Politicians have pushed the decision deadline on rebuilding University Hill Secondary to the very last minute. U Hill students will be busy writing year end exams by the time trustees finally grapple with the tough decision of whether or not they will rebuild much need infrastructure or not.

Given the push back from west-side voters the likelihood of having much needed facilities anytime soon for hundreds of ‘surplus’ students is diminishing.

Maye it’s time for a rethink. Maybe it’s time for a radical solution that will simultaneously tackle Vancouver’s surplus school capacity, growing population of school children in Vancouver west of Blanca, and allow a group of kindergarten and primary parents to hold onto to their school.My apologies if this seems extreme or, perhaps, even verging on satire. However, given the apparent lack of political will to do what is needed regarding U Hill combined with the strong political intervention of politically well placed parents it seems that it may well be time for a different approach. It is likely that back room discussions are proceeding and special deals may be in the making. One can always hope. In the meantime realists need to consider what can in fact be done if there is no money to rebuild the NRC building at UBC into a new secondary school

If the sale of the annex is not approved the need for school spaces west of Blanca will still be there. The funding issue will also very likely remain. So, how do we meet the need for school capacity that is growing in the campus area?

It seems that there is greater public tolerance for shifting high school students than there is for shifting elementary students. We have clearly seen that suggesting the movement of primary students produces ripples of outrage that are hard for most politicians to confront. So why not move the high school students east?

Here’s an idea on how it might be done. It’s a rough idea and will obviously require tinkering.

• (1) Decommission U Hill Secondary as a secondary and convert into a needed elementary school for 450 plus students (keep portables on site as they will be needed). Do not build new secondary at UBC at this time. The district figures show that there are 2200 more spaces than secondary students thus this would allow the Board to immediately cut overall surplus capacity. This approach could potentially also be applied to one of the other low enrolment secondary schools if necessary.
• (2) Shift High School catchments boundaries eastward. This can be accomplished through modest rearrangement of the elementary feeder schools of Byng, PW, Kits, Point Grey, Hamber and Tupper. Some additional adjustments, perhaps involving relocation of choice programs to underutilized facilities, would be in order.
  • Byng takes feeder schools from QM, UHE(1) and UHE(2)
  • PW takes QE, Kitchener, and Trafalgar (loses Carnarvon and Shaghnessy and TREK)
  • Carnarvon is shifted to Kits along with Trafalgar students living north of King Ed.
  • PG takes southland and Kerrisdale (loses Qulchena) and any over capacity remaining at Byng from U Hill influx.
  • Hamber picks up Shaughnesy and PW Trek and Quilchena
  • Tupper picks up Fraser and Wolfe
  • John Oliver picks up Van Horne and Sexsmith (allow some shifting from Magee to
  • Churchill and then spill over of some PG into Magee)
• (3) Review of district programs, such as FI, IB, Mini’s, and reassignment of these programs to facilities that are being underutilized. Given that many participants in this district programs are already traveling out of catchments, further displacement may, in some cases actually place programs closer to students. Also, since these are choice programs there is no underlying principle that would support need to locate such programs close to student home address. Rationale reallocation of student to underutilized facilities thus makes good sense.
• (4) Public accepts movement of several thousand high school students as these students are resilient and easily portable and plan will preserve primary annex in well off Dunbar area –thus removing the need to sell public land or close annex. Province appreciates the innovative and flexible approach Board takes to issue of under utilization of facilities at Tupper, Hamber, and John Oliver.

If the EFR–Phase One plans go ahead none of the above need apply. But, perhaps it is reasonable to do a major redesign rather than a minor re-tinkering?

Background Documents.
2007 enrolment date for VSB secondary schools.Download file
VSB school catchment map.Download file

Vancouver Sun blogs

The Vancouver Courier ran an article on the need for a new school in the university area. In the article the author presents the issue of need for news schools on campus. After introducing the issue around the need for a new high school and the motion passed by the parents’ advisory council at the high school, the Van Courier author then turns to a commentary from the media rep from Queen Eliz Annex. The discursive effect of this is to use the words of the QEA parent to question the validity of the U Hill PAC decision.

Kaye also questions whether the University Hill PAC represents a majority of parents. “Some of them may have gotten involved with the PAC precisely because they had strong views on the need for more schools, so there may be a minority of parents that feel that their child’s been forced to eat lunch on the floor for so long that they don’t care how many other children have to suffer to remedy that situation,” she said.”

The narrative structure of the article models ‘balance’ while in effect promoting a particular perspective (this is not atypical in the media world -it’s standard practice in fact).

The piece starts as a story about parent concern regarding the facilities at U Hill. The issue of conflict -parent versus parent- is introduced early on, and then picks up with the quote of the QEA parent.

The QEA quote, about midway thought the piece, acts to shift the issue from the need for an improved learning facility to the authenticity of the parents at U Hill. The quote does this in two ways. First by suggesting that the U Hill PAC is comprised of parents who are solely focused on getting a new school. Second that these parents do not represent the majority of the U Hill parents. Conclusions? Anything from the U Hill parents will be biased, non-representational, and should be discounted.

To suggest that the U Hill PAC thinks a new school is appropriate is reasonable. To suggest, however, that the U Hill Parents are only focused on a new school is misplaced and inaccurate -of course the Courier author is careful to avoid making such a claim themselves. They use the words of the QEA parent to make this point. Doing this allows the Courier author to avoid the necessity to check the facts while also allowing them to build the narrative toward an embedded critique of the U Hill Parents; that is, they are a group who are single focused on the needs of their own children and who “don’t care how many other children have to suffer;” as quoted in the Courier article.

All stories have a slant. To ask for pure objectivity is to misunderstand the role that language and writing play in our society. One should assume a semblance of accuracy -and the Courier author has done that though effective quotation of key people in the story. One might wish for a different slant -perhaps one that focussed on the situation at U Hill without itself engaging in pitting one parent’s voice against another’s. That would have been unique. Though I doubt it would have been as ‘engaging’ a ‘news’ story.

I would like to think that honesty and openness are the way to go and that the end goal never justifies the tactics one uses to win. I realize that is a naïve view point -but it is one that I would think lawyers and athletes and academies and most other people would appreciate. Apparently not. If there has been one take home lesson for me in all of this it is that the capacity to believe that ones personal interests trump all others extends across many sectors of society; even those whom one might feel would be more open to ideas of justice and fair-play. My critique is not for the journalist -they are doing their job. My critique is for those who entrap themselves within their particular vantage point and in the process become incapable of seeing other perspectives with empathy or.

In my professional work I teach students about issues related to First Nations and communities. Many of these young people come with fixed viewpoints and perspectives that are very often locked in place. They fear examining their understandings, to explore where they hold misconceptions, and where their own vested interests interrupt their capacity for empathy. I see my role in those places as working through the fear and worry so that at the very least these students can examine in an intellectually safe place their very often misplaced assumptions. My role in that place-at least as I see it- is not to convince or compel, it is to provide a place to hold out divergent viewpoints, to take a risk to examining perspective that may be flawed. In that process my hope is that at the very least the students leave with a better understanding of their own perspective, if they can transform through the process, so much the better. I have seen some amazing work produced by these students. One hopes that something similar will at the very lest emerge on the other side of the VSB’s plan.

This video was produced by U Hill Secondary students for the VSB Trustees meeting on February 11, 2008.

A playlist of this and related videos from U Hill can be found here.