Last night we met the community and stakeholders to exchange information and discuss our options for keeping the school open. Amongst the speakers were:
Gary Dobbin and Diane Wilmann of Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House spoke of their offerings.
Sam Fillipoff spoke about Acts of Transformation: From War Toys to Peace Art and the possible use of Garibaldi as a demonstration centre.
Randi Gurholt-Seary of CUPE
James of New Westminster Home Learners spoke on home schooling options.
Helen Hughes spoke on Windsor House School parent participation school.
Giovanna Cortese spoke on her over-flowing daycare and her interest in using space at Garibaldi.
... and possibly others whose names don't come to mind.
Gary made the point that while the VSB's mandate is to provide the kinds of programs Frog Hollow offers, the VSB is handcuffed by the economic restraints imposed by the BC government. So, it is important that the economics issues be addressed by any proposal we put forward.
February 12 is the likely next date for a community meeting. We'll confirm and give details in coming posts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thank you all for a well-organized, informative and inspiring meeting. I'm sorry there wasn't more time for discussion at the end, so I'll have to share my ideas through writing.
I am concerned that this endeavor is going to continue to be, and/or perceived as, a PAC project rather than a community process and proposal. The VSB was clear in requiring a collaborative community proposal, and quite right in doing so. I believe that the PAC fully embraces this collaborative vision and believes they are actively pursuing it, but some observations from last night suggest that the actual process came across more as a PAC project than a community collaboration. The meeting was advertised (on this blog site) as a PAC meeting, and the meeting opened with an explanation of PAC's mission, setting it up once again as a PAC action meeting rather than a community meeting which PAC had helped put together. PAC did all the organizing, agenda-setting, and running of the meeting. Early on, it was announced that community members were not welcome to the PAC/Frog Hollow meeting with the VSB liaison on Friday. And perhaps most significantly, it appears that PAC intends to make the final decision about which alternative program to include in the proposal, with community members being invited to present their cases at the Feb.12 meeting rather than being involved in that crucial decision.
Again, I do trust the intentions of the PAC, and am deeply appreciative of all the efforts made and still being made that make it even possible for us to be continuing this campaign. I share those observations to help illustrate the need for the changes I’ll be suggesting below. But first, here are some reasons why it is problematic to have anything short of a full community movement (in practice and in optics):
1. VSB needs to see a true community collaboration, not a PAC solution that had some community input
2. The goals of PAC don't necessarily reflect the goals of the community. There are many among us who are not fighting to just keep the school open, but to add a new alternative program to better serve the needs of a wider range of community members. That is, we genuinely want to take this opportunity to enhance services, not just jump through VSB hoops to keep open a facility that does not currently offer us the services we need (which is why our children are not enrolled there right now.)
3. When it comes to (a) dialogue with the VSB liaison and to (b) selecting the best new program to propose, I do not believe that PAC is the best group to do so. By definition, PAC is composed of parents who are (at least overall) happy with the style of education provided in the current school, and have therefore enrolled their children there. The community's goal now is to attract other families who are looking for an alternative approach, and will then enroll their children. We community members who have been actively searching for alternatives will bring a much different perspective to these important discussions and decisions.
4. If the community is not meaningfully involved in the final selection of the new program, there will not be the critical buy-in that is needed for the next stages of the campaign - publicity, advocacy, research and development, and of course enrollment of students.
As I now move on to suggestions, let me yet again express my appreciation and respect for the leadership and activism that PAC has shown, and hopefully will continue to show. This whole project would be dead in the water if not for the hard work and commitment of the PAC, and I am not in any way suggesting that the PAC pull out now. What I am suggesting are changes in presentation/semantics, and in composition of the leadership of the community movement as we now go forward together:
1. Every communication - verbal and written, internal and external - should carefully call this a community proposal, community meeting, community decision, etc. PAC should only be infrequently referred to, and only as one of the partners in the collaboration, side-by-side with community members, Frog Hollow, Vespa, CUPE, etc.
2. The group coordinating the organization of the meetings and the overall movement should be broadened to include active community members as well as some representatives of PAC and Frog Hollow. This collaborative community group should set meeting agendas, map out strategies, etc.
3. The meeting on Friday with the VSB representative, and any subsequent meetings, should be attended by a few community members as well as PAC and Frog Hollow. This would show a broader coalition, and ensure more viewpoints and critical perspectives at the table. At the very least I would suggest that Seanna McPherson join the delegation on Friday.
4. A process needs to be determined whereby the community - not PAC, and not even the proposed coalition leadership/organizing group in #2 above - selects the one alternative program that will boost student numbers.
5. All meetings should be community meetings, not PAC meetings. Any meetings that PAC does have internally should just be to carry out some task that they have agreed to do on behalf of the community organizing committee - for example, outreach to other parents, publicity campaign, etc.
Lest I be accused of backseat driving, let me assure you that I am fully on board with this process and ready to commit energy and skills in the following ways when (and only when) appropriate:
- be part of the organizing team
- attend meetings with VSB or key partners (though not this Friday, unfortunately)
- facilitate meetings if we want to rotate that responsibility
- assist with writing of the proposal, press releases, community communications, etc
- help organize the proposed community event (for example, I may be able to approach Bonkers or Sam's Rot'n Tot Pot Band for entertainment)
- recruit other community members to support and become active in the campaign
- continue to actively support whatever final proposal is agreed upon by the community
And finally, please let me reiterate that this is not meant as a criticism of PAC. I am respectful of the hard work and leadership each member has shown, and their honest intention to make this a community-driven project. I hope and believe that each individual will continue to be integral in the success that will come - as fellow community members of a community coalition rather than as a PAC. I am excited and optimistic, and grateful for all the hard work of so many people that allows me to now believe that my child WILL be attending a fabulous new program in my neighbourhood school next fall.
Sincerely,
Rick Juliusson
Parent of 2 children within the Garibaldi catchment area (we just found this out today from VSB office).
Post a Comment