If you are a Parent/Carer of a Strathaven Academy student you will have received a letter from the school, dated 28th March. I was very happy to receive another letter and I am pleased to see that they are trying to improve communications with us but, as usual, I can’t help but feel that “too little-to late” taste in my mouth.

This latest letter seems to have been a direct (almost knee-jerk) reaction to last Wednesday’s report in EK News. The first paragraph, first sentence even, states: “You may be aware of an article in East Kilbride News, (26th March), regarding Strathaven Academy….” This article was written about the “other” letter to SLC from HSE.

The parent/carer information letter goes on to (in my opinion) try and distance Strathaven Academy (which is fair enough) from the content of the letter on the grounds that the correspondence related to matters which occured in 2005; 2 years before Strathaven Academy was decanted into Crosshouse Campus.

In the Parent/Carer letter we are then told that “…Regular air testing carried out since (the 2005 cockups) continues to support the view of the Council and it’s Consultant that the school remains fit for occupation.”

The rest of this letter seems to be an attempt to communicate with parents about what is being done, and is going to be done, as a result of the HSE intervention.

In the last paragraph, parents are told “…Copies of the recent HSE correspondence are available on request from our reception.” As you know I already had one of the letters (date 14th March) from HSE and I have shared it with you here. I wanted a copy of the 13th March letter and I assumed as the Parent/Carer letter addressed, it I would be able to collect it from the school. I telephoned but was told they only had a copy of the 14th March letter. Hmmmmm?

I had already contacted one of our local Councillors who had requested the letter from Education Resource… they sent the wrong letter. So I telephoned Housing and Technical, requested the letter and was told. “It is addressed to Jim Hayton, we will need to ask his permission..” I have not heard back.

I am begining to feel like they really don’t want me to see this letter.

Well I, being the resourceful little soul that I am, managed yesterday to get my own copy… thank you very much. And I, being the sharing little soul that I am, thought I would share it with you too. See? I’m not all bad!

The letter is, again in my opinion, another huge big slap in the face to SLC. They are told that the “serious allegations” made against them were justified. Ouch! They were told that, regarding work they had had carried out, that they had not “adequately prevent[ed] or control[ed] the spread of asbestos”. Ouch-Ouch!!

But… this is history, right? I mean, that was 2 years ago, right? Well, yes. But the HSE inspector goes on to say:

“I continue to question the robustness of the data which you feel supports the decision that areas of the school are fit for occupation.”

This is not in a paragraph dealing with historical issues.

I am beginning to see why SLC would like to keep this letter from us. Espcially when they told us… “…Regular air testing carried out since (the 2005 cockups) continues to support the view of the Council and it’s Consultant that the school remains fit for occupation.”

Am I the only one that sees a glaring contratidction here?

You can download the other HSE letter here.

As promised, here are my comments on the HSE letter dated 14th March.  I have toyed with the idea of posting a real “na na na-na na” post with my thumb pressed firmly to my nose and fingers waggling in the air;  but I have decided to be a little more grown up about it.

I have to say though, it does feel good moving from the position of being told I had “severe psychiatric problems” to reading in a letter from an HSE Inspector that my complaint was justified!

My main concerns were:

1. The integrity of asbestos within Crosshouse Campus (due to the recent damage and deterioration of the fabric of the building)

2. The ability of current systems to adequately manage and control risks

3. Was the school fit for occupation on the grounds of health and safety?

After HSE investigated, it was decided that my complaint was justified.
Continue reading this post…

With South Lanarkshire Council receiving 2 heavy-handed smacks from the HSE for possible breaches in H & S law regarding asbestos management at Crosshouse Campus, the irony of this little article found in the Extra this week was not lost on me.

“ASBESTOS is known as the hidden killer and South Lanarkshire Council are backing an awareness campaign to make sure people know of the risks involved when working with the substance…”

Thanks RB for the sending it in.

REPORT SLAMS COUNCIL OVER ASBESTOS RISK

…reads the front cover Story on East Kilbride News today. The headline itself takes up nearly a third of the front page. If you haven’t read it, you can here. But what I really want to draw to your attention here is this: The “report” slaming SLC is a letter from the Health and Safety Executive dated 13th March. This is NOT the same letter that I posted here last week!!

“Our” letter, dated 14th March, is the SECOND very strong letter SLC recieved from HSE last week regarding Crosshouse Campus. I have a copy of the letter reported about in EKnews today being sent to me. I will post it here when it arrives.

I guess you could say that SLC aren’t having the best of weeks, eh?

…or if you’re hating it.  You might like to know that there is more to read at the newly revived SAAG site!

You know, I love it when you guys find your voice and comment on a post! I know you are there, I know you are reading and I know most of you have opinions and points to make. Don’t be shy! I might not agree with you but who knows, I might!

Your (yes, I’m talking to you!), your comment might just send me off on another post like this one did tonight…

Ensiferum said:

You need to be careful about the emotive content on your website, as it detracts from the very serious message you are trying to put across. The comment about a roof piece smashing through a teacher’s car window is completely wrong - it happened in the middle of the night, and the car park was empty.

Thank you, Ensiferum, I appriciate your comment. I have always tried to report only fact on this site.

I think you will find that the reference to the car window is found in a quote by another parent and the ‘if’ and ‘when’ of a car window being damaged due to falling debris may be unclear, but I believe this parent’s concern is valid. Debris DID fall from the roof into a car park that is now home to modular buildings that make up part of our school. This parent doesn’t trust the roof of Crosshouse Campus… nor do I.

I think this whole issue IS emotive and it is extremely hard to report on something that has a potentially damaging effect on the health of our children without being emotive.

Please don’t be distracted by the emotion and any inaccuracy on this site will gladly be corrected when correct information is given.

The other issue I have raised, with any/every council official that would hear me, is the fact that the longer SLC take to communicate with us, the larger and more grotesque the ‘mis-information’ becomes. In my initial discussions with SLC, back in the first week of February, I asked why a system of communication couldn’t be implented that would inform us immediately of what was going on. I suggested letters, email, texts, posts on the website (even a blog!!)… Letters have been the chosen medium.

In my opinion, simple, accurate and timely communication from SLC would quench rumours long before they could blaze wildly. But, the last parents letter arrived through my door 12 days after I had heard very important information from our local Councillors regarding the imninent closure of the damaged block of Crosshouse. TWELVE DAYS!!! Why? Why, in this day and age of instant communication, does it take 12 days to be informed?

So yes, to answer your point, it is a very serious point that I am putting out and I DO try to be as accurate as possible in my reporting, but I feel the emotiveness of the issue is inextricable from the point I am trying to make.

And for those still reading my little rant, I would also like to point out again that this is a blog. Blogs take on many shapes and forms but in this case I am trying to use it as (to quote Wikipedia)

“…a medium of news dissemination. Though often seen as partisan gossips, bloggers sometimes lead the way in bringing key information to public light, with mainstream media having to follow their lead… Since 2002, blogs have gained increasing notice and coverage for their role in breaking, shaping, and spinning news stories. The Iraq war saw bloggers taking measured and passionate points of view that go beyond the traditional left-right divide of the political spectrum.”

I think anyone who reads Our Academy will know by now that this is a place where I post “the news” as I see it. I felt like I needed a platform to be heard from because I couldn’t find one elsewhere. So, I created one. I have invited any/everyone to furnish me with facts, information and opinions. I am more than happy to share this platform with those who want to be heard!

As I mentioned in a previous post, I contacted The Health and Safety Executive about a week after the ‘extreme’ weather blew away a section of the roof at Crosshouse Campus. Since that last post, I have had several more long conversations with the HSE and have been pleasantly surprised with the manor I have been dealt with, the amount of time the inspector gave to my complaint, to me, to the situation we find our school in and ultimately with the results.

For those keeping up at home, let me explain what my concerns were that I took to the HSE.

1) A large area of roof had been damaged and I couldn’t pin anyone down at SLC on an expected date of repair.

2) The continual reports from students about water ingress and whether the rooms that were affected by water ingress were suitable for use before they were checked, repairs made and air-test carried out (considering that water ingress is one of the major causes of asbestos containing materials to become more friable)

3) How was the asbestos in the building being affected by the new deterioration to the fabric of the building and how was the storm damage (and water ingress) affecting the asbestos.

4) Were the risk management procedures and protocols in place robust enough to manage the risks properly? Was the risk that was being managed actually being considered as severe as it should be (was the level of risk being dumbed down)?

5) Did South Lanarkshire Council have a contingency plan in place?

5) Was the building, as it stood, actually a viable school?

Yesterday, I recieved a Cc. of the letter from HSE. This letter is the results of the investigation that has been carried out by HSE into the concerns raised about Crosshouse Campus.

It was sent to Jim Hayton - Executive Director Housing & Technical Resources, SLC and was also Cc-ed to Archie Strang (Chief Executive, SLC), Larry Forde (Executive Director Education Resource, SLC), Robert McIIwain (Executive Director Corporate Resource, SLC) and Lee Craig (Health, Safety & Contingency Planning Advisor Corporate Resource).

I have asked Kevin Thompson, HM Inspector of Health & Safety, for permission to post his letter on this site and forward it to whoever I wish. I was told, as I was the complainant, the letter was mine to use as I wished.

There are a few things in the letter that I will delve into a little in my next post and some points that I think should be made to help others, like myself, who aren’t use to dealing with things like asbestos risks and Health and Safety law.

PLEASE take the time to download this letter and read it! If you have questions, feel free to ask them in the comments here or email me. If I don’t know the answer, I will try and get the answers for you! If you are unable to download the file for any reason, please email me ( ambernorthfield@gmail.com ) and I will send you a copy.

(I do feel I should point out here that Kevin Thompson and I were discussing the last letter that was sent out to the parents of Strathaven Academy. He felt, in all, it was a very good letter but wanted me to know that in the paragraph that mentioned that HSE were content with SLC’s managment of the risk that he would have prefered the statement to be that when his recommendation were carried out, he would be content. It was noted that even a change in punctuation of the sentence would have made it read better.)

So, the Letter… feel free to download and read at your leisure.

I just received an email from a parent this evening.

Just wondering what everyone’s feelings are on sending their children to school tomorrow. Forecast predicts 80mile winds “worst weather this year…stay in doors” Do you think the building will stand up !!!!!!! I for one am uneasy given the new huts are located in the part of the car park where the last bit of roof blew off and landed through a teachers car window.

Would it be ok to text the school and say “due to extreme weather conditions forecast my children will not attend Strathaven Academy Mon 16th March for fear of more flying roof debris or further damaged to building”?

Signed, Yet Another Mum

I have to say thoughts along this line have been on my mind for over a month now. It’s not just the damaged block of Crosshouse Campus that worries me. Many of the leaks last week weren’t even in the damaged block! The entire roof is in a very dodgy state. What if another section of the roof blows off an entirely different block of the building? What will they do then? Where will the kids go? Will they give us a GROUPCALL text in the middle of the day tomorrow if another section blows off? Will they pop our kids on the bus and send them home in the middle of the day? What if they can’t get in touch with all of us? Did you know, they don’t even have our Bussing Risk Assessments finished yet (a quarter of the way through the decant!)… What will the students and staff be exposed to with yet another section of roof gone?

Am I alone when I say I am tired of hearing them call it “extreme” weather? Is this winter’s weather <b>that</b> different from previous years? Should they have not been prepared for this? Why are we holding back so politely and not shouting “WE TOLD YOU SO!!” Didn’t a whole community predict this would happen? Didn’t the community march on Strathaven and protest to the move to Crosshouse in the first place? Weren’t concerns raised as to whether the roof and indeed the building were viable away back when?

Is it not a little shocking that SLC is still scrambling, 39 days after the initial damage to the roof, trying to put something in to place to provide alternative, dry and safe accommodation for our children? If more damage happens in the winds tomorrow, will it take a further 39-40 days to put something else in place? Do you think they have a contingency plan in place for the scenario if there is more roof damage to another area of the building? Yeah, that could say… “Well, the building could burn down tomorrow (to which I would answer “not likely, considering it is full of asbestos and soaked through”)… and we would have to deal with that situation as it arises”. But can I suggest that now that we are in the situation where we have a building that is so dilapidated that 200 sq meters has been damaged (and it isn’t viable to fix it) that it is more probable the same thing could happen again and SLC should be more prepared for it now?

*update*  Looks like we might miss the worst of it this time.  Here’s to hoping!

Friday, 8th February, I emailed the Health and Safety Executive with my concerns about Crosshouse Campus.

Thursday, 14th February, I was contacted by an HSE inspector and had a lengthy telephone conversation with him regarding my concerns about the safety and the viability of Crosshouse Campus. I was told that, because of my email, HSE were now investigating the situation and a meeting with SLC officials had been arranged for Wednesday, 27th February.

Tuesday, 26th February, I contacted one of my local Coucillors to find out if the meeting was actually happening. They were, in turn, told by Graham Campbell (SLC Asbestos Expert) that he was unaware of the meeting.

Wednesday, 27th February, 8am, The HSE inspector involved returned my call from the previous day. I was very concerned that the meeting was not going to happen but he assured me that it was indeed scheduled for 11am that morning at Crosshouse Campus, and that Graham Campbell (SLC) was in fact his liaison for the meeting.

Thursay, 28th February, I had two long telephone conversations with the HSE inspector.

It seems to me that SLC don’t want us to know about HSE’s involvement or to what extent they are involved and it could be deduced that they are being less than open and honest. What worries me the most about this apparent duplicity is that Graham Campbell (SLC) is the person that SLC put in front of me on the 11th February to allay my fears. Did he deliberately mislead an elected official regarding the HSE meeting? If so, then is he also prepared to mislead a parent?

In my next post, I will detail, as best I can, my discussions with the HSE to date. I have also been assured that the HSE will be writing to Larry Ford as head of Education and Jim Hayton as head of Technical for SLC. I will be copied in on those letters as I originally raised the concern and of course, I will share that information with you all. SLC will then need to respond to HSE on the topics raised. Continue reading this post…

An S5 Pupil wrote to me with his concerns and comments.

” …I didn’t take part in it {the WALKOUT on the 15th February} for the one reason and that is because, when we were in Strathaven, a similar walkout occurred after registration one morning. I and many friends did take part in the first walkout and even though everyone was gathered in the Social Area, the minute Mr McCormack came in and told us to get back to class 99% of the pupils involved went back to class without much argument. Thus, when I heard about a similar plan the other week many of us remembered what happened the last time and how ineffective it was.

However, I was able to see the protest by 60 or so individuals from my classroom, and again the same thing happened although it was met with a slight bit of resistance which lasted all of 30 seconds… Mr McCormack asked for 2 reps from each house to meet with him.

… This week I felt Mr McCormack was treating us with some respect by holding meetings with each year group to explain the situation, as it is clear to see all is not well and for that I applaud him. Mr McCormack holds respect from the students and is out in the playground each and every lunchtime and break so he will hear the concerns of the pupils from himself. This can only be good as he can then organise year group meetings to seperate fact from fiction.

Finally, a slight incident occurred today with the stairwell at the History department leading up to Computing. When we were all changing classes at the end of 3rd period/beginning of 4th, their was a large crowd of pupils, including myself, trying to gain access. Finally, someone managed to get the door open and everybody piled in to get to their class. Then as we got to the doors at the history department we were met with barriers like what you would get at roadworks blocking off the door from the other side and on the other side of the door was the common sign advising of “NO ACCESS”. In other words, the area is not safe. Almost immediately Mr Taylor, Ms Barr and Mr Gannon were out telling us to get out the way we came and when we turned round it was clear that a number of the tiles had been moved by the wind coming in from the door being opened and closed with pupils moving between classes.

Now, I would have thought that a sign should have been put up on the main door which would have kept everyone away, but there wasn’t. The area was then sealed off by the janitors by placing a bench at the doors leading outside and the barriers put back up along the inside doors on the history side. Furthermore, a memo was sent round the classes 4th period advising of the closure, which in my opinion should have been sent round the minute it occurred. This is not the first time this area has been closed as it occurred in December as well.”

Please remember if you have anything you want to say regarding the school, drop me a line. I will post your letter and comments anonymously if you like. If you don’t want me to know who you are. Set up a new email address (with yahoo, gmail etc) and you can email me from that address.

My email address is: ambernorthfield@gmail.com
If you want to leave your thoughts in a comment, you can leave a false name and email address if you like. (all comments will be moderated and insulting/rude comments will not be submitted to the blog)