School Beat: The Continuing School Closure Saga

by Lisa Schiff, 2005-12-08

San Francisco's public school community has been focused this week on the disturbing task of closing more schools. There is no way to make this easy. We are simply in a miserable position.
Palatable or not, there are two realities that must be faced-declining enrollment and revenue shortfalls. Enrollment and finances can be looked at in the context of a moment in time, as we are doing now, but they can also be assessed as part of a continuum-where have been and where are we going?

In other words, the decision about which schools and programs to close or relocate should be made in the context of a larger plan for our district that specifies where we see our district headed in the future (demographics and population and revenue projections), what kinds of educational environments our students will need (programs, school sizes, types of schools) the current reality (number of students, their needs, finances), and how to get from here to there.

A plan would help us determine priorities for these decisions, because it would bring together many, but not all, of the interdependent factors that must be kept concurrently in mind. Just some of these include:
. Programs the district is committed to, such as language programs, where they are placed and how they will continue and expand or be evaluated and phased out.
. The types of schools we want. Speaker after speaker at the school board meeting on Tuesday testified to the efficacy of small schools at all academic levels. A plan is a vehicle for structured support for these kinds of efforts.
. A new student assignment plan, which directly or indirectly is shaped by where students live.
. Projections for applications and enrollment, but equally important, projections for the school-age population for the City going into the future, especially if there is success in making the City more "family friendly." School Board President Eric Mar mentioned that we would see a continued decline of 800 to 1000 students per year until 2011. By contrast, a member of the public noted that the number of births in San Francisco has increased in the last several years, indicating a potential future increase in the number of students seeking school spots. We need a clearer picture of what to expect.
. The value of the currently required site-based decision making and associated school site plans. Will site-based resource allocation decisions, such as limiting class sizes, will be respected and if not, what exactly will school site councils (a school's governing body) be empowered to do?

A plan would also help us determine the target number of school spots, in which kinds of programs, at different points in time. This is turn could inform such plans as leasing property. It would also give us a structure in which to think about a variety of other issues with potential financial implications, such as the continued use of those infamous bungalows, which maybe we need to consider eliminating. One community member has pointed out that we may in fact be spending a significant slice of unrestricted general funds leasing bungalows.

Finally, a plan would increase the chances that difficult, trauma producing decisions such as closing schools would not have to be an annual exercise, but could be worked out for a chunk of time. People are at odds as to whether this year's more open process of figuring out the closure strategy has been better or worse. Given the communication problems and the overall lack of transparency in our district, it's difficult to see what other options exist. We, the people at the schools, are a key part of the check and balance dynamic in this system, painful though it may be.

But we should lessen the disruption as much as possible. For instance, specific dates for making the decisions should be established immediately and should provide affected families enough time to meaningfully participate in the enrollment process.

Some of us just recently grasped that the final word on school closures is not set to be made until the January 10th Board of Education meeting, just 3 days away from the January 13th deadline to submit applications for the first round of student assignments. This time frame is unreasonable for currently enrolled families. Board members should consider the feasibility of making their decision at next week's board meeting instead.
Further, if there is any hint that we will be facing this decision again next year, a Community Advisory Committee should be established to help improve the process and generate new approaches.

In addition to creating a plan for our district, another step to take would be to bring these decisions into the context of other related planning efforts in the City. Planning around the core issues of housing, jobs and neighborhood development is constantly underway in the City. Schools are a factor in and are affected by all of these issues. Our school leaders should be involved in these discussions.

Right now in particular there are opportunities to develop more affordable and appropriate housing for low-income families (see Randy Shaw's "Will San Francisco Create a Child-Friendly Affordable Housing Law?" article in the 12/6/2005 edition of BeyondChron). Not only will this have an impact on the number and location of schools needed in the future, but it is also an opportunity for our district to weigh in and support the routing of resources necessary to keep our school families in San Francisco.

Lisa Schiff is the parent of two children who attend McKinley Elementary School in the San Francisco Unified School District and is the president of the board of directors of Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco (http://www.ppssf.org).