Lessons for Closing Schools: Face the Challenge, Prioritize Students, Be Honest

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Prompted by declining enrollment and the impending loss of federal pandemic relief funding, school districts nationwide are wrestling with whether to close schools — and, if so, how many. Seattle is weighing a plan to close a quarter of its elementary schools. Rochester, New York, voted last fall to shut 11 of its 45 schools. San Antonio recently closed 13, with two more slated to shut their doors soon.

School closures are hardly new, but two factors make the current wave different. First, shifts to homeschooling and private schools during the pandemic exacerbated the trend of declining urban enrollment. Second, the loss of pandemic relief funds (the so-called fiscal cliff) finally forced districts to find ways to save money. 

As communities across the country grapple with this challenge, my research team at the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) and I urge them to follow a handful of proven, evidence-based guidelines. These will help minimize the pain and maximize the possibility that more children will get a better education — which should be the ultimate goal.

First, don’t duck the challenge. If enrollment and funding are cratering, district leaders have no choice but to act. Children in underenrolled schools lose when they are denied services and activities, from music and art to libraries and sports, that should be a normal part of their education. Propping up underenrolled schools hurts all the other students in the district.

For example, Chicago, facing a $391 million budget deficit, plans to add nine staff members at one high school, meaning there will be 31 adults for just 35 enrolled students. Propping up a school like this forces others to make cuts. Seattle, which is debating massive closures, is not considering teacher layoffs; because staff salaries are by far the biggest cost factor in the budget, its school closure plan will resolve less than half of the district’s $129 million annual deficit. 

Second, prioritize student well-being. Schools become underenrolled because families abandon them or their neighborhoods, and the remaining kids suffer. These children need much better options, not just a chance to move to a school that is slightly less underenrolled but is otherwise similar. In Oakland, California, the district created the Opportunity Ticket, which gave kids from closed schools in underserved communities priority enrollment in high-performing schools. Innovations like these should become the norm.

Third, be transparent, tell the truth and build trust. Closing decisions are fraught and require public trust to achieve the best possible outcome for all stakeholders. Recently, Boston scaled back plans to close up to half of its schools, citing a lack of public support. Leaders should use enrollment, financial and achievement data to make the case for closure and demonstrate what better choices could look like. They also need to involve parents and other stakeholders. To the greatest extent possible, leaders should push decisions down to the school level so those on the ground — like principals, teachers and other staffers — can make the best choices for students and resolve enrollment challenges, possibly by merging with other underenrolled schools. Baltimore, for example, has a tradition of school-based budgeting, which incentivizes this type of initiative at the school level. Principals and parent councils are in a better position  than superintendents or school boards to lead difficult conversations about possible closures and consolidations. (CRPE offers more detailed advice here and here.)

Fourth, use the inevitability of closures to develop more flexible, resilient school systems. CRPE has argued that too many 21^st century systems remain bound by 19^th century constraints. These include a nine-month agrarian calendar that ensures school buildings are empty all summer, every weekend and after 4 p.m. on weekdays; union contracts that enshrine the model of one teacher alone in a classroom, fix class sizes and mandate arbitrary pay scales regardless of enrollment realities; and funding models in which the money follows adults, not kids. 

A truly agile system would consider the reality that high school students should be learning in apprenticeships and taking college credits, not just sitting in a building all day. And school facilities should serve multiple community needs — from adult ed to libraries — and not be designed for part-time single uses. Teachers and students want more options when it comes to their schedules and prefer to work in team-based settings. A more dynamic approach to facilities planning can mitigate the pain of inevitable shifts in school-age populations and the resulting need to close some schools while expanding others.  

State and local policymakers should insist that districts facing closures restructure and retool to be more competitive and nimble for 21st century realities. 

The upcoming conversations will be painful. But they also can be productive — as long as closures help lead to something better for kids. In the end, communities that turn school closure conversations into discussions of school quality will benefit.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter