The United States
Once a school is gone, it changes the fabric of the community and city forever.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the United States, where the closure and merger of schools was followed by lower academic achievement, increased school violence and a growing disconnect between school and community. These negative outcomes are consistent and well documented in hundreds of locations where mergers occurred (Cotton 2001, 1-4; Bailey 2000 1-5; Schmidt, Murray and Nguyen 2007, 60; Wasley and Lear 2001, 22).
As a result, school districts across the U.S. today face significant challenges as they struggle to recreate the pattern of smaller neighbourhood schools of the past. Chicago has targeted the development of high schools of no more than 500 students, and elementary schools of no more than 350 (Chicago Public Schools 2007). New York is in the midst of a process of breaking up its large high schools into schools of 300-600 students. These are just two examples of the neighbourhood school revival.
The fruits are clear: already New York’s 47 converted schools register significantly higher graduation rates than the city’s larger schools (Pytel 2006). But the challenges are many. One of the first barriers is the permanent loss of former schools buildings, replaced by condos and strip malls. Districts like Chicago and Portland face the prospect of rebuilding. In New York, administrators have been forced to build ‘schools within schools,’ literally dividing up the former mega-school buildings (Pytel 2006). The results are mixed, falling short of the ideal of neighbourhood schools. Other districts face the challenge of convincing school administrators to give up their large-scale domains (Cotton 2001, 48). In all cases, turning back the clock is a highly difficult task that doubtless leaves many school administrators and taxpayers wishing they had never created larger schools in the first place.
Ontario
No school should be merged or closed without very serious research into the long term implications. In some other jurisdictions, this is a matter of legislation. Ontario’s Education Act, for example allows a full review of the impacts before a school is closed. The Education Ministry’s Pupil Accommodation Review Guidelines state:
…school boards are required to develop a generic School Valuation Framework that assesses each of the following four consideration about the school(s) being reviewed:·
Value to the student·
Value to the community
Value to the school board
Value to the local economy
(Ontario Ministry of Education 2006)
The guidelines further state: “The assessment is to weigh the value of the school(s) to the student above the other considerations” (Ontario Ministry of Education 2006). The valuation markers cover a wide variety socio-economic of factors, ranging from student academic outcomes to the school’s provision of open space within a community.
A joint board-community Accommodation Review Committee is tasked with overseeing the assessment, ensuring full public access to all related documents, and inviting public input. Of note, the Committee’s guidelines include a requirement of 60 days’ notice before public meetings commence, to ensure the public has adequate time to review the documents and prepare responses.
Saskatchewan does not offer such legislative protection of the rights of students and communities faced with major changes to their schools. Although the Board is not bound by legislation to carry out a full valuation of schools, we urge the Trustees to nonetheless demand a very high standard of targeted investigation before any school is closed.
REFERENCES
Baily, Jon. The Case for Small Schools. Wathill, NE: Centre for Rural Affairs. January 2000.
Chicago Public Schools. “Small Schools: Building Designs.” http://smallschools.cps.k12.il.us/buildings.html (accessed Jan. 14, 2008).
Cotton, Kathleen. New Small Learning Communities: Findings from Recent Literature. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Dec. 2001. http://www3.scasd.org/small_schools/nlsc.pdf (accessed Jan. 14, 2008).
Ontario. Ministry of Education. Pupil Accommodation Review Guidelines. Oct. 31, 2006.
Pytel, Barbara. “NYC Small Schools Improve: Skeptics Have Been Proven Wrong.” http://educationalissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/nyc_small_schools_improve (accessed Jan. 14, 2008).
Schmidt, Michele, et. al. “Cohesive Communities, Improved Outcomes: A Case for Small Schools.” Education Canada. 47:4 Fall 2007, 59-62.
Wasley, Patricia A. and Richard J. Lear. “Small Schools, Real Gains.” Educational Leadership. Assoc. for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 58:6. March 2001. 22-27.