At my visit to PSII, I was initially drawn to the setting. It was very different than anything I have ever experienced. Coming from a small town the idea of an urban school is new, let alone one that is a very untraditional setting and vibe. The common space seemed like a relaxing and chilled space that fostered a sense of community and seemed to allow for students to be able to work at their own pace and with the help of their peers. The space felt instantly comfortable and like a safe space.

One of the interesting things that Jeff talked about was how the school seemed to work well for learners with autism and depression and/or anxiety. As it is a system that is so different from the traditional school I feel that this could be true but it could also be that it is just that, different. It may not necessarily be the PSII way but that it is a setting and community so different than the one in a traditional public school that allows certain students to thrive more.

I was struck by the confidence that many of the students had. They held conversations well and seemed very passionate about the school and its vision. With such an open-ended curriculum I think that it will naturally lead to more innovative thinkers, people who are surer of themselves and their identity, and people that have a more curated passion that they wish to explore in the future.

One initial drawback is whether the PSII system would create well-rounded students. Jeff talked about writing report cards and how they combine inquiry topics and different aspects of the learning that had taken place to come up with a percentage mark, but what happens if someone is not interested in physics but it is a required mark to graduate. How is a passion-driven inquiry process can a student learn enough about that topic?

Overall the school was intriguing. There were a lot of positive things but there were some red flags. Before teaching in this setting or recommending this school, or those alike, I would need to learn more about it.