Tucked
away between Hickory and Gregory Streets in the city’s South Wedge neighborhood
sits a beautifully restored school. Students no longer attend classes here,
though. The building’s classrooms have been given new life as upscale
condominiums. What was formerly an administrator’s office was recently
advertised for a price just south of six figures.
Reused
buildings like these — taken out of commission by the Rochester City School
District — can often become key anchors in a community whose children they
once served, helping to bolster revitalization efforts.
“You
have people who are living there now and who are probably buying stuff on South
Avenue and are participating in the community,” says Dan Buyer, executive
Director of the South Wedge Planning Committee. “Plus you’re getting the
property back on the tax rolls,” he says, an important step in the resurgence
of any area.
The
district will consider the possible afterlife of each of its buildings —
among many other factors — as it begins to plan for its real estate needs.
And
in about a month, officials will announce which schools they plan to close.
The
last time the district did this, the ensuing outcry forced officials to
partially back down from their stated plans. This time around, though, it’s the
silence that’s been deafening. A series of public forums designed to give
parents and community members input in the school-closure process have gone
largely unattended.
“We’re
quite surprised that more people aren’t paying attention,” says the district’s
Chief Communications Officer Barbara Jarzyniecki. “We thought we’d get more
people at these forums.”
That’s
particularly perplexing to school officials, because more than just a year’s
round of closings is at stake. Even as it makes plans to close buildings in the
coming year, the district is embarking on a long-term planning process (looking
forward at least 10 years, possibly longer) for managing, upgrading, and in
some cases jettisoning, its facilities.
For
the 2004-2005 academic year, the Rochester City School District has an
enrollment of 35,087 students. The district’s figures show that number steadily
declining over the next decade to a figure just above 28,000 in 2013-2014.
Meanwhile, the state sets the total capacity of the district’s 51 instructional
buildings at 46,709, according to Director of Educational Facilities Tom Keysa.
Ideally, the number of students and the space available would coincide for a
perfect 100 percent usage rate, but “for all practical purposes, it’s not an
attainable number,” says Keysa. The district aims for about 85 percent in its
secondary schools and 90 percent at the elementary level, says Keysa before
adding, “We’re below those numbers.”
In
fact, the district is at about 75 percent. If the district’s enrollment
projections hold true and no buildings are closed, that figure will drop to 60
percent in a decade.
For
a district desperate to save money using any means, those numbers might seem to
tell the whole story. But that’s not so, says Keysa, who’s reluctant to dump
any of the district’s buildings just yet. Recently, he points out, all the
elementary schools got separate spaces for art and music programs.
“That’s
something we want to see,” he says.
Keysa
may get his wish, at least in the short term. In order to undertake its
ambitious plan to upgrade most of its buildings, the district will need
so-called “swing space” — buildings that can temporarily absorb the overflow
of students from other schools that are closed for a year’s worth of
renovations. Closing a building, even for renovation, will save the district
money, Keysa says.
But
eventually, Keysa concedes, the district will likely have to close some schools
permanently.
“There’s
a great deal of pressure that’s starting to come into play politically to close
buildings,” he says. “I don’t think, personally, that that’ll be the wisest
decision, initially.” Misgivings aside, Keysa and the rest of the district are
putting their faith in the process.
“It
might just be very clear through this process that there is a need to close
schools,” he says.
Closure
criteria
As
of press time, these were the five tentative criteria city school district
officials planned to use as they decide which buildings to renovate and which
to shut down:
• Reuse
potential: The
district will weigh the benefits to local neighborhoods of reused school
buildings — for housing, recreation, business — against the benefits of
keeping those schools open.
• Overall
state of buildings: The district will look at the age and structural soundness
of school buildings in determining whether they could accommodate future
expansion or renovation.
• Financial
considerations: Some school buildings cost the district more to operate and
maintain than others. School officials plan to crunch the numbers to find out
which ones are likely to cost the district the most in the long term,
accounting for future renovations and state aid for capital projects.
• Academic
performance: Despite the school board’s intent to evaluate the district’s
academic programs and buildings separately, current ratings in core subjects,
like math and English, and their trends will play a role in the decision-making
process.
• Student
enrollment: Using birth-rate data, enrollment trends, and the popularity
of each school (through school-choice data), officials will try to establish
patterns that will predict which buildings and neighborhoods will have the most
demand for class space.
This article appears in Nov 17-23, 2004.
