Letters: School closures lack clear yield

THE PROPOSED closure of 29 school buildings throughout Philadelphia represents one of the most significant education-policy challenges our region has ever confronted. The implications for the district's finances, students' academic prospects and the sense of community in dozens of neighborhoods are difficult to gauge, given the magnitude of the change.

The plan is based on two major assumptions. The district argues that savings from the closures could help fill the looming deficit and that closing chronically low-performing schools will produce greater academic opportunities. But a review of the existing research on school closings and the experience of other districts should temper expectations on both counts.

Although they are becoming increasingly common, school closures are a relatively recent policy prescription. As a result, little rigorous research exists to guide districts as they decide whether and how to close schools. While it's difficult to argue that students are well-served by inadequately-staffed buildings and outdated physical plants, the lack of research on the long-term benefits and savings of closure plans is reason to proceed cautiously.

Consider the goal of closing the budget deficit. Research shows that the majority of cost savings achieved through closings occur not through shuttering buildings but from furloughing staff, which is not an element included in the district's plan. Calculating actual savings is also complicated by the transition costs that accompany any such policy: relocating staff, transferring students, and maintenance of vacant parcels. For example, Washington D.C.'s 2008 closure of 28 buildings ended up costing the system $40 million as reported by the D.C. Auditor, a figure that exceeded the original $10 million quote.

The district's goal of improving student achievement is similarly uncertain, considering the limited research base. Studies of Chicago and Pittsburgh closures suggest that student academic performance is likely to decrease when they are transferred from closing schools. However, students fare better academically when they are transferred to higher-performing schools.

Research for Action's analysis of Philadelphia's plan reveals a mixed bag for students leaving closing schools: based on PSSA performance, 40 percent of the receiving schools perform better than those recommended for closure; 35 percent are roughly similar; and 25 percent perform worse. These are the students that we should be most concerned about.

Superintendent William R. Hite Jr.'s decision last month to revise the original school-closing plan is a good-faith effort to balance the real and pressing challenges of the district's budget crisis with the needs of those communities and students who would be most directly affected by his decisions. While the fiscal crisis will not allow a pain-free path forward, we urge the District to heed the one clear lesson to be learned from existing research: Students will do better if they are transferred to schools with strong academics and support services. While the district's revised closure plan shows flexibility and a commitment to listen to the needs of those most affected by proposed closures, more work remains to maximize the chances for success for every student.