Digging Deeper: More information
Most students won’t go to better schools.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/373c5/373c54a67452cf2dd0ec7789795bba9c7f0436ee" alt=""
The
vast majority of students from closing schools are transferred to
receiving schools that are struggling just as much as or worse than the
schools that closed.
- A February 2013 report
from Research for Action compares 32 schools recommended for closure or
consolidation in Philadelphia with the 51 planned receiving schools.
Overwhelmingly, the receiving schools posted similar or worse scores on
the state math and reading exams and were in similar corrective action
plans for failing to meet adequately yearly progress.
- A 2009 University of Chicago report
on the effect of past closures in Chicago found that 40% of students
from closing schools transferred to receiving schools that were on
probation. 42 % transferred to schools with scores on the Iowa Tests of
Basic Skills in the lowest quartile. Just 6% of students transferred to receiving schools with scores in the top quartile, most of them traveling well outside their designated attendance area to find a school with open seats.
Closures won’t save the district big bucks.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1c339/1c3394ccce132f62ff2af6732ff1718e8752a604" alt=""
Closing
schools is expensive. Officials have to pay to relocate and store
inventory; transport students to new schools; renovate receiving schools
to accommodate the influx of new students; reassess, fix up, and
maintain or demolish closed school buildings. It can particularly
difficult to sell closed school properties because they are often in
economically disadvantaged areas with little investment, which forces
the city to continue maintaining the properties.
- A 2012 audit
of the closure and consolidation of 23 schools in Washington, D.C. in
2008 found that total cost of the closures was 39.5 million, roughly 4
times what the district was expected to save.
- A WBEZ Chicago report
about the city’s current plans to close 50 public schools this fall
notes that education officials have used the school district's $1
billion deficit as justification for the closures. Simultaneously, those
officials are planning to put all the savings from the closed schools,
plus an additional $329 million from new bond sales, towards improving
the receiving schools. So not only is the district not saving money,
it’s going further into debt.
- A 2011 report
from the Pew Charitable Trusts examined the cost of past school
closures in Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and
Washington, D.C. The report found that "no district has reaped anything
like a windfall" from selling or leasing closed school buildings because
they are costly to maintain and are often located in low-investment
areas with few interested buyers: “As of the summer of 2011, at least
200 school properties stood vacant in the six cities studied – including
92 in Detroit alone – with most having been empty for several
years…Milwaukee spends more than $1 million a year maintaining vacant
buildings, Pittsburgh $2 million, and Kansas City close to $3 million.”
These aren’t empty schools.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0f0ba/0f0bae1b76bb6c37859374516ade4651eb5ec06e" alt=""
In
determining the optimal number of students in a given school, education
officials employ a double standard in terms of classroom “utilization.”
Despite the
documented benefits
of small class sizes, a public school with 15-20 students per classroom
can be labeled “underutilized,” while private schools (to which many
politicians send their children) and charters just a few blocks away can
pride themselves on having small class sizes.
- In Chicago, an analysis by researcher Jeanne Olson and a WBEZ report
both highlight that the city’s utilization formula assumes from the
start that every school should have 30-36 students per class. Anything
less and the school is deemed “underutilized.”
Closures do have a big impact – on everyone.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f594d/f594d5dd034cd9f930cb8aaa8b7200744ef9a1a4" alt=""
School closings impact and disrupt whole communities.
- Many receiving schools aren’t equipped
for an influx of new students. Though the receiving schools may get
some additional resources from the district, chances are it won’t be
enough to accommodate the needs of the incoming students, most of whom
are from low-income communities. This creates a cycle of struggling
schools and sets up the receiving schools for future closure.
- Students from closed schools will have to travel across unfamiliar
neighborhoods to get to their new schools. This is a particular concern
in Chicago, where some students will be forced to walk through gang territory.
- During non-school hours, school buildings often house pre-K
programs, health clinics and other community programs. Closing the
buildings destroys this hub of community resources.
- School closures fit into a larger pattern
of community disinvestment, declining public housing and unemployment.
Many of the neighborhoods with closing schools have seen their hospitals
and police stations closed as well.
Want to take action? Here’s what to do.
Read up on the alternatives. You can’t improve schools by closing them –
here’s what we should be doing instead to support and turn around struggling schools.
Find out if there's a local organizing group in your community fighting school closures. Contact the
Journey for Justice coalition and
Alliance for Educational Justice, or send us an
email.
Share this infographic on Facebook and Twitter. And view and share our previous infographic, “
The Color of School Closures."