Last night, the Park City School District held a public meeting to outline options for expanding the high school. VCBO, the school district’s favorite architect led the discussion. Also providing input were members of the redesign committee and PCSD Superintendent Dr Ember Conley.

We’ve enjoyed this round of “shake up the district,” because we haven’t been paying too much attention to it (versus 2015’s bond where we attended countless meetings). So, this was an opportunity to hear, for the first time, the ideas being generated.

For those who haven’t been following the high school redesign closely, here is the TLDR version of why they are doing it:

• Come hell or high water the 9th grade will be in the high school (It was decided two years ago by the school board)
• The current high school isn’t big enough for the 9th graders
• The school’s gym is embarrassing
• The arts don’t have enough space for the current student population interested in the arts
• Locker rooms for Dozier are horrible
• CTE (Career Technical Education … also now encompassing PC CAPS) needs more space

There are a myriad of other concerns but those are most of the big ones.

So, in the wake of the bond failure, a committee was formed to look at Park City High School Expansion (not to be confused with grade realignment… in many ways grade realignment causes the high school to “require” expansion). That committee was made up of teachers, administrators, and some public. They came up with 4 options for how it could work, but then came top with two more. So, there are 6 total ideas about how the high school could be expanded.

We learned last night that the committee (school district) can’t provide costs estimates for any of six options because there are too many options. So, they will narrow the options two options, and then employee an outside firm (Hughes) to estimate costs for those two options.

What are the six options? We’ll try to summarize them as best we can (the Option #’s are the district’s… the names are ours):

Option 1: The Great Expansion

• Expand school to south for 9th graders
• Expand to west for CTE
• Expand arts where the gyms were
• Add a new athletic facility

Option 2: Up and Out

• Similar to Option 1
• CTE building is on its own
• Add a second floor to the west wing for classrooms

Option 3: Move that Behemoth 40 feet

• Move Dozier 40 feet to the west
• Athletics facility is adjacent to Dozier
• CTE in its own building on the east side of campus

Option 4: The David Blaine

• Move Dozier somewhere… but no one is sure where
• Add classrooms to the west wing
• Add an athletic facility where Dozier was
• CTE area added to the west of existing school

Option 3A: Thinner

• CTE is brought back into school
• Design is more compact

Option 4A: Small Package / Big Delivery. Or Not.

• Option 4 but further minimize the impact on students during construction but doing something with the west wing (wasn’t really presented at all during the discussion… we’ve reached out to see if the district can provide more info).

Before and after the presentation, the attendees were invited to provide feedback on each of the options. Here is that feedback (click on an image for a larger view):

We did take notes during the meeting. If you’d like to view them, they are here.

Finally, if you have about an hour and care enough about the topic, we also have a video of the meeting. There are some interesting questions from attendees throughout the meeting.

Most people in the community thought grade realignment was something that would happen in the next few years. The High School would be 9-12, there would be a 7/8 school and a 5/6 school, and our elementary schools would house our Pre-K through 4th graders.

It appears that change may happen as soon as this fall.

We received an anonymous email this evening from a Park City teacher stating:

Although it is not public yet, the school district is considering doing the grade realignment next year (Fall of 2017). This would move 5th/6th to Treasure Mountain, 7th/8th to Ecker, and push the 9th graders to PCHS. This would force teachers to use every inch of the school to teach classes; science labs would be used for actual classes. The lecture hall would become a classroom. It sounds like all teachers would be displaced and would be teaching all around the building.

This was sprung on the admin from the high school yesterday (they had no idea, they were under the impression it would AT LEAST 2018 before the alignment.) Various district employees, including teachers and admin, believe the board is encouraging this approach to force the hand of the community to pass a bond. It would be total mayhem for teachers and students and would make differentiating lessons and organizing a classroom difficult for most teachers. Supposedly they are going to discuss it publicly at the board meeting in two weeks, and will make a decision two weeks later.

Just to let you all know. Teachers are furious because this decision is manipulative. I’d like to stress that admin at the schools said no decision had officially been made, but it appears that they were as blind-sided as the faculty was. I am a teacher in the district and I am beyond frustrated. There has been no discussion of this until today, and it appears there will be little time to challenge it if they make the decision soon as they are expected to do. To be clear, I am in favor or realignment, but not in this way. This is asking for total chaos to push the bond through that will follow this fall to expand the high school. If you contact school board members and school admin, they will know about it. If board members claim they do not know yet, it is because either a) they are lying or b) the decision was concocted beyond the scope of the entire board.

We received the email while at the school district’s meeting regarding expanding the high school. That provided us with the opportunity to confirm the rumor. We asked Park City School Board President Phil Kaplan and he responded that “all options are on the table.” School Board member Petra Butler, also in attendance, confirmed that the board is looking at all alternatives.

We also visited with Park City School District Community Relations Specialist Molly Miller. Ms Miller said the district and board were being thorough and considering every option. She recommended that the public contact their school board member to relay any concerns. She also said the board would be discussing this in work session on February 7 at 9 AM and also likely on their February 27th meeting (she noted that was a Monday, instead of the typical Tuesday meeting). The public is welcome to attend or can view the meeting online (after the fact) by going to the district’s Board Docs website, click on meetings, choose the meeting, click on View Agenda, then scroll down on the left hand side of the screen to Videos (it’s easier than it sounds).

It sure seems like grade realignment is in play for August. However, we are skeptical that the board would follow through on that. We’ll tell you why we believe that, and what we think it means, in the next few days.

We were watching the Park City School District Board meeting online (good job PCSD on allowing people watch via video), and noticed a comment by new School Board member Petra Butler.

Ms Butler said, as the chairperson tried to move on from public comment, “I’ve heard from the community on the time limit on public comment and I wondered if we could do something about not imposing a time limit on what people want to say.”

At beginning of each public comment session, the school board reads a statement that says that comments should not be made about specific people and they should be limited to 3 minutes. Having watched many board meetings, sometimes the board enforces the 3 minute rule when the topic is controversial and otherwise will ignore it when it is a “friendly” topic.

When challenged by other board members on today’s public comment, Ms Butler said that the previous group had spoken for almost 10 minutes and rules said the limit was 3 minutes.

It appeared she wondered why all rules were not enforced universally.

Then Ms Butler’s concerns were dismissed, into the ether.

Not good.

The Park Rag has had an issue with the way the School Board handles public comment for a while. On our first visit to the School Board, public comment was made.We envisioned something similar to Aristotle-like discourse on the question brought from the public. Instead, nothing was said by the board. The person, who had spent hours crafting their comment, was delivered absolute silence by the board. The citizen just quietly walked away.

He won’t be back.

Yesterday, community member Jim Tedford provided public comment on the grade school realignment process to the school board.  He asked one simple question… “Is there going to be an opportunity for the community to be involved in the [grade school] realignment?”

The answer was “Thank you Jim.”

Really? A citizen took their time to think about an issue. He found out when the next school board meeting was. Then he drove to school board at the prescribed time. Then he had the courage to stand up and say what he thought. Then he asked a reasonable question.

And all the school board would say is “thanks”?

If you ever go to a Summit County Council or Park City Council meeting and ask a question, it will get answered immediately. You may not like what you hear, but there WILL be a response to the question.

If the Park City School District fancies itself as the top district in the country, it begins with the school board. Then there is discussion. It continues with discourse. It ends with decision…based upon both popular and unpopular ideas.

A three year old could say “thank you.” A school board should engage in thought-provoking discussion.

As we’ve watched the school board over the past few years, we’ve often wondered whether they hold themselves to the same standards that our teachers hold our students to.

Some days they impress. Some days they don’t.

Ms Butler’s actions impressed.

We just wish there were more Ms Butlers.