This past entry, "National Community Planning Month: Schools as neighborhood anchors," discusses how I think schools fail to embrace a planning approach to what they do, and how communities fail to prioritize elementary schools as key civic assets anchoring thriving neighborhoods.
I think it's pretty common that most school districts don't have robust planning functions.
Sure they have demographic enrollment planning functions, but big issues like the use of special curricula (beyond "arts" and STEM) as a way to recruit and retain students (eg language immersion, IB, math), how to deal with the competition from charter and private schools, how to maintain strong connections between neighborhoods and schools, especially as the number of families drops, how to help schools market, etc. are planning initiatives not really taken up in systematic ways.
Obviously it's not a new finding that high quality schools track to housing values etc. So these kinds of planning decisions can really matter to communities.
Salt Lake. A friend of mine here is a school teacher, and we've talked for many years about school "planning" issues, I've shared with her past writings, etc. In short Salt Lake school "planning" is not unlike school "planning" in DC in that few urban/school planners seem to be on the staff of the school district.
Eg a few months back I went to a high school rebuilding meeting (the site shares the square on which Sugar House Park lies, and I am on the board of the park), and I was appalled that the leader of the school system "planning" initiative was a well experienced teacher/administrator, but with zero formal planning background--they contract out a lot to architectural firms, but miss many issues that go beyond facilities. That was typical of DC too.
Anyway, Salt Lake has to close some elementary schools, because enrollment is dropping commensurate with the demographic changes common to center cities--more residents, many no children households, smaller households with fewer children--so that even as population increases, school enrollment decreases.
-- Population and Boundary Study, Salt Lake Ciy Schools
This is different from the issue of how many traditionally urban school districts are closing schools in part because of enrollment issues, but also over quality issues, with the idea that the schools that close aren't performing academically, and that students will benefit by re-enrolling in better schools.
There are many good writings about that, how students don't necessarily perform better when schools are closed and they relocate, and the impacts on neighborhoods.
This makes sense to me, based on the chapter of "use value of place," in Urban Fortunes: Towards a Political Economy of Place. A lot is lost when neighborhood institutions shut, and relationships are disturbed and redistributed.
-- Should Failing Schools be Closed? What the Research Shows, Manhattan Institute
Which is why I argue that sometimes, maybe it's better to invest in existing schools and keep them open, despite smaller enrollments, as a kind of equity planning measure.
-- "One way in which community planning is completely backwards," 2011
-- "Missing the most important point about Clifton School closure in Fairfax County," 2011
-- "Rethinking community planning around maintaining neighborhood civic assets and anchors," 2011
-- "The bilingual Key Elementary School in Arlington County as another example of the "upsidedownness" of community planning," 2019
-- "Social urbanism and equity planning as a way to address crime, violence, and persistent poverty: (not in) DC," 2021
-- "An outline for integrated equity planning: concepts and programs," 2017
-- "Equity planning: an update," 2020
The Salt Lake school system has been called wasteful by the state government because they haven't been proactive in closing schools, and simultaneously a number of school districts in the region have been closing schools as the population shifts from east to west (surprisingly Salt Lake is an outlier, here the issue isn't east to west migration, but the increase of households without children, especially in the center city).
Salt Lake schools face more competition than a typical school district in other states, because the State of Utah has open enrollment across school district borders--although it doesn't seem to affect the city that much. Acording to demographic data, it captures most of the students living within the city.
(Interestingly, the high schools don't face closure--in fact they are planning to rebuild two of the three--because they get a lot of in-bound students from nearby school districts, a benefit of the state open enrollment policy.)
On the other hand, the school charter movement isn't strong in Utah, despite the best efforts of the State Legislature (which face it, compared to political efforts elsewhere, aren't very "best"--if they tried hard they could destroy public schools, but probably in general the average person of means is fine with the public schools, so there isn't great pressure to wreck them, other than particularly highly motivated interest groups), but there are some charter schools in the city nonetheless, which capture students, as well as a number of well regarded religious and private schools (some for profit!), that capture many students as well.
1. School versus school competition to remain open
My friend has made the point that as the school district has identified schools facing closure, based on 12 criteria, what happens is that this pits school communities against each other to "save our school," creating winners and losers and animus even though in the end, the student populations and parents will be joined together, regardless of which particular school is closed.
Note that the dissertation "Where Is the CommUNITY? A Qualitative Case Study of a School Closure in an Urban School District" evaluating the closure of a declared underperforming school in Colorado illustrates the rancor that results when the process isn't developed in a collaborative way.
My friend suggests that the process be organized in a collaborative way. It hasn't been but the school district has organized the process into four "areas," that don't necessarily map to city council districts, but in a more natural pattern of how the schools, neighborhoods, and communities interact.
2. Integration planning should be the top priority resulting in robust highly functioning "receiving" schools
I went with her to a public meeting on this process a couple weeks ago, and one of the consultants mentioned that it usually takes two to four years for schools and neighborhoods to reach a new equilibrium after schools are closed and student populations consolidated.
-- "Chicago promised students would do better after closing 50 schools. That didn’t happen," Chicago Sun-Times
-- "School Closings: Challenges for Students, Communities, and Litigators," American Bar Association
I immediately thought that integration planning should be going on now, not specific to any one school, but to the process of combining schools so that students, families, teachers, and administrators can combine and work together in the best, substantive, and "quickest" possible ways, resulting in thriving schools that don't take four years to recover and stabilize.
Starting the transition planning process in January or February, once final decisions have been made on what schools to close, seems very late in the process and too circumscribed in terms of time.
Fortunately, an article, "Surviving a School Closing," from Educational Leadership, published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, describing the closure of a school in a school district in Upstate New York, and all the measures to unite the students and families by the "receiving school" with the support of the "closing school," lays out a robust framework for student and classroom consolidation.
Of course such practice is complicated by politics, but also labor contracts with teachers and other personnel, and that sense of winners and losers, In the article, they really tried to move away from the idea of winning and losing.
I remember when I was a child in Pontiac Schools, which had bus bombings in an attempt to ward off integration a year before, and they had us sixth graders at the end of the year visit the junior high schools where we would be going in the fall.
I think that a lot of schools do this kind of pre year introduction as students move from elementary to middle/junior school. If not they should.
-- Transitioning From Elementary to Middle School, University of Hawai'i
Labels: change-innovation-transformation, civic assets, neighborhood planning, provision of public services, public education/K-12, school system planning