Board members at Pagosa Peak Open School (PPOS) voted to cap classroom sizes for kindergarten through third grade at 18 students for the current school year, approving a request by School Director Emily Murphy during the board’s meeting on Nov. 20.
In her report to the board, Murphy described the cap as a response to parent concerns about classroom sizes and one that could assist the school in its efforts to attract new students when enrollment opens in January.
“The No. 1 reason people chose PPOS was for small class sizes,” said Murphy, citing exit survey data. “Often when they leave, it’s because the classes were bigger than they thought they were going to be.”
The cap comes one year after the school approved a 21-student limit for the same grade levels.
“This is not us saying that [current students] cannot enroll next year because we’re going to have lower class sizes,” Murphy clarified. “It just means that if we lose students throughout the year that we would not fill seats above the proposed cap.”
Board treasurer Pamela Meade voiced support for the cap in kindergarten through third grade, but as the discussion expanded to include additional caps for upper grades — where PPOS has historically seen a matriculation dip — she requested more time to examine potential enrollment impacts.
“I think these are two different conversations. But, I’d like to actually have a little bit more conversation, because when you’re talking about caps, I always get really hung up on those combined classrooms,” she said, referring to the school’s combined fifth- and sixth-grade classes.
“We are a business,” board president Lawrence Rugar added. “In order to function, we have to have students … We may get to a point where we’re not going to cap by grade but cap them by classroom.”
“There is a business case to be made,” Meade agreed.
The PPOS board ultimately approved the 18-student cap in kindergarten through third grade unanimously, with vice president Jesse White absent.
Fieldwork participation
When fieldwork is an integral part of a school’s curriculum, what does it mean when students decline to participate?
That was the question Murphy raised in describing challenges facing PPOS as it attempts to accommodate students who opt out of fieldwork activities, which are frequently offered in lieu of traditional classroom experiences.
“As we’ve been doing a lot more fieldwork this year, one of the stresses that we’ve been coming up against are students and families who are choosing to not participate,” Murphy said. “Then our staff is having to provide alternatives for those students during the school day.”
She added that making accommodations for students with special needs or disabilities is routine at the school and mandated by law, but that no school policy exists for what to do when students decline to participate in curriculum-based fieldwork for other reasons.
“Do we know why the parents or the families are not participating?” board member Catherine Siebel asked.
“Kids will say, ‘I don’t want to,’ and the parent will say, ‘OK, you can just go to school instead,’” Murphy said.
The result has meant school staff is rushed to create alternative and equivalent educational activities on the fly, according to Murphy.
“What I find is that it is a strain on our small school,” she said. “We have 20 staff total. Six of them were out today. We have students who didn’t want to participate in fieldwork who now are just sitting in a classroom.”
Before drafting a policy, Meade encouraged a survey of other project-based schools to find out if PPOS is required to provide a matching alternative for every activity.
“It would be nice to find a best practice,” she said. “Or, maybe everybody’s struggling with it and we’ll figure out the best practice.”
Murphy proposed bringing a draft policy to the board for further consideration at its December meeting.
Social media
The school’s social media presence came under scrutiny during the Nov. 20 meeting as board members expressed concerns over the school’s online following and low engagement metrics.
According to the board, PPOS is currently paying $350 a month to a third-party marketing firm — and the numbers aren’t adding up.
“Our numbers are so low, that a 25 percent [increase in engagement] would be less than one person,” Siebel remarked, recommending the board not renew its contract with the firm. “I think we can for sure do better with the same amount of money.”
Reviewing the contract, Siebel noted an absence of strategy that left several key questions unanswered.
“Who are we targeting? What are we saying?” she asked. “That wasn’t even part of the contract.”
Rugar also acknowledged perceived shortcomings, noting that recent Facebook posts have failed to mention that tuition at PPOS is free.
“That tells me the [firm] doing it had never been here, does not know what we do, does not know who we are, so therefore can’t really represent us in order to gain enrollment or anything else,” he said.
The board ultimately agreed to cancel the contract when it arrives for renewal in January, but questioned how best to take the reins.
“If we keep doing things in house, and there’s a professional group out here that’ll do it for a nickel more, we need to look at the more professional way of doing it so we get the bigger bang for our buck,” Rugar said.
Siebel proposed defining a strategy that could be easily executed by anyone, in-house or otherwise.
“I think it’s possible there are a couple people who could develop the strategy to then pass it on to someone to implement,” she said.
“Let’s keep a budget item and stipend people to do it,” Meade suggested. “If you decide a different way is better, then I’m all for that, but I’d like to continue funding marketing.”
garrett@pagosasun.com
