Breakout Group Report: School Closings & Consolidations

21stCenturySchool Fund 10/27/04 Community Mtg on DC Public School Facilities

(Facilitator: Nancy Huvendick, 21CSF)

Discussion on Banneker SHS Controversy

The group discussed the controversy surrounding Banneker SHS, which was represented at the meeting by several parents, teachers, administrators and alumni. The controversy stemmed from spreading speculation that the school might be a good candidate to move into excess spaceat McKinley Tech, for collocation purposes. Patricia Tucker, Banneker’s principal, had been approached by the previous head of DCPS Facilities with this idea, and there had also been discussion within the senior high planning group. Comments concerning the idea had also been part of the report from the May 2004 community meeting on DC public schools facilitieshosted by 21CSF.

In this group session, parents, alumni and teachers were adamant that Banneker had no desire to move, explaining that the program is strong and expanding; partnerships are long-standing;and the facility problems are not insurmountable. The program is small by design, not because it is losing population. Figures showinga drop-off in DCPS overall enrollment, particularly at the elementary level, should have no effect on Banneker’s viability. There was a call to look at graduation rates and the viability of programs rather than student numbers when evaluating school success. DCPS Facilities office representatives reiterated that there was currently no plan to move Banneker.

Need for Clear and TransparentProcess for Closings/Consolidations

Need was expressed for a transparent and clear process on the part of the administration. It is evidence of a fundamental failure of trust between the local schools and the administration present around this issue. It also pointed to the need for local school communities to be pro-active and strategic about their school’s future. Participants cited the co-location of charter schools at Elliot and Evans and the attempt at co-location at Van Ness as examples of failures on the part of the administration to adhere to a process or involve the local school community.

Fundamental Issue of Education, not Facilities

Discussion took place in the context of the continued downward spiral of DCPS student enrollment, particularly at the elementary level with inevitable pressure for consolidations. However, there was one voice in favor of more space for schools, not less, citing the need for more specialized spaces for technology, etc. There was strong feeling that any consideration of how or when to consolidate one school into another is fundamentally a question for experts on education rather than experts on facilities, economic development or demographics. Participants questioned the lack of representation in this discussion from the academic side of the administration.

Consideration for Neighborhoods, Families and School Communities

There was general agreement that community involvement is necessary at all stages of consideration; open hearings were mentioned as just one requirement. Clear criteria for closings/consolidations were seen as essential. The long view of the effect of closing a school has to be studied and considered before any action is taken. A school where enrollment trends are down might be put on a watch list for a few years and afforded extra program assistance and facility enhancements as part of an effort to draw more students.

Thorough, formal impact statements should be required. The group listed some of the things to be studied in depth:

  • Academic impact on programs and resources
  • Continuity of the institution for students, families, teachers, administrators
  • Facilities, including necessary adaptations at the receiving school; need for more custodians, etc.
  • Neighborhood impact, what will happen to the building
  • Historical importance of the school should be a consideration
  • Partnerships and local relationships should be considered
  • Student travel patterns, street crossings have to be studied
  • Metro and bus accessibility should be considered
  • Fiscal impact on operating costs; facilities costs; administrative costs

Reluctance for Co-location

There has been great reluctance equally from charter schools and regular public schools to co-locate with another school. It was noted that regular public schools seem to have successfully co-located with other regular public schools in need of temporary swing space (Patterson at PR Harris; Wheatley at Shadd). Successful co-locations, even for swing space, require careful program coordination and a clear delineation of administrative responsibilities. Exit plans for co-locations may be as important as the initial planning for sharing space.

It was thought that co-locating schools of similar age groups might be most difficult. A representative from Hyde charter school, cited the great difficulty of scheduling specialty spaces - - cafeteria, athletic fields, auditoriums, etc. - - as a real deterrent to co-locating high schools. It was generally thought that co-locations with related non-school entities or related services such as day care centers would be most successful.

CharterSchool Facilities Needs

Charter schools were strongly defended as public schools serving the same students as DCPS and equally in need of access to decent facilities. Empty, derelict closed schools were not seen as a community problem any longer because charter schools would quickly put the buildings back into operation. One asset to a DCPS school co-locating with a charter would be that the revenue from any lease to a charter would go directly back to the host school and could be used to enhance programs or the facility.

Session Summary

There was considerable contention and very little consensus. The need for transparent process and community involvement was clear and the failure in these respects was a source of great anxiety and resentment. The group wanted a more in-depth review of policies on these issues.