Marple Community Forum & Noticeboard
September 23, 2014, 09:18:20 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Visit the Main Site

News: Banner Adverts on this site raise £1,000 for Skatepark Project
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  

Whittakers Fish Bar Traditional English Fish and Chips in Marple

Poll
Question: Do you approve, oppose or not care if a supermarket were built on the Hibbert Lane site?
I object to a supermarket being built on the site.
I approve of a supermarket being built on the site.
I don't mind what is done with it.

Pages: 1 ... 98 99 [100] 101 102 ... 129
  Print  
Author Topic: Tesco / ASDA !!!  (Read 133933 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Duke Fame
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1349



« Reply #1485 on: March 11, 2012, 10:15:22 PM »

Quote
The college is trying to improve its buildings for the benefit of our children and grandchildren.  A noisy and self-appointed group of campaigners is trying to stop them, and in the process is, at times, spreading misinformation.

It could also be said that the college, which is supposed to be a part of the local community is waving two fingers at the local community and is behaving in a "I'm all right Jack manner". There is a large number of local children who have made the choice NOT to attend the local college, maybe because they see the college as a socially irresponsible organisation. They (the college) have to earn the right to educate our children, their present stance puts into question if they are a fit body to undertake this.

More likely that they simply didnt do the course they wanted. I don't buy the inefficient buildings argument but to pretend a 16 year old will choose a college on future funding decisions is a nonsense
Logged
Victor M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 301


« Reply #1486 on: March 12, 2012, 07:51:44 AM »

Quote
Yes.  Striving to provide the best possible facilities for your students, and ensuring that scarce resources are directed towards funding teaching rather than maintaining out-of-date and inefficient buildings, is  exactly what a socially responsible educational organisation should be doing. 
I would have thought that quality of teaching, college standards and student care were more important than bright shiny new rooms. Maybe the college should be asked why the Cheadle site buildings are not outdated. Oh weren't they updated a number of years ago when the two college's merged?
Logged
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1983



« Reply #1487 on: March 12, 2012, 10:00:07 AM »

At Cheadle, as at Marple,  the college initially operated in two former school buildings.  About ten years ago it had the good fortune to discover that one of them was unsafe because of reinforced concrete decay, and it had to be demolished.  It therefore had to be replaced, hence the smart and efficient new building which students use on the Cheadle site.

The other building at Cheadle (the former girls' grammar school) is also still in use, although I believe it has had some modernisation work.  It is only about 50 years old - whereas the Hibbert Lane building dates from 1931.

I entirely agree that quality of teaching, college standards and student care are very important.  But in reality, these factors improve as a result of replacing inefficient old buildings with efficient new ones, because funds are released to improve them.   And it isn't really about 'shiny new rooms' at all, though students do like them, and so do staff - and attracting and retaining the best staff is key to providing a quality education.

However, the key factor is cost and efficiency.  Having managed a college which moved from grotty old converted buildings to shiny new purpose-built ones, I can tell you that the savings in running costs (heating, lighting, maintenance) and in space efficiency were astonishing, and of course they are savings which recur, year in, year out, and become really significant.   And this enabled us to free up much needed resources to help improve the teaching. 
Logged
Lisa Oldham
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 575



« Reply #1488 on: March 12, 2012, 10:39:38 AM »

I agree with everybody Cheesy both the fact old buildings can be just as good as new, but also the argument that new building s when they can be built long term will be more efficient ( depending on if i they are designed well!)

Its a balancing act on whats best for eveyone... i dont think a huge supermarket is best overall for Marple therefore its too big a price to pay!
and it still depends on attitude, leadership and teaching quality.

My son has decided to go to Poynton, now yes they are getting a shiny new building in summer however that didnt really come into the decision.  It was the way the teachers spoke to him and enthused him even when sat in a dirty old mobile unit.  The 3 times hes been there to visit hes come out enthusiastic and excited!  We also went to Aquinas and we both hated it!  Not the shiny new building, that was lovely , but the way the teachers spoke to us both!

Now, how do you "improve teaching" with money?  is that by getting more expensive teachers? i didnt really think that was possible! Or are we talking resources, software, books, technology!  etc?  Because if so, unless the teacher themselves is a good one then it wont work!  Could be that the "best" teachers will want to work in a shiny new school, but again that s not a guarantee.. will picking better teachers become easier?  In the end actually i think it is about leadership, a good manager always brings the best out of their staff regardless of the facilities!
Logged
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1983



« Reply #1489 on: March 12, 2012, 11:01:53 AM »

Now, how do you "improve teaching" with money?  is that by getting more expensive teachers? i didnt really think that was possible!

It certainly is!  Maybe you're thinking of schools, Lisa, but in colleges it's a market place.  Money is especially useful for hanging on to a good teacher who has been offered a promotion elsewhere.  If you want to keep them you just invent some special responsibility for them and bung them a salary increase.   Wink

In the end actually i think it is about leadership, a good manager always brings the best out of their staff regardless of the facilities!

Agreed. And a good manager doesn't waste money propping up inefficient old buildings when they could be spending it on educating students. 
Logged
Duke Fame
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1349



« Reply #1490 on: March 12, 2012, 01:12:54 PM »

At Cheadle, as at Marple,  the college initially operated in two former school buildings.  About ten years ago it had the good fortune to discover that one of them was unsafe because of reinforced concrete decay, and it had to be demolished.  It therefore had to be replaced, hence the smart and efficient new building which students use on the Cheadle site.

The other building at Cheadle (the former girls' grammar school) is also still in use, although I believe it has had some modernisation work.  It is only about 50 years old - whereas the Hibbert Lane building dates from 1931.

I entirely agree that quality of teaching, college standards and student care are very important.  But in reality, these factors improve as a result of replacing inefficient old buildings with efficient new ones, because funds are released to improve them.   And it isn't really about 'shiny new rooms' at all, though students do like them, and so do staff - and attracting and retaining the best staff is key to providing a quality education.

However, the key factor is cost and efficiency.  Having managed a college which moved from grotty old converted buildings to shiny new purpose-built ones, I can tell you that the savings in running costs (heating, lighting, maintenance) and in space efficiency were astonishing, and of course they are savings which recur, year in, year out, and become really significant.   And this enabled us to free up much needed resources to help improve the teaching. 


THe conditions where people are has little correlation to performance,  Elton Mayo's experiments prove this.

As for efficiency of buildongs, it's just an economic decision surely? If the NPV of savings is greater than the cost of demolition and rebuild, surely the college will do that anyway, regardless of selling the site.
Logged
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1983



« Reply #1491 on: March 12, 2012, 05:34:07 PM »

THe conditions where people are has little correlation to performance,  Elton Mayo's experiments prove this.

At no point did I suggest otherwise - the closest I got was pointing out that people like nice new buildings.  They may not perform better, but good working conditions are well known to be a factor in hanging on to good staff. 

If the NPV of savings is greater than the cost of demolition and rebuild, surely the college will do that anyway, regardless of selling the site.

No doubt the college (or rather, its consultants) has done the investment appraisal, and their plan to demolish and rebuild has presumably come out with a with a positive NPV.  But the college would not be permitted to borrow more than about 40% of turnover, so they will need to sell the land to raise the capital. 
Logged
Miss Marple
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1397



« Reply #1492 on: March 12, 2012, 07:38:17 PM »

At no point did I suggest otherwise - the closest I got was pointing out that people like nice new buildings.  They may not perform better, but good working conditions are well known to be a factor in hanging on to good staff. 

I would think the staff would be happy just to hang on to their jobs wouldn't you agree Dave old boy ?   Have you deliberately forgotten about the job losses at CAMSFC should this proposal go ahead!  I swear you have selective memory syndrome  Undecided
Logged

BECAUSE IT CONCERNS ME, MINE AND OTHERS !!!!!
marpleexile
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 98


« Reply #1493 on: March 13, 2012, 05:05:36 AM »

At no point did I suggest otherwise - the closest I got was pointing out that people like nice new buildings.  They may not perform better, but good working conditions are well known to be a factor in hanging on to good staff. 

I would think the staff would be happy just to hang on to their jobs wouldn't you agree Dave old boy ?   Have you deliberately forgotten about the job losses at CAMSFC should this proposal go ahead!  I swear you have selective memory syndrome  Undecided


Which job losses would these be? Now admittedly you have to talk the College at their word at the moment, as there are no firm plans in place (for pretty much anything related to this discussion in fact), but they have said that they intend to make the move to Buxton Lane with no loss of facility, curriculum or student capacity. So who is in danger of losing their job? Other than, in this current economic climate, everyone who gets paid directly or indirectly by government/council, or in fact everyone in general. I guess you wouldn't need as many cleaners/maintenance staff (maybe, but after all, Buxton Lane will be expanded, so it's certainly not as simple as saying that they will just halve the number staff in these areas). But given that the planning process will probably drag on for years, and that it will probably take at least a year or two for any subsequent building works to be completed, there is plenty of time for any necessary staffing reduction to take place through natural wastage.
Logged
Victor M
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 301


« Reply #1494 on: March 13, 2012, 08:41:35 AM »

Quote
Which job losses would these be? Now admittedly you have to talk the College at their word at the moment, as there are no firm plans in place (for pretty much anything related to this discussion in fact), but they have said that they intend to make the move to Buxton Lane with no loss of facility, curriculum or student capacity.
Can you please let me know where the college have confirmed this fact. If you look at the Governors minutes you will see that the job losses are actually this and next financial year the exact wording is
The pay assumptions made when setting the budget included that additional staff savings would be made in 2011/12 and 2012/13 through restructuring of over £1m.
That is a considerable number of non teaching staff. Also if you look at the number of courses offerred at the Cheadle site against the Marple sites you will see that there is a lot of courses that are now only available at the Cheadle site,that were once available at both sites. What we are seeing is the slow reduction in the Marple sites prior to any move to one site.
Logged
Miss Marple
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1397



« Reply #1495 on: March 13, 2012, 07:47:04 PM »

Well Victor M I certainly  think you have given a few regular posters food for thought with your last post about the loss of jobs at CAMSFC
Logged

BECAUSE IT CONCERNS ME, MINE AND OTHERS !!!!!
marpleexile
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 98


« Reply #1496 on: March 13, 2012, 08:52:11 PM »

Quote
Which job losses would these be? Now admittedly you have to talk the College at their word at the moment, as there are no firm plans in place (for pretty much anything related to this discussion in fact), but they have said that they intend to make the move to Buxton Lane with no loss of facility, curriculum or student capacity.
Can you please let me know where the college have confirmed this fact. If you look at the Governors minutes you will see that the job losses are actually this and next financial year the exact wording is
The pay assumptions made when setting the budget included that additional staff savings would be made in 2011/12 and 2012/13 through restructuring of over £1m.
That is a considerable number of non teaching staff. Also if you look at the number of courses offerred at the Cheadle site against the Marple sites you will see that there is a lot of courses that are now only available at the Cheadle site,that were once available at both sites. What we are seeing is the slow reduction in the Marple sites prior to any move to one site.

So those are job losses relating to financial restructuring taking place this financial year, and next. I don't see the relevance to the discussion in hand, ie significant job losses as a direct result of the college selling hibbert lane and consolidating on Buxton Lane.

Don't get me wrong, there may well be big job losses, as a lot can change over the next (shall I be optimistic and say) 5 yrs that it takes for these plans to come to fruition, but as yet, there is no evidence that there will be.
Logged
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1983



« Reply #1497 on: March 14, 2012, 10:02:07 AM »

It's common knowledge that most colleges and universities are having to cut jobs because their funding is being reduced, together with that of most other parts of the public sector.  As marpleexile says, this is an entirely separate issue from camsfc's plans to develop its estate. 
Logged
Miss Marple
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1397



« Reply #1498 on: March 14, 2012, 10:44:55 AM »

Not really Dave. One of the stipulations of the YPLA agreeing to any land  sale is that there is no loss of facilities or curriculum in that area, this does not include transferring subjects to another campus.  I have been in talks with the Chief Executive of YPLA who gave an assurance that Ms Cassidy had assured him that there would be  no loss of curriculum in Marple.  Me thinks he may have to have a little chat with Ms Cassidy and her corporation, don't you  Undecided
Logged

BECAUSE IT CONCERNS ME, MINE AND OTHERS !!!!!
Dave
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1983



« Reply #1499 on: March 14, 2012, 11:14:12 AM »

I don't understand that post. By ' transferring subjects to another campus', do you mean Buxton Lane or Cheadle?

In any case, the underlying position is clear: there must be no loss of curriculum in Marple as the result of any land disposal.  And that is how it has to be.  What's the problem?   Huh
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 98 99 [100] 101 102 ... 129
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Tweets by @marplewebsite
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!