A Reflection on PSII

Our visit to the Pacific School of Innovation and Inquiry (PSII) on Friday has stayed with me since. I find myself continually returning to questions about what school could look like, what it looked like for me, and what it should look like for different kinds of learners.

I want to start by acknowledging that I think what they’re doing at PSII is genuinely valuable. There are people working hard to provide students with different pathways for learning, and that takes real vision and commitment. We talk often in our program about meeting students where they are, about differentiation, about student-centered learning, and here’s a school actually putting those principles into practice. However, I do know that this school would not have worked for me.

As a high school student, I needed structure. I needed guidance on what to learn and when. I really enjoy inquiry projects. I’m finding a lot of value in the one we’re doing in our class right now, but if my entire high school experience had been self-directed inquiry, I would have struggled immensely. The idea of deciding everything for myself would have created an overwhelming amount of anxiety. For my overanxious brain, I would not have thrived in this environment.

But, I think about my two younger brothers, and I know this learning environment would have done wonders for them. Both of them struggled significantly in traditional public school. Both have learning disabilities, so school was already a challenge for them. They are also intensely hobby-driven, so their interests were what motivated them. I believe they would have done remarkably well at PSII. They could have chosen what they wanted to learn based on their interests, and they would have had the flexibility and support to be successful in ways that traditional school never allowed them to be. That being said, there is no perfect school for every student. There are only schools that work better or worse for different learners.

The Strengths

• Students have genuine choice in what they learn. They get to take control of their education and decide how they approach their learning.
• Students have greater flexibility in structuring their school day. They can make a schedule that works for their benefit as individuals. 
• Students get to have very different experiences compared to regular public school students. They access to ceramics, music recording, and other complex arts. They get opportunities to attend university lectures, one-on-one teacher support, and other diverse learning opportunities.

The Concerns

• Students don’t have as much of a learning community as they would in a public school. Learning feels more isolated, without as much shared experience of working through challenges alongside peers.
• There is less structured learning, which might lead to a difficult transition to post-secondary education where structure (deadlines, required courses, lecture formats) is the norm.
• Students don’t have the opportunity to participate in team sports at school, losing out on community-building, leadership skills, and collaboration skills.
• Tuition is expensive. While this may be out of the school’s control, it means this type of alternative education isn’t accessible to many families.

Final Thoughts

PSII isn’t the right fit for every student. It wouldn’t have been right for me, but it’s asking important questions about how we can create environments where different kinds of learners can succeed. My brothers would have thrived there, and I’m sure there are students there now who are finally finding success they never could in traditional school. As future educators, that’s what matters: understanding that we need different kinds of spaces for different kinds of students.