Tesco / ASDA !!!

[Miss Marple]

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 

[Dave]

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. 

[Duke Fame]

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.

[Dave]

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.   

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. 

[Lisa Oldham]

I agree with everybody 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!

[Dave]

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. 

[Victor M]

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?

[Duke Fame]

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

[Dave]

Do you think that CAMSFC is setting a good example of social responsibility in the way that they have conducted themselves over the last 6 years?

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.  

[Victor M]

It could also be said that the reason many of our children do not choose to go to the college is because they lack the facilities that other local colleges can provide.  They lack these facilities because they have had to spend money over the years on buildings that have been way past their best for a number of years now.

My children decided not to go to the local college but to go to one that (at the time) had less facilities but  offerred much better pastoral care. New facilities are not the prime consideration when deciding on which establishment offers the best educational opportunities, range of courses and ethos are probably more important. Do you think that CAMSFC is setting a good example of social responsibility in the way that they have conducted themselves over the last 6 years?

[Marplemum]

It could also be said that the reason many of our children do not choose to go to the college is because they lack the facilities that other local colleges can provide.  They lack these facilities because they have had to spend money over the years on buildings that have been way past their best for a number of years now.  This is why we need to allow the college to sell the Hibbert Lane site in order to make sure that our children and grandchildren have the best facilities in Marple.  How can that be wrong?

[Victor M]

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.

[Dave]

Yes, I was just posting about Godwin's Law when sgk beat me to it!  

As for this:

Utter waste of time! What a load of febrile and self-centred nonsense

.....yes, that must be how it appears, especially with all the irrelevant tit-for-tat that Lisa refers to.  However, it's important to remember that this really is an important issue.  And I don't mean the proposed supermarket itself - unless you live very close to the site, that's a trivial matter.  I have absolutely no doubt that if this supermarket gets built, life will go on, and in ten years time we will look back and wonder what on earth the fuss was all about!

No, what this is really about is education.  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's very important that all of us who believe in education should put the other side of the argument.  We need to stand up for our kids, and for what the college is trying to do for them.  

[Dave]

Thanks belleesummerbee - now I understand, and that is quite interesting.  I can see that such a conflict of interests could be regarded as compromising a local authority's objectivity in considering an application, although I tried looking up the critera for planning applications being called in by the Secretary of State, and the only ones I could find were these:

may conflict with national policies on important matters; 
could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality; 
give rise to substantial regional or national controversy;
raise significant architectural and urban design issues;and
may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments.

[belleesummerbee]

The Planning Inspectorate has the ability to 'Call In' applications in certain circumstances.

It may be that leagl advice has been obtained, should an application be submitted by Asda, SMBC may have a conflict of interest in determining, especially as they are actively marketing the Chadwick St/Chapel Field site for a similar commercial use