Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
Last year, The 74 highlighted a paradox: Fewer schools were closing despite the fact that birth rates, federal funding and public school enrollment were all declining.
Since then, many school districts have indeed announced closures, including in the communities of Atlanta and Philadelphia, where we live and work. More, unfortunately, are on their way.
School closure announcements can elicit the worst kind of deja vu. These feelings are well-founded. Atlanta plans to shutter schools in the south and west parts of the city, which is also where children in poverty overwhelmingly live and where previous closures left several buildings vacant or underutilized for years. In Philadelphia, research from an earlier round of school closures found that achievement gains occurred only when displaced students were moved into significantly stronger schools, while peers sent to schools of similar or lower quality did not benefit and, in some cases, saw setbacks.
It doesn’t have to be like this. Districts may have to close schools for financial or performance reasons, but they don’t need to exacerbate inequities along the way. By learning from past examples, we believe it’s possible — with thoughtful, comprehensive planning and deep and broad community engagement — for school closures to serve as a new opportunity for students, families and educators.
The first of four steps to a more constructive, less harmful closure is about stabilization. The time between when a closure is announced and when students move out of the school can produce learning loss, staff instability and family stress.
These in-between periods are not trivial lengths of time. Students at one Philadelphia school included in the district’s January announcement will not move out until 2031. In other words, the students who are currently in kindergarten at this school are poised to spend their entire elementary years — through fifth-grade — in a school the district has said should close due to its low enrollment and poor facilities.
Exclusive Data Highlights Paradox: As Enrollment Falls, Fewer Schools Close
That’s a long time, especially considering students are impacted as soon as the closure is announced. Research from Chicago found that the largest negative achievement effect occurred between the time when the closure was announced and when students actually moved to new schools. Students in schools that were being closed had scores that were lower than expected in the year of the closure: roughly one and a half months in reading and two months in math.
To avoid this drop-off, districts can commit to maintaining core academic and extra-curricular offerings through the school’s final year. They can also help reduce staff turnover by providing early clarity on placement processes, minimizing uncertainty about job security and offering retention support.
The second step has to do with the building itself. Again, research from Chicago found that neighborhoods that experienced school closures led to lower social cohesion and lower shared sense of capacity for neighbors to act together for the common good. Schools often serve as community anchors, and closing a school can make a community feel unmoored. Countering this outcome involves smart, collaborative planning to ensure buildings are invested in, not abandoned. By this measure, Philadelphia and Atlanta are off to a positive start; their closure plans include repurposing buildings for other uses, such as affordable housing in Philadelphia and early childhood education centers in Atlanta.
The third step is about student learning, particularly ensuring students leaving a closing school can attend a higher-quality alternative. This focus shifts the conversation from the non-academic factors that often drive closure decisions — like building utilization rates and the cost to repair aging facilities — and instead centers on student learning. Administrators must ask: Which local public schools could take in displaced students without reducing the quality of their education?
This is not a quixotic exercise. Studies from multiple cities have documented test score gains when students are able to transfer to demonstrably stronger schools with higher achievement levels, more experienced teachers, richer course offerings and better facilities.
The fourth and final step is about the schools receiving new students. Especially with the months and, in many cases, years between when a closure is announced and when it takes place, there is no reason receiving schools should be caught flat-footed. These schools should have both academic and social-emotional support available for students, and districts should cap how many new students each school receives. The odds of giving individuals the support they need decrease with each additional student an institution takes in.
What we are calling for is a paradigm shift. District leaders need to begin shifting from announcing “we’ve decided to close schools” to “we’ve decided to close schools and here’s our funded, specific, accountable plan for preventing harm and maximizing student opportunity at every stage.”
District leaders in Atlanta, Philadelphia, and elsewhere deserve credit for recognizing the trends and taking action. What’s important for these and other leaders to recognize, however, is that their work is just beginning.
Did you use this article in your work?
We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how
