In the last post on this blog, in which I argued it was a mistake for large districts like Chicago to carry out mass school closings, readers expressed strong opinions on the issue of closure. The post was also published on Anthony Cody’s blog, Living in Dialog over on Education Week, and you can read all the comments there.  Dialog is important, and its important to listen to each other’s points of view.

Disconnected from the Real World

The Real World?

One commenter wrote “Mr. Hassard’s commentary is extremely disconnected from the real world. Where is Chicago going to get the money to maintain all the current neighborhood schools? Every building has its own fixed costs that don’t depend on the numbers of students; you simply can’t keep open every low-enrollment school.” The reader concludes that “bottom line is that every public operation, like every private one, has a bottom line.  ‘Deep ecology’ won’t pay teacher salaries, the costs of books, or utility bills.”

Another reader agreed with this view and went on to say: “First off, Chicago has 54 schools set for closing. The average capacity of these 54 schools is 51%. 51%! All these buildings essentially half empty. A school board’s first priority is to their students but they’re also responsible to the taxpayers in their district, the one’s responsible for footing the bill (or at least what they can afford) for the operation of their schools. So how, in all good conscience, can a school board even attempt to rationalize keeping all those half empty schools open? They can’t.”

Other readers had different ideas about the purpose of schooling and how closing schools impacts more than the “bottom line.”

Connected to the Real World

Closing schools might save a school district money (although there is evidence reported in a Pew Study that contradicts this) but the effect on people who live in the communities of the closed schools is much more extreme.   Another reader commented that  “not only are Traditional Public Schools part of the ecology of a community, within the buildings themselves exists an ecosystem essential for sustainable success for the at-risk, poor, black and latino youth most likely attending “failing”/closing schools.”  Mary Conway-Spiegel, the writer of this comment, went on to explain how closing schools affects students, especially those children needing support and encouragement.

Closing “failing” schools closes off the Love most of our neediest children desperately need and rely upon. This love is demonstrated in so many small and large ways throughout a day in a “failing” school they are too many to count. I’ll name a few: an oasis of safety from unbearable home lives, three meals plus snacks, warmth in the winter, boundaries, positive role models…and so so so much more.  When we deny our neediest children positive connections to school, when we forget that at the very center of education is Love – a Love of learning–it’s akin to clear cutting a beautiful forest.

Another reader raised a number of questions that she thought should be discussed among the school boards ordering the closings and the constituents of the schools marked for closing.  And, the reader wonders if 13% of Chicago’s schools are so under-enrolled, why is that?  She writes, “ If that many have fallen into that state of disrepair, there is a larger problem here then under-enrollment. That indicates a deeper, systemic problem.”

According to the Mayor of Chicago, (who appoints members to the Chicago Board of Education), the issue of which schools will be closed is settled.  Yet, the districts plans to hold discussions with citizens in the affected areas.  A little late, I would think.

The CEO of the Chicago School District made what I thought was an odd statement.  According to an article in Education Week, Barbara Byrd-Bennett, the school system’s chief executive officer, released a statement Wednesday, saying,

I fully support the rights of individuals to express their opinion and as a former teacher and principal who has lived through school closings, I know this is not easy for our communities. But as CEO of this district, I need to make decisions that put our children first.

Student Voice

Students might see this kind of decision-making differently.  Here is how one adolescent student (now a college student) takes issue with the point of the view of administrators who make decisions to close their schools.  The student’s name is Melissa Kissoon, a 21-year-old graduate of Franklin K. Lane High School in Brooklyn. She is also a youth leader with Future of Tomorrow and the Urban Youth Collaborative.  These comments were made by Ms. Kissoon during a conference on school closings.  Her high school, Lane High School, Brooklyn, NY, went though major changes while she was a high school student, and was phased out and replaced by other schools. She writes:

As we know, most students who have gone through a similar situation to this, are low-income students of color, primarily Black and Latino, as well as West Indian and other targeted groups.  The zone schools we go to are usually the low-performing ones.The higher performing schools are the specialized high schools or high schools with high-income students that are mostly for more privileged kids compared to those in neighborhood public schools. This creates an ongoing cycle, because it is hard to become privileged when you come from a poor education system. And this is the mentality of most students, which is honestly why most students give up on school so quickly. When school districts close schools, they are sending a message to low-income students of color that is: “We’re going to give up on you, and not supporting you.” And it is understandable that the DoE may assume phasing out a school is actually improving the schools in the long-term, but what about the current students?  In a recent report made by the Urban Youth Collaborative, UYC, of the 21 phased-out high schools in New York City, the 33,000 students who were in their final years, only 9,592 actually graduated. In schools the dropout rates were high, including my own and at another school, the drop out rate reached 70% in the year the school closed.

Although I graduated and I’m in college now this is not a typical situation of a student who has come from a high school phase out. I can honestly say, I look back at the last four years of my life and I feel robbed of my high school experience. My school was no longer MY school; I was basically being kicked out of a school that made a promise to support me and give me all I need to graduate. Students must be consulted about the use and future use of their school. We must be included in decisions about OUR education.

Melissa Kissoon believes that student’s voices need to be heard when changes are made to a school’s future.  In a research study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, entitled Closing Public Schools in Philadelphia: Lessons from Six Urban Districts, one of the most important finds was that of giving voice to constituents in the affected school zones, and that the board of education was willing to make changes when compelling arguments were made.  Unfortunately in Chicago, discussions with parents will only take place after the decision was made to close schools.

Dialog before Decisions are Made

Although the Pew Study reported that public acceptance went up when school officials acted on the following recommendations, there still remain deeper questions about why so many low achieving schools are being closed.

• presented the case for downsizing as early in the process as possible;
• hired outside experts to help guide the process;
• established clear, quantifiable criteria for deciding which schools to close;
• showed a willingness to make some adjustments in the announced list of targeted schools when faced with compelling arguments; and
• made the decision on the entire plan with a single vote and not separate votes on each school.

Low achieving schools are those schools whose students don’t do well on mandated multiple-choice end-of-the-year examinations. The focus on this single variable as the measure of school effectiveness makes it almost impossible for many urban schools to make the mark set by bureaucrats who have perhaps never been involved with schools in high poverty communities.

As I write this post, the New York Times reported that a court in Fulton County, Georgia has indicted 35 former Atlanta Public School educators, including the former Superintendent of Schools, Beverly T. Hall.  According to the Times report, “Dr. Hall, who retired in 2011, was charged with racketeering, theft, influencing witnesses, conspiracy and making false statements. Prosecutors recommended a $7.5 million bond for Dr. Hall; she could face up to 45 years in prison.”  This is a grotesque continuation of the “Atlanta cheating scandal,” that was one of the unintended outcomes of the standards-based and high-stakes testing environment.  The effectiveness of schools is now reduced to test scores, and teaching at its highest is teaching to the test.

Because we have continued to use standardized test scores to check how schools are doing educating our children and youth, we have blinded ourselves from the humanistic side of schooling.  For students, school will always be more than taking a test.  Yet, we pull a fast one on students by using the very tests that they are required to take, and if they attend schools where many of the kids simply don’t do well on these things, the authorities pull the rug out from under them by closing the school.  What’s the lesson here?

What do you think about the school closing issue in contemporary American education?