As noobree pointed out: is this based on fact, or customary forum cynicism?
I do know that every resident facing the new town houses that are going in on Buckingham Road objected on the grounds of lost on street parking. There are lots of facts on this thread. Perhaps Noobree should have chosen the name Gradgrind?
As noobree pointed out: is this based on fact, or customary forum cynicism?
No, its fact. Indeed, its not particularly difficult to dig out the facts. However, some contributors tend to get upset when facts disturb their views. Where their sloppy thinking means they can't rebut the argument, they'll resort to calling foul and critics cynics. This particular project was indeed what is known as a 'pet' or 'vanity' project - let's accept that but learn from the error. Something we don't often do - after all Hans Andersen wrote 'The Emperor's New Clothes' many years ago!
No, its fact. Indeed, its not particularly difficult to dig out the facts.
Indeed! Oh dear Goat, I have some sympathy for you. It must be terribly discouraging to be constantly railing against people who simply ignore you.
Anyway, I'm sure that the one thing that we can agree on is that, good or bad, a new school has been built and I suppose now that it's there we'd better make the most of it. (Although that isn't necessarily true, of course. If we could find a more cost effective alternative we could treat it as a sunk cost and demolish it tomorrow. Go to it Goat: the world has changed completely since the original decision was made!). http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:sunk+cost
Otherwise it's time for us all to move on and fight battles that might actually make a difference in the future. Against which windmills are you currently tilting?
I must admit that one question that crosses my mind in these austere times is why we have three completely separate secondary schools and an FE college in a town of 30,000 people. Perhaps you could apply some of your extensive experience in the education sector to that. Is it time to merge them all into one Newbury High under one Super Head, for example?
The estimable Mr Dick seems to be making a good fist of running Trinity and Kennet: why not give him the lot?
Anyway, I'm sure that the one thing that we can agree on is that, good or bad, a new school has been built and I suppose now that it's there we'd better make the most of it. (Although that isn't necessarily true, of course. If we could find a more cost effective alternative we could treat it as a sunk cost and demolish it tomorrow. Go to it Goat: the world has changed completely since the original decision was made!). http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:sunk+cost ...
I must admit that one question that crosses my mind in these austere times is why we have three completely separate secondary schools and an FE college in a town of 30,000 people. Perhaps you could apply some of your extensive experience in the education sector to that. Is it time to merge them all into one Newbury High under one Super Head, for example?
Newbury may have three secondary schools for 30,000, but Newbury and Thatcham have four for 60,000 - which makes it look a litte better.
If there was only one school then life would be so much easier for parents trying to get their kids into the best local school.
In the old days schools were built to service their local area (great idea, kids could even walk to school) now most kids are driven to school so a more convenient location should be car friendly. How about alongside Chieveley services? Combine all four somewhere like that, perhaps you've found the reason to demolish the new St Barts.
Indeed! Oh dear Goat, I have some sympathy for you. It must be terribly discouraging to be constantly railing against people who simply ignore you.
Anyway, I'm sure that the one thing that we can agree on is that, good or bad, a new school has been built and I suppose now that it's there we'd better make the most of it. (Although that isn't necessarily true, of course. If we could find a more cost effective alternative we could treat it as a sunk cost and demolish it tomorrow. Go to it Goat: the world has changed completely since the original decision was made!). http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:sunk+cost
Otherwise it's time for us all to move on and fight battles that might actually make a difference in the future. Against which windmills are you currently tilting?
I must admit that one question that crosses my mind in these austere times is why we have three completely separate secondary schools and an FE college in a town of 30,000 people. Perhaps you could apply some of your extensive experience in the education sector to that. Is it time to merge them all into one Newbury High under one Super Head, for example?
The estimable Mr Dick seems to be making a good fist of running Trinity and Kennet: why not give him the lot?
I've always been surprised at the number of people who do take notice - often a fair time later. I think its rather sad that you have clearly misunderstood (deliberate or otherwise) everything I've been trying to tell you. I am certainly not against investment in community assets - simply against those responsible doing it without any real justification and for their own personal glory. No one is suggesting pulling down what's already been built. We simply need to learn lessons.
However, I for one will be very disturbed if when other schools in the area apply to have maintenance done and are told 'all the money has been spent on St Barts'. Similarly, I'll be expecting St. Barts to the 'top of the league' locally next year when the A level results are announced - as will you, because and according to the original concepts, that will demonstrate that the money has been well spent.
It wouldn't surprise you to know that I do indeed have a plan - which would address exactly the issue you mention; whilst at the same time achieve some degree parity of esteem between schools. However, I'd rather not outline that here because it would very much disturb established thinking - which some can't cope with and it would be wrong to upset them too soon.
There is an interesting publication called Bartholonews which is available on line and has amongst the various reports and stories, some pictures and information about the new building which I think is to be called Wormstalls.
No one is suggesting pulling down what's already been built.
I know that isn't going to happen, but logically it could. For example, the St Bart's site includes a very modern Lifelong Learning Centre (i.e. library, IT suites, meeting rooms) which was expensive to build and was funded by external sponsors (Vodafone, Greenham Common Trust etc) as well as WBC. It's going to be demolished as part of the new scheme. Sunk costs would be the justification, I assume. (Anyone actually know? I mean 'actually know'?)
However, I for one will be very disturbed if when other schools in the area apply to have maintenance done and are told 'all the money has been spent on St Barts'.
Presumably no one has actually said this yet? If they actually do I'll be as outraged as anyone else.
I suppose the general problem is that most, if not all, assets have a finite economic life. The 'bathtub curve' tells us all we need to know:
This is why, I guess, we tend to make our minds up about what we think and then look for facts which back up our views. Life is too short and the world is too complex to do otherwise. Seems to me that if those who make decisions on our behalf admitted that this is how things are - that they are fallible, that the world is enormously complex and unpredictable, they might be wrong and so on - we'd all trust them a lot more. To err, as they say, is human.
Seems to me that if those who make decisions on our behalf admitted that this is how things are - that they are fallible, that the world is enormously complex and unpredictable, they might be wrong and so on - we'd all trust them a lot more. To err, as they say, is human.
Is it not simpler than that? Maybe a statement like: We need so much square metres of tutorial space; we would need to spend so much on expanding and maintaining the current building, over so many years; we could build all this new somewhere else for so much.
Is it not simpler than that? Maybe a statement like: We need so much square metres of tutorial space; we would need to spend so much on expanding and maintaining the current building, over so many years; we could build all this new somewhere else for so much.
That wouldn't work as if it was laid out in such a plain and straightforward way the justification wouldn't be there to build a new school. As Noobree said earlier, people tend to decide something then look for the evidence to support it. So one weird method was to calculate how many hours in a year are spent walking between Luker & Wormestall and hold up these hours as a financial saving.
Yes, pure logic says it is. But as Noobree says - life ain't like that. Hence the challenges; nothing wrong with that; its exactly how we learn. We learn by our mistakes - so lets admit them!
Yes, pure logic says it is. But as Noobree says - life ain't like that. Hence the challenges; nothing wrong with that; its exactly how we learn. We learn by our mistakes - so lets admit them!
Sorry, you've lost me. I see bringing 'two sites together' as a logically sound reason for the argument to build a new school. What is the error?
When I was at the school, sometimes being between buildings was a problem for punctuality, including teachers. This now will not be such an issue, viz, longer tutorial time.
Logged
Male
