Let me see if I can revitalize a discussion about the Pacific Coast (alternate) School that I think needs to happen here. Let me preface my thoughts with the following two points:
a) I am a teacher, and as such I am ethically bound to cast no aspersions on colleagues in a public forum, regardless of anonymity. Nor would I wish to in any event, since the motivations and efforts of colleagues on this project are, in my view, beyond reproach. Therefore, I will confine my ideas to common knowledge, and some questions.
b) I am in support of an alternative educational setting, on the condition that it is effectively planned, and that the associated funding is prudent and without adverse effects elsewhere in the system.
So…some facts as I understand them (and I am more than receptive to correction from those closer to the project). At the moment, the new school has no building, and is projected to open in two weeks. It has a current staff of two teachers, an administrator, and if I am not mistaken, a half time secretarial support worker. All told, that represents roughly $230,000 in salaries (not counting pension and health subsidies from the district), half of which is already spent, since it is now January. Last time I looked, the district was closing schools to save costs.
In addition, a small group of prospective students has been receiving instruction at PRSS from regular PRSS staff (not the alternative school teachers), for the past four months (an additional cost).
Postings are out for an additional teacher, and an elementary school counsellor who would divide his/her time between the elementary schools and an alternate school who’s stated mission is “social and emotional development of students who don’t succeed in a regular school setting”.
There is no public information regarding the number of students anticipated in two weeks, in a non-existent building. However, if one takes the number of professional staff, and assumes equity with the regular high schools, then at least 66 students would be required up front, in order to match the approximately 22 students per teacher ratio at the high schools. I’m guessing the reality is far short of that number.
I think the public needs to weigh in on that. Therefore, my questions:
1. Why is there no public information on the full costs of salaries, and anticipated enrollment of the new school?
2. If the costs, as it would seem from the above information, represent an unusually large financial commitment to a small number of students, then where is the quid pro quo? What part of our financially strapped system is paying for all this with fewer resources, fewer teachers, and larger classes?
3. Can this discussion have any value if it is not taken in the context of the effects that school closures have had, particularly on the consolidated schools on the east side?
3. Why is it that the project has reached a point of “two weeks to opening day”, without a building to occupy? As yet, I have seen some extensive discussion of the pros and cons of City Council’s recent decision, but very little regarding the consultation process employed by the school district. In my humble opinion, that is the core of the necessary discussion.
4. What is the current position of the Board on these, and related questions? I, for one, would like to believe that the trustees are aware of these issues, and strong in their responsibility to the district as a whole.
I throw these thoughts out, in the hope that the patrons of this illustrious site might chew it over, and perhaps move reality to a more close approximation of ideal.
