AV#244 - Why close a school: low enrollment, or poor performance?

 

Aurora Public Schools and Denver Public Schools are intent on closing several elementary schools, not because of poor performance, but because they are too small.

There are at least two reasons to question this policy.

One, school people—unlike district folks—ask: Who decided we cannot create a good school if it “only” serves somebody’s “minimum number”? With 300 or so students, we know our kids well. In fact, by third grade, every student in the building is known, by name, to the entire faculty and staff. Don’t the kids here feel safe? Doesn’t our smaller size support the kind of climate and culture that is essential to our school mission? Is bigger always better?

They wonder, too, why APS and DPS have chosen to make school size such a priority. In the metro area, in Adams County and Jefferson County alone, more than 100 schools enroll under 350 students. Across the state, over 700 schools are this “small.” In many rural districts 350 would be a big school. In fact, over 70 Colorado school districts enroll fewer than 350 students.

I feel lucky to have taught in two nationally recognized schools enrolling fewer than 320 students. I find the case made by APS and DPS unpersuasive.

The chief reason for this new focus: Fiscal responsibility. The districts say a school must enroll a certain number of students to be “financially viable.” On Feb. 15, Aurora superintendent Rico Munn told his board: “We are doing this because of declining enrollment, so we have more space than we can efficiently use.” The district’s presentation that evening asserted: “In our current structure, small comprehensive schools are: Inefficient, Unsustainable, Inequitable.”

In theory, perhaps true. But why not ask how the students are doing.

Which is the second reason. If improving student outcomes is the chief responsibility of a school board, why set that aside in these discussions? Why did none of the district’s “Guiding Questions” on Feb. 15 connect school closure to student performance?

Only six years ago Denver put in place the School Performance Compact. Two main factors in considering closure or “restart” for a school: “Rank in the bottom 5 percent of all DPS schools based on multiple years of school ratings; [and] fail to show an adequate amount of growth on the most recent state tests.”

This policy became unpopular. The outcry over closing schools like Gilpin Montessori, Greenlee, and Amesse no doubt played a role in the “flip” of the Denver school board. Several current board members campaigned against “punishing” schools with closure.  

Last summer DPS listed 19 schools that might be under review. The state’s 2019 (pre-Covid) performance rating found three of those schools on Priority Improvement or Turnaround status, while seven earned the highest rating. No matter. All enrolled under 400 students.

More blowback. Denver’s board now supports “establishing common criteria for closure” (see box).

“Denver’s school closure criteria committee now seeking applicants”  (Chalkbeat Colorado, Jan 21, 2022)    “In November, Marrero jettisoned the list of 19 schools and switched the district’s approach. Instead of convening regional groups to make recommendations on closing specific schools, the district would form a single committee to establish common criteria for closure that could be applied to any underenrolled school.    “The district launched a webpage and opened the application process Friday for what it’s calling the Declining Enrollment Advisory Committee.”  (Bold mine)                                        Question:                                                Why not a Declining Performance Committee?

APS is even more explicit it stating what its closure policy is not. At that Feb. 15 board meeting, the district presented two approaches, one that places “a focus on individual school programs, stories, and performance.” The regional approach was preferred, “where the focus is on best utilization of resources for all students within the region.” 

So it was not surprising that the district’s 100-page power point presentation made no mention of the different student outcomes at the six schools in Region 1 under review. And yet, I would ask, if the state’s School Performance Framework lists Park Lane Elementary on Year Two on the accountability clock, why is that not a factor when making any tough decision about closure? 

APS and DPS claim their work these days is all about equity. There is, of course, more than one definition of what that means. Just before ending his term as the U.S. Secretary of Education, John B. King wrote: “We also must have the courage to hold ourselves accountable for students' success. Without accountability, standards are meaningless and equity is a charade.” 

Perhaps accountability is no longer a guiding principle. Maybe accountants, not educators, now set policy.  

Any school closure causes pain. It is infuriating when done for the wrong reason.