On Tuesday, a small group of Park City High School faculty and students, myself included, attended a casual presentation hosted by Park City High School Principal Bob O’Connor about the impending renovations to our school’s library, which will result in a shared space with the PCCAPS program. The intent of the presentation was to clarify the plans for the library amidst the rumors flying around the school and community. More excitingly, the floor plans for the space were revealed.

To kick things off, the group created a list of student and faculty concerns that needed to be addressed. Amongst the most prominent were the use of e-books, having a sanctuary for students, and what exactly will happen to the books.

According to information provided at the meeting, the school is narrowing down their supply of physical books to those that are still relevant for students. Two or three years ago, twice as many books were being checked out than they are today at Park City High School. Those books that haven’t been checked out for over eight years were available for students to “adopt” today, sitting in portable shelves in front of the library. The majority of the books that haven’t been used in three years or more will be put into storage. The reason provided was that use of physical books has decreased. A corresponding increase in e-book use by Park City High School students, however, has yet to be statistically proven. This makes me wonder: will students move from reading physical books to reading e-books, or will they just read less altogether?

The presentation hurried to make one thing clear: the library will be open to all students, all the time. This includes the time that PCCAPS is in the space. The PCCAPS students will be centered in conference rooms and a closed-off robotics area, while the rest of the library will be open to everyone else. So, at least a portion of the library will always be open, while some areas such as the conference rooms will be in use during parts of the day but available to all students during others.

My attention was piqued when the floor plan for the new area was revealed. The design has numerous conference rooms along the perimeter of the room, which will be used mostly for PCCAPS but is available to all students and clubs when not in use otherwise. These conference rooms will be separated by the library space in the center of the room by 10 feet high glass walls. These walls will be soundproofed, while the conference rooms will remain open-ceilinged. All remaining books will be kept in shelves lining the divider walls. A few small projection screens will be on the walls, and a larger one can be pulled down from the ceiling.

This new space is being described as an “internet cafe.” The library will have more comfortable seating, airport tables, and the aforementioned screens. (None of us students actually know what airport tables are; we’re thinking potentially tables with USB ports.) Mr. O’Connor mentioned a possible espresso bar, located either in the library or nearby cafeteria. The espresso bar sounds really cool to me. Who doesn’t like the idea of hanging out on a couch, sipping on coffee, and surfing the internet? I do wish, however, that these ideas were made public earlier and presented as a legitimate idea rather than what seems like an attempt to appease angry students.

Here’s my problem with the plans. Of the current 8,000 square feet of space, only 4,000 will be designated library – or “internet cafe” – space. According to information given at the meeting, approximately 130 spots are filled for the PCCAPS program next year, over two semesters. This is a distinct minority of the school’s population. However, we need to recognize that PCCAPS has nowhere else to go at this time. The lease in the old building is up, and the library is the next best location for the program. It’s just rather unfortunate that the move will severely decrease floor space for the library area itself.

The change in the library’s size and identity do affect me, and many other students, in another way: study hall. Currently, study hall is held in the library, but according to Mr. O’Connor, that will no longer be an option next year. I am taking study hall next year, and the idea of working in the comfortable seating and natural lighting of the library really appealed to me. Next year, study hall will either be held in an unused lab or a classroom that is not being used for the period. It’s disappointing that the library will be changed to the point that study hall is no longer possible there.

It’s noteworthy to add that, in my opinion, Ms. Anita Booher, our school’s librarian, seemed upset about the changes presented during the meeting. Perhaps she wasn’t as involved in the decision-making process as the school board had led us to believe. At one point, when Mr. O’Connor used “we” while explaining the decisions, she spoke up to clarify that she had not been a part of it. Towards the end of the presentation, she stood up and promised that she would do her absolute best to work with what she had going forward to preserve the integrity of the library.

This exclusion can also be applied to the student body and general public. Rumors have been flying, and everyone has seemed to have a different idea of what the plan for the library was. I am disappointed that the board didn’t come forward earlier to offer information and ask for input. Had they done this, the misinformed uproar wouldn’t have happened, and there would be many more happy students. I believe we deserve to have been involved since the beginning. To further my point, today’s meeting was attended by approximately ten students. Why? Only a select few students, such as the Breakfast Club and others who have spoken up, were invited to the presentation. No public announcement was made to the student body at any point. This really rubs me the wrong way. Isn’t now the time to get students involved, to make up for past mistakes in the planning process? I thought this meeting would be used to involve the students in the process that they were excluded from before. In that regard, the meeting was a missed opportunity.

We received a comment from a citizen about PC CAPS. She said, “My son is a ‘square peg in a round hole’ when it comes to school. All of his teachers lament how incredibly bright he is, yet the standard classes with busy work bore him senseless and he struggles with grades. PC CAPS doesn’t have a GPA requirement, so it is open to ALL students, which is great for those who are struggling and might want to explore the professional world to see if somewhere that they could flourish…I think we need more programs like CAPS for students who don’t learn by sitting in a classroom.”

I have heard similar comments from many parents about their kids in Park City. What I think this commenter is saying is that school is broken for her child. This somewhat ties into what another citizen said when she recommended watching Sir Ken Robinson’s video on why our entire educational system is broken. Our commenter seems to be looking at PC CAPS as THE alternative, because it is one of the only alternatives to traditional school in our school system.

What I have wondered for a while, though, is whether our schools our taking the wrong approach when looking at standardized tests and that focus impacts the very students they are trying to help. For instance, the SAGE standardized test results came out and Park City’s results were bad (as were most schools). Our High School math results hovered at somewhere between abysmal (39% proficient in secondary math II) to failing (50% proficient in Secondary Math III). Out of this came a decision by our school system to double down, and come hell or high water, improve the scores. I get it. When you want to not only be the best school district in the state, but the best school district in the country you want metrics to prove it. Yet that strategy seems to be failing a number of kids.

We already know that we have one of the better school districts in the state. Our teachers (on average) are the highest paid in the state. It stands to reason that we therefore get the best and brightest educators available. Do I, as a parent, want them to teach to some standardized test? No, I want teachers to use their creativity to engage students. When I took calculus I learned to calculate the area underneath a curve. When I complained, “when will I ever use this?” the answer was always, “probably never” but it will teach you to think. And it did teach me to think — and no I haven’t used it.

In the case of Park City schools, instead of trying to get our standardized test scores up, should we say “who cares”? Should we focus on creatively educating our students? Should we not depend on an hour of PC CAPS twice a week for the last few years of school as the alternative for kids who need a different experience?

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have a PHD in education. I don’t teach in schools and am not an educator. So, am I even qualified to ask these questions? I’m sure some many would say no.

However, I am the guy who wants to hire your kid as a software engineer when they graduate, or get their GRE, or they decide to be the next Sean Parker when they are 16. So, I have a huge vested interest in your kid’s outcome but perhaps a less vested interest in how they get there. What I hate to see is wasted talent or worse yet talent that has been squelched. It sounds like, in some cases, the latter is happening.

Would a start be offering a different kind of Dual Immersion? Today’s Dual Immersion is based around becoming fluent in a foreign language during your child’s formative years. I think I heard that at the end of the dual immersion program at Park City schools, kids would only be 30 hours away from a college minor in their language. Uhhh…really is that a benefit? Again, I think the point of the program is likely to make our kids think and expand their brains. If that’s the case, why not offer a different type of dual immersion? One that’s focused on learning and creativity. One that provides the experience necessary to succeed in the real world and not just compete on Jeopardy.

Park City has always been known as a leader in education in Utah. Perhaps it should use a little of that influence to provide alternatives to some of our brightest, but most bored, students.