When
the city school district held a series of public forums last fall to put
together a list of school-closing criteria, almost nobody showed.
That
surprised officials at the time, but no one’s surprised by the amount of
attention being paid now that those criteria are being implemented.
Facing
permanently declining enrollment, the district embarked on a process to discern
how much space it will need — and where — for the foreseeable future.
Last
fall, as part of that “facilities modernization” process, the district
appointed a School and Community Advisory Committee to establish the
building-closure criteria and apply them to the city’s elementary schools. The
committee reported back to the district’s Joint Facilities Modernization Board
and released results to local media outlets at a press conference last
Wednesday.
Those
results — the recommendation that 16 schools in 15 buildings be considered in
the next round of closings — sparked plenty of reaction from district parents
and the teachers’ union. (Phone calls to Rochester Teachers’ Association
President Adam Urbanski weren’t returned for this article.) Chief among the
criticisms: the district didn’t include academic performance as a criterion.
But
when the committee first released the draft criteria to City Newspaper in November (see “Closing time for city schools,”
November 17, 2004), academic performance made the list.
Board
member Rob Brown says he doesn’t know when it was taken off the list or by
whom, but he does know why.
“We’re
talking about facility utilization, and that’s different from students, staff,
and academic programs,” he says. “We’re now formally — and properly —
separating them.”
That’s
a theme taken up again and again by people involved in the process. Lesley
Johnson, a parent rep on the committee, explained why she welcomed the
distinction between buildings and programs.
“I
was very pleased in learning that only buildings will be closed, but certain
programs that are in certain schools will be able to be moved and kept intact,”
she says. “As a parent that was a concern of mine, and I know there are many
other parents who are going to have that same concern.”
Perhaps
with that in mind, Johnson urged parents to seek accurate information as an
antidote to panic.
“I
just hope that they come and ask questions at the meetings that the district’s
having,” she says.
Right from the
start,
district officials have tried to emphasize the distinction between closing
schools and ending programs. Brown first addressed this at an August board
committee meeting that launched the district’s long-term planning process —
and short-term school closings plan (see “Lesson plan,” August 11, 2004).
The
fact that this year’s school-building closures are part of a larger, long-term
facilities overhaul played a role in the decision to ignore academic
achievement, explains another participant.
“We
consciously did not look at achievement, because buildings and student
achievement are two very different things,” says Bill Sullivan, who sat on the
advisory committee.
“Some
people say ‘School 23 is a high-achieving school.’ Sure it is. No question
about it. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s on a small site that’s got
some serious constraints and needs X number of dollars put into it and has Y
percentage of kids from the neighborhood and Z economic reuse possibilities.”
Critics
of the recommendations have also complained that releasing a list of far more
schools than will actually be closed amounts to an unwarranted scare tactic.
Approaching
the problem with the long-term facilities plan in mind, Sullivan offers a
different perspective.
“In
essence what we did was take 24 schools off the table,” he says. “I think the
committee put together a pretty solid analysis of what the criteria should be
for determining whether a school is more likely to need to be closed than
others. This is all premised on the fact that we have a ton of extra seats.”
The
district’s school buildings have space for 46,709 students, but only slightly
more than 35,000 are enrolled. That number is projected to shrink to about
28,000 during the next decade, according to school officials.
“So
something’s gotta be closed,” Sullivan says. “This is not just us saying ‘Let’s
go out and close 15 schools.’ We tried to give the board and superintendent
some flexibility.”
That
push for flexibility led to another important decision:
“The
committee felt strongly about not giving a ranked list to the facilities
modernization board and superintendent,” says Chief Planning Officer Jana
Carlisle, who’s a leader in the process. That decision shows the committee
recognizes the complexity of the task, she says.
“You
all know the district is not going to close 16 schools,” Carlisle told a row of
expectant TV cameras at the outset of last Wednesday’s press conference. But
while it’s not likely that many schools will be closed this year, the committee’s recommendations are intended to stand well into the future. Asked how permanent
they are, Sullivan responded, “We believe that this will inform the district
for the next several years.”
That
doesn’t mean, though, that every school on the list will be shuttered by the
time the facilities plan runs its course, he adds. The geographic distribution
of buildings throughout the city is one example Sullivan gives: “Almost all the
schools in the Southeast are on there, but they’re not gonna close all those
schools.”
Right now,
though,
few people outside Central Office are thinking about long-term overhauls;
anxiety is focused on which schools will be closed this year. Already parents
and community groups are organizing “save our schools” campaigns.
But
if there are any schools that are definite targets for closure this year, the
district isn’t tipping its hand. The official line is that Superintendent Manny
Rivera’s staff will take the recommendations as a starting point, and then
conduct further study before culling the list down to a final one to present to
the school board next month.
Even
the length of the list is unknown. Figures ranging from one to five buildings
(and even 10) have been batted about. But given the complexity of the decisions
they’re faced with, district officials say that’s idle speculation.
“There
are certain deep kinds of analyses that have to be undertaken to look at
capacity in a particular zone, to look at how students might be dispersed and
absorbed into and among school sites,” says Carlisle. “That’s why we’ve been
loathe to give out a number, because there’s a lot of different ways this could
play out.”
The
district is holding three public hearings on the advisory committee’s
recommendations (each runs from 6 to 8 p.m.): Thursday, February 3, at
Frederick Douglass Preparatory School, 940 Fernwood Park; Monday, February 7,
at James Madison High School of Excellence, 200 Genesee Street; Wednesday,
February 9, East High School, 1801 East Main Street. Call 262-8363 to sign up
to speak. Child care for children 3 and older will be available. Info:
www.rcsdk12.org.
This article appears in Jan 19-25, 2005.
