School. This would allow parents more time to plan for these changes. Delaying the changes for more than two years would have a detrimental affect on the education provision within Craigmount High School. 6.3 It is not considered appropriate to extend the Craigmount catchment area in any way as this would add to the accommodation pressures the school is experiencing and may cause disruption primary pupils. 7 Recommendations 7.1 That Option 1 as identified in the Consultation Paper is recommended by the Executive to the First Minister for approval.

7.2 That the changes be implemented prior to the August 2007/08 Start of Session, subject to the approval of the First Minister. 7.3 That siblings of pupils from Gylemuir who currently attend Craigmount High School are given priority over other siblings of pupils who do not reside in the Gylemuir catchment area when making a placing request to Craigmount. This arrangement is to operate for 6 years from the date the change implemented.

Director of Education

26 41 Appendices Appendix 1 - Minutes from public meetings Appendix 2 - Summary of Letters and Emails Received Appendix 3 - Answers to all other questionslissues raised during the consultation process Appendix 4 - Reasons for refusal of placing requests Contacfftel Margaret Brebner Ph 469 3013 Wards affected Gyle, Murrayburn, Parkhead, NE Corstorphine, SE Corstorphine, Sighthill, Stenhouse, DalmenylKirkliston, Dean, East Craigs, Moat, Murrayfield, Shandon.

Background E/264/03-04lED Papers

27 42 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Item no

€Dl NBVRGH + THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

Note of Meeting

Statutory Consultations Edinburgh Schools Catchment Review: Proposal for the School Catchment Options for Pupils Living within the Craigmount and Forrester Catchment Areas

Note of Public Meeting held in Forrester High School, Edinburgh on Monday 9 February 2004

Present:- Councillor I Murray, R Jobson (Director of Education), F McGrail (Education Department), M Brebner (Education Department) and A Clapperton (Head Teacher, Forrester High School).

Also Present: About 24 members of the public.

1 Introduction

R Jobson welcomed members of the public to the meeting which was one of four public consultation meetings, being organised by the Council on a proposal for the school catchment options for pupils living within the Craigmount and Forrester catchment areas.

R Jobson introduced Councillor I Murray who would chair the question and answer part of the meeting. He also introduced the officials in attendance from the Education Department and welcomed Alan Clapperton, Head Teacher of Forrester High School, to the meeting.

43 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Mr Clapperton welcomed the introductions and said he would be available after the meeting to answer any further questions that people may have.

R Jobson then invited F McGrail to explain the background to the proposal in more detail.

F McGrail explained that the purpose of the meeting was to explain the Edinburgh Schools Catchment Review, outline the consultation process and the proposal for Craigmount and Forrester cluster areas, to answer questions on the proposal and to hear and record the views of members of the public present.

Introduction

There were a number of reasons why a catchment review was necessary. Pressures on secondary school accommodation meant that 40% of schools were now above 100% occupancy. The catchment boundaries of the 1970s were now out of date due to significant population shifts and new housing developments, eg Waterfront, would add to these pressures. There were also other anomalies in the current boundaries which needed to be addressed.

Consultation

A three-year programme of consultation was required to complete the city-wide review. The review was being taken forward on a phased geographical cluster basis, addressing two or three secondary schools at one time. Each review would take at least seven months to complete and the first changes could be implemented in August 2005.

The statutory consultation process was explained as follows:

interested parties notified by post consultation period from 27 January to 3 March 2004 four public meetings week beginning 9 February 2004 - record made of views expressed written views to Directors on or before 3 March report to Council Executive in April with a summary of responses and recommendations on how to proceed

Background

Craigmount and Forrester catchment areas needed to change because the roll projection for Craigmount, taking account of current intake trends and new housing developments, showed that an extra 250 places would be required. Craigmount had recently expanded from a capacity of 1,250 to 1,400 pupils - well above the optimum size of 900. Further expansion was not desirable and, indeed, the Council wanted to reduce the Craigmount catchment area to fit the capacity of the school.

44 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

The primary catchment areas appropriately sited to feed into Craigmount were Corstorphine, Drumbrae, East Craigs and Fox Covert and there were no proposals to alter the status of these school catchment areas. Nor was there any proposal to alter the status of the Hillwood catchment area with 90% of pupils attending Craigmount. Also, Craigmount was the only secondary school with direct bus links to Newbridge and Ratho Station.

Roseburn Catchment Area

The Council's proposal aimed to end Roseburn Primary's dual feeder status to Craigmount and Broughton. Broughton received less than 5% of the Roseburn catchment and was not expected to have capacity for Roseburn pupils. Ending feeder status to Craigmount would not resolve accommodation problems at Craigmount as that would only provide around 100 places. The proposal was to create single feeder status to Craigmou n t .

Gylemuir Catchment Area

The proposal also aimed to end Gylemuir's dual feeder status to Craigmount and Forrester. Forrester had the capacity and was well situated to accommodate pupils from Gylemuir catchment area. Forrester was likely to receive major PPP investment. Two options were being proposed to alter the status of the Gylemuir catchment area as follows:

Option 1: Re-align the entire Gylemuir Primary School Catchment Area to Forrester High School (Favoured Option).

This would affect around 350 pupils. At the moment pupils can choose to go to either Forrester or Craigmount. The option would remove this 'dual feeder' status and Gylemuir pupils would feed to Forrester High School alone.

Strengths of Option 1:-

0 Catchment pressures on Craigmount High School would be eased. 0 There would be enough places in Craigmount to accommodate the number of pupils expected from new housing developments. 0 Sufficient spare places should be available to allow placing requests for Craigmount to be granted where siblings may have different catchment schools as a result of the review. This would make the transition of the proposals easier. Gylemuir Primary School will be associated with a single secondary (rather than two, as at present). This will make the liaison process between primary and secondary school easier.

45 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix I: Minutes from Public Meetings

Option 2: Re-align part of the Gylemuir catchment area to Forrester and part to Craigmount.

Addresses in the catchment area closer to Forrester would be aligned with that school, while the northern part of the Gylemuir catchment would align with Craigmount. This represented around 250 pupils in the Forrester area and 100 pupils in the Craigmount area.

Strengths of Option 2:

It draws upon the area where a larger number of parents already choose to send children to Forrester. This should be sufficient to accommodate the extra pupils anticipated from the new housing developments (but would provide less flexibility for placing requests to Craigmount).

However, this option would split Gylemuir Primary School catchment area to feed to two different secondary schools. This would create liaison difficulties for the primary school for the P7 pupils transferring to SI. It would also cause difficulties because children (friends) in the same class may have different catchment secondaries and friends would be split up.

Retain Status Quo (Option 3)

This position was not sustainable as there were too many catchment pupils for Craigmount and this would be exacerbated by new housing developments.

If the catchment was unchanged, we would have to consider prioritising catchment pupils and offer alternative schools to some. These would be likely to be those living furthest away from the school, principally Hillwood pupils, who, at up to 4.4 miles away from Craigmount, are the furthest away.

Siblings

Younger siblings in realigned areas would have priority in placing requests to a school attended by older sibling(s). This would operate for six years, ending after the August 2010 intake. The first pupils affected would be the SI intake in August 2005. S2 to S6 pupils already enrolled in secondaries in August 2005 would not be affected.

The meeting was then opened to questions, some of which had been asked in advance of the meeting and others which were taken from the body of the meeting.

Question 1

Why was Craigmount not built larger to meet demand?

46 Craigrnount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Answer 1

1,400 is the largest number of pupils the Council would wish to have in the school.

Question 2

Why are the Council generating planning for extra housing in the area when Craigmount is already at capacity?

Answer 2

The Planning system is based on a presumption in favour of development, accordingly, the Council must have good reasons for refusing any planning applications. The Planning Committee takes into account many material considerations when determining a planning application, including school capacity, however it is unlikely that education capacity alone is sufficient justification for refusal.

Question 3

Why should Roseburn feed Craigmount when Gylemuir is closer?

Answer 3

Ending Roseburn’s feeder status to Craigmount would not resolve Craigmount’s accommodation problems whereas altering Gylemuir‘s would. Also, Forrester is well situated within the Gylemuir catchment area.

Question 4

Why were other feeder schools not considered?

Answer 4

All other feeder schools and scenarios were given full consideration.

Question 5

Is dual feeder status being sacrificed to avoid extra administration?

Answer 5

The proposal would mean that Head Teachers would only have to deal with one school which could only be a good thing.

Question 6

47 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Forresterfinished below Craigmount in the league tables.

Answer 6

The league tables do not necessarily take all factors into account. Changes to the catchment areas would be likely to impact on the balance of each Secondary School's place in the league tables in terms of pupils abilities, home background, parental encouragement, etc.

Question 7

Why do we suggest that a new building will improve Forrester?

Answer 7

This is something that has already been proven with other new schools I in the city already providing better learning environments.

Question 8

Forrester has a different half day to Gylemuir and Craigmount.

Answer 8

There are concerns that schools operate different half-days and this will be reviewed on a city-wide basis.

Question 9

'Concerned about kids walking across Gyle Park in winter to Forrester.

Answer 9

This concern has been noted and will be considered as part of the review.

Question 10

Why bother offering Option 3?

Answer 10

Retaining the status quo does not satisfy the aims of review or relieve the pressure on Craigmount but is given as an option as a way of explaining why retaining the status quo would not be sustainable.

Question I1

Are the Council considering changing Forrester's or Gylemuir's half-day - parents have to schedule work around their children's half-days.

48 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment’Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Answer 11

The Council is considering all schools having Friday as their half-day instead of Wednesday.

Question I2

What guarantee is there of improved exam results at Forrester from 2008?

Answer 12

Nobody can guarantee that exam results will improve. However, assurances can be given that, at Forrester, pupils are at the centre of the school’s agenda. Inspectors have seen the many improvements that have been made and, with a new building, the school could be even better. Out of 72 applications for university places, 53 pupils had been awarded places and 18 of these were former pupils of Gylemuir. Forrester supports the high attainers but also recognises its responsibility to support those who are not high attainers.

Question 13

With the not so high achievers comes other problems such as bullying, etc.

Answer 13

We would not associate bullying with low achievement and bullying will not be tolerated at Forrester in any form.

Question 14

What about concerns about Forresters place in the league tables?

Answer 14

If the Council’s proposals go ahead, the school would be more likely to have a higher intake of high attainers and they would bring up the league table results as well as the school’s standing.

Question 15

What is the average year group at Forrester?

Answer 15

The average year group is 150. 1st year classes have been reduced to a maximum of 20 in English and Maths and we would aim to continue that.

49 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Question 16

How many pupils are in 5'h and 6'h years?

Answer 16

There are 150 pupils in years 5 and 6, with 49 of these in 6'h year.

Question 17

Does Forrester have a policy on uniform? .-

Answer 17

Forrester has a shirt and tie uniform for senior pupils and a black and white dress code for junior pupils. At the last count, only 51 of pupils had failed the dress code.

Question 18

Is it not discriminating to split the catchment area?

Answer 18

It would be preferred not to and a clear lead was being given to support the option where the entire Gylemuir catchment area is re-aligned to Forrester.

Question 19

I don't know anything about Forrester so I will be blindly sending my child to Forrester.

Answer 19

The authority has confidence in the school and, if parents want it, an open day could be run.

Question 20

Does the Council believe in parental choice?

Answer 20

Yes -the Council's proposal would give parents in this area the same rights as parents in other areas of Edinburgh - where places are available, they can go outwith their catchment areas. The Council has every confidence in Forrester which is why Forrester is on the draft report for a replacement building.

50 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Question 21

We don't have enough information on Forrester.

Answer 21

So the open day or open meeting that was suggested might sort that.

Question 22

Can you explain more about placing siblings?

Answer 22

Under Option 1 we would look at various categories anyway, ie geographical, etc so other primary schools would come behind Gylemuir.

Question 23

Could Roseburn not be taken out of the equation regarding siblings at Craigmount as they will be going there anyway.

Answer 23

That is correct - Roseburn pupils would go to Craigmount in any case.

Question 24

Last year seven children from Gylemuir came to Forrester and all the rest went to Craigmount - what about links between primary and secondary schools?

Answer 24

All the curricular links would continue but with one school instead of two.

Question 25

What is the background to pupils choosing subjects in 1'' and 2ndyear.

Answer 25

This increases the challenge for youngsters and gives them a two-year lead into Highers which they would not otherwise have. It also allows lower achievers to get their exams behind them and do other things in 4'h year such as work experience and attending career fairs and college open days. The schools are looking towards curriculum flexibility all the time.

51 Craigrnount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Question 26

There is an Option 4 -the Gylemuir Board suggested waiting until 2008, when the new school would be built, and for the inspectors’ report to come back and then review the catchment area. The new housing referred to would not be ready for at least five years anyway.

Answer 26

If we were to wait that long, we would be in the position of turning people away from their own catchment area schools. We can not even cope with the expected 260 pupils coming in a year so we are having to look at the long-term view. At least with Option 1 we should be able to accommodate siblings.

Question 27

How many places are left for people moving into the area when you allocate places in November or December?

Answer 27

None -those who move into the area would only get a place if one was available?

Question 28

Will my daughter, in P6 at Gylemuir, be on a different curriculum when she goes to Forrester?

Answer 28

No - at present curriculum links are made with both schools.

Question 29

Are there still plans to amalgamate with St Augustines?

Answer 29

No - the site and some of the facilities are shared but it may be useful to talk to the School Board and parents about what opportunities the new building could offer in terms of the site and facilities. If these were shared there would be more money to do other things, eg sports halls could be shared.

Question 30

Is there access to this school from the South Gyle area?

52 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix I : Minutes from Public Meetings

Answer 30

Yes there is access from South Gyle.

Question 31

Are there spare places at St Augustine’s?

Answer 31

There have been ups and downs but there are some spare places with approximately 70% catholic and 30% non-denominational.

Question 32

Are there any existing difficulties with sharing facilities given recent press reports of problems in other areas?

Answer 32

The games hall, swimming pool and Astroturf are all shared without difficulty. There are very few problems with living side by side and, where there have been problems, these have not been to do with religious differences.

Question 33

Is it not known when or if a new school will be built?

Answer 33 f 180m has been made available to build new schools and a report would be submitted to the Council recommending that a new school be built for Forrester. Timescales would not be known until bids were received from developers.

Question 34

Where will pupils go while building work is carried out on the new school?

Answer 34

Pupils would continue going to Forrester while construction is being carried out. The new school would be built on the playing fields meaning that, other than loss of playing field space, there would be little disruption during the construction period.

Question 35

53 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

If it is agreed to build a new school, when would it be finished?

Answer 35

The earliest possible date would be 2007 but it could be later.

Question 36

Is there a danger that Forrester could be pushed over capacity if the new school is agreed?

Answer 36

An appraisal would need to be carried out to find out exactly how'big a new Forrester would need to be and we would prefer to keep it at a capacity of 900-1,000.

Question 37

Has the decision already been made?

Answer 37

No - a report will be submitted by the Director of Education to the Council which will take account of views expressed at the public consultation meetings and letters received on the issue.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Councillor Murray thanked those present for their participation and also thanked Alan Clapperton and his staff for hosting the meeting. The points that had been made had been recorded and would be publicly available in a note of the meeting together with a note of the other consultation meetings to be held.

A report would be submitted to the Council Executive on 20 April 2004 with a summary of responses and recommendations on how to proceed.

In light of the comments made at this eveningk meeting, consideration would be given to holding an open daylnight at Forrester and to issuing an information pack about the school.

54 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review:

Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings + GDIN BVRGH + THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

CraigmountlForrester High Schools Cluster Areas . Note of Public Meeting Held in Roseburn Primary School on 10 February 2004 (7.00 pm)

Present: Councillor Rev Ewan Aitken (Chair); D Fenton, F McGrail, and L Glasgow (Department of Education); D Emerson (Committee Services).

(About 70 members of the public in attendance).

1 Introduction

Councillor Rev Ewan Aitken welcomed the members of the public to this meeting which was one of a series of meetings being held in schools affected by the proposals for reorganisation of secondary school catchment areas in the Craigmount/Forrester cluster areas.

The Council was arranging these meetings, firstly, to explain the proposals as contained in the consultation paper prepared by the Department of Education, and, secondly and importantly, to hear the views of parents affected by these proposals.

He then invited Frank McGrail of the Education Department to explain the background to the catchment area reviews and the proposals in more detail.

In brief, the Council’s rationale for having to undertake a catchment review of secondary schools in the city was an uneven pressure on accommodation whereby 40% of the schools were running at or above full occupancy rates. The catchment area boundaries, which went back to 1970s, were now often out of sync with areas of housing development. The Council had ordered a city-wide review, phased over 3 years, whereby the first changes would be implemented by August 2005.

55 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

The Craigmount and Forrester High School cluster areas were among the first in this review.

In terms of the principles of the catchment areas reviews, the main points were as follows:-

- The population of the catchment area should equate to the capacity of the school.

- The operation of ‘dual feeders’ should be reconsidered.

- The school should be situated as centrally as possible within the . catchment area and take account of natural geographical boundaries.

- Where possible, reviews should respect parental choice patterns.

- Wherever possible a primary school should not be split between two secondary schools.

With regard to the CraigmountlForrester High School cluster area, the need for change was driven by:

Pressure on Craigmount High School - where roll projections suggested that, on the assumption of the current intake trends and new housing developments planned for the area, a further 250 places would be needed to cope with the intake. Craigmount High School itself had recently been expanded from a capacity of 1,250 to 1,400 pupils which in itself was well above the Council’s view that the optimum size for the school was 900.

A further expansion of Craigmount High School was not desirable.

The Council wished to reduce the Craigmount catchment area to fit the capacity of the school.

In terms of the proposals for the feeder primary schools in Craigmount High School catchment area -

i) The following primary schools would remain as feeder primaries to Craigmount -

Corstorphine, Drum Brae, East Craigs and Fox Covert Primary Schools.

ii) Hillwood Primary School, where over 90% of the pupils attended . Craigmount High School would be unaffected, as Craigmount was clearly the only secondary school with direct links (by bus) from the

56 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Newbridge and Ratho Station villages and therefore the only feasible secondary school which pupils could attend.

3) Roseburn Primary School, which at present had dual feeder status -whereby pupils went to either Craigmount or Broughton High Schools - was proposed to be switched to create a single feeder status to Craigmount High School i.e. all of the pupils attending Roseburn Primary School would proceed to attend Craigmount High School.

The rationale for this proposal to end the dual feeder status and create a single feeder to Craigmount took account of the following:-

- at the present time Broughton High School received less than 5% of the Roseburn catchment area.

- Broughton High School was not expected to have the capacity for all of the Roseburn pupils.

- ending feeder status to Craigmount High School (by Roseburn) would not by itself resolve the accommodation problems that would occur at Craigmount High School - in effect it would only free up 100 places.

4) Gylemuir Primary School which currently had a dual feeder status (Craigmount and Forrester High Schools) was under review with two possible options for change being considered : (a) create a single feeder status to Forrester High School (which had the capacity and was well situated within the Gylemuir catchment area), or (b) to divide the catchment between Forrester and Craigmount.

Other pertinent matters included the policy on “siblings” whereby younger siblings in any realigned areas would have priority in placing requests to a school attended by older siblings -this to operate for a period of 6 years ending August 2010. (S2-S6 pupils already enrolled in secondaries in August 2005 would not be affected.) . Questions Responses to issues raised in advance of the meeting - Councillor Aitken explained that the Council had received a number of questions from parents about the CraigmountlForrester proposals. In brief, these were as follows:- Q - Why was Craigmount not built larger to meet demand? A (Cllr Aitken): The Council remained of the view that the optimum size for Craigmount High School was 900 pupils. In fact the Council had

57 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings exceeded this, firstly in allowing a roll of 1.250 and, later, by expanding this to 1,400 pupils. Q (supplementary) - Had the Council never considered that 900 might not be the optimum size and, rather, it might be better to go for a much larger school of say 1,800 (as for instance in Fife, where there were several)? The larger size school would be better able to provide an all round curriculum and more scope for study of specialist subjects.

A (Cllr Aitken): Yes, it is true that there has been a lot of debate in educational circles about the optimum size for a secondary school. Edinburgh City Council felt that the smaller school, 900, was the better option.

(F McGrail) A roll of 900 would provide the necessary level of choice; perhaps the more exotic of the specialist subjects would be excluded but on balance it was felt to be the better option. A school that was in excess of 1,200 would probably not provide the best “fit” to its surrounds; the aspect of the school being part of the community was felt to be very important in the whole of this process.

Q -Why are the school granting planning permission for extra housing in the area when Craigmount was already at capacity?

A (L Glasgow) The Council was the planning authority as well as the education authority. As a general principle, planning permission was always granted unless there was a good reason to refuse. As Edinburgh continued to grow, there was greater pressure to build to provide new housing. Lack of educational infrastructure could be a reason to refuse permission but the Council had also to take account of other factors regarding economic development.

43 -Why should Roseburn feed into Craigmount High School when Gylemuir Primary School was actually the closer of the two schools? A - (F McGrail) At present, Gylemuir had dual feeder status to Craigmount and Forrester. It appeared that making Gylemuir feed only to Craigmount could perhaps be accommodated in terms of roll numbers (but with little to spare) but it was perhaps better situated to feed solely to Forrester which provided a natural catchment area. Roseburn had a good fit for Craigmount in terms of the numbers of pupils involved, travel patterns and parental choice.

44 - Why were other feeder schools not considered? A (Cllr Aitken) The other feeder schools were being considered: Hillwood had particular problems in terms of its more isolated location and the public transport routes; East Craigs and Drum Brae by virtue of their geographical position were natural feeder schools to Craigmount; it Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings was not feasible for Fox Covert to feed into the Royal High School because of accommodation difficulties in that area.

Q4(supplementary) - If Hillwood was being regarded as a special case because of its difficulties with linking buses etc it should be noted that some people have to take two hours to get to Broughton High School at the present time. If you are going to discount Hillwood from any changes, why doesn’t the same principle apply to Roseburn?

A (F McGrail) The Council wants to have a single feeder status for Roseburn. They consider it preferable to have a single feeder status to Craigmount rather than Broughton. To an extent, I share your view that Roseburn and Hillwood are similar in terms of transport links.

Q (supplementary) -Why have you not taken into account Tynecastle High School in this review which physically is quite close to Roseburn Primary School?

A (L Glasgow) At the present time Tynecastle has a roll of 800 as opposed to a maximum capacity of 900. However one of the main concerns is that of the linkages between Roseburn and the High School. While some pupils do choose to go to Tynecastle, i.e. families in the western part of the Roseburn catchment area, the majority of the population do not choose to go there mainly on account of poor transport links and to avoid children walking down the Russell Road route which was regarded by some parents as less than satisfactory.

Q (supplementary) - I thoroughly agree that Russell Road is not a good road for pupils walking along and many other parents share this view. (Noted.) Q (supplementary) - Does the Council know how many pupils to Craigmount High School from the Roseburn area?

A (L Glasgow) No, we understand that the vast majority travel by means of bus.

Q (supplementary) - I can see that there is a lot of development going on at the present time in the Gorgie Dalry area and the Council will need to be able to leave capacity in the near future at Tynecastle High School. (Noted.)

Q (supplementary) - Please note that Roseburn lies on the very edge of the catchment area and is well away from Tynecastle High School. Tynecastle is not a natural feeder school for Roseburn. By the same token Broughton High School has been a catchment school since 1974 - some 30 years. (Noted.) Q - Is dual feeder status being sacrificed to avoid extra administration?

59 Craigrnount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

A (Cllr Aitken) No, administration does not come into the equation when dealing with dual feeder issues. Rather, it is an educational issue. The Council is keen to build on the positive relationships that exist in the city between primary schools, high schools and the local community. We feel that it is important that the whole community knows from the outset what their expected primary and secondary schools will be. We want to encourage the working together of primary schools and high schools to make the transitions as easy as possible for the students. The concept of dual feeder status does not tit well with this ideal.

Q6 - Is it the case that Forrester High School finished below Craigmount High School in the “league tables”?

A (Cllr Aitken) There is more to this than a number. If you look into the issues, Forrester actually did much better than the figures might indicate. There are a number of areas in which the school excels and these are not revealed in the statistics. (These issues will be gone into in more detail in some of the other public meetings.)

47 -Why do we suggest that a new building will improve Forrester?

A - (Cllr Aitken) It is interesting that the Council did a survey recently of teenagers views and what they would want from a school: in the top five, was the quality of their school building - pupils were much more likely to engage in a school if it had an attractive and functional outlook. The Council has built 14 new schools over the past 2% years and a new build Forrester will be one of these improvements.

Q8 - Forrester has a different half-day (off) to that of Gylemuir and Craigmount?

A (Cllr Aitken) Yes it is true that Forrester has a different half day to the others (one has a Friday and the others have a Wednesday); at the present time the Council was conducting a city wide consultation on the matter of half days. It was clearly an issue that would have to be addressed within the context of these catchment reviews.

Q9 - There was a concern about children having to walk across Gyle Park in winter to get to Forrester.

A (Cllr Aitken) The consultation exercise will take account of this issue; this was perhaps less of an issue for Roseburn Primary School. The consultation exercise would have to satisfy itself that there were feasible solutions to all of these types of problems.

QIO -Why is the Council bothering to offer ‘Option 3’ as a proposal within these reviews?

A (Cllr Aitken) Option 3 is in effect the status quo. It exists and if the Council and parents were of the view that the status quo should remain

60 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings then so be it. However, there remain problems regarding the mismatch of secondary education provision and population areas and all of the other aspects including dual feeder status, all of which have to be addressed in one way or another.

Q (supplementary) - If the status quo was to remain then where would all the pupils go?

A (Cllr Aitken) Yes, point taken - the problems would of course remain.

General questions from parents

At this point Councillor Aitken invited parents to express any views in general about the proposals and the position of Roseburn Primary School in particular. In summary, the points made were as follows:- Comment - I think that the majority of parents are pleased about this proposal for Roseburn Primary School. All but a very few people would be happy with the arrangements. At the same time, I had some concerns about the situation for Gylemuir parents. (Noted.) Q - Regarding the issues of Gylemuir and Forrester, would it not be better to concentrate on bettering the standards at Forrester High School rather than the transfer of Gylemuir to Craigmount High School?

A (Cllr Aitken) In the Council at the present time a Scrutiny Panel (committee of elected members) was currently looking at Forrester High School, and others, to see whether improvements were required. The Scrutiny Panel was inviting the School Board at Gylemuir to attend to express their views on the subject.

(F.McGrail) - It is important to state at the outset that the Education Department was confident of the abilities of Forrester High School. It was an excellent school in many respects and a recent HMI Inspector of Schools review had confirmed this view in all but one category. The subsequent follow-up by the Inspector had revealed that the items noted for possible improvement had all been addressed and the school was performing well.

Q - Regarding the size of rolls at the various primary schools within this catchment area review, it should be noted that Gylemuir was considerable larger than that of Fox Covert and Drum Brae, for instance but the latter two schools were apparently not being considered at all.

A (L Glasgow) The roll of Gylemuir was bigger. The school population in itself hadn’t been changed, rather it was the catchment feeder proposals that were affected. At Gylemuir they estimated there were about 350 secondary age children whereasthere was only 106 in the Roseburn catchment area. This was an important factor to be

61 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings considered in the Council’s desire to match up the roll of Craigmount with its catchment area.

Q - Regarding the concerns expressed by Gylemuir parents, it also had to be noted that parents of Roseburn were in the main entirely satisfied with the proposed new arrangements. Should the Chair of the Roseburn School Board not also be invited to the Scrutiny Panel to comment.

A (Cllr Aitken) You have got the right to request this. On this matter and many others, the Council would be grateful if parents took the trouble to write in to express their views. Q - You are doing a lot of consultation regarding the Gylemuir proposals - and less so with us. (Noted.) Q - Children living in houses on the edge of St John’s Road are within walking distance of Corstorphine Primary School. Would such pupils, currently attending Corstorphine Primary School, be entitled to go to Craigmount High School?

A (L Glasgow) There are several issues such as this that would require to be addressed in more detail once the principles of a review had been decided. The detail of the circumstances of individual primary schools could be looked at in the second phase of the review.

Q -When would you be finished with the consultation exercise on this part of the review?

A (Cllr Aitken) A report on the consultation and any recommendation will go before the Executive of the Council probably to the May meeting this year.

Q - Once a decision has been reached is there any right of appeal?

A (L Glasgow) As with any secondary school review which affects more than 85% of pupils, the Council has got to get ministerial approval from the Scottish Executive. They would take into account any representations or objections that might have been received from parents, in deciding whether that approval was to be given.

Q - Could we write to express our views on these proposals?

A (F McGrail) Written representation should be made to the Director of Education at the City of Edinburgh Council. Please note that there is also a website to which comments can be made.

Q - Just to emphasise the point, if you were to take Roseburn Primary out of the equation, it doesn’t alter the fact that there are still too many pupils at Gylemuir Primary School to feed into Craigmount High School.

62 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

A (L Glasgow) Yes it is correct to say that there probably too many pupils at present on the roll of Gylemuir Primary School to feed into Craigmount High School. The Council has got to consider in detail the best arrangements for placement of Gylemuir Primary School. The Council also wishes to end current arrangements of dual feeders.

Q -Why are Gylemuir parents apparently so focused on the situation of Roseburn. Gylemuir is further away (415 miles). It is closer to Forrester High School and so should surely feed into that High School.

A (Cllr Aitken) The Council was trying to find the best solution for all areas of the city and will work hard with the Gylemuir parents to try to achieve that end.

Q - If the Council decides not to change the*arrangementsas were currently being proposed, would we have to apply to get into Craigmount High School? If we didn’t get in where would we go? If we lose this proposal, would we also lose our option to go to Broughton High School?

A (Cllr Aitken) As you say, the catchment area review is quite complex . and there are a number of possible outcomes all of which have to be considered in detail. I am glad that the Council decided to break the review (of the whole of the City of Edinburgh) into various bits rather than to try to tackle it all at the same time. Obviously, there are situations,where outcomes affect the next phases of the review. There will be a rolling programme of reviews until we have covered the entire city. We have to take it one piece at a time. Q - I am a parent who lives close to Carrick Knowe Primary School but I choose to send my child to Roseburn Primary School. Will I be entitled to send my child to Craigmount High School?

A (L Glasgow) It is your home address that determines which secondary school the pupil attends, rather than the primary school currently being attended.

Q - Just to emphasise the earlier point, Tynecastle High School should never be an option for Roseburn Primary School. There were no buses and the road was not suitable for children walking. To go to Broughton requires two buses. Therefore, Craigmount High School appeared to be our only real option. (Noted.) Q - I don’t really see what the problem is with Gylemuir feeding direct to Forrester High School?

A (F McGrail) It has been pointed out that Craigmount High School achieved a better ranking than Forrester in the “league tables”. These tables concentrated on examination results. Social and economic circumstances of the two schools are not the same and in that respect it is not fair to draw comparisons The Gylemuir parents have expressed

63 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings concern about the performance of Forrester High School in terms of league tables. The Education Department requires to talk with them about these issues.

There are also issues related to distance from schools and roads and transportation matters. Again, the Education Department requires to go into detail about the roads concerns and whether the roads to school are satisfactory and whether measures required to be taken to counteract such concerns.

There is to be a public consultation meeting at Gylemuir Primary later this week. Parents of Roseburn Primary School are of course welcome to attend this or any other of the consultation meetings to express their views.

The point is reiterated that the Council would very much welcome any views expressed in writing and encouraged parents to submit their views by the end of the consultation period.

Conclusion

In concluding the meeting, Councillor Aitken thanked the members of the public for having come to the meeting to express their views. Their views had been recorded and would greatly assist the Council in determining this important and complex matter. The minutes of the meeting would also be submitted to the Council along with the Director of Education’s report.

The Council would be pleased to receive any further written representations on the matter.

(The meeting closed at about 8.30 pm.)

i

c

64 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Item no GD IN BVRG H+ THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

Note of Meeting

Catchmen t Review - Craig mo untlFo rres te r Cluster Areas Edinburgh, 11 February 2004 at a meeting in Craigmount Community High School

Present:, Councillor Ewan Aitken (Executive Member for Education), Roy Jobson (Director of Education), Frank McGrail, Lindsay Glasgow, Joyce Nisbet and John Fraser (Education Department).

In attendance:- Approximately 35 members of the public.

Introduction

Councillor Ewan Aitken welcomed those attending to the meeting and stressed the difficulty inherent in the exercise which was being undertaken on consultation relative to the catchment review on the CraigmountlForrester cluster areas. He also explained the reasoning behind the consultation process and outlined the Department's proposals.

Frank McGrail then explained the pressure on the current secondary p school accommodation and that the current 1970 boundaries did not reflect the needs of modern Edinburgh. He detailed the catchment review strategy and principles and the statutory consultation process.

Question 1

Why couldn't two smaller schools be constructed?

Answer

Councillor Aitken explained that, if that was to be the situation now, many more people would have to transfer out of Craigmount. It was also clear that there was no land available immediately for the construction of a second school and it would cost some f40 m for construction of a new secondary school on a greenfield site. It was added that there was

65 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings adequate capacity already within Edinburgh schools to accommodate pupils; difficulties, however arose from the size of the current catchment areas and in trying to match the parental choice preferences expressed.

Question 2

Is the optimum size of a secondary school 900 pupils?

Answer

Frank McGrail explained current thinking on school size and the catchment capacity of Craigmount at the present time. He also confirmed that there were currently places available at Forrester High School.

Councillor Aitken explained the demand for places at Craigmount High School while nearby Forrester High School had spare capacity.

The Director of Education was heard on demand for places from the Gylemuir area.

Question 3

If you'go with option 1, that is realignment of the entire Gylemuir Primary School catchment area to Forrester High School, or if you except option 2 and realign part of the Gylemuir catchment area to Forrester in part to Craigmount, you go against the principles of parental choice.

Answer

Councillor Aitken accepted that the Catchment Review would lead to some difficult decisions but denied any breach of the principles of parental choice.

Question 4

Why have the Catchment Review now? Why not wait for the next Primary 1 intake? And what about Forrester High School?

Answer

The Director of Education underlined the growing pressure on Craigmount High School and his belief that it would be exceptionally difficult to meet demand from within the current Craigmount catchment area without change. Soon new housing would come on stream and could only increase demand. He added that a report which would be released the following day to the Council proposed the replacement of the current Forrester High School buildings under the PPP'initiative.

66 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Question 5

If the Council accepted the proposals for a new school at Forrester High School, when would the new school come on stream?

Answer

The Director of Education expressed the view that the project could be completed by 2007/08,depending on a number of factors. Much would depend on the detailed discussions which would follow with the developers.

A supplementary question having followed on whether that was a realistic timetable, it was confirmed that recent experience of construction under the PPP scheme suggested that new buildings could be delivered on time and on budget. A great deal depended on site availability which was not a problem at Forrester High School.

Question 6

Would the current school continue to operate at Forrester while the new school was being constructed?

Answer

Councillor Aitken confirmed that the intention was to build alongside the current school and to transfer the pupils over when the new building was complete.

Question 7

Would you say that this was a meaningful consultation process given the clear preference shown for a single option, as detailed in the Consultation Paper?

Answer *- Councillor Aitken expressed support for the Department's decision to make clear their thinking on the options available at this time and to have the ideas examined as part of a full and open consultation process.

Question 8

Following from question 3 above, option 2, the realignment of part of the Gylemuir catchment area to Forrester and part of Craigmount, was challenged as unrealistic.

67 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Answer

Councillor Aitken agreed that, depending on the outcome of the consultations, other options could be considered.

Question 9

Who decided on the order of the meetings? Wasn’t it misleading for the Gylemuir meeting to following the other three since that was where the greatest opposition lay to the proposals.

Answer

Councillor Aitken and the Director of Education refuted any suggestion that the order of the consultation meetings had been managed. That was supported by the Head Teacher of Craigmount High School who explained that he had influenced the decision of the order of the meetings given the availability of the accommodation needed at Craigmount school.

Question 10

Given that Lothian Region Structure Plan had been published in 1979 and that this informed the development of housing in the west of the City, couldn’t the Education Department have drawn on this information at a much earlier stage.

Answer

The Director of Education confirmed that the Education Department was consulted during the Structure Plan discussions. Lindsay Glasgow in reply to a further enquiry, explained that in previous cases it became clear that education capacity alone would not be sufficient grounds for refusal of a planning application. That was why the Department had opted for developer contributions.

Question 11

Margaret Smith, MSP, outlined her understanding that changes were frequently brought about in planning developments, offered to provide details from her experience of how and when this occurred and expressed surprise at the previous reply.

Answer

The Director of Education explained that it was believed that the planning authorities would not reject all the pending applications and why each application added to the demand for places at Craigmount. He drew attention to the recent expansion of Craigmount High School

68 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

from 1215 to 1400 pupils and expressed reservations about the capacity of the school to absorb any further increase in pupil numbers.

Question 12

Is it appreciated that any reduction in this size of the Craigmount catchment area gave preferential status to some while disadvantaging others.

Answer

It was accepted that any adjustment of the current boundaries would lead to some difficult choices. It could only be said that every effort would be made to deal with these situations in a sensitive, open and even handed manner.

Question 13

The next question re-examined an earlier statement that lack of education capacity would not be sufficient grounds for refusal of a planning application (see questions IOand 11 above).

Answer

The assessment was re-examined and further information provided.

Question 14

Haven’t you made your objectives clear as regards parental choice for Gylemuir?

Answer

Frank McGrail explained the regulations on parental choice. Current guidelines and regulations made it clear that if places were available elsewhere, parents could apply for those places for their children. Difficulties which could be created by maintaining dual feeder status for . Gylemuir were also detailed. Question 15

Was it reasonable to allow new arrivals in the area the same priority on catchment waiting lists?

Answer

It was confirmed in reply that there was a duty to accommodate children equally from within the Catchment area.

Question 16

69 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix I : Minutes from Public Meetings

Would it be possible to accelerate the work programme at Forrester High School and bring the school on stream before changes were made to the CraigmountlForrester catchment area?

Answer

The Director of Education outlined the process of works towards the proposed new school, emphasising the need for Forrester High School accommodation to be upgradedlreplaced at the earliest possible date if the required standards were to be maintained.

Question 17

Can you confirm that there was no human rights issue here?

Answer

It was confirmed that legal advice had been sought and that further precedent would probably be required before a definitive answer could be given. Correspondence which had been received on the matter had been forwarded to the Acting Head of Legal Services for response.

Question 18

Who would be attending the Gylemuir meeting the following evening?

Answer

Cllr Murray, Colin Dalrymple, Frank McGrail, David Fenton and Margaret Brebner. The Director of Education confirmed that he was satisfied and that members and officers present at the meeting would accurately represent the position and that the record of meeting produced by Committee Services would accurately reflect the discussion and the views expressed.

Question 19

A question followed on the accommodation at Forrester High School and on whether teaching standards were being affected.

Answer

It was emphasised that Forrester High School was accommodated in old buildings which badly needed to be replaced. Nonetheless, in educational terms the school did very well. The Head Teacher had offered public meetings to acquaint pupils and their parents with the school. Having conducted a survey on pupils’ needs, pupils themselves had expressed strong support for the provision of modern well-equipped teaching premises.

70 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Question 20

The next questioner explained that her children presently went to Corstorphine Primary School and asked who would explain to children who expected to go with their friends to Craigmount High School, that that might not be the case.

Answer

Councillor Aitken explained the position on siblings and the priorities attached to the allocation of school places.

Question 21

When will the decision on Forrester High School be made?

Answer

It was confirmed that a decision on Forrester High School would be made in advance of the decision on the catchment review.

Question 22

With pupils from different parts of the Craigmount and Forrester catchment area passing each other to get to different schools, will safety be considered in reaching any decision on catchment areas.

Answer

It was confirmed that distance to school and safety would be considered in drawing up proposals. Lindsay Glasgow further explained that distances from home to school had been measured and that these issues would be fully explored again in future.

Question 23

It was explained that pupils at East Craigs Primary School who at present were within the Craigmount catchment area would be within the Royal High School catchment area if the Craigmount catchment was reduced as suggested. It was also pointed out that there was no bus route from East Craigs to the Royal High.

Answer

Councillor Aitken confirmed that the travel position as described could be reviewed.

71 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Question 24

Given housing development within Edinburgh, wasn’t it reasonable to expect new house building in the coming years on sites say at Murrayfield. If that was the case, wouldn’t that require further revision of the proposed catchment area boundaries?

Answer

Councillor Aitken asked if the questioner knew of any substantive information to support the likelihood of new house building in the Murrayfield area. He agreed that, although conjecture in the short to medium term, it would be kept under review. Lindsay Glasgow confirmed that she had checked and that there were currently no planning applications for large-scale housing development in the Murrayfield area.

Question 25

Why was the Tynecastle catchment excluded from the study?

Answer

Councillor Aitken explained that parents from the Roseburn Primary School catchment area had protested that Russell Road could not be regarded to be a safe route to school. The situation on Roseburn Primary was then discussed during which it was indicated that 16 children from Roseburn Primary had opted to go to Craigmount High School the previous year. The implications for the Safe Roads to Schools Initiative were then discussed. It was indicated that many parents were satisfied with the safety of the Gyle public park recreation ground and did not view that as an obstacle to access to Craigmount High School. Why Russell Road could not be considered a safe access was discussed.

Question 26

It was suggested that there must be real doubt about the support needed for the first SI pupils transferring to Forrester High School.

Answer

Frank McGrail indicated that he had heard the concerns expressed about Forrester High School, despite the school’s outstanding HMI report. He agreed that it was reasonable, in light of the conditions of the buildings at Forrester High School, to have reservations. Nonetheless, Forrester High School was known to be an excellent centre of learning.

Question 27

72 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Why not wait three or four years before changing the catchment area? Only 7 of 77 pupils in 2003 opted to go to Forrester High School.

Answer

The Director of Education explained that, irrespective of new housing in the area, Craigmount High School faced considerable difficulties in accommodating pupils from within the current catchment area. A delay of five to six years could only increase that difficulty.

Question 28

Were figures available for the out of catchment sibling placements?

Answer

It was agreed that these would be made available, as necessary, through School Boards. In reply to a supplementary question on the matter, Councillor Aitken confirmed that he hadn’t been able to attend the Forrester High School consultative meeting and the Director of Educatian indicated that he had been unable to attend the Roseburn meeting.

Question 29

Wouldn’t it be wise to allow Forrester High School time to adapt to the proposed new school building before considering changes in the catchment area?

Answer

It was agreed that timings could be re-examined if that was one of the outcomes of the consultation process.

Question 30

It has been noted that at least one of the housing developments planned for the area intended the provision of houses with a starting price of f400,OOO. It was thought unlikely that this was likely to lead to any substantial increase in pupil numbers at Craigmount High School.

Answer

The formula used in calculating catchment numbers was explained both by Councillor Aitken and by Lindsay Glasgow.

Question 31

73 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Whether it was planned to lease part of the grounds of Forrester High School was questioned.

Answer

It was confirmed that the proposals to be placed before the Council also suggested a replacement of the building for St Augustine’s. A lease of land was not proposed. Neither (in reply to a supplementary) did the proposals suggest a shared campus. It was however, considered that the plans were generous in terms of space and reaffirmed that the Council needed to plan proactively.

Question 30

What had happened that Craigmount was only now considered to be bursting at the seams? Wouldn’t it have been possible to plan further a head?

Answer

The Director of Education outlined the demographic trends in Edinburgh. Councillor Aitken added that Craigmount High School had been extended recently to what was considered to be its optimum size of 1400 pupils.

Question 32

When had the changes in the catchment area first been discussed?

Answer

It was indicated that the Council had approved the proposals for a catchment area review in October 2003. In reply to a further question it was noted the proposals themselves had emerged about 12 months prior to that decision.

Question 33

Why wasn’t the possibility of directing Roseburn Primary School pupils to Forrester High School considered?

Answer

The reasons for the decision on Roseburn were outlined.

Question 34

When will a decision be made on the catchment area reviews and what provision would be made for feedback to parents?

74 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Answer

The Director of Education explained that a recommendation would be made to Council in the near future. That decision could include a proposal for an extended consultation period depending on the information forthcoming from the initial consultation.

Question 35

Why was it necessary to consider a replacement for Forrester High School in this phase of the PPP scheme? Why not start elsewhere?

Answer

The Director of Education was heard on theereasons for according the Forrester PPP in this phase of the scheme and on the competing needs of Craigroyston, Boroughmuir and James Gillespies High Schools.

Question 36

While emphasis was placed on the need for the Hillwood pupils to continue to feed into Craigmount High School, it was considered that a more detailed explanation was needed in parental choice.

Answer

Frank McGrail re-emphasised the conclusions which had been reached following a detailed examination of dual feeder status for Gylemuir and the effects on strategic management and development planning in addressing differing cluster priorities.

Question 37

It was considered that a more detailed statistical analysis and breakdown of the figures was needed to progress a decision between option 1 and option 2 as shown in the consultative paper. c Answer

It was agreed that additional information on these issues would be released through School Boards.

Question 38

Would the Council provide compensation if I had to move house to remain within the Craigmount catchment area?

Answer

75 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

It was explained that that was not an option provided for and that therefore it would not be considered to be a realistic possibility.

Question 39

Would you agree to review the catchment area status of the streets at Bughtlin Park currently listed under the Craigmount catchment area?

Answer

It was agreed that that should be an area for review.

WYEDUICRCFI102041AS

.

76 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review:

Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings + GD IN BVRGH + THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

CraigmountlForrester High Schools Cluster Areas

Note of Public Meeting Held in Gylemuir Primary School on 12 February 2004 (7.00 pm)

Present: Councillor Murray (Chair);C Dalrymple, D Fenton, F McGrail, and M Brebner, (Education Services); B Pirie (Committee Services).

(About 280 members of the public in attendance).

1 Introduction

Councillor Murray welcomed the members of the public to this meeting which was one of a series of meetings being held in schools affected by the proposals for reorganisation of secondary school catchment areas in the CraigmounVForester cluster areas.

The Council had arranged these meetings to firstly, to explain the proposals as contained in the consultation paper prepared by the Department of Education, and, secondly, to hear the views of parents affected by these proposals.

He then invited Frank McGrail of the Education Department to explain the background to the catchment area reviews and the proposals in more detail.

In brief, the Council’s rationale for having to undertake a catchment review of secondary schools in the city was an uneven pressure on accommodation whereby 40% of the schools were running at or above full occupancy rates. The catchment area boundaries, which went back to 197Os,were now often out of sync with areas of the housing development. The Council had ordered a city-wide review, phased over 3 years, whereby the first changes would be implemented by August 2005.

77 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

The Craigmount and Forrester High School cluster areas were among the first in this review.

In terms of the principles of the catchment areas reviews, the main points were as follows:-

- The population of the catchment area should equate to the capacity of the school.

- The operation of ‘dual feeders’ should be reconsidered.

- The school should be situated as centrally as possible within the catchment area and take account of natural geographical boundaries.

- Where possible, reviews should respect parental choice patterns.

- Wherever possible a primary school should not be split between two secondary schools.

With regard to the CraigmountlForrester High School cluster area, the need for a change was driven by:

I) Pressure on Craigmount High School -where roll projections suggested that, on the assumption of the current intake trends and new housing developments planned for the area, a further 250 places would be needed to cope with the intake.

2) Craigmount High School itself had recently been expanded from a capacity of 1,250 to 1,400 pupils which in itself was well above the Council’s view that the optimum size for the school was 900.

3) A further expansion of Craigmount High School was not desirable.

4) The Council wished to reduce the Craigmount catchment area to fit the capacity of the school.

In terms of the proposals for the feeder primary schools in Craigmount High School catchment area -

i) The following primary schools would remain as feeder primaries to Craigmount -

Corstorphine, Drum Brae, East Craigs and Fox Covert Primary Schools.

ii) Hillwood Primary School, where over 90% of the pupils attended Craigmount High School would be unaffected, as Craigmount was clearly the only secondary school with direct links (by bus) from the

78 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Newbridge and Ratho Station villages and therefore the only feasible secondary school which pupils could attend. iii) Roseburn Primary School, which at present had dual feeder status - whereby pupils went to either Craigmount or Broughton High Schools - was proposed to be switched to create a single feeder status to Craigmount High School i.e. all of the pupils attending Roseburn Primary School would proceed to attend Craigmount High School. It was stated that ending feeder status to Craigmount High School (by Rosebum) would not by itself resolve the accommodation problems that would occur at Craigmount High School - in effect it would only free up 100 places.

iv) Gylemuir Primary School which currently had a dual feeder status (Craigmount and Forrester High Schools) was under review with two possible options for change being considered - create a single feeder status to Forrester High School (which had the capacity and was well situated within the Gylemuir catchment area), to divide the catchment between Forrester and Craigmount (which would provide relief (to a certain extent). Craigmount accommodation pressures better reflect parental choice patterns, but breach the general principle of ending dual feeder status for primary schools.

The Education department favoured option (a) The option to do nothing was not viewed as a realistic option.

Other pertinent matters, included the policy on “siblings” whereby younger siblings in any realigned areas would have priority in placing requests to a school attended by older siblings - this to operate for a period of 6 years ending August 2010. (S2-S6 pupils already enrolled in secondaries in August 2005 would not be affected.)

Questions

Q1 - I have reservations over the accuracy of the department’s figures and am seeking clarification of the figures given on table 8 particularly. We are told there are 94 non-catchment area children at Craigmount and 81 at Roseburn. According to my estimation there would only be a gap of 50 if no Roseburn pupils and no non-catchment area children were included in the figures. A - Pupils were already at the school and have to be accounted for. In future it would not necessarily be the case. If there were 261 pupils in the catchment area the capacity would be 280. The figure of 106 based on current Roseburn Roll which of course would change year on year.

42 - Has parental choice been considered? 80 per cent of pupils from Gylemuir go to Craigmount High School.

A - The number given was based on historical trends.

79 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Q3 - I understand that two out of seven pupils were refused places and that only five pupils actually wanted to go to Forrester High School.

44 - A Question was posed last night regarding the legal status of the proposals which would remove parental choice. This contradicts the Human Rights Legislation and I would like clarification whether the Department has checked this out. A - The Department is still seeking an answer to that question. When we receive an answer it will be made available. Q5 - It is astonishing that this was not clarified in advance. Education should know these things. If the whole process contradicts Human Rights Legislation there is no point in proceeding with it. This is something which should be known in advance.

A - We were asked that question last night and an answer is being sought from the Council’s legal department. It will be responded to and made publicly available.

Q6 - It is appalling that neither Roy Jobson nor Ewan Aitken came here tonight. This meeting is important to the parents here and it is interesting that they chose not to attend. A - The Convener of Education and the Director have been involved in a number of these meetings. He is entitled to take annual leave. The department’s Senior Management Team have discussed this and had agreed that the members of the Team would attend meetings and take views. He was at last night‘s meeting and we are here tonight. Questions will be listened to and responded to. 48 - This is a question regarding the papers issued by the Education Department. The figures for the secondary role forecast is based on the 2000 Audit. They show that Craigmount’s attendance will be reduced between 2002 and 2008. The proposals are based on houses that haven’t yet been built and which don’t even have planning permission. Pupils who haven’t even moved into the area are being priority over our children and our parental choice has been removed. A - There is a provision in the Local Plan for houses. It designates where and how many houses can be built. Development Control was used in the past to alleviate pressures but now that Craigmount is at maximum capacity it can’t be used. In the past when planning applications were made and the department felt it was appropriate objections were launched. However in terms of the legislation an application for planning permission could not be declined on solely educational grounds.

80 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Q9 - Which houses have been given planning permission? A - A number of houses are likely to be built. In our experience objections made on educational grounds tend to be repelled and the houses built. At the present time some of the houses in question have been built and some have planning permission. It would be remiss of the department not to anticipate and plan ahead. The figures we have are based on real children. The proposals are based on current trends, current children, projections and an intake of 280. Any figures which are in question tonight will be answered in detail.

QIO - What actual sites have received planning permission? Even based on planning permission being granted for all applications Craigmount might still be able to accommodate the Gylemuir pupils. A - The figures for the number of applications granted are not available. If you want to submit your figures we will analyse them of course and respond.

QII - Pupils in the Ratho/Roseburn area are not an issue for Craigmount. Do your figures for Craigmount include statistics for these areas and take into account the impact of these on Craigmount?. A - Yes. For example the Murrayfield area would have an impact. Q12 - I have a son at Primary 6 at Gylemuir Primary School who will be affected. We have lived in the area since day one and have had a right to attend Craigmount High since then. Now we will lose the right and yet new people will have the right to go. If you live in the catchment area you should get the chance to continue to go to the school which you were told you would go to and it is the new people who should go elsewhere.

A - We do not discriminate against “incomers”. We have to make provision for all our citizens. There is no difference between the two.

Q13 - I have a daughter in 3rdYear at Craigmount High and another in Primary 3 in Gylemuir. Now they can’t go to the same school together. What rights do I have in this and are our Human Rights being breached? A - We are seeking views on this matter. The Review is a legal process. Recommendations will be put to the Council for consideration and no matter what the decision of the Council is you will still have parental choice. It may be different to the one you have now but you will still have a choice.

414 - I want them to go to the same school - Can you guarantee it? A - We said at the start that priority would be given to pupils with siblings. However we can’t guarantee it but it will be a priority. Option 1

81 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings allows additional capacity which would support this and make it more likely. However we cannot guarantee it.

Q15 - What are the capacities of other secondary schools in West Edinburgh for example Tynecastle High School, The Royal High School etc?

A - Don’t have the exact figures on hand but as I seemed to recall Tynecastle High School has a roll of 750 and a capacity of approximately 900. Wester Hailes Education Centre has a capacity of approximately 700,Queensferry High School would be unsuitable but I don’t have the figures for that to hand.

Q16 - The Council decided to review all catchment areas. Why is Roseburn not incorporated into the Broughton/lynecastle High School area? Geographically this makes sense for Roseburn to be zoned with these. Tynecastle High School is below capacity. The parents at Roseburn fought to not send their kids there.

A - There is a feeder link with Broughton High School. As part of the consultation process they will go to Craigmount High School. The school hasn’t been associated with Tynecastle High School since 1974 and this is due to transport difficulties. There are concerns over safety in Russell Road. In terms of the Catchment Area Review, Roseburn is recommended to feed into Craigmount. The question of a dual feeder status may arise as part of the Broughton High School/Craigroyston/ The Royal High Review. Personally I don’t agree with the view that the school should have dual feeder status but it has been noted. It would not be my proposal to change single status to Tynecastle High School however not least because of the transport issues.

417 - It will cost the City of Edinburgh Council to provide bus passes if the distance to school is greater than three miles. Many of the children in Roseburn who will then have to attend Craigmount High will be required to travel by bus and the Council will have to pay their bus passes. Forrester High School is on another bus route. The children from Roseburn could go to Forrester High School. It would make more sense and would save the Council money. A - Your point is noted. The case for Roseburn going to a different school would not significantly impact on the Craigmount situation and would not alter our preference for Gylemuir. Q18 - In my view class sizes appear to be declining. It makes no sense for Roseburn pupils to attend Craigmount High School. A - Questions and points about Roseburn have been noted and will be fed into the consultation process.

82 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Q19 - I know of a family who lived in Palmerston Place in the West End and their children go to Craigmount High School which is six miles away. Yet a family who live in Gyle Park behind the Marriot Hotel will not be going to Craigmount High although it is only half a mile away. It is an absurd situation. A - Comments and questions regarding Roseburn Primary School will be noted and taken into account.

420 - We were told we would have a choice. If Gylemuir feeds into only one school what choice do we have?

A- Legally you do have a parental choice. You can make a placing request for any school. Approximately 94% of the schools in the education area do not have dual feeder status.

Q21 - It is clear to me that pupil rolls are decreasing and it is equally clear that this was about planning applications. If they are not even in the system yet why not delay the process - there is no point in dumping this on other parents. It is improper to base proposals on future projections. That is a legitimate comment and it will be noted.

Q22 -Why have the 2,005 intake for Primary Isnot been advised of the situation that they will be going to Forrester High School? We chose to live here so that our kids could go to Craigmount. Children should know from Primary 1 which secondary school they will be going to in future.

A - We will look and see what can be done. We have to wait until the consultation to finish and it would be improper to comment or to make advice until that has been completed. We are duty bound to report to the Council and it is they who will decide in May which option they prefer. 423 - I moved to this area to give my children a good education. If my kids go to Forrester High School how do I know that they will get one - you are not selling Forrester High School to us. Those who oppose might follow if you sell it to us. Convince us. A - The Head Teacher of Forrester High School Mr Clapperton is here tonight. He has organised an open evening so that parents can go along and just do that - find out about the school.

(Note: Mr Clapperton, Head Teacher Forrester High School gave a short talk on the school, its ethos and attainment. He advised that an open evening was to be held on 25 February at 7.00 pm and all parents were invited to attend.) A - The Education Department supports all schools and this includes Forrester High School. We want all schools to raise standards at attainment levels. Each school should do the best it can do. Head

83 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Teachers are exceptionally well supported by the Education Department and we have total confidence in them. 424 - Parents of pupils at Forrester High School have confidence in the staff. My point is about the building itself. What are you going to do about the school?

A - There is a proposal to build a new PPP school at Forrester High School. Although it is recognised that this in itself won’t necessarily raise attainment it is necessary. At the moment this is just a proposal which is yet to go before Council. We expect it to be approved and if it is then we will go to tender with a view to construction around 2006 with the schools being open around 200718. A report will go to the next Council meeting next week on PPP2 and it is expected that recommendations which include proposals to build a new PPP school at Forrester High School will be approved.

425 - Thanks to Mr Clapperton for his speech. I have some figures however which I would like answers on. Based on league tables comparing Forrester High School with Craigmount. For 5* year pupils receiving one higher pass or more Forrester High School was 16%, Craigmount 49%. 5‘h year pupils with three highers or more at Forrester High School was 4% and Craigmount 32%. For 5* year pupils with five higher passes or more, there are no figures for Forrester High School and Craigmount returned a 16% success rate. If the City of Edinburgh Council thinks it can improve Forrester High School then fine let’s see it happen and then ask us to make a choice. There isno pressures on us and there is no need for us to change right now. A - If parents choose now they will receive high quality education. HMI Inspectors judge Forrester High School as good or very good in 19 of 20 categories. On all action points the school made good or very good progress. It is true that social backgrounds are different between the two schools but every child at Craigmount High School and Forrester High School are given first class education. 426 - I have a son at Craigmount High School and a daughter in Primary 6 at Gylemuir. We moved in 10 years ago and checked the catchment area. We were told that both would go to Craigmount High School. Now it appears our daughter won’t be able to go to the same school as her brother. We have heard all about the league tables for Forrester High School and have heard a speech by the Headmaster. We should also hear about Craigmount High School. There is a distinction in the education provided at both schools. Let’s hear the Head Teacher of Craigmount speak. What are his views?

A - We will take the points on board. The point is that these are proposals. We have heard already that there are concerns over the quality of education at Forrester High School. I do not agree with these but we have noted the points. The Head Teacher is putting on an

a4 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix I: Minutes from Public Meetings information evening and people should go along and see for themselves. League tables are crude and don’t account for differing social and economic backgrounds. We expect different results from these schools. The government no longer uses league tables - they are discredited. A better indicator is the quality of education and level of attainment. There is no point in putting one Head Teacher against another and we won’t do it.

427 - This exercise is engineered solely to improve the attainment at Forrester High School. You are forcing children to attend Forrester High School knowing there would obviously be an impact on attainment levels. Why not leave it. If Forrester High School is so good parental choice will come into play when the school’s record speaks for itself. A - The school role is 1,515 regardless of new developments. It is still over-capacity. This is about the efficient use of school resources to optimise capacity. The capacity of 1,515 limits accommodation and ability to learn and the flexibility of the curriculum. This is what the Review is about. It will also benefit the taxpayer. Cramming more into Craigmount won’t solve any problems.

Q28 - My child attends Forrester High School - I am concerned over the statistics being used tonight. According to what I have heard there is a 4% chance of him getting highers. This doesn’t relate to pupils in 5’ year on the 5-14 attainment levels. Most of the pupils leave at 4* year - I have no problems with Forrester High School at all.

429 - The statistics are disappointing - If children are going to go to Forrester High School then we should be looking for the good in the situation and hearing about the positive sides. From what we hear tonight there doesn’t seem to be any.

Q30 - Will these comments make a difference to the decision or has the decision already been made. A - It has already been explained that tonight is part of the consultation process. There have been a number of meetings. Members of the public are invited to make comments to the website or by letters and notes have been taken from the public meetings such as tonight. No decision has been made. We have stated the preferred option and we have been straight with you in what we say. Your views will be taken into account. They will be fed into the process along with all other comments and a report will be submitted to the Council in May.

431 - This boils down to the fact that when children started at Gylemuir Primary School we knew about the choice to go to Forrester High School and Craigmount - we had a choice and it worked well. Now imaginary children will determine the choice we make. You should honour the children already in Primary 1 to Primary 7 again at Primary School and allow them to attend the school of their choice.

85 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings A - This point has been raised several times, has been noted and will be considered.

432 - Is there a plan to knock down Forrester High School and build houses. A - There are no plans for housing at the Forrester High School site. 433 - I am thankful for the education provided at Gylemuir Primary School. I feel the pupils will be motivated at Craigmount and they won’t get the same motivation at Forrester High School -there are a large number of classes of leavers in 4‘h year which tells a story. There is far more motivation provided at Craigmount from peers. I want to retain the status quo.

A - You have heard from the Head Teacher of Forrester High School that children will receive the best education there and will be encouraged to be all they can be.

434 - I am not talking about the quality of teaching which I am sure is fine I am talking about peer motivation and I do not believe that there is a comparison between Forrester High School and Craigmount High School.

435 - After the consultation process finishes you hope to have the proposals implemented by 2005. Any decision is based on uncertainties. Surely it would be sensible to delay beyond this to see what develops in terms of new housing etc. It would also allow parents to prepare timescales to shorten terms of strategic planning. A - This point has been made several times and has been noted. The earliest date for implementation will be August 2005 but this is not set in stone. I has a request for a 7 year delay. That won’t happen. But August 2005 is the earliest.

436 - I have two daughters. One goes to Forrester High School and the other one goes to Heriot Watt. Forrester High School is a good school. Parents should take up the offer to visit and see just exactly how good it is.

437 - Are you going to ask the pupils what they think. There are pupils from Forrester High School here tonight but there are no pupils from Craigmount. It is the children that are ultimately going to be going to the schools and their opinion should be taken into account. Also what are the facilities at those schools for the disabled.

A - The consultation process is aimed at parents however your point is valid and will be taken on board. In terms of the second part of your question I am not up to speed and that is the honest answer. We will take a note of response to your question.

86 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Q38 - Regarding the open evening - I heard a presentation to the Board recently and was very impressed. However the fundamental point is that we should have a choice. We should not be coerced.

A - That is the point of consulting. All the options are there to be discussed including the status quo. If however the Council was to opt for the status quo we will have more problems to tackle.

439 - We have not learned much here tonight. You can’t compare school with school. We are here to find out why we are having this bounced on us. I hope you take the points raised on board. We have a choice just now. You are taking it away. We all have different reasons but we want our views or feelings listened to.

A - All views all 100% will be taken into consideration. There is strict legislation regarding this process. You can check the website for the options and for notes from tonight’s meeting.

Q40 - Why don’t we have a show of hands for the RoseburnlCraigmount High School option.

A - This part of this process is to listen to questions and take notes. At this point all viewpoints will be considered. Nothing is set in stone at this point. We addressed the Roseburn issue earlier - removing Roseburn from the equation will not reduce the pressure on Craigmount High School. You may not agree with this point but your view is noted. 441 - There are no plans to move Fox Covert Primary School from Craigmount High School however it could feed into the Royal High School - is this being considered. A - There are no proposals to alter the arrangements for Fox Covert Primary School - There will be a review of the Royal High School catchment area but at the moment there are no proposals to alter Fox Covert.

(Note - At this point the meeting, which had taken place in two halls linked by audio and visual equipment, split. The questions and answers from the smaller hall are given as appendix one to this note.)

442 - It is clear that the reviews will be phased. This is unfair on us. We are in the first review. We may be denied the right to go to Craigmount High School purely because we are part of the first review. This will also prejudice the other reviews. It is not a satisfactory way to conduct an overall review. A - The reviews are city-wide but are being undertaken in a way so as to minimise disruption to as many schools as possible.

87 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

443 - We need the big bang effect. We should do them all at once and cover the whole city area. If you do them bit by bit then there will be a knock on effect which given that many of decisions will be based on assumptions which can’t be achieved will have a detrimental affect to the overall provision. A - The review process has been under way for a number of years and there has been a great deal of background work been done at the Education Department and we have worked on details for the whole city but in a review it is not feasible or practical to do the big bang approach. Once a decision is made we have to act on it. I understand that you feel ” that there should be one bang that is your point and it is well made and it has been noted.

444 - I am taking my life in my hands here but I am a Roseburn parent. I understand why parents are here. I understand their views. But we are all parents too and we all have rights. We feel that our children should go to Broughton and Craigmount. However there is no capacity at Broughton High School. We shouldn’t be doing this. We shouldn’t pit schools against other schools and allow education to use us against each other.

A - This is an open public meeting and you are more than welcome to attend and to comment. It is not just a meeting for parents of Forrester High School, Craigmount or Gylemuir. All views are welcome. 445 - If Craigmount High School is so over-subscribed then why not build a new school at the Queen Margaret Campus site and solve the problem. A - It is not prudent to build more schools than we have schools which are under-capacity. As explained, however, the whole point is to ensure the best use of current resources for the benefit of the taxpayers. 446 - Could Forrester High School accommodate 1,100 pupils? Your table shows a notional capacity for 1,000 however would it be possible for it to accommodate 1,100.

A - Not according to our figures and analysis, however we will investigate and get back to you. 447 - I would urge all parents who are concerned to challenge the fundamental basis of this review. The figures do not stack up. Challenge the figure being provided. That is the best way to ensure that your views and your preferred option will be taken on board. A - We have confidence in the figures we produce, however we will analyse any attempt on the figures provided, we will share them and we will comment on them.

88 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

448 - Can you guarantee that Forrester High School will be rebuilt and if it is what will happen to the pupils in the meantime?

A - Firm proposals are going to the Council and I would be really surprised if they are not agreed. It is proposed that the first group be built by 2008 and that the new Forrester High School was likely to be in this group. There is land in the current site to build the new school so it would be possible to build while the current school carries on. There will be no need to decant which has been happening in other developments. But no, I can not offer guarantees - ask me next Friday when we will know. It is likely that the Council will make a decision and that the recommendations which include the building of Forrester High School will be approved. The proposals go to the Council on Thursday. The Labour administration will look at the proposals on Tuesday and I’would be very surprised if they oppose the recommendations.

Q49 - The land at the current PPP schools have been taken over by house builders - you said earlier that there would be no house building on the Forrester High School site. A - I gave you the answer earlier - proposals are not predicted for house building.

Q50 - Why not leave this farce until Forrester High School is built? If it gets a better reputation then we will all be able to choose - right now Craigmount High School has far superior facilities. .

A - The pressures are on us now we have to make a decision and we have to act. We are merely presenting the options tonight and taking your views. No decisions are being made tonight. The Council will make decisions in due course.

Q51- There have been a number of questions tonight which have not been answered eg the Human Rights question earlier on. We were told this would all come out in the consultation process you have had four weeks so far and yet you don’t seem to have basic information. Will you make the answers to the questions which you can’t answer tonight available and if you will how are you going to do it?

A - The Senior Management Team will discuss how to maximise the distribution. We want to ensure that all questions are answered and that everybody who wants to see these answer can. We shall try to notify as many people as best we can. The Council meeting will be open to the public and you would be able to attend that. We will endeavour however to distribute information as comprehensively as possible. .

89 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings 452 - The business case for the new Forrester High School would have to include the addition of Gylemuir Primary School pupils to make the case justifiable. In which case this consultation is a farce. Also if Forrester High School is doing well and I am sure it is for what it is but it is now under capacity and can cope at the moment then your proposals will place additional pressures on the current school until the new facility is built. This will surely reduce standards. It appears to me that this deal has been done and dusted.

c A - This is not true. The outline business case makes no mention of catchment area or of any review. The Council is seeking to renew the state of or rebuild, 35% of the school resources by the end of PPP2.

453 - I take the cynical view and believe that the decision has been made. A - It has not but it is up to you to decide whether you believe me or not. The decision will be made by the Council. 454 - I have a son at Gylemuir Primary School. It is a good school and has a good community feel about it. I predict that this will create a division within the school no matter what. I hope you are taking account of this.

A - Will note this point. I have experience with Gylemuir School and it is a wonderful school. We would not propose to cause a split. Removing the dual feeder status will help avoid this. Option 2 which is to retain dual feeder status would cause a division. Q55 - The timing of this review is atrocious. The Council will decide next week on the PPP2 proposals. How will results of the consultation be analysed. I have concerns that the results will be weighted. I am thinking of a previous exercise which was undertaken by consultants to do with tie transport initiatives and which had a weighting applied to it in order for administration to get the decision it wanted. It is clear to me that the six schools appear to be happy with the proposals and one is not. How will you analyse the results and what will the waiting criteria be? A - We have had consultations before and have experience in analysing the results. Our considerations will be based on the factual representations made. Whether this is by comments raised at public meetings or emails or letters received. This will be what drives the recommendation. Politics will not come into the process. Regarding the PPP proposals it is very likely that the recommendations to Council will be approved, I am 99.9% convinced that Forrester High School will be included as part PPP2 proposals which will be approved. Council will have to ratify the recommendations but I am convinced that this will happen.

90 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings 456 - I take exception to the remark that that wcapolitical comment. It was a genuine question regarding weighting. Weightings can be applied to get the results you want and I have concerns over the way in which results of the consultation on transport were analysed and put before Council. If 80% of people here ask for a delay will you make a recommendation reflecting that viewpoint.

A - I disagree whether it was a political point as it was tied into previous comments about a consultation on transport. Education has a record of recording every comment and every comment will be analysed . Your point is noted. We will present an analysis of all comments to the Council and to the members and it is they who will make the decision. 457 - Since Craigmount was rebuilt an entrance has been closed. Where will the entrance at the new school. In light of the Dunblane recommendations it is an important issue. A - Both entrances at the current school will remain open. There are no designs in place for the new school so I can’t comment..

Q58 - The Director at a previous meeting stated that all points would be looked at.

A - It will be, as part of the design stage. 459 - Can you confirm that this has been recorded and if it had been recorded and how.

A - A Clerk from Committee Division is taking notes and these will be fed into the process.

Q60 - Is he using longhand or shorthand? (Longhand). That is not the best way. It should be a video or audio recording which is used othewise the views will not all be recorded.

A - I take the point however I have faith in Committee Services. They , are experts in recording meetings and have no axe to grind for or against educational. In my experience of Committee Services they have always been professional and impartial. There are of course other ways to make comments if you wish you can submit comments by e-mail to the Council’s website or in writing to the Director of Education.

461 - How will we get a copy of the notes from tonight‘s meeting. A - They will be made available. 462 - I work for the local MP - people feel fobbed off with this. A lot is made of reporting back - I would be amazed if anyone here feels the views have been listened to. If you say views matter then they should form part of the recommendation. If people “en masse” state that they

91 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

~~ ~~ want a particular option then that is the option you should act on. If you don’t then the consultation is a waste of time. A - You have made the point about the meeting being part of a process. This is one of a number of meetings. We will listen to your views and if we can’t answer the questions here tonight we will get an answer and report back later. Everyone is entitled to comment and all the comments will be taken on board. No decision has been made. We have stated a preferred option. We have made it clear that no decision has been made.

Q63 - I propose that you delay the process for a month to allow the c department the opportunity to find the answers to the questions it has not been able to answer tonight and other meetings and for it to consult again when it has all the facts. A - That won’t be possible as the time frame is set in legislation. You have to realise that this is a public meeting and not all questions which are put to us can be answered on the night. You want to give full answers and where we can’t we would rather hold our hands up and say we don’t know the answer and get back once we have been able to find out the facts. 464 - Why don’t you know all the answers. You should come prepared. For example you should have been prepared for a legal question on human rights. That is a fundamental point.

A - The question was only posed recently - at last night’s meeting I think - and we are looking into it. The Council’s Legal Service Department have been asked for a view and when we get the answer back we will let you know.

Q65 - It was recently asked but it is a fundamental point you should know. I don’t see how you can implement the findings until you know that whether the legal basis of a decision is sound. A - It will be answered. The point is to allow questions of the process even if we can’t answer them all we will take all questions on board, all comments on board and where necessary find the answers and get back to you. There is still the opportunity to submit questions and comments by e-mail or by letter. Q66 - You came here without Roy Jobson and Ewan Aitken. This meeting is important to us and it was important that they come along. Letters and e-mails which were sent in advance have yet to be answered. This is not a way to conduct business. We won’t allow you to make a decision until all the questions are answered and until all our views are accounted for.

92 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings A - We will answer on the night any question that we can and ones that we can’t answer we will answer in writing later. All questions will be answered.

Q67 - My son brought home a map from school the other day which separated the two estates in South Gyle. He was distraught at this and wanted to know why he was being separated from his friends. Why would he be given this? It is very disruptive to pupils. Does this mean the decision has been made? Why would the Department issue this and why would pupils get it? Is this because the Council listened to one estate more than another - probably the one which pays the higher Council Tax? It seems like the Council are trying to divide and conquer. I want to ask in person for an apology for this.

A - I can’t comment on the specifics about why your son was given a map. It is probably a map of Option 2 which of course is not the preferred option and it is not something we would want to happen. Q68 - It will cause disruption. If it is not an option why pursue it and why give pupils maps. A - It wasn’t distributed to pupils as far as I am aware but I will find out and get back. Q69 - You are unprepared. You don’t seem to know anything about what is happening. This is unprofessional. You should all resign. Q70 - I am disappointed with the answers tonight. I have learned nothing and heard exactly what I expected to hear. The RoseburnlForrester High School issue is not my problem. I care about Gylemuir Primary School and Craigmount High School. I am disappointed that the Head Teacher of Craigmount wasn’t allowed to speak. Why were pupils from Forrester High here tonight but none from Craigmount. This is all front-loaded. The point about children is important but if you feel strongly enough about this you shouldn’t take what is thrown at you. Tell the Council what you want. Did Labour comment on these proposals before the last elections. There was no mention in the manifesto before the election. This has been pushed on us by Labour and I have had enough.

A - The review process has been in planning for many years. The background work has been under way at the Education Department for a number of years. It is now time to implement the Review part that is why we have gone to consultation and that is why we are seeking your views.

471 - The Review appears to be like a large jigsaw. I represent this constituency and am aware of the problems this review causes throughout the constituency. I am disappointed about the response to the big bang question. You should hold off until all other areas have been reviewed. This is a piecemeal approach and I can’t see the point.

93 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

I can’t see the benefit. You can only do it this way if you already know the answers. A - This point has been made earlier and has been noted.

WWLDCICRFORRI 20204/EK .

T

4

94 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings Catchment Review Public meeting 12thFeb @ Gylemuir Primary School Board

Notes taken in second hall following meeting split and removal of live link fromlto main hall.

Officers responding to questions Frank McGrail and David Fenton.

Q. School Boards were set up to help represent schools interests, why has their option 4 not been included in the Education Dept's paper or mentioned tonight.

A. Because this was Gylemuir school board's response to the Education Dept consultative catchment review paper which outlined the 3 options that were being put forward.

Q. If a new Forrester is built would it be a building site as pupils worked on in unsafe conditions.

A. Pupils would remain at the existing school whilst the new proposed school is built on an adjacent site. They would not be moved across until the school is complete. The building site for the new school would be secured for safety purposes.

C. Pupils who live in this area go to Craigmount which is a longer walk. Forrester is closer and so if safety is the issue we should send our children to the local school.

Q. Safety is an issue in getting to Forrester. Will access through the back gate be allowed. A. This route will continue to be available.

C. If Forrester intake choose to go to Craigmount then Forrester are t going to suffer. It will improve if other children attend. We need to support our local school. c Q. Forrester has not been sold to us as an attractive package, why has it not been promoted to us in the past. A. The Education Dept has a high opinion of both Craigmount and Forrester. The first step is to invite parents to visit the school to get more information about the school. Letters will be going out through the school to invite you to attend an open evening in late March.

Q. Will we all get into the school hall at that meeting as tonight has been a shambles. A. Yes, the hall at the school is large enough

95 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

Q. What happens after this meeting, it has been a mess.

A. The views of this meeting and the other 3 have been recorded. Everything that has been sent in by letter or e-mail will also be taken into account. I would encourage you to write in with your comments if you have not done so already. A report will then be produced which will include the views obtained through the consultation. It will make a recommendation to the Council.

Q. Do you have the funds in place to build Forrester. You have not even presented your business case to the Scottish Executive yet.

A. We have been offered f 180million from the Scottish executive and we have every confidence that following Councils decision on the lgM February, the Scottish executive will accept our bid.

Q. If my child goes to Forrester and my other is at Gylemuir I will have serious childcare problems as they have different half days.

A. This goes back to when each school cluster could opt for their own half day. Consultation is about to take place with Headteachers and school boards to harmonise the days across the city.

Q. Can the statement on the siblings being able to go to Craigmount be strengthened so that it can be a guarantee. Is it possible to amend the criteria to do this.

A. We cannot give that guarantee. It will depend on what option is agreed as to what places will be available. But we have said that they will be given the highest priority in terms of non-district placing requests.

Q. Why are we the first area to go through this.

A. We are tackling those school areas were our planners are indicating the pressures on school accommodation are most imminent.

Q. Why are planning applications not knocked back, surely children and their education are more important.

A. We have some experience of this over the past 3 years. New housing has put pressures on a number of schools but Education objections at planning were deemed insufficient to block developments. The Scottish Executive are looking for continuing economic developments in the west of Edinburgh.

Q. Planning have a different agenda. Are there plans to build houses on the Forrester site as at Craigmount.

96 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

A. No. The Forrester old site will be used for playing fields. For Craigmount, land sale was required to assist the funding of the school build,

C. The school population of Forrester would increase by some 42% (from 700 to 1000) and give a real problem to the schooVHeadteacher. There should be a delay in the decision to allow the proposed plans for housing to be clearer before a final decision is taken.

Q. Parents choice is being removed. The time-scale for consultation is too quick to be effective. A longer monitoring time is required.

A. It's being noted that from this meeting there is a call for a delay of up to 7 years before taking a final decision.

Q. All the stuff about travelling etc is a smoke screen. The problem is you are taking parental choice away. People want to send their children to what is perceived as being the best school which is Craigmount.

A. I appreciate what you are saying about perception.

Q. I am very disappointed that option 4 which seems to be common sense has not been mentioned at this meeting. A. It was not on the slide as an option because it has emerged as part of the school boards response to the consultation process.

Q. Should the information sent out not have included this option.

A. The school board have identified this after our papers were sent out. It represents their alternative which they have described as the fourth option.

Q. If you change the catchment of Gylemuir people will send their children to those schools in the Craigmount catchment area.

A. It is important that people fully understand that it is where you live and not what school you go to that determines the catchment.

Q. If the distance to schools is a factor then surely we should qualify to send our children to Craigmount rather than Roseburn.

A. Siblings would be given priority over distance in respect of placing requests.

Q. It makes no sense, Roseburn is very close to Tynecastle. The whole plan is full of contradictions. A. Forrester is in the midst of the community that it can serve.

Q. You are taking the easy option by moving Gylemuir.

97 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 1 : Minutes from Public Meetings

A. It does not feel like an easy option.

C. Standards are perceived as being higher at Craigmount and you are taking choice away from parents. There are lots of clever people in west Edinburgh who will challenge your right to have that choice taken away.

Q. There is a lot of disquiet about your plans, will you go ahead even although many people disagree with it.

A. The strength of opinion at this meeting will be reflected in the final report but at the end of the process Councillors will make the final decision.

C. Councillors from other areas who will be making this decision do not live nor represent this area. Are Labour Councillors getting'back at Lib Dem Councillors.

Q. Are there any proposals for a PPP school at Tynecastle to help convince Roseburn parents to choose Tynecastle.

A. Tynecastle is in the bid for the next phase of PPP2 and approval is being sought for that at the next Council meeting.

Q. Why has the catchment review not been carried out all at once.

A. The scale of the review does not allow it to be handled in a single way. It is being carried out by cluster areas and in an order that sees adjacent areas run in sequence.

9. What is the timing for the report.

A. It will go to Council sometime in May.

Q. Why does these reviews happen every 8/10 years.

A. A catchment review has not happened since the mid 70's.

Meeting closed as people left around this time and there were no more questions asked.

98 b

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Log No. Name (Intema’ Correspondence Type - Date Address Comments IIssues Raised IRequests: USe Email Address

Ms Sheila Kennedy, Ms Kennedy requests a full set of proposals. House OHill Rd. Edinburgh, EHX XAN

I 012 I Letter - January 6,2004 Mr Brian Fraser, Letter - January 6,2004: Letter - January 9,2004 XX Gyle Park Gardens, Corstorphine, Why do only Rosebum and Gylemuir Primary schools appear to be involved in “possible changes”? Letter - January 10.2004 Edinburgh, EHXX XNG Surely all existing feeder Primary Schools must form part of the consideration and consultation? Letter - January 15.2004 Please have the Councils legal department confirm in writing if only considering two Primary Schools is a breach of current European Human RGhts Legislation. Letter - January 26,2004 Please supply Mr Fraser with a full list of all Primary Schools that currently act as a feeder for Craigmount High and Letter February 13,2004 - Forrester High. Letter - February 14,2004 Please advise Mr Fraser of the name of the European Member of Parliament to contact with regard to a possible Letter - February 18,2004 breach of European Legislation. I. Letter - February 19.2004 If a family have a younger child at Primary School and an elder child at High School. can the Department confirm that the vounaer child will. without exception be offered a place at the same High School? canthe Edu&tion Depa&ent also confirm that Options 1.2 & 3 being considered for Gylemuir Primary will also be considered for Corstorphine Primary and all other Craigmount & Forrester feeders?

Letter - January 9,2004: If Option 2 is adopted which Primary School would Primary entrants in the Gyle Park Gardens area go to? How could it be Gylemuir if Gylemuir is to become a single feeder for Forrester? Under Option 2. would children in the Gyle Park Gardens area go to Craigmount High School?

Letter - January 10.2004 Mr Fraser requests the names and positions of all the officials who will be attending the consultation public meetings. Mr Fraser requests that a site visit by the officials presiding over the proposed boundary change in respect of Gyle Park Gardens. Mr Fraser supplied the following information about Gyle Park Gardens: It is 0.3 miles from Craigmount but 1.4 miles from Forrester. It is located adjoining the Marriot Hotel. It has 146 properties, many of which are flats, housing few children. There is a safe road crossing from Gyle Park Gardens to Dechmont Road that leads to Craigmount. There are very few children on the odd numbered side of Glasgow Road - between the Maybury and Drumbrae roundabout. Gyle Park Gardens is on the Craigmount side of the railway line. The new Gogarloch housing estate is on the Forrester side of the railway line and as such should not be “bundled in” with it. Gogarloch also has many children.

Letter - January 15.2004 Has request for response to the issue of a possible breach of European Human Rights Legislation been sent to the Legal Deparbnent? Can the Education Department confirm that the points raised by Mr Fraser will be included in the report to the Council Executive and that responses will be made to each of the points raised? Mr Fraser requested that officials make a site visit to Gyle Park Gardens. Can the Council please respond? APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Letter - January 26.2004 Mr Fraser has not received a response from the Councils Legal deparhnent regarding a possible breach of European Human Rights legislation. Please confirm in writing that his request has been forwarded to the Legal Department Other than keeping the status quo, Option 2 would be the only proposal acceptable to Mr Fraser. Under the tern ofthe proposals Mr Fmser has the right to request a site visit. Requests written confirmation that this request has been recorded and passed to the appropriate person.

Letter - February 13,2004 (To Gill Lindsay - Head of Legal Services, Edinburgh Council) Confirm in writing that the Director of Education has now pa& to Legal Services query regarding whether Council has the power to remove parental choice. None of the officials at the Gylemuir Public meeting could answer question. Require conclusive proof that Council has the powr to remove parental choice. Confirm in writing that no further action can or will be taken by the Council until such time as conclusive evidence is provided. Local Authorities are created by statute and have no powers outwith statute.

Letter - February 14,2004 Requests a copy of the full detailed note of the consultation meeting which was held at Craigmount School on 1Im February 2004. Advise why the "legality" question had not until after the Craigmount meeting been passed to legal services. Extreme case of nderelictionof duty" and wish to lodge a formal complaint in respect of this. Please advise where to formally lodge complaint against individuals. Advise who will look into and respond to complaint.

Letter - February 18,2004 (To Gill Lindsay - Head of Legal Services. Edinburgh Council) Surprised that no senior officials of the Education Department or Councillors have had courtesy to respond to letter 6/1 I04 Who should have established whether Council have legal right to remove parental choice? Were Legal Services consulted before the matter was raised? If advice was sought before the question was raised, the Council is obliged to advise of what advice was given by legal services. Also require the dates on which all decisions were discussed and taken. Requests copies of all the relevant background reports used in the decision making process. Confirm in writing that no further action can or will be taken by the Council until they have provided conclusive evidence that the council have the power to remove parental choice. Require sight of the full minutes of all meetings which were held and included a discussion on the original query (legality of removing parental choice)

Letter - February 19.2004 (To Scottish Executive) Euan Robson , Deputy Minister for Education advised Margaret Smith MSP that before changes to catchment areas are confirmed, both the decision and the decision making process would have to be investigated by the Scottish Executive. Wishes to open a line of communication with the person at the Executive responsible for the reviews. Would like to know when it was decided and who decided that the Executive wrwld be responsible for this investigation.

I 4 APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WTHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

- Would like the individual to acknowledge receipt of letter and respond in full to questions raised in previous letters as part of the investigation. - Has a serious reservation about the legality of what is being proposed. - Seeks assurance that no further action can or will be taken by the council until such time as they (and the Scottish Executive) provide conclusive evidence that they have the power to remove parental choice.

001 Email - January 6,2004 Mr Keith McCall, Mr McCall purchased his property on the basis that pupils at Corstorphine Primary School would go on to XX Featherhall Crescent North, Craigmount High. Seeks assurance that under new proposals this will continue. Edinburgh, EHXX XlY D Was assured by Education Department when house was purchased that Craigmount was school of choice for his address.

008 Email - January 7,2004 Mr Douglas Ferguson. D Parent of two children who will both attend Gylemuir Primary (one child currently at Gylemuir nursery) XXX South Gyle Gardens, Edinburgh, D C!!nmmed bv orowsals~, . oublished in Evening News, spedffcallyby Option 1 that would see Mr Fergusons children EH% XXH forced to attend Forreste; instead of their preferred option, Craigmount. D Would like to know if there is any way his children will be able to attend Craigmount under Option I?

007 Email - January 7.2004 Mrs Glenda MacKenzie, XXX Broomhall D Parent of child in Primary 2 at Gylemuir and a child in 2"dyear at Craigmount. Crescent, Edinburgh, EHXX XPQ Eldest happily settled in Craigmount but is concerned that youngest will not be able to "benefit from advantages Craigmount offers pupils". Why is Hillwood not affected? Surely geographical location suits Balemo or Currie High? Why is Tynecastle High not catchment school for Rosebum? Why can there not be a geographical split of Roseburn pupils as they are further away from Craigmount than Gylemuir pupils? Rosebum is 3.3 miles from Craigmount with some pupils living further away at West End or Haymarket, compared to Gylemuir which is only 1.3 miles away. Why was Craigmount not rebuilt larger? Forrester is not at capacity because it does not have the same advantages as Craigmount and has a huge achievement percentage difference compared to Craigmount Current league tables show that youngest will be at disadvantage in Forrester. Friends in primary school will be split as some will go to Forrester and some to Craigmount. Feels let down by the system -chose to live at address because of schooling available. Daughter forced to attend underachieving secondary school that isn't parents' choice. Much investment would have to be spent on both the structure and academic staff of Forrester to bring it up to Craigmount standards.

006 D Email - January 7,2004 Mrs Valerie Fergus, 1 Why are children not allowed to attend a school that is a mile from their home when pupils from a school (Rosebum) XXX South Gyle Gardens. Edinburgh, 5 miles away are? EHXX XXH I If Forrester is undersubscribed, why not send Rosebum pupils there? I Craigmount has always been catchment school for the area, which is why Fdmilies move there.

005 1 Email January 7,2004 - Mrs Loma Murray, ' Restricting the intake of Craigmount by removing Gylemuir does not account for: south Gyle Wynd, Edinburgh, Siblings already at school. EHXX XHN Different half days. Relationship built between Craigmount and Gylemuir staff. The affect on Gylemuir roll applications. 2005 Intake from Gylemuir will be about 64 children, 80% of which will apply to Craigmount, given the low numbers involved, is it appropriate to .change?

028 D Email -January 7.2004 Mr Andrew Crozier, Email - January 7,2004 APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Email - 3 March. 2004 XXX Gogarloch Syke, South Gyle, - Parent of children at Gylemuir Primary, in classes 2 and 6. Edinburgh, EHXX ME - Concerned by proposals to take Craigmount feeder status aWay from Gylemuir. - Moved to Gogarloch Syke after assessment of Secondary Schools available in the area and understanding that Craigmount would eventually be their children’s option. - Preference for Craigmount remains unchanged due to current performance and high standard of education at Craigmount.

Email - 3 March, 2004 - Following the public meeting at Gylemuir would like to register disapproval at proposal to remove dual feeder status to Craigmount and Forrester from Gylemuir PS. - Meeting was helphl in understanding the pressures and reasons for the review. - Appreciate the catchment review update letters and information provided by the Edinburgh Council website. - However, feel that removing parental choice is not helping children reach full potential via the best educational facilities currently available in locality.

014 Email - January 8.2004 Mrs Linda Wilkinson, Why are streets in South Gyle Industrial Estate shown on the map of the Craigmount catchment area? There are no XX South Gyie Park, Edinburgh, EHXX residents and no plans for houses to be built. XEW

On, Email - January 8.2004 Mrs Jill Wilson. Why does Roseburn not feed Tynecastle? Understands that parents from Rosebum got together to stop their . XX Gogarloch Syke, Edinburgh. EHXX children going to Tynecastle and wants to know why? XJD Gylemuir pupils are to be used as guinea pigs to improve Forresters exam results by sending children from better social backgrounds there. Forresters exam results (as published in the Evening News) speak for themselves. Seeks reassurance that a decision has not already been made and that parents voioes will be listened to. Is happy for Option 2 to be chosen as her children would fall into Craigmounts catchment. 019 Email - January 8,2004 Mrs Marie Allan, Email - January 8,2004 Letter - January 8.2004 Mx Gyle Park Gardens, Edinburgh, To get from Gyle Park Gardens to Forrester children will have to walk amsthe Gyle Park which is mostly unlit in EHXX XNU winter. Wdl the council take responsibility for the safety of children? No public transport from Glasgow Road to Forrester means a car journey to Forrester followed by trip to Gylemuir to drop the younger children off. Surely this rims against the counal policy of discouraging the ‘school run’. Especially ludicrous because lives only a few minutes walk from Craigmount Why is Rosebum, which is miles east of Craigmount and too far to walk from. the favoured feeder for Craigmount?

Letter - January 8.2004 (See email above) When the decision was made to extend Gylemuir Primary instead of building a new school, surely it was obvious that this increased school role was not going to easily feed exclusively either secondary? Liaison difficulties are something that have not been a problem historically - if they have been a problem, parents should have been made aware of them. Parents are sceptical that the consultation is a foregone conclusion. Parents suspicious that Rosebum has been inexplicably made preferred feeder to Craigmount. Where does Tynecastle fit into the review? Is Gylemuir being disadvantaged by being among the first schools reviewed? Parents have lost faith in the Education Deparhnent s ability to remain impartial.

018 D Email - January 8.2004 Urs Emma Newton, Email -January 8,2004 Letter February 29,2004 - O(X South Gyle Mains, Edinburgh, , . Rosebum proposal uses phrase 80% parental choice. Gylemuir options say 1/5‘hof parents already choose .

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS a EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

EHXX XHU Forrester, this means 75% choose Craigmount. When two schools are compared, the difference in parental choice is onlv a few Dercent. Vew few attend Forrester from the Wester Bm/SwthGyle area. Only 6 children starting S1 in Aug 03 wek to Forrester from Gylemuir 2 of whom applied to Craigmount but were turned down because they were non-district 5 children went to St Augustines from Gylemuir in August 2003 but there is no mention of this parental choice in the report. What will happen regarding the differing half days that Gylemuir and Forrester have? Childcarers may not be able to take children on changed days due to wwking patterns. Report raises concern that Gylemuir pupils will have to cross Glasgow Road. However. children from Corstorphine Primary also have to cross Glasgow Road. Make Rosebum feeder to Tyn-stle to relieve pressure on CraigmOUnt and Save the Rosebum children a bus journey and the need to ~~OSSGlasgow Road. 75% of Gylemuir pupils go to Craigmount. how will the Council deal with the high number Of non-district placement requests they will receive given Craigmounts current roll? The QMUC site has not been released yet and the council has the right to turn down planning permission if it will adversely affect the surrounding facilities. What happened to the joint St AugustinedForreskrrebuild? Will this now be done in 2 phases. causing more disruption to pupils? Gylemuir pupils from P3 onwards have already experienced a new build and the disruption it brings. Is the council trying to appease parents by !'trumpeting" the chance of a new school? Forrester High has recently introduced a speeded up timetable for standard grade exams. Mrs Newton feels that S4 is soon enough as it is. This is not mentioned in the report. Would like to be sent a copy of the councils full decision.

Letter - February 29.2004 Submitted a list of questions via email on 9'" January. Yet to receive replies. 1. The Report produced uses terminology biased against Gylemuir. Rosebum proposal uses phrase 80% of parental choice; when discussing Gylemuir it is 1/5'"of parents choose Forrester. The report fails to mention that 14% of parents choose to send their children to non-catchrnentschools or St. Augustines. 2. What strategies will Council put in place to see that working parents aren't financially disadvantaged by differing half days at Gylemuir and Forrester? 3. Report raises concerns over Gylemuir children crossing Glasgow Road. Fails to raise similar concerns for other SchOOiS. 4. Rosebum is closer to Tynecastle and used to be aligned with it. Would relieve pressures on Craigrnount. The number 12 bus serves both Rosebum and Broomhouse -statements that the only direct bus link from Rosebum is to Craigmount are incorrect. If you take the number of children at Rosebum. the number at Hillwood and the number of non-catchment pupils who went to Craigmount in 2003 and extrapolate figure over 5 years Craigmounts role deweases by more than number required. 5. Argument for Rosebum is that 80% parental choice. Gylemuir 85% (2003) parental choice is brushed aside. 6. Children in P4 to P7 at Gylemuir have already suffered a major rebuild. Wait until Forrester is rebuilt before moving Gylemuir children to Forrester. TO deprive children of the new Craigmount building just SO the Council can improve its appalling statistis is mean. HoIJS~~at QMUC will not be ready for years - no immediate pres sur^ on Cmigmwnt. 7. Forrester trialling an accderated Standard Grade timetable not mehoned in the report. Why did the Council amnge a public meeting at Gylemuir knowing that Ewan Amen and ROYJobson would not able to attend? The process has been flawed and would request a second meeting at St. Augustines High when both Ewan Aitken and Roy Jobson can attend. Writing to First Minister to ask that he look into this matter. Headteacher from Craigmount not allowed to speak even though Forresters Head Teacher was allowed to do a mini APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

presentation. - Firmly in support of Gylemuirs School Board proposal to postpone any dedsion until such time as the council have rebuilt Forrester High School. - Wwld like answers to these questions and the date and time when the report will be presented to the City Councillors. Failure to do this will see all evidence passed to a lawyer for expert opinion on the legafii of the consultation process. - Writing to First Minister to ask that he instigate his own enquiry into how the Education Department have conducted this Consultation Review.

017 Email - January 8,2004 Mrs Valerie Fry, Ludicrous that Rosebum pupils will need to go by bus to Craigmount, which will require the provision of free bus XX Gogarloch Haugh, South Gyle, passes -wasting more council funding. Edinburgh, EHXX XJH Position unacceptable when Gylemuir pupils all live within walking distance. More sensible solution to send Gylemuir pupils to Craigmwnt and Rosebum pupils to Tynecastle or Broughton.

021 Email - January 8.2004 Ms Vicky Brien, Son attending East Craigs Primary, though he is 50 yards out of catchment. Started at catchment school (Foxcovert XX North Bughtlinfield. Edinburgh. School) but moved within a few weeks. EHXX XW Concerned that when applying to Craigmount they will have to complete another out of catchment form and go through the same process (moving school after a few weeks) again. Can we confirm whether we intend to change catchment boundaries for East Craigs Primary to include East Craigs.

-L 0 015 Email - January 8,2004 Mr Keith Watt, Child currently attends East Craigs Primary on an out of catchment basis. P XX Fauldum, East Craigs. Edinburgh. Are houses within East Craigs (specifically Fauldbum) now to be included in the East Craigs primary school EHXX XYH catchment area and therebre the Craigmwnt catchment area? Catchment areas for feeder primary schools should also be reviewed.

013 Email -January 8,2004 Mr Michael Farmer, Email -January 8,2004 Letter - January 16,2004 X Gogarloch Bank, Edinburgh, EHXX Mr Farmer would like to see Option 2 adopted as it will give parents from South Gyle the chance to send their XLA children to the school of their choice. Parental choice should not be sacrificed because of education officials concerns over liaison administration. Mr Farmer has no doubt that by sending his children to Craigmount they will stand a better chance of achieving better exam results than they would at Forrester. It cannot be argued that a cash boost for Forrester will lead to an improvement in the schools exam performance. Proof of this can be found at Craigmwnt where performance since the refurbishment of the school has not improved from its performance pre-refurbishment Pupils at Gylemuir are losing places at Craigmount to Rosebum which lies further away. Craigmount is operating at nearly 50% over the councils optimum, yet it still outperforms other schools like Forrester - proof that the issue is not capacity but the teachers and school management. Had to pay a premium for a house in Craigmounts catchment. Being in Forrester catchment will have detrimental affect on value of the house. If Mr Farmer decides to .move to be in a new catchment he will have to pay a premium again.

Letter - January 16,2004 Option 2 supports current parental choice and addresses the capacity issue The council prefers Option 1 be&use it is the simplest to administer. The council wants to avoid the administration of a dual feeder school,an administration issue which Gylemuir already handles successfully. Priority needs to be parentai choice. The Council Seems to be giving more weight to solutions that are the simplest. There is a small difference in percentage between parental choice for Craigmount at Rosebum and parental choice for Craigmount at Gylemuir. Why then has the Council given Rosebum sole feeder status; especially when

* b

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

~- Gylemuir is close? - Why has the option to send Rosebum pupils to Tynecastle and Broughton not been discussed? - Decision to send all Roseburn pupils to Craigmount seems to have been made to simplify catchment area management. - Making Rosebum a single feeder to Broughton or Tynecastle and the adoption of option 2 for Gylemuir has not received the discussion it merits. - With ref. to Option 2 section 5.9 - No extra liaison would be required by Gylemuir as it already copes as a dual- feeder. The “confusion“ that is referred to already exists as children are split depending on which school they choose. - Council seem to have shifted from a review of dual-feeders to a policy of removing them.

113 Letter - January 8,2004 Dr David Longbottom Letter - January 8,2004 Letter January 9,2004 XXX Gogarloch Syke Wishes to express outrage at recent proposals. - Would like (Copy letter to Cllr Aitken) South Gyle to receive accurate stab on the number and percentage of children going to Craigmount from G~lemuir Letter January 27.2004 Edinburgh ps for 2003104, as WII as the number of children going to Forrester 8t St Augustines- - Dr Longbottom has been told that the figures quoted at the Council meeting were inaccurate, as was the figure of Letter - January 29.2004 EHXX XJE (Copy letter to Cllr Aitken) 80% quoted in the press. Email - February 13.2004 Parental choice is being disregarded by Council chiefs. Letter - February 15,2004 The Council has simply gone for the easy option of targeting Gylemuir as a dual feeder rather than looking at other (Copy letter to Roy possible options. Jobson) Gylemuir is one of the dosest to Craigmount. It would make more sense to retain dual feeder status and respect Email - February 25,2004 parental choice. Email - March 3.2004 Children who attend Gylemuir are being ignored at the expense of those attending Rosebum. Why does Roseburn feed Craigmount when it is miles away? Why does it not feed Tynecastle? How can children who live off Ravelsbn Dykes and in the Rosebum and Haymarket areas be given preferential treatment over people who live locally? Gylemuir children are within walking distance of Craigmount whereas Rosebum children will rely on buses or being driven by parents; adding to the congestion problems in the West of the city. Why does Corstotphine PS have different feeder status to Craigmount given that they are the same distance from both Craigmount and Forrester? Fox Coverts could feed into Royal High rather than Craigmount. Capacity at Craigmount will only be a problem if the housing developments at the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency site go ahead. Perhaps the Council shouldn’t give the go-ahead if there is inadequate school . accommodation. Why not build a new school in the area of the development - this way the council can achieve its preferred optimum school roll of 900. Another option may be to state from the outset that residents in the area will fall into Royal Highs catchment. Choice being removed at the expense of people who do not live locally.

Letter - January 27,2004 Dr Longbottom is disappointed that his request for figures has been completely ignored. Obtained figures directly from Craigmount school. Incensed by factual inaccuracies and weak arguments. The number of children affected by proposals is considerably larger at Gylemuir compared to Rosebum. Increased pressure is not from Gylemuir but from proposed housing developments like that at Queen Margaret University College Clemod Campus which should be aligned with RO~IHigh. Only 6-11% of Pupils from Gylemuir 90 t0 Forrester, not 20% as the Education Departmentquoted. OptiOn 1 does not consider: - Parental Choice for Gylemuir children - That Gylemuir is a loch school, unlike Rosebum, and that the parental choice patterns of the greatest number APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

of children are being ignored. The differing half days between Gylemuir and Forrester The Councils recent decision to close the Forrester rear access gate. This means children will walk around via Bankhead Drive where there is no pavement on the northside of the road and no crossing point to he southside. The route is dangerous and takes much longer than walking to Craigmount. The Glasgow Rd argument equally applies to pupils from Corsmhine, Fox Covert and Drumbrae primaries where children also have to cross major roads. Glasgow Road, however, has perfectly safe crossing points. Rosebum children are much doser to Tynecastle than Craigmount. Fox Covert or Drumbrae are closer to Royal High than Craigrnount. If these schools were all realigned it would reduce pressure by 93 per year = (S1 to $35)485 pupils - a lot more than the 250 quoted as minimum redudion. This proposal was rejmkdwhen presented by Jenny Daw. It is disgraceful that it is not given proper consideration. The fact that Corstorphine PS has different feeder status to Craigmount given that they are the same distance from both Craigmount and Forrester? Why is Corstorphine not targeted? People moving into proposed housing developments should not have greater rights than people who have lived in the Craigmnt area their whole lives. Housing developments like that at Queen Margaret University College Clewfood Campus which should be aligned with Royal High. option 2 would be the prefemd option. Council argues fiat Gylemuir pS would be split to feed two secondary Schools - isn’t that what happens a1EadY? Council state that option 2 draws on an area where a large number of parents already send their children to Forrester. But it also draws upon another area where a large number of parents choose to send their children to Craigmount. Gylemuir is more suited geographically to feed Craigmount than Drumbrae and Fox Covert and is as appropriately sited as Corstorphine. If the Education Department fails to adequately address the rational and logical arguments being put f0nnmrd. Dr Longbottom will push for a Public Inquiry.

Email - February 13,2004 Why did neither Roy Jobson nor Ewan Aitken attend the public meeting at Gylemuir Primary? Their non-attendance sent out the wrong signals; it appears that parents views are not important and will not be taken into account or acted on. Why did the meeting go ahead before any decision had been made on Forresters inclusion in PPP? Why rush this process? The school population is on a dedine over the next 7 or 8 years - no planning permission has been given for housing developments in West Edinburgh and does not have to be granted if there is not enough room in the catchment. Proper links with Forrester can be built and parents can judge the improvements in performance and attainment before deciding which school to send their children too rather than being coerced into it. Why did the Education Department representatives not arrive better prepared? They knew what questions would be asked through all the letters and emails sent before the meeting. Questioned why the consultation process could not be delayed for 2 months so that the Education Department could answer questions at another public meeting. This was rejected. Angered by attitude of Colin Dalrymple who accused Jenny Daw of playing party politics. How will the views of parents at Gylemuir be taken into consideration and what weight will these views be given in terms of the outme ofthis consultation? Only the views of Gylemuir parents should count on this issue as no other schools are affected by the propmais. No adequate explanation to why Roseburn is to be maligned to Craigmount has been given. Rosebum is on the doorstep of Tynecastle which is under-subscribed and is easily accessible if a limited stop bus service is provided (something that is available to those attending denominational schoolsl. Realigning Rosebum to Tynecastle would free up 110 (SI-S5 22 X pubils per year) places at Craigmount. Fox Covert to Royal High would free another 115 places. Realigning QMC housing development to Royal High would I L

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPllONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

also free 175 places (according to councils own figures). Why does Corstotphine PS have different feeder status to Craigrnount given that they are the same distance from both Craigmount and Forrester? Forrester capacity is 1000; realigning Gylemuir would push Forrester over capacity (1050 - 1100). Why not buiM a new school in the area of the development - this way the council can relieve pressure on both Craigmount and Royal High and provide accomodation for the children from the new housing developments. Has anyone consulted with the children for their views?

Email - February 25.2004 Sons in Gylemuir Primary both of whom want to go to Craigmount. Have not received ackowledgment for the letter sent to Education Department dated 15’” February 2Oo4. Absolutely furious at lack of tlesponse from Education Department. Required under s.22A of Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to ‘have regard‘ to our representations. Education DeparbTlent can dehrse situation by agreeing to hold second Gylemuir consultation. Executive Reporf dated 4‘“ November 2003 shows a second consultation process beginning in May 2004 (Section 3.24 and Table 2 in section 3.31). Are Education Department going to have second consultation?

Email - March 3.2004 I.How will Forrester High School cope with the additional 350+ pupils (if all Gylemuir pupils are sent there) on top of their current roll of 750, when this would be 100 pupils over the school limit of I000 and 200 above the optimum of NO? The Accounts Commission in 1995 stated that no Authority could be expect to achieve more than 80% occupancy overall 80-90% of 1000 places is 800-900 pupils maximum. This would mean that Forrester is way over subscribed. The Council would simply pass the problem from Craigmount to Forrester. 2. Wouldn’t it make more sense to align Roseburn with Forrester, when this would add around 110 pupils to the current roll of 750 (ie. am), which is exactly within the 80-90% optimum? There are more buses going to Fomster than Craigmount. 3. Are you legally entitled to change the current Craigmount catchment area, which means removing automatic right to send children to preferred secondary school? 4. No recommendationsshould be made until the end of the 3 year consultation period so that the whole picture can be seen. 5. The forecast declining birth rate is set to continue until 2008. This is reflected in the current P6 classes at Gylemuir PS where there are only enough pupils for 2 classes rather than 3. Why not retain status quo for the next few years, allow Gylemuir to build up a relationship with Forrester and by this time the new school will have been built? The views of the children have not been considered. Son has been expressing his desire to go to Craigmount. Under section 2% Of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 Council is obliged to consult and have regard for representations. Section 3.24 of the Smart Schools Initiative: Edinburgh Schools Catchment Review (Executive Council Report - dated 4 November 2003) - “...a second statutoty consultation exercise has been programmed to allow for changes to be made to the initial .orooosals.” Therefore after the fiasco of the meeting at Gylemuir PS why are the Education Department refusing to answer calls for a second consultation exercise? Have wtitten to the Scottish Minister for Education demanding a Public Enquiry. Will be writing to the First Minister to make a formal objection to the way this consultation is being conducted. (“Before implementation, any changes to a catchment affecting a school operating at over 80% occupancy would require the consent of the First Minister*). APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICALORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS - 01€ e Email - January 8,2004 Mrs Keran Henderson, e Has son in P6 of Gylemuir Primary and is angry at the proposed changes. XX Broomhall Drive, Corstorphine, e As an ex-pupil of Craigmount chose to live in Broomhall Drive so that children could attend Craigmount High School. Edinburgh, EHXX XQR 0 Child needs extra support with schod work from parent and teachers. It is vital he goes to Craigmount so that he is given the best schooling and opportunities, something that Forrester cannot offer - as highlighted from published reports. e Sister is at Craigmount and he relies on her for support. e Moving is not an option as looks after elderly parents and needs to be near them. e Son came home from school in tears because he thinks he will not get into Craigmount. e Health will suffer because of the uncertainty. - - 030 Letter - January 8,2004 Ms Lindsay Brown, e Child is at Carrick Knowe Primary and will go to Forrester High. Feels that it is important that a child goes to the XX Broomfield Crescent, Edinburgh, same school as the majority of hislher friends. EHXX XLT e There is a lot of snobbery in both primary and secondary education. e Craigmount is oversubscribed because there are too many people from outwith the catchment getting in. e Finds it a bit odd that both Rosebum and Hillwood primarys feed Craigmount when Tynecastle is closer to Roseburn and Kirkliston High is closer to Ratho Station. e Appalled by attitudes displayed in the Evening News, particularly towards Forrester. e Childs academic success depends on a) the child, b) the support from home and c) the expertise of the teachers. 0 Teachers at Craigmount no better than those at Forrester or any other state school. e Agrees that all of Gylemuir feeding to Forrester will lifi the schools status. e Suggests that a similar effect may have occurred at Firhill High when new houses were built within its catchment. e Hopes that Forrester will be rebuilt.

022 Email - January 9.2004 Wrs Susan Dowell, m Irrespective of Option A or Option B South Gyle Wynd is "hit" again. (Previously pushed out of the voting area and KXlX South Gyle Wynd, Edinburgh, into the Sighthill area.) SHXX XHJ e Parents should have right to choose where their child is educated. e Forrester High does not provide the same standard of education as Craigmount - Education Reports prove this. e Friends within South Gyle area will be split up. e It is unfair that Rosebum children will be able to attend Craigmount while residents of South Gyle. which is closer, won't be given that opportunity. 0 Forrester may be close at hand, but parents want the best school for their children and Forresters standards aren't high enough. e Upgrading will not improve Forresters standards. e As an ex-Ctaigmount pupil and life long resident of the Corstorphine area, fully aware of the potentials both schools provide. e Utterly disgusted by the fact that areas such as Rosebum, Saughton and Palmerston have the right to attend Craigmount, but South Gyle doesn't. e Will attend meetings in February, but knows from past experience that it will be a lost cause. Authorities wouldn'tspend this time on it if the options weren't going to be going ahead anyway. (Foregone conclusion). e Feels so strongly that will sell house and move in with mother if it means children get best education. e Only other option is to sell up and rent a house in the area, but is concerned about the strain this will cause to the family. 0 Council is not improving education system, simply increasing numbers in Forrester. e Option 3 (maintain status quo) is ruled out later in the website. Why then offer option 3 at all? e Collecting other parents views on the matter and is confident that this is just one voice in many.

024 1 Email -January 9.2004 Ar Neil Dustan. Is concerned about youngest child going to Forrester when eldest is currently in Craigmount.

3

1 f L & &

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

XXX Gogarloch Syke, Edinburgh, e Concerned bv lwistics of sending- two children to different schools and also by Forresters academic record EHXX XJF compared to Craigmounts. e Family have stayed in the area under the assumption that the children would go to Craigmount - seeks assurance that this will be the case. - 023 e Email - January 9,2004 Mrs Maureen Dickie e Son currently attends Craigmount. Mrs Dickie is happy with the schools performance and wants the same for her daughter. e Why do Rebumpupils not go to Tynecastle instead of Craigmount? ISthis because parents at Rosebum have disapproved of this in the past? e a forrmer pupil at Forrester, MS Didtie experienced its failings fist hand. but exam results have got worse. e Concerned about the wwry that this situation is causing her daughter. e Children should be lefi to concentrate on s~hoo~work rather than worrying UP until the last minute what School they might have to attend.

003 e Email -January IO. 2004 Mr Robert Donald, Email - January 10,2004 e Email - February 5,2004 XXX South Gyle Wynd, Edinburgh, Two children at Gylemuir All family have gone to Craigmount in the past Forrester will not improve by making people go there, and parents should have the right to choose where they send their children. Forresters reputation is terrible and the prospect of sending children there fills Mr Donald with dread. Building a new school will not remove the unsavoury elements that attend from Broomhouse, Sighthill, etc. Will do everything in power to stop children attending Forrester. Will not subject children to at least 4 years of poor education, bullying, drugs. smoking etc... Dubious decision to allow Rosebum children to attend Craigmount but stop Gylemuir pupils doing the same. Deciding which school you attend on a street-by-street basis is simply crazy.

Email - February 5,2004 Pre-war style Iraq where councils dictate to people and remove their right to democratic choice. Attending a poor school will affect childrens education for the rest of their lives. Forcing Gylernuir children into Forrester will create a class war and bullying in the playground. Why not send Rosebum pupils to Tynecastle and more Cmtorphine pupils to Forrester. Proposals are like a political statement rather than anything to do with catchment areas. Is it because Rosebum is in upper-class Murrayfield? South Gyle and Broomhall are upperdass compared to Broomhouse and Sighthill - so why target Gylemuir. Gylemuir parents will move from the area or choose private education for their children rather than go to such a bad school as Forrester. Proposed Craigmount catchment area includes an industrial estate, a sports centre and a shopping centre -where are the pupils and houses from there? If proposals are accepted Mr Donald will move away from the area. 004 9 Email - January 11,2004 Mrs Loraine Gray, Bought house based on reputation of both Gylemuir Primary and Craigmount High. KX Gogarloch Syke, Edinburgh, EHXX Upset that choice of Craigmount is being taken away. KJD The council should look at a wider area eg. Fox Covert to Royal High, Rosebum to Tynecastle. Rosebum children are a bus ride away from Craigmount; Gylemuir pupils are within walking distance. U'Kh~tandsthat Parent Pressure had TynecasUe removed as Rosebums catchment school. League Tables demonstrate why Craigmount is the favoured choice. ProPosals will affect house prices and the community as a whole. Gylemuirs PoPulafiv will drop attracting less pupils and making a mockery of the new three tier extension. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS WING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

025 a Email -January 12.2004 Mrs Lesley Robertson, As parent of children at Gylemuir and Forrester, Mrs Robertson was "highly offended" by remarks made by some XX Broomhall Crescent, Edinburgh, Gylemuir parents in the Evening News about Forrester High. EHXX XPF Both parents and son chose Forrester over Craigmwnt and are happy with that decision. b Son is doing well and has a good group of friends who mefrom a good homes and are not "yobs". a Has written to Evening News to express dissatisfaction.

028 a Email -January 12,2004 Ms Caroie-Ann Fanner, Obi& to parents losing the right to choose. XXX Gogarloch Syke, Edinburgh, Twb prima& age children. EHXX XJE Important factor in moving to the area was the quality of both primary and secondary education available. Gylemuir attendance will drop as parents choose schools that feed to Craigmount. Guardian Newspaper Article Quotations: "...No parent wants their child to go in at the sharpe end in an improving school rather than at the comfortable end in an already achieving school." 1981 Education (Scotland) Act Gives parents the statutory right to request that their child attend a school outside their designated attendance area. Removing Craigmount would place more administration on the system as nondistrict requests increase. Forrester not the best education based on published fadand figures. Comparisons of the two schools show that in terms of unauthorised absences, free school meals and qualification achievements that Craigmwnt is better. Any parent concerned with their childs education would choose Craigmount. Why are children from Rosebum, which is miles away, getting to go to Craigmount? Parents and Grandparents will force Education Department to think again Ms Fanner has written to her MP (Jenny Dawe).

027 Email -January 12,2004 Mr Bernard Hartles. a Youngest child is at Gylemuir, eldest is at Craigmount. Youngest already has many friends at Craigmount. XXX South Gyle Mains, Edinburgh, a Since learning that he may not be going to Craigmount youngest son has been worried and stressed. EHXX XES a The priority of the council should be to first invest in raising standards at Forrester, encouraging children to attend and so easing the pressure on Craigmount. a Under options 1 & 2 the right for the parent to choose is lost. a Changes should be put back 5 years to enable parents and pupils to plan childrens education rather than feeling trapped.

010 Email - January 13.2004 (Name and Address withheld.) Appalled by comments made in the Evening News with regard to Forrester. Supports Forrester and has a daughter who studied at Forrester and is now doing a degree in Nursing. Craigmount also has its problems. It has been alleged that parents have had to move their children to Forrester because of bullying problems at Craigmount.

035 Letter - January 13,2004 Mr George Hennys. Two children, one at Gylemuir. X Westerbrm Grove. Edinburah. . a Disagress with proposals being inflicted on children. EHXX XRJ a Would prefer to maintain status quo. a What right does Council have to tell parents what schoold their children can attend? Rosebum further away than Gylemuir yet Rosebum parents are told they must send their children to Craigmount. This is also unfair to the people of WesterbroornIGylemuir. New look catchments are pathetic 031 Letter January 13.2004 - Ms Michelle Browne. One child at Craigmount; one at Gylemuir. X Wester Broom Avenue, Edinburgh, If changes go ahead, both children midattend different schools. EHXX XQU Studied statistics from Edinburgh schools and made choice based on visits. Concerned that parental choice is being taken away. , * A

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Craigmount has just been rebuilt, has motivated staff and encouraging exam results; why would a parent not choose it. Cannot understand why children from Rosebum (who will need to catch a bus) are allowed to go to Craigmount when Gylemuir pupils are not.

033 Letter - January 13,2004 Mrs Mane White, Letter - January 13.2004 Letter - February 21.2004 "Green Gables", XX Brucehaven Road, Two children attending Gylemuir Limekilns, Fife, KYXX XJA Main reason for moving to area was because of the schools the children would attend. Exam results at Forrester make Mrs White fear for her grandchildrens future. Concerned by the affect on properly prices in the area.

Letter - February 21,2004 Forrester High is undersumbed, so one would expect pupils academic achievement to be higher. Fail to see that enlarging the school roll and the teachers workload is going to bring about improvement. Improvement in academic achievement shwld mefirst, then assignment of further pupils to the school. Why is there such haste to assign pupils to a school about to undergo such major change? The disruption will adversely affect the teaching and therefore the learning of the pupils. Surely a smaller number of pupils in the school at the time of change is better for all concerned? Cannot understand the headlong rush to redraw catchment areas until Forrester High has its new school and is showing improvement in its academic standards. Craigmount is not at maximum roll potential. A Forrester has a different halfday to Gylemuir and Craigmount. A A 009 Email - January 13,2004 Mrs Elinor Mitchell. Lives one street outwith the Rosebum catchment area but eldest attends Rosebum PS. XX Balgreen Road, Edinburgh, EHXX Address linked Secondary catchments mean that her daughter will attend Tynecastle. XTY Tynecastle detrimental to education as all her friends will attend Craigmount. Unfair situation because Mrs Mitchell lives doser to Craigmount than most in the Roseburn catchment. Children going to Craigmount will walk past her house. This unfairness must be addressed.

011 Email - January 14,2004 Mrs Sandra White, Eldest at Craigmount; youngest at Gylemuir. XXX Broomhall Rd, Edinburgh, EHXX D If proposals go through, Mrs White is concerned by the prospect ofhaving two children at different High Schools XPP meaning different half days, uniforms. school activity times and having to travel in two different directions.

032 Letter - January 14,2004 Mrs S Patterson, m Moved to Gylemuir area because it was in Craigmount catchment. )<)(x Gogarloch Syke, Edinburgh, Concerned by academic statistics of Forrester armpared to Craigmount. EHXX XJE D Wants youngest (Gylemuir pupil) to go to the same school as eldest (Craigmount).

034 Letter - January 14,2004 Mrs Hilary Sloan, rn Two children attending Gylemuir Primary. XX South Gyle Gardens, Corstorphine, m Forrester is a dump and the education levels are appalling compared to Craigmount. Edinburgh, All family, friends. neighbouts and childrens friends went to Craigmwnt. D Cannot understand why pupils from Rosebum. who will require a free bus pass at the Councils expense, can go to Craigmount. They should be going to Tynecastle. Letter - January 15,2004 Mrs Lorraine Farquhar. D If boundaries do change, it must be fairer that either the whole Gylemuir area moves to Forrester or the status quo KXX Westerbroom Drive, Edinburgh, remains. Edinburgh, EHXX XRQ -l----- D If area is split it will be unfair to the children. b Are there any plans to feed Rosebum children to Forrester or are just Gylemuir losing the right to feed to Craigmount? APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

029 Email -January 18,2004 Mr Keith Wright, Moved to area with expectation that children would attend Craigmount. X Gogarloch Bank, Edinburgh, EHX 0 Forrester not an opSon which means that the family will be forced to move house or consider private education. XLA Rosebum pupils will have to get on a bus to go to Craigmount when Tynecastle is just around the comer.

037 Letter - January 18,2004 Mr K Brown, Letter - January 18,2004 Letter - February 18,2004 XXX South Gyle Road, Edinburgh, Parent of two Gylemuir pupils EHXXXEE Understands that these arp just proposals but angry at lack of planning and forethought. Old Craigmount School playing fields are to become new housing development - where are the new children going to go to school if Craigmount is full? Council__~- oermission aiven for 200 houses on the site of the Seed Testing Farm -where are the new children going to go to &AI if Craigkount is full? Council has West Edinburgh Structure Plan, providing housing for workers that want to live in the West of Edinburgh - where are the new children going to go to school if Craigmwnt is full? Council keeping proposal to build road from Maybury Rd to Gogar Roundabout quiet. This road would encapsulate greenbelt land, pushing It further west and thus redaiming extra development land in an “I.UIdemand fashion”. Mr Brow understands that Asda have interest in reclaimed land, with the rest going to housing -where are the new children going to go to school if Craigmount is full? Queen Margaret College at Clemwill soon relocate setting aside ground for large residential development - where are the new children going to go to school if Craigmount is full? Parents should not be forced to send their children to attend a lower than average school (league positions) as it is against the parents charter not to give a choice of at least two schools. Regardless of Forrester structural impromments. no parent should be forced to send child to Forrester until it returns same results as Craigmount. Allow Forrester to be developed and improved -then change the boundaries. Children should not be forced to attend a school to improve that schoofs performance. Legal right to choose school. Rosebum pupils to attend Craigmount a short sighted and ill-thought out idea. Children from city centre locations within Rosebum catchment will not be able to walk to school - this is contrary to Councils pdicy of trying to make more children walk to school. What is wrong with sending Rosebum pupils to Broughton or Tynecastle? Parents will take children to school by car. again undermining the Council policy of “leaving the car at home“. Public Transport unreliable (eg.2003 Lothian Bus strikes) Walking Roseburn children will have to cross more than one busy mad and walk through poorly lit areas which is contrary to the Council policy of Safer Routes to Schools”. Has thought been given to children walking in dark, cold winter evenings? Parents travelling to and from Rosebum will face road toll charges at the congestion charge boundaries. Moved to the area on the understanding that children would attend Craigmount High. Option 2 is autocratic, insensitive and divisive proposal. A child moving to the north side of the boundary two weeks prior to the start of term could go to Craigmount when a child brought up in the area would not. A more understanding proposal would be to set a Cut off date (eg. IsJanuary 2005) so that any family moving into the area after that date know what schod their child will attend. Council has ignored children who will be split from friends making school more daunting. Introduce these measures for all children who do not currently attend Gylemuir Primary or Nursery (those currently not of school age). Pleased by consultation process.

Letter - Februaw 18.2004 Gylemuir publi&m&ting made it clear that change will happen regardless of the views and opinions which were

T f APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESKR CATCHMENT AREAS

presented by concerned parents. - Many would accept the changes if they were not forced through so quickly and were delayed until the new Forrester High was completed. - A 6 year delay would give time for all concerned to adjust and get ready for the changes. - The number of children going from Gylemuir to Craigmount would not be excessive over 6 year period as the school role at Gylemuir is decreasing year after year. - Additional time would also allow for a strong relationship to develop and grow between Gylemuir and Forrester. - 0 038 0 Letter - January 22.2004 Wiss Brown, Primary 7 Pupil East Craigs School. 0 Letter - January 22,2004 I< Fauldbum, Out of catchment for Craigmount but attends feeder school. (Copy letter to Cllr Aitken) East Craigs, 0 In catchment for Royal High but would have to cross two busy roads to get to and from school. Edinburgh. Children from Rosebum who are further from Craigmount than Miss Brown will be allowed to go to Craigmount ZHM XYH which is only 10-15 minutes walk for her. 8 Why can’t Rosebum pupils go to Tynecastle? 8 Why can’t Ratho Station pupils go to Queensfeny, Balerno or Currie. 8 Review has considered areas not built yet, but not ones built since the last review.

039 Email - January 27,2004 blr Ken McKeating Children attend Corstorphine Primary; how will catchment changes affect them if they live outside Craigmount catchment, despite being at a feeder school?

040 Email - January 27,2004 drs L Moir Son with Spina Bifida is at Primary School D Will require a lot of support at secondary schod What facilities are in place at either (Craigmount & Forrester) school? Is there a) lifts, b) disabled toilets and showers c) regular assistance.

041 Email - January 27,2004 drs Elaine Thompson, D Lives on Southside of Glasgow Rd. Angry that Glasgow Road is being split. o< Glasgow Road, Rosebum pupils will get off the bus outside her house to walk he5 minutes to Craigmount. Idinburgh. D Glasgow Rd & Gyle Park Grdns should be included in Corstorphine PS catchment. IHXX XLH

042 Email -January 27,2004 dr Alan Thomson D Concern for Rosebum pupils travelling through busier traffic routes as more developments are built closer to Craigmount. D Parents will move out of Forrester catchments areas if Option 1 is chosen. D If Gytemuir is sole feeder to Forrester, middle-class families will leave area and standards at Gylemuir will fall. D No parents in the Gogalloch area want their childrens education to suffer at Forrester. D Option 2 is preference as it causes least disruption.

135 8 Letter - January 28,2004 Ar Scott Brodie Mr Brodie would like to express his disappointment with the proposals. OO( South Gyle Wynd It is astonishiong that there is any need for change at the moment. :dinburgh When building the new Craigmount why was it not bui!t biggel? iHXX XEZ It is more important to cater for childrens needs than to sell off green belt land to housing developers. Led to believe there is not even a business case for the rebuilding of Forrester under PPP. Should a strict building timetable not be adhered to, children could be learning in temporary ammodation in‘a building site - as was the case in.various West Lothian projects. Requests a definite answer as to whether Forrester will be rebuilt under PPP. What is the logic behind pupils from the Rosebum Area being asked to travel to school in the West of Edinburgh - surely this goes against council policy of discouraging car use by parentk and increases pollution? Why are children in the vicinity of Craigmount being denied places at the expense of children from Rosebum who don’t even have a direct bus route to school. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICALORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Why does the Council expect parents to send their children to Forresters which is in a state of dilapidation and is cu&ntly way behind Craigmount in the League tables. Council should bear in mind the parents right to challenge proposals under ECHR legislation.

473 Letter - January 29,2004 Sandra Wyllie Signed by 9 other residents of Corstorphine Park Gardens, Sycamore Terrace 8 Corstorphine House Avenue. XX Corstorphine House Avenue All live near and attend Corstorphine Primary School but are in catchment for Carrick Knowe. Edinburgh Want this changed to reflect parental choice. Fewer roads crossed to reach Corstorphine Primary School than Carrick Knowe. Approximately one third of all pupils who attend Corstorphine Primary are currently outside catchment. it is not consideref! that this request is unreasonable.

131 Letter - January 29,2004 Mr Bruce Coutts Concerns over boundary changes XX South Gyle Gardens Taking away parental choice detrimental to children - parents should have the right to decide where their children Edinburgh are educated. EHXX XRZ Council finally builds a Community Centre for people of South Gyle. Wester Broom and Gogarloch then drives a wedge into the community with these proposals. Dumbfounded by the councils decision to build a new school at Craigmount then cut their playing fields for priMte housing development then have the audacity to say that new housing will lead to overcrowding. Roseburn children travelling to Craigmount will mean an increased number of children travelling to school by car and overcrowded public transport. It would make more sense to send Rosebum children to a local school, allowing them to walk to school, lightening the burden on the transport system and a healthier option for the children.

043 Email - January 29,2004 Mrs Jan Rutherford, Mrs Rutherford is Chair of the Rosebum school board. X West Stanhope Place, Only hnro Rosebum parents were disappointed with the proposals in a survey that received an 80% response. These Edinburgh, two negative responses were for specific and personal reasons. EHXX XHQ Few children go to Bmughton from Rosebum. Travel to Craigmount is straightforward - one bus ride along a single road. Travel to Bmghton is more compkx and takes time. Travel to Tynecastle is difficult The Russell Road route has little pavement provision and dangerous crossings. Some Rosebum areas within the catchment are long distance from Tynecastle eg. Palmerston and the Zoo area. 204 Email - 31 January, 2004 (Name & Address withheld) Can the Council confirm that a child who lives in the new Forrester catchment area but has an out of district place at Corstorphine Primary School will go to Craigmount?

139 Letter - 31 January, 2004 Mr & Mrs Winton Two children at Rosebum Primary XX Rosebum Place Very please with proposal to give single feeder status to Rosebum. Edinburgh Concerned by media coverage of the-catchment review, particularly the hostility shown by the Gylemuir parents EHXX XNU towards Rosebum. Only a small number of Rosebum children go to Craigmount each year. It is wrong for Gylemuir parents to use Rosebum as a lever for their argument or involve Rosebum in their debate. D Gylemuir parents attitude towards Forrester High School must be dispiriting for the staff and pupils. D Mr & Mrs Winton hope that pupils from Rosebum will continue to be allowed to move on to Craigmount High. -116 Letter - 1 February. 2004 Mr Charles Stewart Roper Letter- 1 February, 2004 Letter - 20 February, 2004 XA Granville Terrace - The publication d new area Population Projections by the General Register Off~cefor Scotland points to a Edinburgh fundamental problem with the review. EHXX XPG . Review paper stated (briefly) that birth rate was falling but would rise after 2008 with secondary school population levels reaching current levels again by 2030.

, f f r . L I C APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WHINTHE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

_c_ New GRO(S) paper much clearer: - 514vr olds to droD from 45900 in 2002 to 41 100 in 2008, to 38100 in 2013 where it remains until 2018. .-, --- - ~ - 04vr olds to incre& in 2008 but only to 2002 levels. This gives no indication of significantly higher numbers of g14yr olds in the years beyond. Where did the Education Deparbnent get projections for 2030? Experts at GRO(S) only work on a regional level to 2013. Overall projections for Scotland show decreasing populations of young people beyond 2018. Figures demonstrate that there will be significantly lower school populations for the next 20 years at least. This means 1,500 to 2,000 less children in Edinburgh schools. Consequences for the Review: - Unrealistic for each element of the review to assume increasing pressures on popular schools. If there are inmasing pressures on popular schools then other areas of the city must be virtually emptied. - No way review can address under occupancy in certain schools. Out of area requests must be accepted until popular schools are full. With falling population of students it is inevitable that the problem of under occupancy will continue no matter how the boundaries are redrawn. What is needed is a city-wide review of secondary provision, not the expedient consideration of schools in small dusters. By looking at problem in there is no way of reaching a sound conclusion.

Letter - 20 February. 2004 Options are constrained by decision to run review in Clusters Better practise to assess a wider range of options against objective CrWria. Birth rates and population projections from the General Register Office for Scotland points to a reducing number c children of High School age in Edinburgh. If 175 pupils will move into Craigmount area due to housing developments.pupils must be last to other catchment areas. Council assuming rising population pressures for Craigmount. the Royal High, Broughton and Craigroyston. This is not credible when GRO Scotland show reduction of 5-14 year olds in Edinburgh from 45.900 in 2002 to 41,100 in 2008. Since Craigmount below notional capacity, expectation that population of high school age children will drop and that placing requests must be accepted until capacity is reached; it is unlikely that proposals will alleviate under- utilisation at Forrester. Current review will not solve under-utilisation as the combination of a falling high school population and placing requests will leave a larger number of unused spaces in unpopular schools than at present. In the absence of authoritative population projections the review cannot produce an outcome that represents best value.

136 Letter - 1 February, 2004 9 C W Hunter Letter - 1 February, 2004 Letter - 12 February, 2004 KX Broomhall Terrace - Purchased house because it was within the Craigmount catchment. Letter - 16 February. 2004 Edinburgh - From the Review document it appears that daughter at Corstorphine Primary will still get a place at Craigmount due EHXX XPX to her elder sister being there. Seeks confirmation that this is the case. - It is unreasonable to expect people to be able to move house within the timeframe to ensure a place based on new boundaries. - Presumes there will be dispensation for individuals in these particular circumstances.

Letter - 12 February, 2004 - At Gylemuir public meeting Colin Dalrymple confirmed that all letters written would be responded to with answers to questions - Doesn’t want another stock reply. - Purchased house because it was within the Craigmount catchment. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS & EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

- From the Review document it appears that daughter at Colstorphine Primary will still get a place at Craigmount due to her elder sister being there. Seeks confirmation that this is the case. - It is unreasonable to expect people to be able to move house within the timeframe to ensure a place based on new boundaries. - Assumes there will be some dispensation for particular circumstances should sibling status be no guarentee.

Letter - 16 February, 2004 - At Gflemuir public meeting Colin Dallymple confirmed that all letters written would be responded to with answers to questions . - From the Review document it appears that daughter at Corstorphine Primary will still get a place at Craigmount due to her elder sister being there. Seeks confirmation that this is the case. - What right does council have to deny parental choice? Within Human Rights charter unable to remove right to choose. Please confirm how this is being circumvented.

142 Letter - 1 February, 2004 Mr i% Mrs A Newton __DFtliohted to- hear-- of (ktncils mmosals to make Rosebum Primary a sde feeder school for Craigmount High. X Kew Terrace Public Transport facilities beknRosebum area and Craigmount are exceptional. Edinburgh There is a strong partnership between the two schools leading to an easy transition from one school to another. EHXX XJE Other areas may be closer in distance, but they are lucky that they have a more local and easily accessible alternative.

137 Letter - 2 February, 2004 Mrs Shirley Wilkie Letter - 2 February, 2004 Letter - 16 February, 2004 XX Riversdale Crescent - Would like to register support for the proposal to give Rosebum Primary School single feeder status to Craigmount. Edinburgh - Would also like to strongly register disappoinlment with Gylemuir parents attack on the proposal for Rosebum. EHXX XQT Letter - 16 February. 2004 - Hopes that Education Department continue down the required road of change and is not influenced by bully-boy tactics.

143 Letter - 2 February, 2004 Mr Andrew Wilkie Letter - 2 February, 2004 Letter - 16 February, 2004 Kx Riversdale Crescent . Would like to register support for the proposal to give Rosebum Primary School single feeder status to Craigmount. Edinburgh . Would also like to strongly register disappointment with Gylemuir parents attack on the proposal for Rosebum. EHXX XQT b Letter - 16 February, 2004 . Attended three public meetings and thought they were handled in a very professional manner. . Hopes that Education Department continue down the required road of change and is not influenced by bully-boy tactics. 145 Letter - 2 February. 2004 \As Anne-Marie Young Letter - 2 February, 2004 Letter - 14 February, 2004 KX Corstorphine Road Pleased with prop0sals:tomake Rosebum Primary a single feeder to Craigmount. Email - 14 February, 2004 Edinburgh Location of Craigmount is more than satisfactory due to excellent bus service. EHXX XHS Happy for son to attend after school clubs in knowledge that it is a safe mute home. It is unfair of Gylemuir parents to use location as a reason to exdude Rosebum Primary. Hillwood and Fox Coverts are further away if this argument is to be used. Previously lived in Broomhall Road (Gylemuir catchment) and feels that sons current journey to and from school is safer than at old address. Respects the right of the parents at Gylemuir to fight their cause but objects to them using "dirty tricks" to do so.

Letter - 14 February. 2004 . - Consultation meeting on Tuesday IO* February conveyed message of support for proposal to align Rosebum as single feeder to Craigmount.

1 , 1 *

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EWLSRECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICALORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Horrified at the reaction of Gylemuir parents to proposals for Roseburn. Roseburn parents attending Gylernuir Consultation were greeted with hostility and felt intimidated by their treatment at the meeting. They left badly shaken. Gylemuir school have brought the issue down to mentality of *if our children can’t go then neither can yours” The Council should emphasis to them that it is not a case of school against school. Rosebum should be aligned with Craigmount because: -The majority of children have been going there for many years and have built up strong ties. -It is the safest, quidcest, easiest route. Broughton has no direct links with Mumyfield. -There are no other sensible optims. No choice but to support Option 1, for Gylemuir to be realigned with Forrester: - Forrester is the nearest and safest route from Gylemuir. - It sits in their catchment. - They have the number of pupils the Education Department are looking for to release from Craigmount - Forrester can accommodate Gylemuir.

0 Email - 14 February, 2004 Broughton is not an easy school route for children at Roseburn. Alarmed by Gylemuir parents attacks. Rosebum is a small school sending an insignificant number of children to Craigmount every year. Rosebum has built a relationship with Craigmount. Craigmwnt is the easiest school to get to from Murrayfield. Tynecastle not feasible: - Would refuse to let children walk down Russell Road - Lonely Road of industsial estates and a cycle track. - Poor lighting and pavement provision - Would not let child stay for after schd activities. - Taking 2 buses to get to school is ridiculous. - Rosebum has no ties with Tynecastle. Rosebum children leave for Craigmount from the Western Corner bus stop. They have a choice of several buses. They can take a bus to Glasgow Road and cross safely at the pedestrian crossing or take a bus to the end of Craigs Road. Would invite Gylemuir parents to try each journey and decide which they would chose for their child. Rosebum is a small schod and is subject to bully boy tactics. Option 1 is the most sensible option as don’t want children attending overcrowded schools.

203 Email - 2 February, 2004 Vlrs Pamela Deans Email - 2 February, 2004 Letter - I8February, 2004 10( Gogalloch Muir - Very unhappy with proposals. Edinburgh - Forrester has a poor academic record and funds should be used to improve the school nor to the review. EHXX XJJ - Forresters new practise of choosing options after 1’ yr and doing standard grades in 3P year means that the children will have less all round education. - Cannot expect a child to know after 1 year at secondary where there strengths and weaknesses are. - Gylemuir has improved dramatically over the last 5yrs. After visiting both secondary schools; Craigrnount would continue and build on positive attitude - Forrester would not. - The Education Department should be considering why levels of academic performance are so low and on a downward trend at Forrester. - If Forresters new timing of standard grades works and their results improve, then will be the right time for parents to decide if they want to send their children there.

Letter - 18 February, 2004 - Object to the proposed change involving Gylemuir School. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

It aoes anainst parental choice and the legitimate expectations of children already at Gylemuir. Uiaccepkble that sibling places are not guarenteed. Dividing Gylemuir catchment is unacceptable. Gylemuir Primarys positive attitude and ethos will be damaged by proposal 2. Do not accept that option 3 is not an option. Roll at Gylemuir is falling. Most years have 2 rather than 3 classes. New theoretical children should not take priority over existing Gylemuir children. Whole review flawed by quick consultation and change period. Increasing numbers in a failing school. in a poor state of repair cannot benefit anyone. Make more sense to wait until Forrester rebuilt and has had time to improve its reputation, relationship with Gylemuir parents and its academic results. With improvements people will choose to send their children to Forresfer. Meeting at Gylemuir proved how flawed the process is. Education Deparbnent not aware of figures it sent out. Claim that children from Rosebum could not go to Tynecastfe (which is under capacity) due to lack of transpwt links is outrageous. No reason was given for completing the Edinburgh wide review before implementing changes. Director of Education not showing up was insulting. Results show Forrester is not doing well academically. If 4% achieving 3 or more Highers is good then expectations on pupils must be low and the general ethos towards leaving after 4 years. Parents want children to go to school where staying on until 6" year is norm rather than expectation. NO parent should have to send their child to a school that has a level of academic achievement so far below city average. Review should consider the following: Guaranteed places for siblings. No change until Forrester rebuilt. No compulsory change for pupils at Gylemuir

141 Letter - 3 February, 2004 Ms Morag Esgate Councils plan to transfer all Rosebum Primary catchment to Craigmount High is an excellent one. X Murraytiefd Court Lived in area all of life and seen Rosebum associated with TynesHe Annexe, Bmghtmand Craigmwnt. Westem Gardens Gylemuir parents using Rosebum as a pawn. Edinburgh Gylemuir parents have 2 good secondary schools nearby and have probably never experienced such changes as EHMXQD Rosebum has endured. Rosebum Primary needs to be given stability. Number of Rosebum Primary pupils entering Craigmount is very small indeed. Preventing small numbers of Roseburn children entering Craigmount will not solve long-term overcrowding there.

202 Email - 4 February, 2004 Mrs Jenny Robertson Opposed to Council Plans to rid Gylemuir of its Craigmount feeder status. XX Gogalloch Syke With Option 1 as Councils preferred option: will option 2 really be an option at all. EHMXIB Demand for places at Craigmount is because it is one of Edinburghs top performing schools - Forrester is not. Plans to spend money on Forrester - but improvement will take time; Gylemuir children will be railroaded into going to Forrester while performance levels are still low. Makes more sense to improve performance levels then offer Forrester as an alternative to Craigmount. Astonishing that pupils at Rosebum are being given automatic places at Craigmount despite living further away. 167 Letter - 4 February, 2004 Ms Kerry Ross Letter - 4 February, 2004 Letter - 16 February, 2004 XX Riversdale Crescent - Pleased with proposals to make Rosebum Primary a single feeder to Craigmount. Email - 24 February, 2004 Edinburgh - Council reached the decision due to the number of Gylemuir children who attend Craigmount. Rosebum has a EHXX XQT much smaller impact - Rosebum impact is also smaller as many Rosebum parents chose private education. I * L

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

No matter what secondary school Rosebum is attached to, children will have to travel by public transport. . Rosebum Primary does not have the luxury of a secondary school within walking distance as Gylemuir Primary does. Those who reside in Broomhall I Westerbroom are actually nearer Forrester. There has been large amounts of support for Forrester from former pupils and parents of pupils currently attending who are delighted with the level of education. Argument of poor education standards washes thin. Most comments amount to no more than snob value. The Council should stand firm.

Letter - 16 February, 2004 Happy with the proposals for Rosebum to be single feeder to Craigmount Object to Tynecastle being nominated for the following reasons: Will not solve the numbers problem at Craigmount due to the large number of children at Gylemuir. Broughton not an option as it will be at capacity in the future. Rosebum is on the edge of Tynecastle catchment area meaning children will have to travel by bus - but there is no single bus route. Children will have to walk along either Russell Road or Water of Leith towpath, both of which are unsafe (lack of lighting and pavement provision). Potential housing developments in Gorgie area (ie. Tynecastle & old Distillery) Rosebum has links with Craigmount but none with Tynecastle. A A Email - 24 February, 2004 (D Child at Rosebum Happy with the proposals for Rosebum to be single feeder to Craigmount. Broughton not an option. Tynecastle unsuitable for a few reasons: lack of single bus route; the walk along Russell Road which is unsafe due to a lack of pavements and being poorly lit.

201 Email - 4 February, 2004 Vlr John Christie Disagree with the loss of parental choice KXX Wester Broom Drive Craigmount and Forrester academic standards are light years apart. Edinburgh Detrimental affect on childrens employment status after school years. EHXX XRQ Professional Advisors predict a 10% fall in property value. Are the Council prepared to compensate householders with children at Gylemuir for this equity loss? Catchment imbalance due to the PPP initiative that saw Craigmount land sold off for housing. Gylemuir parents = financial disaster Fat Cat builders = excessive profits from inflated prices.

200 . Email - 4 February, 2004 Hrs Kathleen Christie Very impressed with standard of education at Craigmount. KXX Wester Broom Drive Son is proud to wear his school uniform and looks smart; he is full of enthusiasm and talks highly of his time at Sdinburgh school. His new friends are also please with their school. SHXX XRQ The 20 minute walk across Gyle Park means he recieves fresh air and exercise. You do not find many ex-Gylemuir pupils getting dropped off by car or getting the bus or who have a problem with obesitv. Children from Forresters do not have the same pride in their appearance or in their school. Problems at Craigmount are dealt with quickly and in an appropriate manner. Gylemuir children will mix with children from problem areas with social problems at Forrester which will have an adverse affect on their education. Moving house to get into new Craigmwnt catchment area will be difficult for South Gyle. Westerfxoom, Gogarloch APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS & EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

and Gyle Palk parents due to the difference in house prices. a Letter - 4 February, 2004 Mr & MnGalloway Letter - 4 February, 2004 Letter - 25 February, 2004 M Riversdale Grove Concerned that council may be forced to change original review decision for Rosebum to have sole feeder status to a Letter - 25 February. 2004 Edinburgh Craigmount EHXX XQS A Council change would be unacceptable. To find parents from Gylemuir using Rosebum as a pawn is disappointing. The Council should reject external pressure.

Letter - 25 February, 2004 Supports proposal for Rosebum pupils to feed to Craigmount. If Council give in to Gylemuir parents pressure it will set a precedent for all reviews.

Letter - 25 February, 2004 Supports proposal for Rosebum pupils to feed to Craigmount. If Council give in to Gylemuir parents pressure it will set a precedent for all reviews. a Email - 5 February. 2004 Ms Linda Harper Objects to the proposed boundary changes. M Gogarloch Muir Specifically bought house in area because it was within Craigmounts catchment. Edinburgh Does not consider Forrester a viable alternative. EHXX Extremely concerned by Forresters position in the League tables and would not send children there. a Letter - 6 Februarv. 2004 Ms Loma Henderson Letter - 6 February, 2004 a Letter - 12 February, 2004 X Saughtonhall Circus Very pleased that the catchment review recommended that Rosebum should stay in the Craigmount area. Edinburgh Few parents choose Broughton as it is difficult to get to for the ITIajOrity of parents. EHXX XRG Craigmount is a single straightforward bus journey. The total number of Rosebum pupils attending Craigmount from S1 to S6 is lower than the single annual intake from Gylemuir. Forrester is the natural geographical choice for Gylemuir parents. Excluding 20 or so Rosebum children from Craigmount is not going to make a vast difference to the S1 intake. The council should adhere to their initial proposals. Respects the right of parents to object, but it is not fair that Rosebum is used as a pawn in the ongoing debate. Letter - 12 February, 2004 Gylemuir feel aggrieved that Roseburn Primary will remain within the catchment area for CraigmOUnt. They have not grasped the fad that Rosebum does not make any difference to their claim. There are safety issues involved in travel to Tynecastle. Russell Road and McLeod Street - both roads used extensively by heavy vehicles. Brwghton difficult to get to for the majority of pupils requiring 2 bus joumep. Craigmount is a single starightfotward bus jwmey. Feelings running high at both schools. This could have been avoided if Rosebum had been afforded the same status as Hillwood Primary - Craigmount is the only reasonable choice. Gylemuir public meeting was extremely intimidating, hostile and aggressive. Disgraceful that Ewan Aitken and Roy Jobson were not present. Meeting ended in very bad humour and a mass walkout. Would be helpful ifJohn Barrett MP had been present as he is a former pupil of Forrester School and could have encouraged Gylemuir parents to at least view with an open mind. Misconception that Forrester is grossly inadequate in educational terms. Gylemuir vs Rosebum and Craigmount vs Forrester is extemely divisive for the community.

1 I r L I I 1

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

IfB Letter - 6 February, 2004 Mr Stuart Dickson Writes to express concerns over favoured proposals; particularly the removal of dual feeder status from Gylemuir XX Gogarloch Haugh . Primary. South Gyle Primary objection is the removal of parental choice. Edinburgh Why impose inflexible catchment restrictions rather than allow schools to manage their own roll? EHXX XIG Schools should be striving to attract pupils rather than being given a forced supply. The proposals do little more than mask the truth that some schools are failing. With improved facilities and improved educational standards, in time, parents will wish to send their children rather than Craigmount. At present 80% of parents in Gylemuir choose to send their children to Craigmount demonstrating that it offers the better prospect of a child achieving good academic performance. By focusing on improving academic performance at Forrester, parents will choose to send their children there and soive capauty pressures at Craigmount. The Council is under no immediate pressure to remove dual feeder status from Gylemuir school. As a result, the Council should focus efforts on improving the standard of Education at Forrester.

197 Email - 6 February. 2004 Ms Jaqueline Christie Daughter is attending the closest local primary school even though she is outwith the catchment. X Fauldbum Primary School is a feeder for Craigmount; but under proposals daughter will go to Royal High. East Craigs Royal High is in a different district, community and cannot be reached safely from home. There are no transport links EHXX XYH to Royal High. Situation is causing child much distress as she will begin a new chapter in her life in an alien environment without her friends and in a district she doesn’t know. Daughter (11) has written to Ewan Aitken without reply; however she did receive a very courteous reply from Roy Jobson.

~ 155 Letter - 9 February, 2004 Alex Joyce Writing on behalf of Forrester School Board Chairperson Strongly support Option 1 for the following reasons: Forrester High School Board Removal of dual feeder status will benefit children through the improved continuity and progression achieved by Broomhouse Road sending all P7 pupils to one High School. Edinburgh Removal of the unfairness of Gylemuir parents having a choice of two High Schools whilst pupils in other local EHXX XAE schools need to make placement requests. The welcome addition of Gylemuir pupils will help sustain the basic numbers of pupils and the balanced intake that should be characteristic of an inclusive comprehensive school. Criticisms and allegations about Forrester carried by the Press recently are without foundation. The misinformation being circulated by certain Gylemuir parents and the Gylemuir School Board is also to be deplored. Forrester High provides a very good standard of education for all its pupils.

157 Letter - 9 February, 2004 Mr & Mrs Lindsay Please with the proposal to realign Rosebum to be sole feeder to Craigmount. X Stanhope Place . Craigmount is not the nearest secondary school. but it is the easiest to reach by public transport. Edinburgh Do not take children to school by car at the present and would prefer to avoid if possible. Minimising school run EHXX XHH traffic is advantageous for everyone and aligning Roseburn with Craigmount should help this aim. Concerned by recent press coverage of the catchment review; in particular the suggestion that Rosebum will be sole feeder to Craigmount at the expense of Gylemuir. This is untrue. In practise there are no easy alternatives for Rosebum children. 158 Letter - 9 February. 2004 Mr David Youngs Writing to object vigorously to the proposal to realign Gylemuir Primary school to Forrester. XX Gogarloch Bank Moved to the area because it was in the catchment for a good school. . APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

~ Edinburgh Forrester is not a good school. EHXXXLA Will move house if the changes go ahead.

161 Letter - 10 February, 2004 Mr David McKean Writing to express concerns on proposed changes to Gylemuir catchment. XX Gogarloch Syke Council Education Department statistics have been misleading - trying to coerce parents to move to Forrester High Edinburgh School. EHXX XID Statement that one-fifth of population choose Forrester is grossly inaccurate. Figures from Forresters Head Teacher show that 1 1% of Forrester roll came from Gylemuir Primary - a difference 01 66 pupils. 92% of parents chose not to send their children to Forrester High for the year 200314. Proposals would be undemocratic. Proposals would undermine Councils principal that parental choice should be respected. Concerns for the safety of Gylemuir children crossing the busy Glasgow Road does not seem to be an issue for children within the Corstorphine and Rosebum catchments. Gylemuir children live within walking distance of Craigmount - reducing the need for public transport; which cannot be said of Rosebum and Hillwood. Forrester High School has very poor exam results for 2003, significantly lower than the Edinburgh average and falling. If pupils from Gyiemuir go to Forrester this would take the roll for the school over the Councils optimum 900 pupils.

162 Letter - 10 February. 2004 Mrs Donna McKean Writing to express concerns on proposed changes to Gylemuir catchment. XX Gogarloch Syke Council Education Department statistics have been misleading -trying to coerce parents to move to Forrester High Edinburgh School. EHXX XID Statement that one-fillh of population choose Forrester is grossly inaccurate. Figures from Fomters Head Teacher show that 11% of Forrester roll came from Gylemuir Primary - a difference of 66 pupils. 92% of parents chose not to send their children to Forrester High for the year 200314. Proposals would be undemocratic. Proposals would undermine Councils principal that parental choice should be respected. Concerns for the safety of Gylemuir children crossing the busy Glasgow Road does not seem to be an issue for children within the Corstorphine and Rosebum catchments. Gylemuir children live within walking distance of Craigmount - reducing the need for public transport; which cannot be said of Rosebum and Hillwood. Forrester High School has very poor exam results for 2003, significantly lower than the Edinburgh average and falling. If pupils from Gylemuir go to Fonester this would take the roll for the school over the Councils optimum 900 pupils. 164 Letter - 10 February. 2004 Mr Mark Ryan Concerned about the realignment of Gylemuir Primary School with Forrester. XX South Gyle Wynd For 16yrs believed that the secondary school for address would be Craigmount. Edinburgh Son is distraught at the thought of attending Forrester due to the schools poor academic performance. EHXX XEU At Craigmount High the want-to-leam attitude is instilled amongst the majority of pupils. Craigmount will give son the opportunity of achieving his maximum academic potential. The proposed dividing line between Gogarloch estate and South Gyle estate could lead to ill feeling amongst parents and pupils at Gylemuir Primary. Have a feeling that the reason for this proposal is because a high percentage ofthe properties are paying higher bands of Council Tax and this is to appease the residents of Gogarloch. Craigmount is currently well under capacity and this is the outlook for the next 6 years at least. Why should Rosebum, which is considerable travelling distance, be aligned with Craigmount High?

c L I 3

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS & EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICALORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WJTHJN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Rosebum should automatically be aligned with Tynecastle. Before proposals are implemented first rebuild Forrester; give the school the opportunity of a completely fresh start and a chance for parents and pupils to set new standards for the school.

la Email - 10 February, 2004 Mr Stephen Orr 0 Wwld like to express extreme concern regarding the proposal to send all Gylemuir children to Forrester. XX Gyle Park Gardens Daughter should be able to attend Craigmount which is a 5 minute walk away. Edinburgh 0 Forrester is 30 minutes walk through Gyle Park which is a small residential area with few children. EHXX XNQ The walk to Forrester is unacceptable. Would urge the Council to only consider Options 2 & 3. Children Should have the automatic right to attend their local secondaly.

Fully support the move to a single feeder status for Rosebum. 192 0 Email - 10 February, 2004 Ms Ann-Marie Jamieson x Rosebum Avenue Parents who would choose Broughton and use public transport and non-existent. Edinburgh Disadvantages of Tynecastle: EHXX XPD - No direct bus route - Minimum 15 minutes walk ambusy commuter road with no pedestrian crossing. - No direct curricular connections with Tynecastle Understand the emotional reaction of Gylemuir parents -they are doing what they think is best for their children. Previous experience of catchment controversy in Middlesex. Daughter could not go to Primary of choice because: - Prioritised siblings outside the catchment. - Parents faking moving house /address. Remrnends the Council get proof of address change before granting applications Suggests the creation of a Forrester-CraigmountSchool with a junior and secondary building. Children would attend the building associated with their subject or year group. All parents in the area would therefore be subject to change. Messages for Gylemuir Parents: -Do not give your children the impression Forresters is a bad school. They will use it against you. -Work together (children, teachers, parents) to promote a change of academic achievement. -Compete with Craigmount in every situation where positive point scoring can occur. (Sport/Competitions) -Parents should not delegate all responsibility to the school and teachers. -When you pick a fight - do it fairly to win. - 196 Letter - 10 Febroary, 2004 Mrs Tracey Berry D Opposes options 1 & 2. XX Wester Broom Gardens I Daughter already at Craigmount - unfair to ask parents to form relationships with hnro different schools. Research Edinburgh proves the children benefit greatly when parents are involved with their childs education. EHXX XRA Partnership with schools will diluted if children at separate schools. I The distress caused to younger child is unacceptable. He is teased by his peers because Option 2 divides the children in the playground. B Very unfdr that friendships built over 7 years at Gylemuir will be broken. B Moved to are based on reassurance from Education Department that Craigmount would be the catchment High School for children -the department cannot now move the goal posts. I Understands the need for change but feels it should be over a greater period of time. 271 Letter - 10 February, 2004 Mrs Jill Wilson B Objects to proposal to send Gylemuir pupils to Forrester. KX Gogarloch Syke b Parent of hnro children attending Gylemuir Primary School. Edinburgh b Chose family home as it fell in Craigmounts catchment. EHXX XID B Article in Scotsman newspaper quotes Inspectors report stating that Forrester is underachieving academically. It calls for significant changes in working practises to drive up results. The Evening News implied that Craigmount was by far the better school. b HT at Forrester quoted as saying that "you are elitest if you want your child to sit Highers". APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 8 EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

It will be at least 2008 before the new Forrester is finished - the council is asking children to give up the right to a new, state of the art school for a school in need of demolition and rebuild. Gylemuir children going to Forrester will cause over capacity problem. This overcapacity at Forrester will be added to by the surplus land from PPP2 being sold for housing. The review should have looked at a bigger duster. Fox Covert Primary is a short walk from the Royal High. Rosebum is geographically closer to Tynecastle High. Russell Road gives easy access to Tynecastle from Roseburn. Why should children from Rosebum get places in Craigmount at the e-nse of Gylemuir pupils? Who pays the transport costs that the Rosebum pupils incun? Why are Hillwood pupils bussed to Craigmount - not Balerno, Cume or South Queenskny? Roseburn and Hillwood pupils could be bussed directly to Forrester. Roseburn and Hillwood pupils together number at least 50 per year which is higher than the Gylemuir average per year going to Craigmount. If Hillwood. Rosebum and non-catchment pupils were taken out of the equation adequate space would be left for Gylemuir children. Children upset that they might not be able to go to Craigmount. Majority of housing proposed for the area will not happen for 7 years. Let Forrester prove itself over the next few years and sell itself to Gjlemuir. Glasgow Road has not been an issue for pupils within Corstorphine or Rosebum. Not an issue for Gylemuir children.

Email - 10 February. 2004 Mr David Weddell Supports catchment changes for Rosebum primary. The schools and the council should be making sure that people who do not live in the catchment area for a school are directed to the correct school. Schools should advise parents that if they move out of the area they may need to change the High School their child attends. People who send their children to Rosebum but do not live in the area are taking places away from people who do.

Email - 11 February, 2004 Mr Euan Renton Email - 11 February, 2004 Letter - 14 February, 2004 XX Saughtonhall Terrace Very satisfied with Council decision to make Rosebum single feeder to Craigmount. Edinburgh EHXX XRB Letter - 14 Februatv. 2004 - oecision to make k&m single feeder to Craigmount is a good one. - Rosebum has long established links with Craigmount. - Broughton and Tynecastle have poor transport links. - If pupils were to be forced to either Brwghton or Tunecastle the council would face additional transport costs. - It is depressing that Gylemuir parents take a position that argues against the wishes of Rosebum parents. - Public transport to Broughbn or Tynecastie not practical unless a new bus service was to be arranged. - Walking a possibility for a few, but most parents would regard Russell Road as unsafe. - In changing catchments, dis-satisfied parents are inevitable.

Email - 11 February, 2004 Mr & Mrs 0 Loudon I Email - 11 February, 2004 Letter - 13 February, 2004 K Saughtonhall Crescent . Very happy with current proposals to make Roseburn single feeder to Craigmount. (Mrs Loudon) Edinburgh . Neither Bmughton nor Tynecastle offer the security of a direct bus link. Concerned by the prospect of children taking Letter - 13 February, 2004 EHXX XRF a variety of buses and walking along unsafe main roads. (Mr Loudon) . It is concerning that Gylemuir parents have asked their local councillor to intervene with the intention of removing Roseburn as sole feeder to Craigmwnt. ' Roseburn is a small school and the amount of pupils going to Craigmount would have a minimal impact. I 3 c .)

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Letter - 13 February, 2004 - (see email above)

Letter - 13 February, 2C)o4 - (see email above)

189 e Email - 11 February, 2004 Mrs Kim Hunter Email - 11 Februaj, 2004 - Attended Roseburn public meeting and would like to thank speakers for a very clear and concise resume of Email - 29 February, 2004 X Rosebum Crescent Letter - 3 March. 2004 Edinburgh proposals. EHXX XNY - Supports single feeder status for Rosebum Primary. - Would not be happy for child to travel to Forrester or Tynecastle. - Rosebum has very good links to Craigmount thanks to hard work from Roseburn staff. - Great concerns over the negativity being aimed at Forrester and the affects it is having on moral

e Email - 29 Februaly, 2004 - Confirming support for current proposals to make Rosebum single feeder to Craigmount.

Letter - 3 March, 2004 - Very happy with current proposals to make Rosebum single feeder to Craigrnount - Rosebum has long, successful assouation with Craigmount and is easily accessible, requiring only 7 bus.

187 e Email- II February, 2004 Mr Paul Stevens Email - 11 Februaw. 2004 e Letter - 27 February, 2004 XX Coltbridge Gardens Very happy with wkntproposals to make Roseburn single feeder to Craigmount Edinburgh Craigmount is a single bus journey away. EHXX XAQ Ruled out Bmghton as it would require a split bus journey. Ruled out Tynecastle as the Russell road route is unsafe. Gylemuir parents fears could be allayed by a visit to Forrester and a talk with the staff and by further investment in the school. Even if Rosebum was not fed to Craigmount, Gylemir would still be unable to be included due to its large secondary population. Forrester is much doser to Gylemuir children than Craigmount. There is an ongoing strategy to improve Forrester.

Letter - 27 February. 2004 Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigrnount Long and successful link between the hnro schools. Schooling was a significant factor in moving to the area. Hopes the council does not bow to pressure from other schools and change or delay their proposals. 147 e Email - 11 February, 2004 Ms Jeana McPherson B Email - 11 Februaw. 2004 Email - 13 February, 2004 - Appeal to Coundlib consider importance of safety and accessible transport links when considering the secondary school Rosebum should feed into. - Ms McPherson does not have a car and relies entirely on public transport. - Happy with current proposals to make Rosebum single feeder to Craigmount.

e Email - 13 February, 2004 - Concerned by hostility towards Rosebum Primary. - Afraid that hostility has became personalised towards individual students in Rosebum uniforms. - Council has a duty to ensure that children are safe on their way to and from school. - Asks Council to make a decision quickly and decisively. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS 81EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OfTlONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Letter - 11 February, 2004 Allan Clapperton e Wishes to express strong support for Option 1 for the following reasons: Head Teacher - Educational continuity and progress will be improved by children going to one High School. Forrester High School - Liaison work between High School and Primary School will be more effective to the benefit of pupils. Broomhouse Road - The welcome addition of Gylemuir pupils increasing intake levels and bringing a balance to the pupil population thal Edinburgh should be characteristic of an inclusive comprehensive school. EHXX XAE - Dual feeder status viewed as unfair by other local primary schools who ask why Gylemuir parents should have a choice of two High Schools whilst they have to make a placement request. Forrester already has long-standing and well established links with Gylmuir that can be built upon. Option 2 should not be considered as it fails to meet the key objective of the review - removal of dual feeder status. It would also create social divisions and see classmates who are friends having to go to different schools. No logic in waiting until new Forrester built. New building is desirable - but the ingredients of an effective education are already in place in Forrester - a skilled and committed teaching staff and an appropriate curriculum that meets pupil needs. - Letter - 11 February. 2004 Mr 8 Mrs A Watson e Extremely upset at proposed change to catchment area. XX Wester Broom Terrace Bought house in Wester Broom area because of choice of two High Schools. Edinburgh Under new proposals there is no guarentee that son will be able to join his sister at Craigmount. EHXX XQT Removing choice means that as parents, feel unable to provide same standard of education for son as that provided for daughter. 8 Craigmount fares much better than Forrester when comparing exam results. 8 Changes suit Rosebum parents but not Gylemuir parents. 8 Changes should have been considered when planning the new Craigmount. 8 New houses built on the old playing fields should not get preference over those that have been in catchment for years.

Email - 11 February. 2004 Mrs Lisa Metcalfe I Email - 11 February, 2004 . Email - 27 February, 2004 XX Belmont Terrace . Happy with the proposal that Rosebum be sole feeder to Craigmount. Edinburgh . Would not be happy for children to walk to Tynecastle via Russell Road. EHXX WF . Craigmount is the most accessible High School in the area.

D Ernail - 27 February, 2004 P Very happy with proposals to make Rosebum'sdefeeder to Craigmount. P Safe and easy bus route to Craigmount b Tynecastle not an option because Russell Road not safe. P Longstanding relationship with Craigmount. b Extermely concerned that decision for Roseburn may be reversed due to Gylemuir using bullying tactics and making Roseburn a scapegoat 1 Would welcome confirmation that Council still intends to pursue proposals for Rosebum Primary.

D Email 12 February, 2004 - Ms Bernadette Newton 1 Ernail - 12 February, 2004 b Letter - 19 February, 2004 X Kew Terrace Delighted with the proposal that Roseburn be sole feeder to Craigmount Edinburgh Very good transport links between the two schools and safe road crossings. EHXX WE Good working relationship between the two schools. Continuity built up over the years ensures childrens smooth transfer from P7 to Si.

1 Letter - I9February, 2004 Delighted with the &uncils proposal to make Rosebum a sde feeder for Craigmount. Broughton High School is difficult to get to and involves two bus journeys. 4 4 z R

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

- Excellent transport links between Craigmount and Rosebum. Safe crossing areas in place. - Very good working relationship between the two schools -feeling of continuity built over years ensures children have easy transition. - Gylemuir Primary also have Fomester High on their doorstep. - Capacity problem would not be resolved by small number of Rosebum children being turned away in favour of Gylemuir children. - Standard of Education at Fmster should be addressed by the Council. - Status quo is not an option as it would not resolve capacity problems at Craigmount. - Travel to Tynecastle would involve a bus journey and a treacherous walk along Russell Road and McLeod Street. - Busy roads with narrow pavements. many industrial entrances and no safe crossing areas. - Few parents would let their children walk along this route which should be a consideration for the Council if they wish to reduce traffic congestion.

Email - 12 February, 2004 Mr & Mrs Walton Email - 29 February, 2004 X Devon Place Email - 2 March, 2004 Edinburgh Email - 2 March, 2004 EHXX XHJ 2 buses: b.oss a busy road and a gdwalk would be required. To remove Rosebum from Craigmount would not solve the problems for ammodation. Would like to thank Council representatives at the Rosebum meeting for a good presentation and open talks. Hopes answer is soon as uncertainty makes uneasy.

Email - 29 February, 2004 (see email above)

Email - 2 March, 2004 Want children to go to Craigmount Checked catchment areas before buying property. Do not want children walking to TynecasUe along Russell Road which is dominated by industrial units and heavy goods vehicles with no crossing.

Email - 2 March, 2004 (see email - 12 February, 2004)

156 Letter - 12 February, 2004 Mrs S Hartles Totally opposed to the planned options for Gylemuir Catchment areas. XXX South Gyle Mains Removing fundamental right to choose the school son attends. Edinburgh Removing parental choice against council principles. EHXX XES - When Forrester has been upgraded and offers the same standards as Craigmount then would consider sending son to Forrester. Rosebum is geographically closer to Tynecastle. Gylemuir has a long established relationship with Craigmount. At recent opening ceremony for Craigmount, councillor Aitken smothered praise on the new school, now he is telling parents their children cannot attend. Craigmount is much more capable of catering for sons preferred schooling options. Son is in fear that he will not be allowed to attend the school his elder brother attends. 163 . Letter - 12 February, 2004 Ms Karen Rees Writing with concern over proposed change to local catchment area. XX Gogarloch Bank Moved as a family to the area to enable daughter to attend Craigmount. Edinburgh Unacceptable that Council can make such drastic decisions and implement them quickly. EHXX XLA so Pupils, teachers and parents should have been given time to explore facilities at Forrester. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Results- of Forrester on a downward trend -do not compare favourably with Edinburgh average. Catchment area should have been considered prior to the rebuilding of Craigmount school. Public knowledge of these proposals should have been made accessible at the time of the proposed development. Option 2 or Option 4 is best. Option 4 would allow everyone concerned to prepare'for attending Forrester. Why have Rosebum not been realigned with Forrester as it is more accessible by public transport. What is rationale behind pupils living within a 10 minute walk not being able to attend Craigmount. yet pupils with a 15 minute bus journey followed by a 10 minute walk can?

Mr Guy Fey Fully supports proposal for Rosebum to become sole feeder to Craigmount. X Belmont Terrace Edinburgh EHXX XJF t84 Email - 13 February, 2004 Mrs Judith Probert Sole feeder status to Craigmount High school is definitely the best option for Rosebum Primary. X Rosebum Cliff Unfair to change proposal because of pressure from parents from another school. Edinburgh EHXX XAL

244 Letter - 13 February, 2004 Martin Smith Two daughters at Rosebum. X Roull Road Concerned by idea that they will attend different Secondary Schools. Edinburgh Due to poor lighting and pavement provision there is no safe route to Tynecastle. EHXX XIS Proposal for Rosebum to achieve sole feeder status to Craigmount has been well received by Roseburn parents. Due to smaller numbers removing Rosebum will not eliminate problem. With approx 100 pupils per year, removing Gylemuir would be solution. Distance between Gylemuir to Forrester and Gylemuir to Craigmount negligible. Rosebum has forged links with Craigmwnt over last two decades. Potential problems of Rosebum remaining a feeder school have been created by Gylemuir to meet their own agenda.

Ms Elaine Cleary Was very happy with proposals to send children to Craigmount. Janitofs House Has since heard from school that this may no longer be the case. St. George's School for Girls There is no direct bus route from Rosebum to Broughton -would have to use car. Garscube Terrace Route to Tynecastle is not safe due to a lack of lighting and pavement provision. Edinburgh EHXX XBG 241 Letter - 13 February. 2004 Mrs Maureen Dundas It would not be feasible to send children from Rosebum to any school other than Craigmount. XX Riversdale Grove Objects to the witch hunt being pursued by a number of Gylemuir Primary parents where Rosebum is being targeted Edinburgh to further their own wishes. EHXX XQS 242 Letter - 13 February, 2004 Ms Karen Smith Support the proposal to move Rosebum Primary to sole feeder status. X Rosebum Crescent There is no other high school with a safe route to it that is as easily accessible. Edinburgh The number of pupils involved from Rosebum is small that it cannot affect the number places available to other EHXX XNY so of schools in the catchment. . Would prefer it if youngest went to same school as her sister. Gylemuir parents cannot lay responsibility for this with Rosebum.

t .. b .) m rr < z

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOl.INT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

0 Concerned at the animosity that is now being directed at Roseburn school and its pupils.

-29i Letter - 13 February, 2004 Ms Sharon Tumblety Letter - 13 February, 2004 Letter - 19 February, 2004 XX Gogarloch Syke Craigmount is prefemd school as it is local and within easy walking distance of house. Edinburgh There is a long and successful link between Gylemuir and Craigmount. EHXX XJD The link between Gylemuir and Forrester is not as strong as it was 10 or 15 years ago. Each year fewer children go on to Forrester High School. Forrester does not in it's present state have the room to accommodate more Gylemuir pupils. The sensible option is to wait until the new school has been built before considering the movement of children from Gylemuir. There is enough room at Craigmount - none ofthe proposed housing has even been built Imaginary numbers of children from developments should not be taken into consideration. If a problem occurs in the future then plans could be implemented to sdve them as they arise. Review of whole city should happen before small changes are made to one particular area or school. Council should recognise right of parental choice. Would not choose to send children to Forresters even if a new school was built. Will move house if it comes to it. Left Gylemuir meeting feeling that it had been a complete waste of time.

Letter - 19 February, 2004 Amazed that the first letter met with such a poor response. To not attend the public meeting at Gylemuir PS then to repond with a bog standard response is insulting and disappointing. Want Gylemuir catchment to remain with Craigmount High. Asked previously for a second meeting to discuss further as first meeting was a complete waste of time. is this going to happen? Mr Jobson will ot understand the strength of feeling until he has met the families involved. Amazed that Education Department are dosing schools due to failing birthrate and falling school rolls yet cite increasing school rolls at Craigmount.

292 B Letter - 13 February, 2004 Ms Elizabeth lvinson Wants son at Rosebum to go to Craigmount like his sisters. XFX rn Not an option for him to take 2 buses to Broughton High or walk an unsuitable road to Tynecastle. M Rosebum Street Edinburgh - EHXX XPR b 298 Letter - 13 February, 2004 Mrs Susan King I Worried that the Council will buckle under the pressure from parents at Gylemuir. XX Saughtonhall Drive B Wholeheartedly in favour of single feeder status for Rosebum. Edinburgh Roseburn already has very dose links with Craigmount XTR EHXX B Children have expectation of going on to Craigmount. B Craigmount is by far the easiest ad safest school for children. B Broughton will be at capacity, as will Tynecastle. B Removing small number of pupils from Rosebum will not relieve pressure on Craigmount; removing Gylemuir pupils - will. 240 1 Letter 14 February. 2004 - Mrs Andrew Dundas B Proposals for Roseburn are satisfactory. KX Riversdale Grove D Unsatisfactory is the way that a group of parents from Gylemuir Primary have taken to personal attacks on Rosebum Edinburgh School and the rights of parents and children there. EHXX XQS b Tynecastle High School is not an alternative as there are no public transport routes and the walk there is too dark and dangerous. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) RMEWOF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS UWNG WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

183 a Email - 14 February, 2004 Mr Richard Harley a Came awav from Gvlemuir consultation feeling less confident than before going. XX South Gyk? Gardens a Cmsultatidn was run like a side show. Edinburgh a Lack of control from the chair and the people representing the council. EHXX XRZ a Knowing at least 90% of the questions before the meeting they still had no answers. e It was unacceptable that the Director of Education Could not move a prior engagement to attend the meeting. a Cannot see the sense in sending pupils from areas such as Rosebum and Hilhnrood to a school where the Council will have to provide some form of transport costs. a If Craigmount was built to take the number of pupils on its roll, why was planning permission granted for the building of new houses on the old playing fields site. a Corstorphine was always feeder to Forrester so why not revert back to that? a It will be a big enough upheaval for pupils as it is without interrupting them to build a new school. Why not wait until the new school has been built? a Why not have a wt off point of the next Primary 1 intake. From these PI pupils onwards apply the proposals. a Proposals are splitting up the community because people will move away from area so they can send children to the school of their choice. a Council will not listen to any of the issues and haw probably already made up their minds. a Nobody has yet asked the children what they want. - 172 Letter - 14 February, 2004 Mr Ian Ramsey a Parent member of Gylemuir school board - endorses the views of the Gylemuir school board. XX South Gyle Road e The consultation meeting at Gylernuir was a reflection of the passions raised by proposals. w Edinburgh a Forrester has had a negative reputation for many years. 0 EHXX XDG a It has a low academic achievement record and is a rough school due to its catchment and tensions caused through its proximity to St Augustines. a Despite the enthusiasm and commitment of the staff being commendable, 'the culture of the school at peer group level cannot match that at Craigmount., a Parent of two girls at Gylemuir. a The first is academically able and will do well what ever she has to cope with; the second may end up in an average class and would benefit from a more prevalent culture of achievement - something more likely at Craigrnount. Doesn't wish to contemplate what the tensions with St Augustines will teach children. Will have to cope with prejudice against Forrester in the employment market after leaving school. Being forced to accept a reduction in quality of provision. Position has been engineered by Education Department to receive the benefit of the value of land sold for housing at Craigmount. e Resuests independent review of the consultation process. findings and decision making.

182 Email - 14 February, 2004 Mr Steven Young Ernail - 14 February, 2004 Letter - 14 February, 2004 XX Corstorphine Road - Very happy with prbposal to make Rosebum a single feeder for Craigmwnt. Edinburgh - Appalled by the tactics of Gylemuir parents who seem to be of the mentality that if their children cannot go to EHXX XHS Craigmount then neither can Rosebums. - Son travels with ease to Craigmount. - It is a very safe route to school, especially if he has to stay late. - Broughton has no direct transport link. - Gylemuir parents acting very aggressively towards Rosebum. - Can the Council make their decision based on the safest easiest route to school and not the wishes of another school trying to use Roseburn as a pawn.

Letter - 14 February, 2004 - Very happy with proposal to realign Rosebum as sole feeder to Craigmount.

< c APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS 8 EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR euPiLs LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

No direct travel links to Broughton High. Very anrgy with Gylemuir parents trying to use Rosebum as pawn to achieve their objectives. Gylemuir calling for Rosebum to be aligned with Tynecastle. This is not an option. Refuse to let child walk down Russell Road. Not well lit with poor pavement facilities. 2 buses to school would not be advantageous. Built up a relationship with Craigmount No relationship with Tynecastle. Removing Rosebum from Craigmount catchment does not give the Council the required number of spaces it needs. Gylemuir school are trying to make it school against school. Now supports Option 1. Forrester High sits in the middle of their catchment. Removing Gylemuir from Craigmount would release the number of spaces the Council wishes to achieve. Forrester is Gylemuirs nearest and safest route secondary school. Forrester has the places available for the children of Gylemuir.

181 Email - 14 February. 2004 Ms Alana Somenrille One child at Craigmount; one at Gylemuir and one aged 2. X South Gyle Loan Would want all children to go to Craigmount. Edinburgh EHXX XEN

310 Letter - 14 February, 2004 Mr Philip Chan Attended consultation meetings. XXX Gogarloch Syke Moved to South Gyle so children could attend Craigmount. South Gyre A quick foc is not appropriate -the decision can be made now but implemented in 6 years. Edinburgh Education Department is influencing parental choice by stating that Option 1 is its favoured option. EHXX XIF Option 3 is not an option. Placing requests are not a free choice as there is no guarentee with them. They are restricted. Eldest was bullied when he started at Craigmount - doesn’t want youngest to suffer the same at a different school. Increasing the capacity from 745 to 1000 in such a short time will cause problems - management change could not be efficient of effective. Cultural conflict will be created due to the differing social backgrounds.

173 Letter - 14 February. 2004 Mr Andrew Smith Very happy with the proposal to make Rosebum Primary sole feeder to Craigmount High. X Saughtonhall Circus Hope that this proposal will remain in place despite the frustrations raised by parents from other schools. Edinburgh Rosebum sends on average 15 pupils a year to Craigmount - any desire to reverse these proposals would have EHXX XRE little bearing on the overall position. Has great concerns over the ridiculous idea of sending Rosebum pupils to Tynecastle as there is no safe route. Desperately wishes for son to join his sister at Craigmount.

287 Letter - 15 February, 2004 Mrs R E Brand Grandson attending Rosebum. XXa Douglas Crescent Happy with proposal to make Rosebum sole feeder to Craigmount. Edinburgh Direct and safe route to Craigmount. EHXX XBA Other proposed schools - there is no bus route and it is not safe for the children to be without an adult. Rosebum has a history with Craigmount but not with Tynecastle. Only a small connection to Broughton. 290 Letter - 15 February. 2004 Ms M R Brand Letter - 15 February, 2004 Letter - 25 February, 2004 XXa Douglas Crescent - Son attending Rosebum. Edinburgh - Happy with proposal to make Rosebum sole feeder to Craigmount. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

~~ ~ EHXX XBA - Direct and safe route to Craigmount. - Other proposed schools - there is no bus route and it is not safe for the children to be without an adult. - Rosebum has a history with Craigmount but not with Tynecastle. - Only a small connection to Broughton.

Letter - 25 February, 2004 - Wants objections to be noted. - There are no direct buses for any other schools. - Moved home to be in the catchment area.

403 Letter - 15 February, 2004 Ms M R Brand Grandson attending Roseburn. XXa Douglas Crescent e HaPPy with proposal to make Rosebum sde feeder to Craigmount. Edinburgh e Dire; and &fe route to Craigmount. EHXX XBA Other proposed schools - there is no bus route and it is not safe for the children to be without an adult. Rosebum has a history with Craigmount but not with Tynecastle. Only a small connection to Broughton.

295 Letter - 15 February. 2004 Mr Donald MacDonald Letter - 15 February. 2004 Email - 24 February, 2004 XX Saughtonhall Avenue Delighted with proposals for all Rosebum pupils to progress to Craigmount Edinburgh This is the logical choice in terms of transport EHXX XRN It removes the element of chance inherent in dual feeder status. It gives staff at both schools the opportunity to further develop the longstanding relationship. Aware of considerable anger directed towards Roseburn Primary School. Frustrations about the proposal should fows on seeking to find solutions not scapegoats.

e Email - 24 February, 2004 - Feels that the proposals for Rosebum are fair and take into account the concerns of parents and children.

174 Letter - 15 February, 2004 Ms Helen McLean 0 Grandparent of child at Roseburn. KX Rosebum Drive e Brought to attention that child may not be able to join sister at Craigmount if the catchment area iS changed. Edinburgh If children from Rosebum were to go to another High School it would still not leave enough room at Craigmount for EHXX XNR children from other primaries like Gylemuir.

207 Email - 15 February, 2004 Mr & Mrs Bannerman Email - 15 February, 2004 Letter - 15 February, 2004 KX Saughtonhall Terrace - Delighted with proposal to make Rosebum single feeder to Craigmwnt. Edinburgh - No other options for Gylemuir pupils. EHXX XRB - Broughton is difficult to get to and will have no spare capaaty to accept Rosebum pupils. - Rosebum has had no links with Tynecastle for a long time and is difficult to get to - no direct bus route and no safe walking route. - Wwld ask the Council to stand by their proposals regarding Rosebum.

e Letter - 15 February. 2004 - (see email above)

208 0 Email - 16 February, 2004 Wr Brian Main Very happy with proposal to make Rosebum single feeder to Craigmount. Very unhappy with proposal to make Rosebum feed Tynecastle. Rosebum has established a good working relationship with Craigmount over the years. The route to Tynecastle is simply too dangerous to contemplate. Route to Craigmount is much safer - particularly as a bus service is available. L

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

171 e Letter - 16 February, 2004 Mr Brian Craig e Had the Council not granted planning permission for the increase in housing wihin the Craigmount area, this debate XXX Gogarloch Syke would not be taking place. South Gyle i Terms of the review are fundamentally flawed as the review is restricted to two schools that have dual feeder status. Edinburgh e Review should include all schools and look at geographical positioning and the number of pupils involved. e The information made available does not allow a full analysis of the review. e The proposals put forward by the Director of Education are a summary not a full consultation document. e The Department has used the excuse of dual feeder status to disadvantage Gylemuir pupils. e F~ covert and Rosebum fall within reviews of other catchment areas. The CraigmOUnt review should not take Place until these other reviews are complete. Have to question motives for the review being scheduled for the 2005 intake when there is no pressure On Craigmount at that time. e Ulterior motive behind the review is probably money orientated. e Will the Council consider paying compensation for the fall in the value of houses? e Will the Council compensate for the inferior education children will get at Forrester? e League table results at Forrester are abysmal. e More than 80% of parents send their children to Craigmount which compares to the levels of children sent to Craigmount by single feeder schools. e Like Rosebum, Gylemuir should have single feeder status to better represent parental choice. e Why is the Council now looking at favouring new entrants to Edinburgh rather than the current residents? This is discrimination. Surprised that the Director of Education did not go to the Gylemuir public meeting, even though he was able to attend the previous three. He should have had a moral obligation to attend. Education Departments representatives were not up to the job of conducting the meeting, which brings into question the departments competency to undertake the review. Option 1 does not give son the right to attend Craigmount and does not account for socioeconomic daws in the area. 8 Option 2 will split up friends as they go to different schools. 8 Option 3 will give parents the preferred choice but will be ignored by the Director of Education and the Council. 8 Must choose Option 2 so that son can continue on to Craigmount. 8 The consultations should be made 7 years prior to changes now proposed so that parents can take appropriate action.

238 Letter - 16 February, 2004 Ms Sarah Barclay Parent of children at Rosebum Primary. Westem Place K ExrremelY happy with Proposal to feed all Rosebum children to Craigmount. Edinburgh Broughton will be at capacity. EHXX XQA No direct bus mute to Broughton. Tynecistle not feasible Russell Road route is not safe - lighting is bad; pavements inadequate. Russell Road could not be made safe due to the nature of businesses on it. GYlemuir Parents ignoring fact that Rosebum send small numbers b Cmigmount. Bought PmPew because it fS in the Rosebum and Craigmount catchments. 296 Letter - 16 February, 2004 Mr Neil Ross D Happy with proposal to amend Rosebums feeder status to Craigmount. KX Riversdale Crescent Rosebum to Tynecastle is not an oDtion because: Edinburgh ' No single bus iink EHXX XQT . Walk along Russell Rd or Water of Leith towpath unsafe. ' Will not resolve the numbers situation at Craigmount due to the large number of children at Gylemuir. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

- Broughton not an option as it will be at capacity in the future. - Housing developments in the Gorgie area, ie Tynecastle 8 old distillery - Roseburn is on the edge of Tynecastle catchment area. - Rosebum has worked hard ondeveloping links with Craigmount and none with Tynecastle.

179 Email - 16 February, 2004 Mrs Fiona MacAulay Email - 16 February. 2004 - Fully supports council proposal to make Rosebum single feeder to Craigmount. Email - 1 March, 2004 XX Balbimie Place Edinburgh - Rosebum already has strong proven links with Craigmount. EHXX XJF - Craigmount is a straighffonrvard and safe bus journey away. - Writes as a parent and a member of the school board.

Email - 1 March, 2004 Very happy with proposal to make Rosebum sole feeder to Craigmount. Based on longstanding links between the schools and a safe route to Craigmwnt. Cannot be said of other nearby secondary schools.

299 Letter - 16 February. 2004 Mr P J Forrest Parent of 2 young children attending Roseburn Primary. XX Balbimie Place Would like children to go to Craigmount. Edinburgh Rejects status quo as this would mean possibility of children attending a school that is difficult to get to (Broughton). EHXX XIF Broughton would require a car journey - leading to congestion on the roads. Tynecastle - poor direct bus routes; road links are poor - congestion during school run time is extremely bad. The walk to Tynecastle is badly lit, has poor pavements and requires crossing a number of major roads. Roseburn has no previous links to Tynecastle. If other reviews are finalised Broughton will be at capacity. Suggests that Gylemuir maintain dual feeder status but reduce their 'allotment' of spaces at Craigmount by 25. That 25 would feed to Forrester. Head Teacher at Forrester tried to organise a meeting with parents to show them it was a good school. This was rejected. Wife went to Forrester and it was goes then. Is informed it is still a good school. 180 Email - 16 February, 2004 Miss Lorraine Anderson Grave concerns if a decision is taken to send Gylemuir children to Forrester from 2005. X Gogarloch Bank Smlyappeal that the boundary changes be given more time to work on improving relationships between the lwo South Gyle SChOblS. Edinburgh Concerned that if Gylemuir pupils go to Forrester from next year, there would be lots of bullying by existing Forrester EHXX XLA children who now consider Gyiernuir children to be snobs. Forrester needs time to prove itself. The new school building would help a lot. Perhaps kids from both Gylemuir and Forrester could work together on the design for the playground or something.

462 . Letter - 17 February, 2004 Mrs L Peutherer Very angry at proposals to change the feeder status of Gylemuir to single feeder with Forrester. KXX South Gyle Road Exam results and the builing need to be improved before would consider sending children to Forrester. Edinburgh Will move Primary School if that's what it takes. EHXX XDU Council have split the community. Waits with interest for response to legal side. Appalling that neither Roy Jobson or Ewan Aitken turned up on the consultation night. It will be many years before new houses are built. What gives the Council the right to remove parental choice? ,

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS 8 EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

301 Letter - 17 February, 2004 Mr Andrew Jamieson Happy that Roseburn is to become a sole feeder to Craigmount. XX Riversdale Road Given the number of pupils and location this is the best option for Roseburn. Edinburgh Concerned by rabid rantings from parents of Gylernuir Primary. EHXX XQY To pick on Roseburn. a much smaller school which does not provide a solution to their concerns. smacks of bullying. For Forrester High to be outside its own catchment area is absurd. Impressed by knowledge and professionalism of panel at Roseburn public meeting.

300 Letter - 17 February, 2004 Mrs Sheena Kelman Son at Rosebum Primary . X Wester Coates Avenue Extremely happy with proposal to feed Rosebrun to Craigmount. Ednburgh Objects strongly to Tynemstle proposal. EHXX XlS Rosebum has no links with Tynecastle but well established links with Craigmount. Roseburn is tiny compared to Gylemuir. Roseburn lies on the edge of the Tynecastle catchment not the middle - many children would have to travel far. The Russell Road route is badly lit and has hardly any pavement

169 Letter - 17 February. 2004 Mr & Mrs Speed Strongly supports the decision for Roseburn to remain as a feeder to Craigmount. XX Stair Park The proposals build upon existing links between the schools. Edinburgh Proposals also recognise that the security of the children is paramount. EHXX XHL Very concerned that the parents at Gylemuir Primary are waging a vociferous campaign to have the proposals overturned. Most of the Gylemuir children are within walking distance of Forrester. If proposals are overturned. Rosebum pupils will face a two bus journey in rush hour or a dangerous walk along Russell Road to Tynecastle.

176 . Email - 18 February, 2004 Miss Andrea Ford Forrester has its half day on a Wednesday whereas Gylemuir has its on a Friday. Will the Primary School change its XXX Broomhall Drive day to bring it inline with Forrester? If so, when? Edinburgh EHXXXQQ

177 n Email - 18 February, 2004 Mr Tom Pithie Happy with the proposal to realign Rosebum Primary School as sole feeder to Craigmount.

178 B Email - 18 February, 2004 Mrs Carol Pthie Email - 18 February. 2004 b Letter - 26 February, 2004 XX Saughtonhall Drive - Happy with the proposal to realign Roseburn Primary School as sole feeder to Craigmount. Edinburgh - Concerned that parents at Gylemuir feel they have the right to choose a High School for Roseburn Primary. EHXX XTR Letter - 26 February, 2004 - Support proposal to change Roseburn Primary to become a single feeder into Craigrnount. - Hopes the Council do not give in to pressures from other schools. 205 Email - 18 February, 2004 Mr Alan Marshall Recognises the need for review but there seems to be undue haste about it. X Gogarloch Bank The bad feeling that came across at the Gylernuir meeting was caused in some way by the short consultation period Edinburgh and the Imminence of implementation. EHXX XU4 Not in principle against realignment, howver, proper consultation over this year would give people more time to digest this and forge the necessary links with Forrester. B Realignment could be planned to coincide with the opening of the new school. Asks Council to review statistics as it was dear at the meeting that there was medoubt and confusion. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS 8 EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

2io6 0 Email - 18 February. 2004 Mr Keith Winton Email - 18 February, 2004 Letter - 18 February. 2004 XX Rosebum Place - Happy with the proposal to realign Rosebum Primary School as sole feeder to Craigmount. Edinburgh - This is a sensible option to help address over-crowding in city schools. EHXX XNU Concerned however by the level of vitriol being targeted towards Rosebum school. - No viable alternative to Craigmount exists. - The small number of pupils attending from Rosebum would have an insignificant effect on over-crowding at Craigmount

Letter - 18 February, 2004 - (see email above)

302 Letter - 18 February, 2004 Mrs Lesley Winton Two children at Rosebum Primary. Kx Rosebum Place Very please with proposal to give single feeder status to Rosebum. Edinburgh Concerned by media coverage of the catchment review, particularly the hostility shown by the Gylemuir parents EHXX XNU towards Rosebum. Only a small number of Rosebum children go to Craigmount each year. It is wrong for Gylemuir parents to use Rosebum as a lever for their argument or involve Roseburn in their debate. Gylemuir parents attitude towards Forrester High School must be dispiriting for the staff and pupils. Mr & Mrs Winton hope that pupils from Rosebum will continue to be allowed to move on to Craigmount High.

355 Email - 18 February. 2004 Mr James Deans Wishes to assert concerns over childrens future education. KX Gogalloch Muir Option 1 wholly unacceptable. Edinburgh Unimpressed by lack of ethos and the acceptance of low achievement at Forrester. EHXX XIJ Forrester fails to offer 3 sciences. Forrester focuses on disadvantaged children -what about average children? Cultural affect of embracing leaving at fourth year may lead to child under achieving. 111 advised to increase the number of children attending Forrester during building work. Question of how many houses will be built remains unanswered. Option 2 is also unacceptable. Standards at Gylemuir were improving before the building improvements. Gylemuirs success is linked with the teaching skills of the staff. This culture will be eroded by divisions and conflict between parents from differing catchment areas. Option 3 is not an option - raises concerns about the transparency of the consultation process. Option 4 would entail raising the standard of education at Forrester High before imposing the choice. From Primary 1 pupils would know that Forrester would be their catchment school. This option realistic in terms of population as the building work on housing at Craigs Road will not mmenoefor years. Seeks assurance that sibling places at Craigmount would be assured: Dismayed that the Director of Education was not at the Gylemuir meeting.

463 1 Letter - 19 February. 2004 dr Michael Tumblety Would like to express concern for the proposals within the Craigmount and Forrester catchment. o( Gogarloch Syke Option I is not an option. Edinburgh If the council force Option 1 on the parents, the good and positive feeling of community at Gylemuir will be destroyed SHXX XID and replaced with a very negative and dangerous future. Will move are to ensure that choice as a parent is not compromised. Option 2 will be detrimental to all pupils of Gylemuir and is not an option. Option 3 must be taken by the Education Demrtment. * A review that takes only 18 months before implementation is too quick.

c 1 >

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS 8 EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Was disappointed that the Director of Education did not have the decency to address parents. This shows a lack of respect The meeting was a total waste of time. When will questions be answered?

471 Letter - 19 February, 2004 Ms Sarah Boyak MSP Received several letters of support for the Councils proposal to make Roseburn Primary School single feeder to Constitunency Office Craigmount XXA stafford Street Only a small number of children involved at Rosebum. Edinburgh There are long-standing links between Roseburn Primary School and Craigmount High. EHX XBU

225 Email - 19 February, 2004 Mrs Karen Powrie Parent of child at Gylemuir who believes he will go to the school of his choice. XX South Gyle Mains Strongly disagrees with taking parents choice away. Edinburgh Proposals are premature and inappropriate based on houses without planning permission. EHXX XEP Bad consultation, figures and answers.

294 Letter - 20 February, 2004 Mrs Fiona Gaul Very happy with current proposals to make Rosebum sole feeder to Craigmount. X Wester Coates Terrace There is no other option as Broughton is at capacity. Edinburgh The number of pupils attending from Rosebum is tiny whereas Gylemuir is almost 100. EHXX XLR The number of pupils attending Craigmount has increased over the years and this is due to the increase in private dwellings in the catchment area -parents objecting are directly or indirectly responsible for the problem. Transport links to Tynecastle are not good. The situation is becoming personal with a lot of parents losing sight of the main objective -what is best for the - education and development of their children. 226 0 . Email - 21 February, 2004 Mr Gordon Smith Email - 21 February, 2004 Email - 3 March, 2004 xxlx South Gyle Wynd Overwhelming majority of people at the Gylemuir meeting were opposed to proposed changes. Edinburgh Proposals Seem concerned by building use rather than childrens needs. EHXX XEU Children at Gylemuir have been looking foiward to going to Craigmount for years. Projected school populations based on housing without planning permission. Delaying the proposals would let parents plan what schools to send their children too. Why is Corstorphine Primary not involved? Distances to Forrester and Craigmount are similar.

Email - 3 March, 2004 Grandsons attend Gylemuir Corstorphine 8 Rosebum catchments could be adjusted - not just Gylemuirs. In the area which is most important to parents -exam results - Fonester does not perform well. Council would be main beneficiary of a new school building with reduced maintenance costs and a more efficient building. New arrangements could apply to the 200415 Gylemuir intake. Give children and parents the chance to get used to the new arrangements and for improvements at Forrester to take effect. - This may give rise to temporary problems at Craigmount but these would simply have to be managed. 264 0 Email - 22 February, 2004 Joanne Gunter Very happy with current proposals to make Rosebum single feeder to Craigmount Object to suggestion that Tynecastle should be catchment High. Route to Tynecastle is not safe along Russell Road. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) MEWOF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Due to it being a small school. changing Rosebums catchment would not provide a solution at Craigmount.

227 Email - 23 February, 2004 Mr Brian Carson Very happy with Councils recommendationfor Rosebum to feed Craigmount. XX Belmont Gardens Concerned by reports that pressure from Gylemuir parents might change the decision and have Rosebum feed Edinburgh Tynecastle. EHXX XIH Rosebum is a small school and would not solve the accomodation problems whereas removing Gylemuir would make__ a huae - difference and solve the space issues. Tynecastle difficult to get to whereas there are lots of buses to Craigmount It is dangerous for children to walk along Russell road and the Council don't want to encourage driving children to school. Broughton is full according to Education Department stab. Broughton difficult to get to - number 38 bus infrequent and unreliable. Neither Broughton or Tynecastle have the successful reputation of Craigmount. As a teacher recognise that league tables are not everything, but Craigmount environment for learning has a proven track record. Belmont Gardens is closer to Craigmount. Having visited Fmkr- do not think the Gylemuir parents should run it down especially in view of the promised upgrade. They should have know about local schooling when they bought their houses (which would have been cheaper due to concerns about local schooling.) MP & MSP support for Gylemuir parents does not mean much as they are probably opposition parties anyway. Their children will do as well at Forrester as they would at Craigmount; probably better as the classes will be smaller and there is more learning support. Strongly encourage Education Department to stick to their guns. We must see the whole'picture and not the individual interests of a relatively small group. That's democracy.

273 Letter - 24 February, 2004 Mrs Lesley Campbell Supports proposal for Rosebum to soley feed Craigmount. XXX Corstorphine Road This is the only option as there is no direct route from Rosebum to Broughton. Edinburgh Craigmount on a safe, direct route to Rosebum. EHXX XQB There is no safe route to Tynecastle. Russell Road is not safe due to bad lighting and large amount of heavy cbmrnercial vehicles. Driving to TynecasUe would cause congestion. Would not be happy for children to make their own way to Tynecastle from Corstorphine Road. Rosebum has no links with Tynecastle. 424 Letter - 24 February, 2004 Mr Derek Whigham 8 Support proposal to change Rosebum Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount. XX Saughtonhall Avenue 8 Hopes the Council do not give in to pressures from other schools. Edinburgh 8 Original proposals are logical and practical. EHXX XRN

423 Letter - 24 February. 2004 Mrs P Housley Support proposal to change Rosebum Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount. X Kew Terrace Hopes the Council do not give in to pressures from other schools. Edinburgh Safe and direct route to Craigmount. EHXX WE

1102 Letter - 24 February, 2004 Mrs D Hardy Support proposal to change Rosebum Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount XX Murrayfield Road Hopes the Council do not give in to pressures from other schools. Edinburgh EHXX XET

I J b

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LNING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Supports the Councils current proposal to make Rosebum sole feeder to Craigmount. XX Riversdale Grove Gylemuir parents should not use Rosebum Primary as a reason for changing recommendations of senior Education Department officials. Edinburgh This decision should not be delayed. EHXX XQS If Council gives in to Gylemuir pressure, this situation will be repeated in all future proposals for all other schools.

Letter - 24 February, 2004 Mrs G K Cameron Supports the Councils current proposal to make Rosebum sole feeder to Craigmount. XX Riversdale Grove Rosebum relatively small and arrangement satisfactory. Edinburgh EHXX XQS

Letter - 24 February. 2004 Mr & Mrs Murdoch Dismayed that opportunity to attend Craigmount is being removed from Rosebum area. XX Riversdale Road Safety is paramount and Craigmount is accessible safely. Edinburgh EHXX XQY

Letter - 24 February, 2004 Mr Chris Oalrymple Concerned that the views of many not being listened to. X Gogarloch Bank Main reason for house purchase was Craigmount. Edinburgh Choice should remain until new Forrester is built. EHXX X-M Eldest attending Craigmount; younger brother will have this choice taken away causing enormws amounts of stress, worry and sleepless nights. House will inevitably have lost value. There is clear evidence that catchment area affect property prices. Will Council compensate residents affected or will they have to sue?

Letter - 24 February, 2004 Mr Ian Moore Wishes to object to possible reversal of decision to continue the Rosebum-Craigmount relationship. X Ormidale Terrace Change of school would require use of the car when the children currently use a combination of public transport and Edinburgh walking. EHXX XDY Route to Tynecastle is not practical or safe. Uncertainty for daughters is unsettling. Would ask Council to hold the view that Rosebum continue to act as feeder to Craigmount.

Email - 24 February. 2004 Ms Roslyn Todd Fully supports the Councils current proposal to make Rosebum sole feeder to Craigmount X Saughtonhall Crescent Moved to the area with understanding that Craigmount was the local school. Edinburgh Any attempt to change decision will be met with opposition. EHXX XRF

Youngest at Rosebum; eldest at Craigmount. Transition from primary to secondary is very smooth. Very keen that feeder status is maintained. Youngest would benefit from having elder sister around. Would urge Council to maintain Rosebums association with Craigmount. Email - 24 February. 2004 Mr Alan Rae Email - 24 February, 2004 Email 2 March, 2004 X Saughtonhall Place - 0 Fully agrees with single feeder status to Craigmount for Rosebum. Edinburgh Craigmount is the safest travel option for children. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGYOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

EHXX XRH There have been strong links forged between the schools. Continuity - ie, children recognising faces in the years above them is important. Rosebum supplies a relatively small number of pupils to Craigmount and would free up little space. Email - 2 March, 2004 Very happy with the proposals to make Rosebum School single feeder to Craigmount. Broughton will be at capacity and travel there is difficult for Roseburn pupils. Would be very concerned if children were to traverse the Russell Road route to Tynecastle. Option 3 would not be acceptable as this may mean prioritising catchment pupils.

383 Email - 25 February. 2004 Ms Patricia Ormiston Support proposal to change Rosebum Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount. Most sensible decision from a transport and road safety point of view.

451 Email - 25 February. 2004 Mr D Osbome Parent of one child at Craigmount and two at Gylemuir. . XX Wester Broom Drive Strong preference for status quo to remain. Edinburgh To remove this choice at short notice Seems grossly unjust. EHXX XRQ Forecasted numbers include expected children from new housing developments, which may not have actually received planning permission yet. Rosebum PS is georaphically a far greater distance from Craigmount than Gylemuir. Would it not be sensible to realign Rosebum to the new Tynecastle High; creating more space at Craigmount. Option 2 is totally unacceptable as it would have a negative divisive effect on children at Gylemuir. The excellent community spirit at Gylemuir would be eroded. Option 1-better to postpone the effective date until the new Forrester High has been completed.

409 Letter - 25 February. 2004 Ms Paula M Fey D Fully supports the Councils current proposal to make Rosebum sole feeder to Craigmount. X Belmont Terrace D Clear, direct bus route with established crossings. Edinburgh D The only school in the area children can travel to safely. EHMXIF D Number of SI pupils going to Craigmount from Gylemuir is 6 times that of Roseboms. b Rosebum does not solve Gylemuirs problem. b Hopes the Council are not swayed by pressure from other schools or delay proposals. Status Quo is not an option. 234 25 Email - February, 2004 Ms Diane Anderson b Daughter attended Rosebum and then Broughton. XX Balbimie place Wholeheartedly supports proposal that Rosebum pupils feed into Craigmount. Edinburgh b Daughter did not enjoy the long walk or bus journeys to Broughton. EHXX XIF two

223 Email - 25 February. 2004 Mr David Caw 1 Ernail - 25 February, 2004 Letter - 26 February, 2004 X Tranquair Park East Son attending Roseburn. though out of catchment. Edinburgh Chose Rosebum because of its feeder status to Craigmount. EHMXAP Recent developments and enhancements have strengthened reslove to send children to Craigmount. If the RosebumICraigmountfeeder relationship is altered -would have to reconsider position in Rosebum. Hopes that proposals are implemented.

1 Letter - 26 February, 2004 (See email above) 327 b Letter - 25 February, 2004 Mr John Sutherland 1 Letter - 25 February, 2004 . L APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Letter-3March.2004 XX Coltbridge Gardens - Requests Council continue with stated policy of keeping Rosebum Primary as feeder for Craigmount. Edinburgh - Removing Rosebum would have no impact on reducing the congested state of Craigmount. EHXX XAQ - There are no transport links to any other secondary school from Rosebrun that children may safely travel. Letter - 3 March, 2004 - Supports proposals for Roseburn to feed Craigmount. - Removal ofRosebum as feeder will not have Impact on the number of pupils at Craigmount because Rosebum is sc small.

432 Letter - 25 February, 2004 Mr Nigel Jeynes 8 Write to express dismay and concern at the revolt against proposals for Gylemuir by Gylernuir. X Traquair Park East Seeks assurance that those who shout the loudest aren’t collectively stronger to overrule. Edinburgh Strong links already in place between Rosebum and Craigmount EHXX XAW Tynecastle is neither feasible nor does it provide a safe route.

Support the existing proposals for Rosebum to feed into Craigmount. 4% D Letter - 25 February. 2004 Mr John Riddell X Coltbridge Gardens 8 Long standing connections behenRosebum and Craigmount Edinburgh Travel to Craigmount is by far the easlest and safest option for Roseburn children. EHXX XAQ - _L. 224 D Email - 25 February. 2004 Mrs Shirley Caw Son at Rosebum 8 Chose Rosebum because of its reputation and its feeder status to Craigmount. Happy with the decision for Rosebum to have sole feeder status to Craigmount. Difficult to send child to Broughton - requires several bus journeys which leads to safety issues. D The numbers Rosebum move on to Craigmount are minimal. Travelling to and from Craigmount is much easier and means only one bus there and back.. D Rosebum has a longstanding relationship with Craigmount. D Travelling to Tynecastle would mean walking down Russell Road which has no pavements and few pedestrians.

437 1 Letter - 25 February, 2004 Mr G Pettie D Would like to register opposition to review of the catchment area. M Gyle Park Gardens D Gyle Park Gardens is no more than 400 metres from Craigmount. Edinburgh 1 Forrester is around 3 times the distance. EHXX XNG 1 The fact that people from Rosebum area have access to Craigmount smacks of doublestandards. . D Suggest Education Department consider the Edinburgh to Fife railway line as the boundary line, not Glasgow Road. Saved long and hard for house in Gyle Park Gardens - one of the major attractions was the catchment for Craigmount

1 452 Letter - 25 February. 2004 Mrs Jenny Carson D Very happy with the decision for Rosebum to have sole feeder status to Craigmount. KX Belmont Gardens 1 Craigmount is easy to get to and a safe route, unlike Broughton and Tynecastle. Edinburgh 1 Removing Roseburn kids would not solve the problem of over subscription at Craigmount. EHXX XJH P Rosebum has spent years building a good relationship with Criagmount. 419 I Letter - 25 February, 2004 blrs Alison Tonner Writing to object to proposal. KXX Gogarloch Syke 1 Taking away my parental choice. Edinburgh P Do not want children to go to different schools. SHXX XJE 1 Before moving into the area 10 years ago Education Department made it clear property was in Craigmount catchment area. b Change is being proposed to allow for houses and pupils that don’t exist at present. 1 Pupils who presently attend Gylemuir should still have the option to attend Craigmount. 1 New school at Forrester should be built and higher standard of education proven before changing any catchment APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

area. 0 Forresters attainment of National exams is well below those of Forresters and the National average. Is it legal to take away parental choice? How does this affect Human Rights? All catchment areas should be reviewed at the same time. Why should Rosebum become a feeder school for Craigmount when it is situated much further away than Gylemuif

605 Letter - 25 February, 2004 Ms Fiona MacKinnon Support proposal to change Roseburn Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount X Riversdale Road Only 14 - 22 children affected at Rosebum; surely a school with a higher number of pupils could be changed. Edinburgh EHXX XQN

385 Email - 25 February, 2004 Mr George McEwan Only sensible solution for Roseburn is Craigmount. School and majority of parents support this.

430 Letter - 25 February. 2004 Ms Moira Tattersall 1L Mr Graham Smith Support plpposal to change Roseburn Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount. XX Murrayfield Gardens Long and successful partnership between the two schools. Edinburgh Safe and direct route to Craigmount. EHXX XDH

221 0 Email - 25 February, 2004 Dr Katherine Broughton Email - 25 February, 2004 Email - 27 February, 2004 XX Campbell Road Support proposal to change Roseburn Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount. Edinburgh Treasurer on Rosebum PTA EHXX XDT Long and successful partnership between the two schools. Good bus links between Roseburn and Craigmount Tynecastle would result in additional car journeys through the congested Rosebum intersection. Status Quo would be unsatisfactory if this meant that each year children would be uncertain as to their High School destination.

Email - 27 February, 2004 - One child at Rosebum. - Fully supports the Councils recommendationto change Roseburn to a single feeder to Craigmount High.

413 Letter - 25 February, 2004 Ms Janet LB MacFie Support proposal to change Rosebum Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount XX Murrayfield Gardens Safe and direct route to Craigrnount. Edinburgh Long and successful partnership between the two schools. EHXX XDH

407 Letter - 25 February, 2004 Mrs I Bouch Incredible that Craigmount cannot accommodate the tiny number of children from Rosebum. XX Riversdale Road Original proposal was perfectly fine - why change it? Edinburgh EHXX XQP

230 Email - 25 February, 2004 Mr Brian Bamet 0 Son in Rosebum Primary XX Coltbridge Avenue Specifically moved to area because of schooling. Edinburgh Very, very happy with current proposal of sole feeder status to Craigmount. EHXX XAF Craigmount is a safe, easy and direct bus route from Rosebum. Roseburn has some links with Boughton but none with Tynecastle. Neither offers an easy route to school. . t APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Number of children going from Rosebum to Craigmount very small and cannot make a huge difference to any . potential space problems.

372 Email - 26 February, 2004 Ms Ruth Baillie Parent with two daughters at Rosebum. XX Ormidale Terrace Extremely happy with proposal that Rasebum should have sole feeder status to Craigrnount. Edinburgh Council have approached the whole exercise in a very objective and rational way. EHXX XEA Criteria used in coming to proposls were well thought out. Cannot see that the Council would create sufficient additional capacity by excluding Roseburn. Craigmount is the easiest school for children in Raseburn area to get to. One bus on a regular route. Very unhappy at prospect of children walking to Tynecastle. Extremely unsafe for teenage daughters to be walking. Roseburn has spent 16 years developing links with Craigmount. There are no links with Tynecastle.

378 Letter - 26 February, 2004 Mr James S Sharp Support proposal to change Roseburn Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount. XX Beechwood Mains Hopes the Council do not give in to pressures from other schools. Edinburgh EHXX XXN

414 D Letter - 26 February, 2004 Mr Allan Todd Support proposal to change Roseburn Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount. X Saughtonhall Crescent No other High School which children can safely and conveniently travel too. Edinburgh Uncertainty is bad for the children, the schools and the area. EHXX XRF Make decision as soon as possible.

406 B Letter - 26 February, 2004 Mrs Duff Live at Corstorphine end of Rosebum catchment. XX Belmont Gardens One bus journey and safe crossings to Craigmount Edinburgh Complicated journey to Broughton . EHXX XJH

429 B Letter - 26 February, 2004 Ms Karen Robertson Supportproposal to change Rosebum Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount. X Balbimie Place Hopes the Council do not give in to pressures from other schools. Edinburgh EHXX XIF

231 1 Email - 26 February. 2004 Mr & Mrs Donnelly Daughter attends Gylemuir Primary. XX Broomhall Gardens Under Option 1 & 2 daughter loses the option of attending Craigmount. Edinburgh Moved to the area with choice of school a primary consideration. EHXX XQA Due to reputations of Craigmount and Forrester; envisaged sending daughter to Craigmount Pupils at Craigmount achieve higher than average standards compared to other schools in Edinburgh. A proven track record increases the possibility of daughter fulfilling potential. Forresters performance may improve - but would like option of choice. If the Council to steps to improve performance and conditions at Forrester parents in the area would be less likely to send children to Craigmount. Alternative solution is for pupils attending Gylemuir to retain the option to send child to either school. A date will be set by the Council at which point children at Gylemuir will abide by the new catchment area.

269 1 Letter - 26 February, 2004 vls Eleanor McLean Proposals to send all Gylemuir children to Forrester in 2005 are unacceptable. KX Gogarloch Syke Edinburgh Chose to move to area and send children to Gylemuir on grounds that Craigmount would be catchment secondary. Unacceptable not to guarentee places for siblings. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETERS & EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICALORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LMNG WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

EHXX XJB Concerned that no moves have been made for all schools to have the same half day. Option 3 still an option. School rolls are falling and proposed new housing has not even been approved. Director of Education not attending the Gylemuir meeting was extremely disappointing. Fiaures supplied by Education Department show a drop in roll numbers. Tie short consultation period is unsettling. It is of no benefit to anyone to increase the number of pupils at a school due to be rebuilt that continues to have a level of academic achievement Fdr below the city average. To say that Rosebum pupils could not go to TynecasUe is totally unreasonable. Dangerous Russell Road daim is ridiculous. Not an issue for many children currently at TynecasHe - especially from the Balgreen catchment area. It is within reasonable walking distance - Craigmount is not. Better option for Rosebum pupils - improved health, less traffic congestion and save the Council money on bus fares. Would welcome feedback on whose comments are taken into account in this review. Comments from pensioners or childless couples with regard to falling house prices etc. would be the same city wide, and as Gylemuir is a larger catchment area this would overrule any comments from Rosebum catchment area people.

285 rn Letter - 26 February, 2004 Mr Alistair Shearer Wishes to register concerns over current considerations that will remove Rosebum as Craigmount feeder school. XX South Beechwood Fully supports campaign that Rosebum retains its status as feeder to Craigmount. Edinburgh Craigmount has links on a personal basis through family and friends residing in the area. EHXX XYS Would urge greater emphasis and consideration is given to transport links in the city. No other secondary school will fadlitate the safe transfer of child from house to school. Direct transport links to Craigmount are in place ensuring a single journey. - 442 Letter - 26 February, 2004 Mrs Mary Brownlee Supports the proposal that Roseburn PS should feed solely into Craigmount. XX Henderson Terrace Supports single feeder status generally as it eases the transition from primary to secondary. Edinburgh Direct bus routes with Craigmount and the safety with which pupils can travel is of utmost importance. EHXX XIY D No other secondary school offers such a safe and accessible route. Councils original proposal (Roseburn feeding to Craigmount, Gylemuir feeding to Forrester) is the most logical and feasible change. D Council is wrong to bow to pressure from other schools. I It should be remembered that Rosebum send only a small number of pupils to Craigmount at SI.

rn 431 Letter - 26 February, 2004 ~~ Sharon McDougall D Support proposal to change Rosebum Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount. K Saughtonhall Grove D Safe and direct route to Craigmount. Edinburgh Hopes the Council do not give in to pressures from other schools. EHXX XRQ

286 Letter - 26 February, 2004 Mrs Diane Shearer D Wishes to register concerns over current considerations that will remove Roseburn as Craigmount feeder school. XX South Beechwood D Fully supports campaign that Roseburn retains its status as feeder to Crainmount. Edinburgh D Craigmount has links on a personal basis through family and Mends residing in the area. EHXX XYS D Would urge greater emphasis and consideration is given to transport links in the city. No other secondary school will Facilitate the safe transfer of child from house to school. D Direct transport links to Craigmount are in place ensuring a single journey. 303 Letter February. - 26 2004 Mr David Gafiey I Support proposal to change Roseburn Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount. K Saughtonhall Terrace Parent of child at Rosebum. . 4 b I .

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS 1 Edinburgh Direct bus route with well establish crossing points from Rosebum to Craigmount EHXX XQW Rosebum has a long and successful association with Craigmount. Craigmount the school of choice for major& of Rosebum parents. Rejects proposals for feeder status to Broughton or Tynecastle. Taking away Rosebums feeder status will not resolve the Craigmount accomodation problem. Broughton will be at capacity and there is no direct bus link. No safe route to Tynecastle - Russell Road has liffle pavement or lighting provision. No single bus route from home to Tynecastle. Hopes that decision will not be delayed and that the status quo will be rejected. - 281 Letter - 26 February. 2004 Mrs Judith Jamieson Very happy with proposal for Rosebum Primary to soley feed Craigmount. XX Riversdale Road Craigmount is the,only option for Rosebum. Edinburgh Broughton will be full. EHXX XQY Tynecastle dmlt to reach with no safe route available. Rosebum so small it will not solve overcrowding problem if it is removed from Craigmount catchment. Majority of Gylemuir pupils live doser to Forrester than Craigmount. Some children walk past Forrester to make the 25 minute walk to Craigmount. Astounded at level of animosity displayed by Gylemuir parents towards Rosebum.

220 Email - 26 February. 2004 Ms Denise Dorrian Parent of two children at Rosebum. KX Riversdale Crescent Delighted to see link with Craigmwnt proposed. Edinburgh Concerned that another primary school is using bully-boy tactics to try and remove Rosebum from the catchment. EHXX XQT No other school is a safe journey from Rosebum. Same music teacher at Roseburn and Craigmount means continuity. Would be a very sad to see this continuity end. Removing the small numbers of pupils at Rosebum would not help the equation.

284 Letter - 26 February, 2004 Mr & Mrs Cunningham Totally in favour of proposal to make Rosebum sole feeder to Craigmount KX Belmont Gardens Craigmount is the only viable and safe option -the only school with a direct bus route. Edinburgh Rosebum has built links with Craigmount High. fHXX WH Fewer links with Broughton and none with Tynecastle. The number of children Rosebum feeds into Craigmount every year is minimal compared to the number Gylemuir feeds. - Forrester High is doser than Craigmount for Gylemuir children and has the capacity to accommodate them. 410 Letter - 26 February. 2004 ars & Mrs Muir Support proposal to change Rosebum Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount. I< Carbeny Place Safe and direct route to Craigmount Edinburgh Long and successful partnership between the two schools. - EHXX XHY 384 Email - 26 February. 2004 game Withheld Very concerned by the campaign being waged by Gylemuir parents to prevent Rosebum children going to Craigmount It is easy for Rosebum children to reach Craigmount using one bus. Broughton and TynecasUe require at least two buses. Pedestrian route to Tynecastle via Russell Road is unsuitable due to poor lighting and a lack of pavement facilities. There are also a large number of heavy goods vehicles. Gylemuir children all live within easy reach of Forrester. B Rosebum has spent many years forging links with Craigmount. B It has fewer links with Broughton and none with Tynecastle. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Craigmount is the school of choice for Rosebum parents. e Hopes Council won’t allow Rosebum to be used a pawn in the Gylemuir argument. - 394 e Email - 26 February, 2004 Ms Dorothy Smith e Very happy with proposals along with 80% of Rosebum parents. e Compelled to write because of pressure from Gylemuir PS. e As Rosebum feed 12-22 children to Craigmount S1 and Gylemuir feed 100, do not see that removing Rosebum PS will make significant impad on release of spaces. e Tynecastle is not feasible because the Russell Road route is not safe. 0 Rosebum lies on the edge of the catchment area not the centre. e Rosebum has links with Craigmount but not with Tynecastle. e Son has special educational needs - a change to another school would be detrimental to his education. e Learning Support facilities at Craigmount have been exemplary. e Hopes Council will not bend to pressure and keep original proposals.

308 Letter - 26 February, 2004 The Occupier Hopes that Craigmount school will continue to take pupils from Rosebum Primary. X Coltbridge Vale Edinburgh EHXX XAG

307 Letter - 26 February, 2004 Mr 81Mrs Barclay e Extremely annoyed with suggestion that Rosebum might be removed from the Craigmount catchment area. X Riversdale Road e Removing Rosebum will not solve the problem for Gylemuir. Edinburgh Gylemuir have a High School near them which they choose not to attend. EHMXQN Rosebum need Craigmount so that they can travel safely.

416 8 Letter - 26 February, 2004 J S Hodge Writing to make Council aware of the strength of local support for the current proposals. Removal of Rosebum would not sort the excess demand for places at Craigmount. e Well proven and readily available means of transport from the Rosebum catchment area to Craigmount without the need for changing buses. 371 . Email - 26 February, 2004 Mr Graeme L Duncan Supports current policy of pupils from Rosebum progressing to Craigmount. x west Stanhope Place Expresses concern that alterations may be contemplated in the arrangement. Edinburgh There is a long standing relationship between the two schools. EHXX XHQ 8 Direct bus route and established crossing points mean safety and ease of travel. 278 Letter - 26 February, 2004 D A 0 Daulby Support the Rosebum parents campaign for Craigmount to remain as the feeder school. Secretary Only Craigmount affords a safe journey to school (one bus and controlled crossings). Murrayfield Community Council The attendance of 20 pupils or so per year does not significantly impact on accomodation pressures. XX Riversdale Road There is no safe route to Tynecastle High - children would have to negotiate concealed bends and industrial Edinburgh estates. EHXX XQP Rosebum has no connection with Tynecastle. Increased traffic flow make the journey to Tynecastle dangerous. Sorry to hear that the parents of Gylemuir School do not welcome the attendance of the small number of pupils form Rosebum to Craigmount. Rosebum parents do not want their children to be the focus of their anger. 422 Letter - 27 February, 2004 Mrs D E Maxtone Graham 8 Supports the proposal that Roseburn pupils feed to Craigmount. X West Catherine Place 8 In favour of keeping the status quo. Edinburgh EHMXHZ

0 t I . c c b

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICALORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

_c_ 4z Letter - 27 February, 2004 Mr & Mrs Torrance Supports the proposal that Rosebum pupils feed to Craigmount. XX Rosebum Street Hopes Council will not bow to pressure from other schools or delay their original proposals. Edinburgh

e__ 399 Letter - 27 February, 2004 Ms Lyn Sutherland Support proposal to change Rosebum Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount XX Coltbridge Gardens No transport links to any other school Edinburgh Removal of Rosebum would not ease congestion at Craigmount. EHXX XAQ Expressing opposition to sole feeder from Gylemuir Primary School to Forrester High School. 270 Letter - 27 February, 2004 Mrs Noma Sime status XX North Gyle Park Granddaughter is a Gylemuir Primary pupil. Edinburgh Living next to Craigmount. Assists parents with childcare at present. To deny granddaughter a place at Craigmount EHXX XLE would mean (due to mobility difficulties) no longer able to assist with childcare. (Route from Forrester to North Gyle too far for child to walk). Burden on parents to find alternative childcare. Parental choice is being removed. Seeks clarification on criteria adopted for out of catchment places should Option1 be implemented.

4M Letter - 27 February, 2004 Mrs Pauline Williamson Support proposal to change Rosebum Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmount. X Saughtonhall Place Safe and direct bus route to Craigmount. Edinburgh Hopes Council will not bow to pressure from other schools or delay their original proposals. EHXX XRH Removing Rosebum from the catchment will not solve the accommodation problem. 398 Letter - 27 February, 2004 Mrs A Watson Support proposal to change Rosebum Primary to become a single feeder into Craigmwnt. XX Murraytield Gardens Safe and direct route to Craigmount. Edinburgh Hopes the Council do not delay the proposals. EHXX XDF

401 Letter - 27 February, 2004 Ms Bryony Stevens Supports the proposal that Rosebum pupils feed to Craigmount. XX Coltbridge Gardens Hopes Council will not bow to pressure from other schools or delay their original proposals. Edinburgh EHXX XAQ

312 Letter - 27 February, 2004 Mr & Mrs D Sime Surely the possible increase in school population from the new housing developments was considered as part of the XX Gogarloch Syke planning for the new Craigmount school? Edinburgh If not, then it is the fault of the Planning Dept and the parents should not be penalised for Council shortcomings. EHXX XIB Council needs to reduce catchment area by 250. Craigmount has capacity for 1400. Present roll is 1250. Spare capacity of 150, requiring a reduction of 100. This could be achieved by removing feeder status from Rosebum. Council has already bowed to pressure from Rosebum parents in the past who didn't want to send their children to Tvnecastle. Many Gylemuir parents currently send their children to Forrester. Gylemuir School Board states that both schools have long established links with Gylemuir. Forrester being a strong candidate for investment reinforces the issue that it requires major upgrading and significant investment to improve standards. At least 3 years before pupils wwld enjoy benefit of investment. Forcing children to forego a new school building and facilities in favour of a school that needs to be demolished and rebuilt. Why not wait until the new school is ready? APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CWGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

There is another aaenda involving school closures which would fall in line with recent press articles regarding falling Primary school populations. Suaaestion that Rosebum school be given sole feeder status to Craigmount at the expense of children living on the s&hs doorstep is ludicrous. Why not amend the catchment for Rosebum to include Tynecastle High? Parents from Gylemuir have as much right to freedom of choice as parents from Roseburn. Russell Road is a much quieter thoroughfare and eminently safer than Glasgow Road. Catchment Review should be looked at in entirety not on an ad hoc basis. Some parents from Fox Covert Primary have already said they would welcome inclusion in the Royal High catchment area. This would alleviate pressure on Craigmount. Review refers to spare places for parent requests - how many places are available and what criteria will be used to allocate them? School liaison aspect is a smoke screen. Administrative tasks should not be a precursor for the removal of parental choice. Gylemuir pupils will lead to overcapacity at Forrester. This would be further exacerbated if the brownfield site created by PPP2 is developed into housing. Option 2 would seem fairer and would assist in school numbers placing Gylemuir on an equal footing with Roseburn. Negative points for Option 2 are weak. Friends attending the same High School will invariably be split up for a variety of reasons (chosing different subjects etc.) Do not see efficacy of this argument. Option 3 is not viable in the long term. Delay review until after Forrester rebuilt. Particulary important in light of revelation of plans to create joint Forrester/St Augustines campus. Maintaing status quo until August 2008 would be approved by the majority of parents. Allow initiatives to come to fruition and deliver expected improvement in exam results. A delay would alow parents the time to be better informed. There is no existing pressure on Craigmount facilitites and won’t be for several years. With Council options given supports option 2. Totally opposed to option 1. Why have statements in the press stated that Option 1 is the preferred option of the Council? Surely this casts doubt on merit of consultation as it appears decision is already made. Fact that neither Ewan Aitken or Roy Jobson attended Gylemuir public meeting did not alleviate suspicions that parental concerns will be ignored. Option 4 suggested by the School Board would be the best way forward. Hope that Council delays decision until 2008.

304 m Email - 27 February, 2004 Ms Maureen Gilleade Supports the proposal that Rosebum pupils feed to Craigmount. XX Murrayfield Avenue Hopes Council will not bow to pressure or delay their original proposals. Edinburgh EHXX XAU

258 m Letter - 27 February, 2004 Mrs Gail Graham Chose property because of Roseburn and Craigmount - their reputation and the ease of travel. XX Riversdale Grove Opposes any action that would alter Craigmount from being feeder secondary school. Edinburgh Tynecastle not a choice for safety consiws parents. Would not allow child to walk along Russell Road / McLeod Street - extremely busy, badly lit, few pedestrians and runs past industrial ground. Travel by bus wuld require 2 buses, unlike to Craigmount which requires 1. Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount 4 V e

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS & EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOt.INT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

262 Email - 27 February, 2004 %6June Lambert Supports proposals for Roseburn to feed Craigmount. Beeslack Community High School Tynecastle is not a safe option, requiring two bus journeys. Penicuik 0 Russell Road is far too dangerous. EHXX XQF

282 Letter - 27 February. 2004 Mr & Mrs Connolly Support Option 2. XXX Gogarloch Syke Moved to area having taken account of schooling when selecting a new home. Edinburgh If Option 1 were to go ahead would have to consider moving again. EHXX WE

Letter - 27 February, 2004 Mr S lvinson Support proposal to change Roseburn Primary to bewrne a single feeder into Craigrnount XX Roseburn Street Hopes the Council do not give in to pressures from other schools. Edinburgh EHXX XPR 1387 Letter - 27 February. 2004 Mrs S lvinson Parent of two children at Craigmount want youngest to go to Craigmount as well. WX As Roseburn is only sending small numbers to Craigmount, they must not be forced out by pupils from other XX Rosebum Street schods. Edinburgh Support proposal for Rosebum pupils to attend Craigmount. EHXX XPR

265 Email - 27 February, 2004 Dr Carl Broughton Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. There has been a long association between the Wo schools and the public transport links are good. No safe routes to any other secondary school in Edinburgh.

306 Email - 27 February, 2004 Ms Judith Gil Strongly supports proposals for Roseburn to feed Craigmount. XX Riversdale Road Disappointed if due to pressure from other schools this proposal was changed or delayed. Edinburgh Moved into the area because of access to good local schools and the link bemeen Roseburn and Craigmount. Removing Roseburn from the equation would not impact on accomodation problem. I 280 Letter - 27 February, 2004 Ms Sally Lindsay Letter - 27 February, 2004 Letter - 27 February. 2004 X Stanhope Place - Dismayed by the tone of recent calls from Gylemuir parents for Roseburn to be taken out of the Craigmount Edinburgh catchment. EHXX XHH - Removing Roseburn would not release many Craigmount places. - Broughton High is expected to be at capacity. - No direct bus route to Broughton. - Tynecastle is difficult to reach. - Russell Road is not a safe route. Would not let children walk to school along this route. - Many Roseburn pupils live too far from Tynecastle to walk. - Rosebrun has no links at all with Tynecastle. - Future housing developments in the area expected to increase !he pressure on Tynecastle. - Very pleased with the proposal to re-align Roseburn Primary School to be sole feeder to Craigmount High. . Easy to reach bv Public transoort. . Weli establish link between hetwo schools.

B Letter - 27 February, 2004 . Very happy with proposal that Roseburn will become sole feeder to Craigmount. . Craigmount is the most accessible secondary school for Rosebum. . Broughton 8 TynecasUe not viable options. . Would be unhappy if child had to walk down Russell Road. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

288 Letter - 28 February. 2004 Ms Margaret Alexander 0 Very pleased that Rosebum will bemesole feeder to Craigmount. X Stanhope Place Rosebum enjoys strong links with Craigmount. Edinburgh The route to school is safe and easy. EHXX XHH Tynecastle is an extremely long walk. Russell Road is very dangerous (even for an adult).

275 Letter - 28 February, 2004 Ms June Adams Parent of Rosebum children. XX Coates Gardens Objects to losing Rosebums alignment with Craigmount. Edinburgh Unhappy at prospect of disrpting plan for children to attend Craigmount. EHXX XLG Safe and straightforward journey to Craigmount. Facilities at Craigmount are 1* class.

272 Email - 28 February, 2004 Mr Peter Heffeman Parent of Rosebum child happy with propsals. XX Riversdale Crescent Other secondaries lack transport links. Edinburgh Concerned that Gylemuir parents are attempting to prevent Roseburn children attending Craigmount. EHXX XQT Rosebum only feeds comapratively tiny amount of children to Craigmount Rosebum children wuld free up 100 places; 250 are needed. . Forrester is a perfectly good school. Parents could help improve the school by taking a more active interest in their childs development. Gylemuir parents actions down to snobbery. Craigmount is the only option for Rosebum due to safe transport links. Forrester, Broughton and Tynecastle do not have safe transport links. Gylemuir arguments about Rosebum being nearer Tynecastle do not stand up to scrutiny - most Gylemuir pupils live nearer Forrester.

274 0 Letter - 29 February, 2004 Mrs Jackie Elliot Rosebum Primary has good links with Craigmount. XX Riversdale Road Craigmount High is safe to get too. Edinburgh There is a direct bus route to Craigmount. EHXX XQP Broughton High requires 2 buses or a long journey on LRT No.38 . Driving to Broughton will cause more congestion. Tynecastle has no links to Rosebum. There is no direct bus route to Tynecastle. It is a long and dangerous walk along Russell Road and MacLeod Street which has poor lighting and pavements. Happy with proposals for Rosebum Primary catchment to have single feeder status to Craigmount. Email 29 February, 2004 388 - Mrs Karen McKenzie 8 Object to proposal that Gylemuir School should lose its dual feeder status. XXX Broomhall Drive 8 Chose Gylemuir over Corstorphine PS. Edinburgh 8 All sons friends have more prospect of going to Craigmount as they live in Option 2 catchment or have older EHXX XQQ siblings). 8 Children have added disruption of school being rebuilt. Council website does not mention that Dual Feeder status is under review for Gylemuir. 8 Table of street names on website does not mention house numbers 35 to 113. 8 Delay catchment review until a) the council literature is amended b) Forrester is rebuilt c) investigate why Forrester numbers are falling and Craigmount is over-subscriced. b Decision by the Council will affect housing situation. b A horrendous number of householders will face the difficult decision of whether or not to move home. 1 The reason Forrester numbers are declining is that it is seriously under-performing.

n . b 4

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICALORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

__. 30! Email - 29 February. 2004 Mr John Baillie Two children at Rosebum XX Ormidale Terrace Extremely happy with proposal that Rosebum should have sole feeder status to Craigmount. Edinburgh Huge turnout at Rosebum public meeting reflected how strongly the parents of Roseburn feel about this issue. EHXX XEA Council muld not create sufficient additional capacit)’ by excluding Rosebum children. The easiest school for children in Rosebum to get to is Craigmount (one bus on a busy regular route). Walking to Tynecastle -not a pleasant route given the heavy and industrial traffic that uses the road. Extremely unsafe to be walking. No links with Tynecastle.

361 Letter - 29 February, 2004 Ms Tina Woolnough Lodging an objection to proposals for changes to Forrester/Craigmountcatchment. Chair This review is premature. Parents in Partnership predicated upon housing developments not at planning permission stage. C/o Blackhall Nursery planning may not be granted - it may be primarily flats or Sheltered housing - an estimate Of 175 Pupils would Ravelston Park Pavilion therefore be too high. Craigcrook Road Remom1 of Broughton/Craigmountdual feeder status for Rosebum is alS0 predicated On housing devebPmen& at Edinburgh the Waterkont which do not have planning permission. EHX XRU This review is not predicated upon Education Department pupil roll projections. Department does not have up-to-date roll projections to substantiate proposed changes. Most recent proiectiOnS are from 200Z3 - which show dedine in pupil role at Craigmount by 2007. Craigmount feeders confirmed that the projected 2002/3figures for this year are fairly accurate. When Department was asked why review not based on its own projections; advised that there had been 20 unexplained pupils starting Craigmount in 2003 -that accurate forecasts would be difficult until an explanation was found. The full facts are not before us at this time. This review is fundamentally unfair. Families building their lives have expectation that their children would be going to Craigmount. Request a seven year lead-in time to any change from status quo so parental expectation can be fulfilled. Opportunity through PPP to build new relationship between Gylemuir families and Forrester. Methodology used to summarise consultation has not been shared. Not made dear how concultation results will be assimilated. Summarising the consultation by taking majority view is too crude an approach. Consultation process itself has been flawed. Pupil post caused upset to children who read proposals. Council representatives at Gylemuir consultation were unable to identify fundamental questions. Preferred options should not be implemented until there is evidence to justify doing so. In the absence of planning applications and planning permissions will be arguing that the review is premature, inappropriate and negates the democratic process. 276 Lefler - 29 February, 2004 Mr 81Mrs Montgomery Writes to protest about proposals concerning Craigmaunt High School. KX Gogarloch Bank Unacceptable that children would have to attend different High Schools. Edinburgh Major factor in decision to purchase property was the catchment area. EHXX XLA Only option acceptable is Option 3. Option 2 would cause a huge divide between residents of the Gyle and South Gyle. Not going to rely On sibling places because they are not guarenteed. Rosebum should be re-aligned with Tynecas~e. Intake should be restricted to pupils who live in the locality of the school. Exdude Pupils from Hillwood who live on the outskirts of the dty. If Roman Catholics from FOX averts can 90 t0 st. Augustines, why can’t the nondenominational pupils go to APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 81EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) RMEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Forrester or Royal High? The behaviour of some of the Forrester pupils and parents at the Gylemuir meeting was appalling. Some Forrester pupils were asked to leave by the Headmaster. It‘s a great pity the Director of Education and Executive Member of Education were not at the meeting. At the very least, pupils who are currently attending Gylemuir should be allowed to go to Craigmount with changes brought into effect for pupils who have yet to enroll.

464 Email - 29 February. 2004 Ms Stephanie Myles Made decision to send daughter to Corstorphine Primary, knm’ng that this is a feeder for Craigrnount. XX Broomhall Place Livina in Broomhall Place and attending CMstorphine PS, daughter will be removed from peers and placed in a Edinburgh sch&l (Forrester) where they know very few people. EHXX XPE What measures will be put in place to help children at CorsbrphinePrimary in their transition to Forrester? Is Education Deparbnents intention for Corstorphine PS to liase with Forrester in the same way that Gylemuir has with both Forrester and Craigmounl? What support will be in place to help child when the rest of class 90 to Craigmount? Out of Catchment application is unlikely to be successful as the majority of those attending Gylemuir Primary will do the same.

351 Letter - 1 March, 2004 Ms Pamela Sked Entirely opposed to Option 1. XXX Gogarloch Syke Fundamental right to parental choice being withdrawn. Edinburgh 92% of Gylemuir parents choose not to send children to Forrester in 20034. To implement Option 1 would EHXX XIE undermine the Councils principals that parental choice be respected. Bought house so that child cwld go to Craigmount. Grandparents will be after school carers and are only a few minutes from Craigmount. To Grandparents from Forrester would be a bus journey on an unreliable bus service. Forrester is consistently under performing. Opposed to option 2 on the grounds that it does not respect parental choice. Splitting the catchment would create irreparable damage to the community. Children from Rosebum shwld not take preference owr children from Gylemuir who live within walking distance of Craigmount. In favour of option 3 or the proposal put forward by the Gylemuir school board. Status quo until the council in a positiion b offer new accomodation at Forrester. Would allow Forrester to develop their relationship with both pupils and parents at Gylemuir. Allow the new initiative currently underway at Forrester High to meto fruition and deliver the expected improvement in exam results. Parental choice would be retained. - Allows parents a longer “lead time”. 260 Email - 1 March, 2004 Ms Amy Banie Concern that Rosebum may cease to be a feeder for Craigmount is wonying for community. Strongly supports campaign to maintain status quo. Rosebum and Craigmount have close ties and have built a strong relationship. There is a well structured and organised transition from Rosebum to Craigmount.

I__ 376 Email - 1 March, 2004 Wrs Ann Greenhill How do the Council intend stopping the use of relatives addresses being used to enrol children into catchment area KX Gogarloch Muir outwith where they stay? Edinburgh EHXX XIJ

I P * b 9

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

371 Email - 1 March, 2004 Mrs Karen Frost Very happy with proposals to end dual feeder status and have Craigmount as sole school for Rosebum. X Rosebum Avenue Extremely upset by the actions of parents at Gylemuir who have made a personal attack on children from Rosebum. Edinburgh EHXX XPA

291 Email - I March, 2004 Ms Ann Anderson Neighbours delighted with educational standards and resultant achievement of children at Craigmount. XX Coltbridge Tenace Some parents can afford private education - this option is not open to all. Edinburgh There should be a choice in schooling.

352 Letter - 1 March, 2004 Patricia Deignan Seeks guarentee that all siblings will get places. XX Gogarloch Bank Agrees that exam league tables do not compare like with like, but fells that Craigmount is a much better school. Corstorphine Child will not be going to Forrester. Edinburgh EHXX XLA

390 Email - 1 March, 2004 Mr Barry Fraser 100% in agreement with proposal to have Rosebum sole feeder to Craigmount. X Belmont View Other schools using Roseburn as pawn in their argument. Edinburgh Tynecastle is closer (as the crow flies) EHXX XJJ Requires two buses and crossing a series of busy roads or a long walk along a very unsafe route. Making a change to proposal will still not create enough space for all children at Craigmount. Broadly agree with other schools desire to send their children to Craigmount, but do not believe they should be making a case of an unrelated school.

261 Email - 1 March, 2004 Ms Audrey Banie Supports proposals for Roseburn to feed Craigmount.

289 Email - 1 March, 2004 Mrs Jane Fraser 100% in agreement with proposal to have Rosebum sole feeder to Craigmount. X Belmont View Tynecastle is closer but would involve either 2 buses and crossing a series of busy roads, or a long walk USinS an Edinburgh unsafe route. EHXX XJJ Disappointed at other parents making an argument over Rosebum. Removing Rosebum will not create enough space for all of their children at Craigmount Do not believe they should be making a case of another completely unrelated school.

I__ 353 Letter - 1 March, 2004 Mr & Mrs MacMillan Bought house believing children would attend Craigmount XX Gogarloch Road Parental right to choose being removed. Edinburgh B Object to the inclusion of Rosebum at the expense of Gylemuir. EHXX XJA Realignment of Rosebum would greatlt alleviate the pressure on Craigmount. Exam results for Forrester have been consistently poorer than Craigmount. L No confidence that child will fulfil potential attending a school in need of improvement in all areas. 9 Proposals could be delayed until a new school building at Forrester has been completed. 1 Delay wwld tie in with the completion date for the housing developments in the Craigmount area. I Director of Education and Executive Member for Education not attending Gylemuir public meeting was disgraceful I Gave the impression that the decision has already been made by the council. Council representatives at the public meeting were often condescending and poorly prepared to answer basic - questions. 358 Letter - 1 March, 2004 Mr Tommy Sutherland Disappointed by the lack of interest shown by Education Department to the angry feelings expressed at Gylemuir APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

XX Gogarloch Syke school Edinburgh Disappointed by the poor response to questions about the figures for future entry to Craigmount. Believe that the expected pressures on the school roll at Craigmount are greatly over estimated. Fall in primary school rolls will further reduce pressure after 2008 Current parental choice should be recognised. . Further housing developments on the ForresterlSt Augustines will result in increasin pressure on Forrester roll. Rosebums more logical option is Tynecastle - avoiding the need for subsidy of Public Transport costs. Option hnro not as radical for the local community - those in the proximity of the new school are more likely to attend Three children attending Corstorphine Primary to prepare them for secondary education at Craigmount.

257 Letter - 1 March, 2004 Ms Wendy Ewart Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. X Western Terrace Tynecastle more difficult to access. Edinburgh Craigmount has a long history of association with Craigmount. EHXX XQF Asks Council not to bow to pressures from other schools. .

357 Letter - 1 March, 2004 Mr & Mrs Rigg Both local secondaries have excellent teachers and support staff. X Gogarloch Muir Teachers are one thing, but peer pressure is more key to a childs development. Edinburgh Concerned with the numbers of Forrester pupils that start smoking and underage drinking. EHXXXJJ Daughter is aware that of the pupils from her old primary who attended Forrester a higher proportion of these ends up smoking, drinking or both. D Craigmount has a new school - environment is vastly better than Forrester. Planning for people who do not yet exist over existing residents. New residents may choose to send children to another local school or take advantage of public schools. Delaying the decision would see existing plans meto fruition, persude Gylemuir parents that Forrester is a viable alternative and allow completion of ne Forrester building. D Consultation appears to be window dressing - the decision has already been made.

379 Email - 1 March, 2004 Mrs Jane Sutherland D Would like to indicate support for options 2 & 3. . XX Gogarloch Syke D Concerned that given the disparity in exam results and educational quality, children will be forced to go to a Edinburgh considerably inferior educational standard school (Forrester). EHXX XJB B Concerned that children from further away will continue to feed Craigmount. - 359 Letter-lMarch.2004 Mr Donald J Ferguson D Strong objection to any proposal to alter Rosebum feeder status. XX Forrester Road D Eldest daughter will attend Craigmount - luduous if younger sister had to attend a different school. Edinburgh D No suitable routes for travelling to Broughton or Tynecastle. EHXX XAE D Craigmount is walking distance. I 80% of parents happy to have Rosebum achieve sole feeder status to Craigmount. I Rosebum has 16 years links with Craigmount. I No links with Tynecastle 1 Links with Broughton not as extensive.

373 D Email - 2 March, 2004 Ms Caroline Sutherland 1 Daughter made transition from Gylemuir to Craigmount smoothly - looking forward to repeating process with XX Gogarloch Muir youngest. Edinburgh Upset to find out this might not be possible. EHXX XJJ 1 Exbemely disappointed with lack of answers and failure of Director of Education to attend. 1 Objects strongly to change in choice as a parent for younger children to follow their elder sisters footsteps. 1 So many siblings wanting to attend Craigmount that this option will not be possible. 4 b

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETIERS 81EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGYOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

0 League tables speak forthemselves -concerned that child will receive a different level of education at Forrester. . 0 Worried about the influence more socially deprived catchment will have on children. 0 Gylemuir children are being used to heighten the profile of Forrester. 0 Gylemuir parent choice is for Craigmount. Rosebum has Tynecastle on its doorstep. 0 Children from Hillwood at Ratho have histroically gone to Balemo High. 0 If children from Hillwood and Ratho didn’t attend Craigmount surely it would mean Gylemuir pupils could continue to feed into Craigmount? 175 children don’t exist but will do due to building work; having priority over existing Gylemuir children and pupils. Build the new Forrester and let it become a building that is comparable to the new school at Craigmount. Let the parents then decide which is the better school. Let things remain until 2008. - 461 0 Email - 2 March, 2004 Mr Jim Bain The Board of Craigmount High Schdregister the view that Status Qoo should not be considered as an option. Chairperson The current capacity of 1400 should not be increased. Craigmount High School Board Any further increase would have an affect on the education of students. X Mearenside This issue should be addressed as won as possible. Edinburgh EHXX XUQ - Remit of GCFG to act as focal point for issues relating to Gylemuir Catchment Review. Focus group will collate all 354 Letter - 2 March, 2004 Mr Graham Newton B Gylemuir Catchment Focus Group. questions and submit to the wncil. The group will then publish the response and distribute to parents and )oo( South Gyle Mains interested parties. Edinburgh B 1981 Educ Act: ’take aocount of the representations of parents made a the meeting”. How was this achieved at EHXX XHU Gylemuir public meeting with non-fuctioning audio and video links? D As neither Roy Jobson or Ewan Aitken was present at the meeting, a second meeting at a neutral venue (St Augustines?) should be held. D Would Roy Jobson or Ewan Aitken be prepared to meet with the GCFG?

356 Letter - 2 March, 2004 Mr Graham Newton D Many questions still need to be answered, despite the recent Q&A sheet sent to all parents on Monday 1* March. Gylemuir School Board Chair D Imperative that the council respects parental choice patterns. KX Wester Broom Place 1 Option 4 the way forward - Maintain the status quo until PPP2 (August 2008). Edinburgh D Status Quo until council in position to offer new ammodation at Forrester. 1 Allow Forrester to develop relationship with both pupils and parents at Gylemuir. 1 Allow the new initiatives currently underway at Forrester to meto fruition and deliver improved exam results. 1 Let pupils and parents actively take part in the design and construction process of the new school at Forrester. fostering a sense of community. 1 No apparent demand on existing Craigmount facilities during as the proposed new residential developments will not be completed for at least 7 years. I The Board are only suggesting the postponement ofthe consultation, not the approval to realign after a new school is built. 1 Parental choice should be comerstone of any proposal. I Parental choice being championed for pupils of Rosebum. I Rosebum geographically closer to Tynecastle and well served by bus links to Forrester. , 1 Neither Option 1 or Option 2 supports parental choice. ’ A result of Option 4 may be that parents are persuaded to the positive merits of Fmster. 265 D Email 2 March, - 2004 dr Graham Smith Concerned by the unwarranted pressure on the Council to review the proposal to make Roseburn single feeder to Craigmount. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICALORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS - e The only feasible option for Rosebum is feeder status to Craigmount. 0 Tynecastle High lacks a safe route for children to travel. e Roseburn has established excellent links with Craigmount. - 346 Email - 2 March, 2004 Crawford Lindsay e Supports the Councils proposal to convert Rosebum to sole feeder for Craigmount. e Broughton and Tynecastle have disadvantages in terms of travel. e Rosebum pupils tend to live in a conidor either side of the main road and can easily make their way to a bus stop. e Direct links exist to Craigmount. e Other &OO~S muld require driving which leads to WngeStiOn and pollution. e Rosebum has many links with Craigmount - especially in the area of music. e Small in-parison with Gylemuir, whose parents have been vociferous in their objection to Rosebums inclusion, but weight of numbers alone should not be allowed to influence decision making. - 469 Letter - 2 March, 2004 Councillor Jenny Dawe e Councillor for Gyle ward. City Chambers e No parent should have qulams about sending a child to any school. High Street e Forresters poor examination results over the past few years do not fill parents with confidence that their children will Edinburgh attain their full academic potential. EHX XYJ e Gylemuir parents feel they are being used as political pawns to raise standards at Forrester. 8 It was unfortunate that neither Director of Education or Executive Member for Education were present at Gylemuir meeting. Absense indicative of lack of respect that Gylemuir views will be given say some Gylemuir residents. e Difficult to see how decisions on catchments throughout the city can be taken on a bit by bit basis. To many, the notice of the Councils favoured option means that the result of the consultatiOn is a foregone conclusion. 8 79% of Gylemuir children went to Craigmount. 92% went to schools other than Craigmount 8 Statement that one-fm of Gylemuir already chose Forrester is not true for the most recent year. Gylemuir and Craigmount have the same half day. 8 The Glasgow Road has never been seen as a deterrent to attendance at Craigmount. 8 Gylemuir PS is being treated in a very unfavourable way as regards taking notice of current parental choice. D Without knowing what the expected size of the new Forrester might be, difficult to assess effect that Gylemuir roll might have on it. 8 May exceed the optimum 900 pupils per secondary. D Justification in the Consultation Paper for realignment is that residential development will generate "upward of 175 additional pupils". D Serious failing of the Consultation that not much detail of how this projection was reached. D Noone know what type of housing this development will be or even if it will get planning permission. 8 Gylemuir parent aggrieved they are losing their choice to the residents of houses not yet even on the drawing board. D Do not accept that there is clear evidence that Craigmount will be oversubscribed over the next 7-8 years. I Why should Gylemuir be treated any differently to Rosebum? 1 Rosebum children should go to undersubscribed Tynecastle High. I Rosebum children may live as far away as Haymarket. Gylemuir children are a 5 or 10 minute walk away. 1 Statistics on projected numbers of siblings and expected demand for places at Craigmount should be available. I Parents uncertain about how likely it is that siblings would be successful in placement requests. I Option 1 unacceptable to vast majority. I Option 2 divisive but attractive to those at "right" addresses. I Option 3 acceptable for now and should be maintained until the new Forrester has been built. I Waiting would allow Forrester to sell itself to Darents..-- -- , It will be dearer by then just what extra pupils will be generated by new residential developments.

t , 4 & &

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 81 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPllONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

348 Email - 2 March, 2004 Karen & Richard Avey 0 Supports propals to make Rosebum sole feeder to Craigmount. 0 Craigmount is the only option that has a safe, direct route from Rosebum. - 0 Tynecastle is not an option as there is no safe mute and no public transport. 467 a Letter - 2 March, 2004 Mr R D Havill Moved to area because of RosebumlCraigmount. XX Saughtonhall Avenue Historical and geographical principles for link between Rosebum and Craigmount still hold true. Edinburgh EHXX XRJ

465 a Letter - 2 March, 2004 Mrs J W Gilchrist Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. X Mumyfield Gardens a Council should not bow to pressure from other schools or delay the process. Edinburgh EHXX XDG

466 Letter - 2 March, 2004 Mr D Foster a Supports proposals to make Rosebum sole feeder to Craigmount. XX Riversdale Crescent a Successful adationwith Craigmount should continue. Edinburgh Choice of regular buses to Craigmount. EHXX XQR a No other school in area offers safe, easy route to school. 0 Associations with Corstorphine area due to out of hours activities.

370 Letter - 2 March, 2004 Mr 8 Mrs Page a Attended the Gylemuir Public Meeting. X South Gyle Road a Poor show that the video link did not work properly. Edinbumh a Deplorable that the two main people did not attend. EHXX XkP a Thinks the decision has already been made. 0 David Lloyd got the green light even though residents were against the development. a There was minimum consultation with residents regarding the speed bumps around the Westerbroom estate, yet the Council steam-rolled ahead. a Bought house because of good schooling. a Acknowledge that Forrester has received a good or very good remin many areas, however, overall the school Falls well behind in pass rates compared to Edinburgh charts. a Figures used by councillor at meeting didn’t match those downloaded from Council website. a New Craigmount was built too small. Optimum of 900 pupils is rubbish and just an excuse to fit the school into land which used to be pitches and sell the rest for housing. a Falling birth rate in Edinburgh (PS amalgamations); does this not mean fewer pupils at Gylemuir? a Council is basing figures on housing developments that have not even passed at planning. a Why not realign Rosebum with Tynecastie and Fox Covert to Royal High. a There are good transport links from Rosebum to Forrester. a Forrester has 736 pupils; adding 271 from Gylemuir would create overcapacity. a Craigmount High is within walking distance of the addresses in the Gylemuir area. 0 Why is planning permission going to be granted for new housing developments when there are not enough school places nearby? a Option 2 would have a detrimental effect. It could cause friction between parents and pupils. a Leave Option 3 on the table so that parents have option to send children to Forrester once exam attainment levels have improved. 0 Is there going to be another meeting to clam the decision? 0 What was the outcome of the Human Rights question? APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS 8 EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WTHIN THE CWGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Letter - 2 March, 2004 Mr John white Forrester ill performing despite a low dl. "Green Gables" References to areas in which Forrester excels but are not shown in statistics are irrelevant to most Gylemuir XX Brucehaven Road parents. Limekilns Unlikely that those involved with University entry qualifications will be interested in the extra curricular activities Fife conducted at Forrester. KYXX MA Socioeconomic factors have a bearing on the approach of teaching staff and in the area of peer influence. Children starting school at Forrester before 2007 can expect to contend with a building site. Those who choose to reside in the Gylemuir catchment area pay handsomely, not least with Council Tax. Catchments should remain until such time as Forrester has been set to rights in all respects. The issue of differing half days should have been dealt with expeditiously at an early point.

Letter - 3 March, 2004 Mr Grahame Brown ' Opposed to proposal to change feeder status of Gylemuir Primary School XX South Gyle Road Disappointed in manner that public meeting was conducted in. Edinburgh Meeting was turned into a PR exercise for Forrester EHXX XRH Why was Forrester HT invited to speak yet a request for Craigmwnt HT to speak was refused? Is catchment review designed to increase schools standings in the league tables? Relationship between Craigmount & Gylemuir is longstanding. Number of children attending Forrester from Gylemuir is small compared to those attending Cmigmount. Attendance at Forrester the result of family history. No mseof community created by people as far away as Haymarket attending Craigmount. Rosebum dual feeder status the result of request by the Rosebum School Board. Link between Rosebum and Craigmount does not have same historic link. (circa 1989) Council figures presented at meeting do not show requirement to realign feeder status of Gylemuir. Figures presented by Parents in Partnership group were from Education Department and more up to date. Why are local children being denied the right to attend Craigmount in favour of children living outwith the district who have an undercapacity school in their area? Council giving no thought to children, families or communities. Large number of children will be lost at Balemo High due to West Lothian school opening. Ratho & Hillwood children can go to Balemo. Cost of providing a bus service to Balemo not much different to current cost in bus passes. Why is road safety for Gylemuir children now an issue when children from Tumhouse and Gogarloch cross a number ofmajor roads to reach Corstorphine Primary? Rosebum children should go to Fmster - avoiding any major roads and with a well sited bus stop. Has the legal question been answered? Would like confirmation of findings. If not, why not given that the consultation dosed on 4'" March. Is the department aware of the friction between children living in different areas served by Forresten A number of incidents have resulted from children from Broomhouse and Carricknowe areas (Forrester pupils) approaching Craigmount pupils. While incidents happen so regularly this is a saftey issue. Only questions that suppad the "preferred option" were answered in any depth. Will answers to questions be given after a decision has been made now that the consultation period is over? Requests that Status Quo be retained. ' Email March, 2004 - 3 Mr Andrew Wallace D One child at Gylemuir; one at Forrester. KX Broomhall Crescent D Agrees with Council proposal to align Gylemuir with Forrester. Edinburgh D Forrester a better school for all round education. EHXX XPQ D Negative publicity means children planning on going to Forrester will be victimised. Council has mishandled the consultation -setting neighbour against neighbour.

? f t * 4

APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LEITERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Council needs to persuade parents that children are not being thrown on a scrap heap by sending them to Forrester 0 Divisions created by the counal will not be helped by delay. Class sizes are smaller, exam results will improve and people will come to appreciate it.

245 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Mr Ewan D Daws Grandparent of child at Rosebum. WXcdtbridge Gardens Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. Edinburgh EHXX XAQ

246 Letter - 3 March. 2004 M Shapero Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount X Westem Gardens Council should not bow to pressure from other schools or delay the process. Edinburgh EHXX XQD

247 Letter - 3 March, 2004 D Tumbull Parent of Craigmount pupils (ex. Rosebum). X Coltbridge Avenue 0 Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. Edinburgh EHXX XAF

248 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Mr W Nicholson Supports proposals for Rosebum b feed Craigmount X Saughton Hall Avenue Edinburgh EHXX XRL

249 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Jean R Russell Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. XX Devon Place Transport and excellence of Craigmount the key factors. Edinburgh EHXX XHJ

250 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Mr & Mrs Mclntyre Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount XX Riversdale Road rn Recognise importance of children knowing they will move to a highly recqmmended, safe and well established Edinburgh secondary school. EHXX XQP

252 Letter - 3 March. 2004 Mrs J Dawes Supports current proposals to make Rosebum single feeder to Craigmount. XXlX Coltbridge Gardens rn Council should not bow to pressure from other schools or delay the process. Edinburgh EHXX XAQ

__I 253 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Mrs R Kennedy D Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmwnt. xx Corstorphine Road Edinburgh EHXX XQQ

_1c1 254 Letter March, - 3 2004 Mrs H M McCulloch D Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount Xx Murraytield Avenue D Council should not bow to pressure from other schools. Edinburgh EHXX XAY

255 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Ms Anne Shepherd D Supports proposals for Roseborn to feed Craigmount APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

X Abinger Gardens Council should not bow to pressure from other schools or delay the process. Edinburgh EHXX XDE

256 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Mr 8 Mrs J Aitchison Supports proposals for Roseburn to feed Craigmount. X Rosebum Cliff Direct bus route ensures safe travel. Edinburgh The number of children is small and would not affect amodation available. EHXX XAL

313 Letter - 3 March. 2004 Miss Adele M Stewart Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigrnount. XX Coltbridge Terrace Edinburgh EHXX XAE 314 . Letter - 3 March. 2004 Ms Lynne Wacton Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. X Devon Place Edinburgh EHXX XHJ

315 Letter - 3 March. 2004 Ms Gillian Glendinning Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount X Devon Place A Edinburgh Q) EHXX XHJ 0 318 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Ms Helen Petrie Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. X West Catherine Place Edinburgh EHXX XHZ

317 Letter - 3 arch, 2004- Chris & Murdoch Campbell Supports proposals for Roseburn to feed Craigmount. WX Russell Gardens Edinburgh EHXX XPG

318 0 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Mrs I J Low D Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. WX Russell Gardens D Do not be pressurised into changing or delaying current proposals. Edinburgh EHXX XPG

319 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Mrs T Whithe Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. XX Riversdale Crescent Edinburgh EHXX XQT

320 Letter - 3 March. 2004 Ms Mary Taylor D Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. X Saughtonhall Grove D Hopes the Council are not pressurised into changing or delaying current proposals. Edinburgh EHXX XRQ

321 Letter 3 March, 2004 - Ms Gail Scott D Moved to Corstorphine to be closer to Craigmount t 4 4 APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

XX Tylers Acre Avenue Child goes to Rosebum Primary. Edinburgh Cannot believe that they are no longer in the catchment for Craigmount. EHXX NE Does not want to be told that she wil have to move again.

322 Letter - 3 March, 2004 J Stewart Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. X Belmont Crescent Craigmount well serviced by buses and has good crossings. Edinburgh EHXX XJE

323 Letter - 3 March, 2004 A G Dempster Supports proposals for Roseburn to feed Craigmount. X Belmont Park Would have to travel great and awkward distance to nearest secondary. Murraylield Craigmount a straightforward bus ride away. Edinburgh EHXX XJL

324 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Ms Jillian Paterson Rosebum Primary does not make a huge difference to CraigmOUnt. XM XX Rosebum Terrace Why disrupt a school with a sense of community and Support? Edinburgh EHXX XNG

325 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Ms Margaret Renton Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount XX Saughtonhall Terrace Craigmount offers safe effective transport to school. Edinburgh Hopes the Council are not pressurised into changing or delaying current proposals. EHXX XRB

326 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Mrs Gillian Nuttall Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. XX Riversdale Grove Hopes the Council will continue without delay. Edinburgh EHXX XQS

32a Letter - 3 March, 2004 Miss J B Bair Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. XX Belmont Gardens Long and successhl link between the lwo schools. Edinburgh EHXX XJH

329 . Letter - 3 March, 2004 Ms Jeni McGill Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount XX Rosebum Drive Hopes the Council are not pressurised into changing or delaying current proposals. Edinburgh EHXX XNR

330 B Letter - 3 March, 2004 MS Christine Gaughan Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. XX Riversdale Road Hopes the Council are not presurised by other into changing current proposals. Edinburgh schools Rosebum numbers will not affect accomodation problems. EHXX XQY

331 D Letter - 3 March, 2004 Ms Caroline Murray Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. XX Riversdale Grove Edinburgh EHMXQS I APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LElTERS 8 EMAlLS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

332 Letter-3March.2004 Ms Jean Adams Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. X Belmont Terrace Hopes the Council are not pressurised by other schools into changing current proposals. Edinburgh Why should Rosebum suffer due to new houses being built on the old Craigmount site? EHXX XJF

-333 Letter - 3 March, 2004 P Dalgleish Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. XX Corstorphine Road Hopes the Council are not pressurised by other schools into changing current proposals. Edinburgh EHXX XQB

334 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Ms Jenny Carson Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. XX Belmont Gardens Craigmount is the only secondary which is easy and safe to get to. Edinburgh 0 Rosebum has had a long association with Craigmount. EHXX XJH Removing Rosebum would not solve the problem of not enough places at Craigmount.

335 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Mrs A Murray Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. XX Rosebum Place Craigmount has direct transport links to the school. Edinburgh EHXX XNN

336 Letter - 3 March. 2004 A Dickson Why try to fix a system that has worked well for years? XX Coltbridge Gardens Solution is going to affect 20 kids and upset the longterm plans of many parents. Edinburgh EHXX XAQ

337 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Miss L Robertson Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. XXX Corstorphine Road Hopes the Council are not pressurised into changing current proposals. Edinburgh EHXX XQB

338 D Letter - 3 March, 2004 Dr David J Hamilton Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. XX Belmont Gardens Hopes the Council are not pressurised into changing current proposals. Munayfield Edinburgh EHXX XJD

339 b Letter - 3 March, 2004 Mrs Susan Hogg Supports proposals for Roseburn to feed Craigmount. X Saughtonhall Drive Strong links with Craigmount; much more than with Broughton. Edinburgh No links with Tynecastle. EHXX XTW Craigmount is the only option because: No direct route to Broughton which is full anyway. Route to Tynecastle is very unsafe with insufficient pedestrian access and lighting. Removing Rosebum from Craigmount does nothing to solve the ammodation problems. Hopes the Council are not pressurised by Gylemuir into changing current proposals.

386 Email - 3 March, 2004 Mr Jason Hogg Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. X Saughtonhall Drive Proposals will enable a stronger, more focused relationship to continue between Rosebum and Craigmount. Edinburgh Hopes the Council will stand firm proposals. EHXX XMI on Sensible proposal given the availability of transport and the lack of any credible, safe alternatives. . * 1 APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAIGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

34c Letter - 3 March, 2004 Ms Susan Fey Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. X Belmont Terrace Hopes the Council are not pressurised by other schools into changing current proposals. Edinburgh Craigmount the only school with a direct bus route and established crossings. EHXX XJF Removing Roseburn from Craigmount does nothing to solve the accomodation problems.

341 Letter - 3 March. 2004 Mrs L Cook Supports proposals for Roseburn to feed Craigmount. XX Roseburn Street Edinburgh EHXX XPN

342 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Ms mnie Norman Supports proposals for Rosebum to feed Craigmount. XX Lansdowne Crescent Denying two dozen children the right to attend Craigmount would be a mindless exercise, putting numbers & Edinburgh statistics before communites and parents choice. EHXX XEH

343 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Mrs S Porter Supports proposals for Roseburn to feed Craigmount. XX Saughtonhall Avenue Lived in area for 12 years so that children could attend Roseburn and Craigmount. Edinburgh EHXX XRN A Q,' 344 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Mr & Mrs M Mulvaney Wishes to express opposition to sole feeder status for Gylemuir to Forrester. 0 XX Craigs Park Granddaughter is currently a pupil at Gylemuir Primary. Edinburgh lives a stone throw from Craigmount High and were looking forward to granddaughter attending there as it would EHXX XUL make life simpler. (Care for child while parents work). Child to young to travel from Forrester to Craig Parks on her own. Do not accept that housing is the reason for the review. Craigmount should have been built with extra capacity. If the new housing is to be developed in the near future then would agree' with Option 2.

449 Letter - 3 March. 2004 Mr Alasdair Deignon D Wish to register disappointment and concern at the manner in which the review has been handled. XX Gogarloch Bank D Sibling child at Gylemuir looking forward to joining sister at Craigmount. Edinburgh I Liffle reassurance provided that sufficient space would be available to accommodate placing requests from siblings EHXX XLA in the area. I Cannot understand why recommendationsare having to be implemented with vew little notice and with liaccount of public feeling on the issue. b Disappointed that proposals to amend the catchment areas were not timed to coincide with the opening of the new school. 1 A lack of foresight in the planning process will undoubtedly force many parents to consider relocating within the catchment area. 360 hail- 3 March, 2004 Mr Andrew Gosden b Supports proposals for Roseburn to feed Craigmount. Y Western Place b Hopes the Council are not presswised by other into changing current proposals. Munaytield schools Edinburgh fHXX XQA

470 8 Letter - 3 March, 2004 Ms Margaret Smith MSP b Accepts that change required: option 3 not sustainable. APPENDIX 2 - SUMMARY OF LETTERS & EMAILS RECEIVED (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER) REVIEW OF SCHOOL CATCHMENT OPTIONS FOR PUPILS LIVING WITHIN THE CRAlGMOUNT AND FORRESTER CATCHMENT AREAS

Vice Convener a By declaring Option 1 "hvoured option", Council is ignoring parental1wishes of 88% of Gylemuir parents. Equal Opportunities Committee a 92% chose not to send their children to Gylemuir. Scottish Parliament a Raised issue of Human Rights legislation with Peter Peacock, Education Minister at Question Time. Awaiting Edinburgh response. EHXX XSP a Gylemuir parents angry that rights being denied in favour of people who are yet to move in; to houses that are yet to be built. a The Education Depament is second-guessing the planning process. 0 Rosebum also has Tynecastle High on its doorstep. Tynecastle is under-utilised and subject to PPP2 rebuild. a Council should consider that there is a direct bus route from Rosebum to Forrester. a Offers "Option A": Not allowiing non catchment area children will reduce roll by 94 Roseburn to Tynecastle would free 106 places. Roll forecasts show a drop of 31. Newly rehrbished Forrester might attract a larger number of Gylemuir pupils. Reasonable to argue that 250 places can be found. a Offers "Option 6"as a combination of Option A and small redrawings of Gylemuir catchment (as per Option 2). a Offers "Option C"- Go ahead with Option 1 in August 2008. a There is no good reason to rush headlong into these changes in 2005. a Delaying implementation would allow a period of greater integration between Forrester and Gylemuir. Delay would alow building work to be completed with minimum disruption. a It would allow Forrester breathing space to work on improving preformance indicators and exam results. a On the basis of indicators, children are more likely to fare better at Craigmount than at Forrester. 27% of ex-Gylemuir pupils make up S5&6 whereas overall Gylemuir presence is only 11%. e Gylemuir pupils will do well no matter what school they attend. a The reality is that exam results are what is needed to progress to Higher Education or a decent job. a There needs to be greater liaison between Gylemuir PS and Forrester (parents, pupils and staq. a Education authority should not be content with situation where only 4% of pupils at Forrester achieve three or more Highers in Sh year compared to 32% at Craigmount. a Concerned that the Council has chose to go ahead with consultation process before outcome of PPP2 bid was known. a This sends message that the council had already decided on its prebrred option. Mr Jobson and Cllr Aitken's absense from the.Gylemuir meeting was very unfortunate. a Not all parents were able to make representation due to broken audio and video links. It is suggested that this is a breach of the 1981 Education Act, 22A Para 2. 0 Concerned that decisions area being taken about each catchment sequentially rather than on a city wide basis. a A number of parents are concerned that the Council have already made up their mind and won't listen as a result. a ps should continue to feed Craigmount because ofdirect bus m&. a Concerned that iron guarantees couldn't be given to parents about siblings going to Craigmount.

LElTERS RECENED AFTER THE CONSULTATION PERIOD END (After 3 MARCH, 2004)

13 from Rosebum Parents 1 from Fauldbum Parent 2 from Gylemuir Parents Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period

Amendix 3 : Answers to All Other Questions Raised Durina the Consultation Period The significant issues raised during the consultation period were answered in the report. Other issues were raised which are answered here. The questions are listed below. D 1.O Forrester High School and Catchment Area

3 1.I Issue: Attainment at Forrester High School

1.2 Issue: Curriculum Flexibility at Forrester High School

I.3 Issue: Forrester High School in PPP2

1.4 Issue: Employment

1.5 Issue: Bullying

1.6 Issue: Half Days

1.7 Issue: Entrances to C i m unt nd F rrester

1.8 Issue: Community Centre 2.0 Primarv School Assessment 2.1 Gylemuir Primary School and Catchment Area 2.1 .I Issue: Gylemuir Home Owners 2.1.2 Issue: Popularity of Gylemuir 2.1.3 Issue: PI’Sat Gylemuir 2.1.4 Issue: Pupil Numbers from Gylemuir c 2.1.5 Issue: Gyle Park 2.1.6 Issue: Public Transport 2.2 Other Primary School Catchment Areas in the Cluster 2.2.1 Issue: Tynecastle and Catchment Review 2.2.2 Issue: Roseburn Transport Issues 2.2.3 Issue: Corstorphine and Craigmount 2.2.4’ Issue: Feeder Status of Corstorphine 2.2.5 Issue: Fox Covert and Drum Brae Primary Schools

165 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 ; Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period 3.0 Plannina Issues 3.1 Issue: Housing Development in the Murrayfield Area 3.2 Issue: High Cost Housing and Pupil Product 3.3 Issue: South Gyle Industrial Estate 4.0 Consultation Process 4.1 Issue: Parental Preference 4.2 Issue: Consultation Arrangements 4.3 Issue: Status Quo 4.4 Issue: Safety 4.5 issue: Views of Children 4.6 Issue: Democratic Processes 4.7 Issue: Meetings 5.0 Other Issues 5.1 Issue:. Facilities for Special Needs Pupils 5.2 Issue: Capacities of West Edinburgh Schools

I.O Forrester Hiah School and Catchment Area

I.I Issue: Attainment at Forrester Hiqh School

Is it the case that Forrester High School finished below Craigmount High School in the “league tables”?

It was argued by many parents that Craigmount is the preferred school as it has a better academic record and that peers at Craigmount would provide more motivation than at Forrester.

It was suggested that the Education Depattment should be convincing parents that Forrester is a good school.

Regarding the issues of Gylemuir and Forrester, would it not be befter to concentrate on raising the standards at Forrester High School rather than the transfer of Gylemuir to Forrester?

Why should children be forced to affend a school to improve that school’s performance?

166 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period Why does the Education Department think Forrester will improve by making people go there?

It was argued that the consultation exercise appeared to be engineered solely to improve attainment at Forrester High School.

Council’s ResDonse:

Exam league tables do not compare like with like. Schools serve differing populations with different characteristics and so cannot be directly compared - this is an unfair comparison. 3 Forrester High School was judged by HM Inspectors of Schools as providing “a good standard of education”. The report went on to praise Forrester for its many strengths including: ‘7he head teacher, well supported by senior staff, provided very good leadership.” “The staff were committed to providing very good support and pastoral care for their pupils. ” %ood partnerships and very good communications had been established with parents, the School Board, the Parents Teachers Association, the community and other agencies. ” ’7he general ethos was very positive and pupils were provided with a very good range of extra-curricular activities and local and international excursions.” “Teaching was generally of good quality and much of it was very good.”

Forrester was also praised for its use of devolved school funds, improving standards of accommodation and furnishings.

Forrester will receive a large investment under the ’new Public Private Partnership Investment scheme, that would see the complete rebuilding of the school.

In terms of peers at Craigmount providing more motivation than those at Forrester, there is no evidence to suggest that that is the case. All schools I make considerable effort to ensure the ethos of the school allows teaching without disruption.

It is simply not the case that the consultation exercise is engineered solely to improve attainment at Forrester High School. This current consultation exercise is needed because Craigmount High School is likely to experience immediate accommodation pressures. This is because current Craigmount catchment population is higher than the capacity of the school. This pressure is predicted to increase due to considerable new housing developments planned for the area. It is Council’s position that the purpose of this catchment review is to relieve accommodation pressures at Craigmount High School and not to . increase attainment at Forrester High School.

167 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period

1.2 Issue: Curriculum Flexibility at Forrester Hiqh School

It was considered that forrester's practice of choosing options after first year and doing standard grades in third year means children get less all round education.

How can children expect to know after one year what their strengths and weaknesses are? Council's ResDonse:

The Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED) has provided guidance about the use of Curriculum Flexibility and relaxation of Age and Stage Restiictions. This is set out in the SEED Circular 3/2001 entitled Guidance on Flexibility in the Curriculum.

In accordance with this, the City of Edinburgh Council has encouraged schools to consider the effectiveness of their current provision and to look creatively at S1/2 provision to maximise educational gain and ensure pupils reach their potential. The flexible curriculum policy applies across the authority to all school sectors and is based firmly on the principle of education gain. This means that the introduction of flexibility in the curriculum must bring about additional education benefit for pupils. The policy requires schools to consult with the Education Department through their Neighbourhood Liaison Officer and Quality Improvement Officer at the onset of developing curricular innovations, and must undertake a full consultation with all stakeholders (pupils, parents, staff etc) on any proposals to introduce curriculum flexibility.

The well established 5-14 curriculum ensures progression from PI to S2. Pupils' strengths and interests are well established over a period of time and are not dependent on a single year's experiences.

Pupils will still take eleven subjects in S2 - eight Standard Grades and three compulsory "core" subjects (PE, RME and Social Education). This remains a broad and balanced education given that all pupils will have to take English, Maths, at least one Science, a Social Subject, a Modern Language and a I Creative or Technology subject. It is a "guided" choice, not a completely free one. The anticipated benefits are increased expectation, pace and challenge for pupils, reflecting Forrester's strong agenda for continuous improvement. As Forrester High School operates a class size limit of 20 in all First Year classes, pupils cover the common course more quickly than in the past.

Prior to entering SI, pupils will have already done 7 years of primary education where their strengths and weaknesses will have become clear. In addition the class size limit of 20 in all First Year classes means that teachers get to know pupils very well very quickly and the pace of learning is improved.

The Council's flexible curriculum policy applies across the authority to all school sectors and is based firmly on the principle of education gain.

168 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period

1.3 Issue: Forrester Hiah School in PPP2

Does the business case for a new school at Forrester include Gylemuir Pupils? If so, the consultation exercise was considered to be flawed.

Why does the Education Deparfment claim that a new building will improve Forrester High School?

Is there any guarantee that Forrester High School will be rebuilt?

Could the construction of the new Forrester School be fast-tracked to make it available earlier than August 2008?

Would children’s education suffer during the construction period with temporary accommodation on a ‘construction site ’?

Are teaching standards being affected by poor accommodation currently at Forrester High School?

Why is it necessary to consider a replacement for Forrester High School in this phase of the PPP scheme? Why not start elsewhere?

Is any housing planned under the PPP proposal for Forrester High School?

Council’s ResDonse:

The Council is committed to deliver a new school at Forrester High School through the PPP2 project. A priority list of schools was developed for the PPP2 project based on factors such as condition and fitness for purpose. The Council has confirmed funding for this project - if the school was withdrawn from the project, we could not confirm if or when alternative funding would become available.

Investment in the school is required to make it purpose designed for the

I Twenty First century. The investment at this building is also expected to help reduce the pressure for places being experienced at Craigmount High School. The school would be designed to accommodate its catchment population which currently comprises the catchment areas of Broomhouse, Carrick Knowe, Gylemuir and Murrayburn. Past experience of constructing new secondary schools has been that it would require a construction period of around 2 years after the contract has been through the tender process and all agreements have been finalised. The PPP tendering process for is scheduled to begin in June 2004, with the design process commencing later in the year. PPP contract negotiations mean it is unlikely that construction would commence prior to summer 2006. The plans for the new school at Forrester are to build the school on the playing fields so that the existing school can continue to operate as normal.

169 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period

Apart from the loss of use of the playing fields, there should be no change to the current provision in the existing school. The experiences at Craigmount and Gracemount demonstrate that it is possible to build a new school without adversely affecting pupils’ education.

There is no housing planned under the PPP proposal for Forrester High School.

New schools can have a positive effect on school ethos, enhancing school r policies to improve discipline and encourage pupils’ pride in their school. HMI has identified teaching standards at Forrester as being of a good quality and teaching standards are not affected by the accommodation.

As an example, the rebuilding of Gracemount High School has shown the difference fresh, modem facilities can make to a school and to the community as a whole. With 100% of students now wearing school uniform and an improved disciplinary record, Gracemount is an example of the kind of improvements Forrester could expect to see.

It is Council’s position that children’s education will not suffer during the construction of the new school at Forrester High School and the new school would improve the pride of parents and pupils in their school. I.4 Issue: Emplovment

It was argued that going to Forrester could be detrimental on children’s employment prospects after school years.

Council’s Response: This is simply not true - in terms of securing employment for school leavers Forrester has one of the best records in the City (third place to Tynecastle and Liberton 200112001 - source The Scoffish Executive: Destinations of Leavers from Scottish Schools: 2001/02). Forrester High School is regularly commended by employers for the way in which pupils from the school are prepared for interviews. Each pupil is treated as an individual and at the school they are assisted to not only to gain the best qualifications of which I they are capable but also to identify the best career pathway and be prepared for it. The comment implies a stigma attached to the school that we believe is without foundation.

1.5 Issue: Bullving

Concern was expressed about bullying/ friction between children living in different areas sewed by Forrester and tension between Forrester and St Augustines were considered undesirable.

170 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period Council’s Response:

All schools in the City take children from a variety of local communities and there is no more evidence of friction at Forrester High School than any other school in the City,

There is no tension between Forrester and St Augustine’s. Both schools have worked happily side by side and indeed co-operatively on many matters for years. For example, shared sports facilities through the Forrestine’s Centre, and providing extended subject choice at senior levels by allowing students to share classes in some subjects.

1.6 Issue: Half Davs

Forrester has a different half day to that of Gylemuir and Craigmount.

Council’s Response:

At present Forrester closes early on a Wednesday while Gylemuir and Craigmount finish early on a Friday. A city wide consultation is due to start shortly to take forward the harmonisation of half days for all schools across the City.

1.7 Issue: Entrances to Craiamount and Forrester

Since Craigmount was rebuilt, an entrance has been closed. Where will the entrance be at the new school?

Will access to the back gate of Forrester High School be allowed?

Council’s Response:

At Craigmount, the decision was taken to have one single point of entry and exit to the school. This has improved security at the school and there has . been a reduction of unauthorised absences at the school. Currently, no decision has been taken on the entrance point for the new school at Forrester. However, the experience at Craigmount has lead to the view that there would be merit in having a single point of entry and exit. NB Robin Beith has indicated there is nothing wrong with having additional site entrances that are controlled - ie locked at times pupils would not use them during the schools day.

1.8 Issue: Communitv Centre

Council builds a new community centre for the people in South Gyle, Wester Broom and Gogarloch then drives a wedge into the community.

171 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period Council’s Response:

It is not expected that Community use of the independent facility would be affected by a change to the catchment status of a local primary school. Indeed, this centre already gives students a valuable opportunity to establish friendships with others who live locally but attend different schools.

2.0 Primaw School Assessment c 2.1 Gvlemuir Primarv School and Catchment Area -. 2.1 .I Issue: Gvlemuir Home Owners

It was argued that families would be forced to move or consider private education.

It was argued that any reduction in the size of the Craigmount catchment area gave preferential status to some while disadvantaging others.

It was argued that families chose to move/buy a house in the area because of the catchment school (Craigmount US).

Why are new arrivals to the area given the same rights as parents who have lived in the area for some time?

It was argued that the proposals would affect house prices. Would Council provide compensation to home owners?

Council’s Response: The Education Department manages school provision by using geographical catchment areas, some of which may be out of date due to increased development over the past 30 years. It is the duty of the Council to accommodate all children equally from within these

geographical catchment areas, therefore, the Council can not 1 discriminate against “incomers”. School provision must be available equally for all. The Council has a duty to plan school provision for future residents.

It is the parent‘s prerogative to choose private education for their children if they wish. However, the Education Department is confident that the level of teaching and the overall education experience is equally high at Craigmount and Forrester High Schools. Staff at both schools continuously strive to realise each individual child’s full potential and encourage them to learn. House prices are influenced by a range of market factors, and the Council cannot be expected to compensate home owners for alleged changes in value. It is the Council’s responsibility to provide

172 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period

a high standard of education in all our schools, and house prices are not relevant to this. 2.1.2 Issue: Popularitv of Gvlemuir

It was considered that Gylemuir‘s popularity would drop and parents would send their children to schools in the Craigmount catchment if changes were to go ahead.

Council’s Response:

The primary school a child attends does not determine the child’s Secondary School. Placements to Secondary Schools are based solely on home address. Accordingly the primary school attended makes no difference to the secondary school allocated as the catchment school.

2.1.3 Issue: PI’Sat Gvlemuir

Why have the 2005 Gylemuir P7’s not been advised that they will/may be going to Forrester. It was considered that children from P7 should know what secondary school they are attending.

Council’s Response: The proposals have not been approved by the Council yet and therefore, these proposals are the Education Department’s view of how the catchment areas and feeder arrangements would work best. If any changes are approved by the Council these would be alerted to parents of children entering P1 at the earliest possible instance. Nursery parents in the catchment primary schools received copies of the consultation summary paper. Copies were also provided to private nurseries in the area and also libraries and community centres to ensure information was available to the wider community.

2.1.4 Issue: Pupil Numbers from Gvlemuir It was considered that restricting the intake of Craigmount by removing Gylemuir would not account for the relatively low number expected from Gylemuir Primary School.

Why were feeder arrangements not considered prior to Gylemuir being recenfly extended?

173 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period

Council’s Response: The size of any given primary school has no bearing on the accommodation required for the feeder secondary school, rather it is the number of catchment pupils who reside within the catchment area which is the important factor. This is being considered now as the population in the Craigmount catchment area has increased over the past 30 years.

2.1.5 Issue: Gvle Park There was concern about children having to walk across Gyle Park in winter to get to Forrester.

Council’s Response:

Responses received indicate that the concerns relating to Gyle Park are based around a lack of proper lighting and other safety issues.

This is not currently a concern for the parents in areas south of the

’ park who currently send their children to Craigmount.

In fact, the walk has been cited as a benefit of alignment with Craigmount by some parents who value the exercise their children receive.

In addition, while the new path to the David Lloyd centre is not lit, the path from South Gyle station to Gyle Park Gardens is.

Alternatively, children do have the option to walk round the park. The distance from Gylepark Gardens to Forrester along the road round Gyle park is 1.49 miles, well within limits. This compares to a distance of 1.29 miles cutting through Gylepark.

However, concerns about this walk raised by Gylepark Gardens residents have been noted and will be addressed as part of the safer routes to school assessment.

2.1.6 Issue: Public Transport There was concern about there being no public transport from Glasgow Road to Forrester.

Council’s Response: It is accepted that there are no direct public transport routes from Glasgow Road to Forrester High School. However the walking distance is short - x miles.

174 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period

2.2 Other Primarv School Catchment Areas in the Cluster 2.2.1 Issue: Tvnecastle and Catchment Review Why was the Tynecastle catchment area excluded from the proposals assessment?

Why did Roseburn parents get together to stop their children going to Tynecastle? Are there any plans to rebuild Tynecastle? Council's ResDonse:

Tynecastle is included in the Boroughmuir, James Gillespies and Tynecastle cluster area which is scheduled to be reviewed this year with consultation commencing in October 2004. There are plans to rebuild Tynecastle - a new school at Tynecastle High School is included in the PPP2 project.

We have no record of the situation described in the question. However, records indicate that the feeder arrangements for Roseburn Primary School were changed approximately 30 years ago. The date does seem to co-incide with the opening of Broughton High School in 1972 and it is believed that Tynecastle High School was experiencing accommodation pressures at that time.

2.2.2 Issue: Roseburn TransDort Issues It was argued that there are no direct bus routes to Craigmount. It was argued that public transport is already overcrowded and pupils from Roseburn would need to get a bus which goes against Council encouraging pupils to walk to school. It was argued that walking Roseburn pupils would need to cross busy roads and walk through poorly lit areas - goes against 'safer routes to school'. It was argued that pupils from Roseburn and Hillwood would need a bus pass to get to Craigmount which was considered to be a waste of Council money. It was argued that Roseburn parents who drive pupils to school goes against Council policy of 'leave car at home' and these parents will incur road toll charges.

175 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to AI1 Questions Raised During the Consultation Period Council’s ResDonse:

As the majority of the Roseburn children live clustered around Corstorphine Road and Roseburn Terrace, the number 31 bus is ideal for Roseburn pupils wishing to travel to Craigmount. It travels from Roseburn along Glasgow Road - stopping almost directly opposite Dechmont Road. Pupils can then cross the Glasgow Road via the pedestrian crossing used by children coming from the Gyle Park area. c

The bus service runs from Haymarket to Glasgow Road every 10 I minutes with the journey taking somewhere in the region of 15 minutes (depending on the traffic). This is then followed by the 5 minute walk up Dechmont Road to the Craigmount High school.

The majority of Roseburn parents already .choose to use this route without undue problems. There is no reason to anticipate that this will change.

The Council actively encourages parents to leave their cars at home and promotes the idea that children walk to school rather than use public transport. However, this environmental policy does not in anyway take priority over the Councils concern for children’s safety or common sense. Responses from Roseburn Primary school parents, ovenvhelmingly reject Tynecastle High School as an option because of the hazardous walk along Russell Road (see section 3.3.1) Consequently, the Council would support the use of public transport by Roseburn pupils rather than risk compromising their safety.

At just over 4 miles away, Craigmount is unfortunately not walkable from Hillwood. Nor are any other High School options - 4.4 miles to Queensferry, the 5.92 miles to Currie or the 6.8 miles to Balerno. Bus passes are the only option for Hillwood children, regardless of which school they attend. w If congestion charges work then fewer parents will drive their t children to school. However, it is up to the parent to decide whether congestion charges are of consequence to them or not. For these outer catchment schools, it is the parents decision whether to drive their children to school or to utilise public transport. The Council would obviously encourage the latter.

2.2.3 Issue: Corstomhine and Craiamount

Will my child who lives outwith the Craigrnount Catchment area but attends Corstorphine be entitled a place in Craigmount High School?

176 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period

Will pupils at Corstorphine Primary School go to Craigmount? What if there is currently a sibling at the school?

Children from Corstorphine have to cross Glasgow Road to get to Craigmount.

Council’s response:

It is the address at which families live that determines their catchment school, not the primary feeder school. Corstorphine pupils not living in the Craigmount catchment area will have to make a placing request if they wish to apply to attend Craigmount High School. Parents are free to make placing requests for primary schools within the Craigmount catchment area, however, they would also have to make a further placing request prior to their children entering S1 for a place in Craigmount High School.

Sibling placing requests are normally prioritised above other non- catchment placement requests.

In terms of pupils crossing Glasgow road, some children from both Corstorphine and Gylemuir currently cross Glasgow Road to get to Craigmount. The recognised crossing points are considered to be safe.

2.2.4 Issue: Feeder Status of Corstorphine

Why does Corstorphine PS have a different feeder status to Craigmount than Gylemuir, given their proximities to Craigmount & Forrester?

Council’s response:

The reason for this is that the Corstorphine catchment area contains Craigmount High School and the Gylemuir Catchment area contains Forrester High School. To make Corstorphine a single feeder to Forrester and Gylemuir a single feeder to Craigmount would mean that both high schools would be outwith their own catchment areas.

2.2.5 Issue: Drum Brae, East Crains and Fox Covert Primarv Schools Why were Drum Brae, Easf Craigs and Fox Coverf Primary schools not considered?

177 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period Why cant Drum Brae, East Craigs and fox Covert Primary schools be re-aligned out of Craigmount?

Why not direct new housing developments to the Royal High School?

Council’s Resoonse:

r Drum Brae, East Craigs and Fox Covert Primary Schools were all considered under this review and these were discussed in the consultation paper. A

However, *itwas considered that the catchment areas of Drumbrae, East Craigs and Fox Covert Primary Schools are appropriately sited geographically to feed into Craigmount High School. Accordingly no proposals were put foward to alter their status as feeding to Craigmount High School. Aligning these schools with any other Secondary would not be appropriate given their proximity to Craigmount.

Further to this, the Royal High is forecast to reach its capacity, even with the recent expansionlrefurbishment of the school under PPPI . . The Royal High School’s catchment population is an appropriate size for the school and accordingly re-aligning any further pupils there would not be feasible.

The suggestion that the new housing in this catchment (eg. Queen Margaret College campus) should be associated with The Royal High School, this would result in an island in the middle of the Fox Covert catchment area feeding to the Royal High while the remainder feeds to Craigmount. This would not be tenable and the whole catchment area would required to be realigned to make this work - as indicated above there is insufficient capacity at the Royal High to do this.

3.0 Plannina Issues * 3.1 Issue: Housina Development in the Murravfield Area

Would it be reasonable to anticipate new housing developments in the Munayfield area?

Council’s ResDonse:

The Planning and strategy Section of City Development, City of Edinburgh Council, have confirmed that no large-scale housing developments are planned within the Mumyfield area within XX timescale Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period 3.2 Issue: Hiah Cost Housina and Pupil Product Houses in the area were being marketed at f400,OOO - it was considered unlikely that this was likely to lead to an increase in pupil numbers.

Council’s ResDonse:

Council’s calculations of pupil numbers expected from new developments are around 4 high school aged pupils per 100 flats and around 20 high school aged pupils per IO0 houses. These rates already take the loss to the private escort into account. The Council does not consider the price houses are marketed at to be a reflection of the absence of children potentially living in that house or that they will attend an independent school.

3.3 Issue: South Gvle Industrial Estate

Why are streets in South Gyle Industrial Estate shown on the map of Craigmount catchment area when there are no residents or plans for housing?

Council’s ResDonse:

The Council has drawn up catchment areas across the city with contiguous boundaries -to exclude a non-residential area from the catchments would leave many gaps all over the City. There have been many instances where traditionally industrial areas have been redeveloped for housing and it would have been inappropriate for areas of the City to be left without a catchment area.

4.0 Consultation Process 4.1 Issue: Parental Preference

It was considered that children should have the automatic right to attend their local secondary school.

As 75% of Gylemuir pupils go to Craigmount, how will the Council deal with non-district placing requests given Craigmount’s roll?

Council’s Response:

The Education Department endeavours to ensure that children can attend their local secondary school and this is the reason why this review is taking place. If nothing is done, there may not be enough room in Craigmount High School to accommodate the growing catchment population. Catchment pupils may be turned away due to lack of room in the school to accommodate the large population.

As Forrester is located within the Gylemuir catchment area the Council regards this as a local school.

179 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period

In terms of processing non-district placing requests, the Council would continue to process these as it currently does but with priority given to Gylemuir pupils who have siblings at Craigmount.

4.2 Issue: Consultation Arranaements

Review was considered to be flawed by being restricted to 2 schools with dual c feeder status and by a quick consultation and change period.

Changes should be delayed for 5- 7 years to allow parents to plan.

Why was ‘Option 4’ not included as an option in this consultation?

Can this consultation be delayed for a month to allow the Education Department the opportunity to find the answers to the questions raised which were unable to be answered at the public meetings?

Is this a meaningful consultation pmcess given the clear preference shown for Option 7?

Does the Council prefer Option 7 as it is simplest to administer?

Parents are sceptical that the consultation is a foregone conclusion.

Parents have lost faith in the Education Department’s ability to remain impartial.

Option 2 was challenged as unrealistic.

If was considered that the dividing line described in Option 2 may lead to ill feeling among parents and pupils.

Council’s ResDonse:

All primary schools in the Craigmount and Forrester catchment area were I considered but only Gylemuir and Roseburn were identified as areas where change was considered to be appropriate. I

Extensive consultation was carried which exceeded legal requirements. Letters were sent to parents of affected pupils, four public meetings were held and information was available on the website.

Accommodation difficulties will occur if the Craigmount catchment area is not reduced in size in some way.

In terms of ‘Option 4’, this was an idea suggested by the school board of Gylemuir Primary School during the consultation process. However, for reasons outlined in 4.6 of the report, the review cannot be delayed more than one year.

180 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period

It was made clear at the meetings that questions would be answered in this report.

Every effort was made to make the consultation open and to encourage parents to express their views on the proposals. The overall aim of this process is to reduce the size of Craigmount catchment area so as there is more certainty that all district pupils would get a place at Craigmount. All ideas and suggestions were considered.

5 4.3 Issue: Status Quo Why is the Council bothering to offer ‘Option 3’ as a proposal within these reviews?

If the status quo was to remain, where would all the pupils go?

Council’s Response:

Ultimately, the Council Executive could potentially decide not to change any of the boundaries. However, in doing so The Executive would have to acknowledge the different set of difficulties this would bring given the pressure being put on particular secondary schools by new developments and population shifts. This would introduce uncertainty for many families in the catchment every year.

If the status quo was to remain, parents would continue to apply for places within their catchment schools as they currently do, however, the Council may be faced with a situation where they would be unable to grant places in Craigmount High School to catchment children. In this situation, another school would be offered to the parent for their child, eg, possibly Forrester or St Augustines.

4.4 Issue: Safetv

Will safety be considered in reaching any decision on the catchment areas?

Council’s Response:

Yes. Safety is taken into account when assessing proposals, particularly when new routes are proposed.

4.5 Issue: Views of Children

Are you going to ask the children what they want?

181 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period Council’s Response:

Children are entitled to respond through the consultation process and some children did so.

4.6 Issue: Democratic Processes

Is Gylemuir disadvantaged by being among the first schools to be reviewed? P

Councillors making this decision do not live in the area. Is this a case of Labour getting back at Liberal Democrats? v

Will the Council go ahead with plans even though many people disagree with them?

It was considered that if people ‘en-masse’ state that they want a particular option, then that is the option the Council should act upon.

Will the results of the consultation be weighted?

Council’s Response:

The initial assessment of the secondary schools in the city showed clearly that Craigmount was under the most immediate accommodation pressure. This was the reason why the Craigmount and Forrester cluster area was the first to be reviewed. It is the view of the Council that pupils in Craigmount would certainly be disadvantaged if nothing is done.

The final decision will be taken by elected members of the Council having considered all views expressed. The Education Executive consists of members cross-party and includes non-Council members (religious and professional representatives). The final decision can ultimately be ratified by full Council if it is called in.

All comments submitted during this process have been given equal weight.

4.7 Issue: Meetinqs

Who decided the order of the meetings?

It was considered that the Director and the Convenor of Education should have been at the Gylemuir public meeting.

Why were Forester pupils at the Gylemuir meeting and not Craigmount?

It was Considered that the Gylernuir meeting fumed into a PR exercise for . Forrester.

182 Craigmount I Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period Council’s Response:

All four schools were contacted and asked what evening would suit the school. Gylemuir Primary School could only hold the meeting on the 12 February and therefore, this date was given to them. Similarly, other schools expressed preferences and dated were fitted in around these.

Because of the large amount of consultation meetings taking place on catchment review - over the next year and beyond, a decision was taken by the Senior Management Team to split the meetings between senior managers with at least one Head of Group or the Director of Education attending each meeting. Similarly, Cllr Ian Murray is supporting Cllr Ewan Aitken and they are splitting meetings so that one or other will attend.

All meetings are open to any members of the public who have a right to attend any or all. Some Gylemuir parents were present at the Forrester and Craigmount meetings and some Roseburn parents attended all four. Forrester pupils exercised their right to attend and hear more about how plans may affect their school. It is clear from the minutes of the meeting that the Gylemuir meeting was not a public relations exercise for Forrester.

5.0 Other Issues

5.1 Issue: Facilities for SDecial Needs Pupils

What facilities are in place at either Craigmount and Forrester for disabled pupils? le, lifts, disabled toilets and showers, regular assistance.

Council’s Response:

Forrester:

One accessible toilet situated on the ground floor main teaching block No special shower facilities Lift in main teaching block only Wide circulation routes Disabled parking facility Areas exist where level access is not possible without adaptations

As with a number of schools in the school estate, works are required at Forrester to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act. The new school will conform with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act, and be designed with accessibility as a pre-requisite.

Craiamount:

Three disabled access toilets (one on each floor) Showerlchanging facility One lift serving three levels Wide circulation routes

183 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 3 : Answers to All Questions Raised During the Consultation Period

Disabled parking facilities Level access - i.e. no intermediate level changes or thresholds.

This school requires expenditure to meet the Disability Discrimination Act, as the full implications of the Act were not known at the time of agreeing Edinburgh's PPP contract. An audit has also been carried out at Craigmount.

5.2 Issue: CaDacities of West Edinburah Schools c What are the capacities of other secondary schools in West Edinburgh? c

The notional capacities of secondary schools in West Edinburgh are as follows:

Craigmount : 1400 Forrester : 900 WHEC: 750 Queensferry: 1000 Currie: 900 Balerno: 850 The Royal High: 1200 Craigmount / Forrester Catchment Area Review: Appendix 4 : Reasons for Refusal of Placing Requests

Appendix 4 : Reasons for Refusal of Placing Requests

When a Council can refuse a place in a school (source: Choosing a School - A Guide for Parents, CEC publication)

Once you have told the Council, in writing, that you want your child to go to a particular school, the Council can only refuse your request for certain reasons I set out by law.

The Council does not have to admit your child to the school of your choice:

0 If, to do so, they would have to employ an additional teacher or spend a lot of money, for example, where they would have to provide an additional classroom. 0 If your child’s education would suffer from a change of school. a If education in the school you want would not be suitable to the age, ability or aptitude of your child. This might apply if parents want their child to be admitted to a stage of education from which the child is not yet ready, or to a school which cannot meet the child’s needs. a If they think that your child can only be provided for in the school you want at the expense of the other pupils’ education. a If the school you want has been provided specifically for children with special needs, and the Council thinks that your child does not need the special equipment or specially trained staff they have provided in that school. 0 If your child has been very troublesome at school. If a child is excluded from a school, the Council is not bound to re-admit him or her. It a child has been in constant trouble, and his or her parents ask for them to be moved to another school, the Council can refuse to provide a place if they think that he or she would be likely to disturb the order and discipline in that school, or the educational well-being of pupils attending the school. They may indeed suggest another school better able to cope with the 0 child. 0 If you want your daughter to go to a boys’ school or your son to a girls’ school. 0 If accepting the request would prevent the Council reserving a place at the school for a child likely to move into the area of the school in-year. 0 If accepting the request would make it necessary for the Council to create an additional class or employ an additional teacher at a future stage of your child’s primary education.

185 Agenda item:

Report title: CraigmountlForrester Catchment Area Review: Recommendations on Consultation Process

In accordance with the Council’s Standing Orders, the contents of this report have been noted by the appropriate Executive Member. CL Without prejudice to the integrity of the report, and the recommendations contained within it, the Executive Member expresses hidher own views as i follows:

I

For information - Standing Order 57(1) states: W “Heads of Department will prepare reports, with professional advice and recommendations, on matters requiring decisions by the Executive:

k a report seeking decisions on matters of corporate strategy, corporate policy and corporate projects will be submitted direct to the Executive b w h a report seeking decisions on matters relating to the special responsibilities allocated to an individual member of the Executive will be submitted, in the first instance, to that member. The member will add his or her own recommendation to it before submission to the Executive. Where the Executive member disagrees with the advice and the recommendation of the officers, the Executive member will also state his or her reasons.”

186