Prompted by declining enrollment and the impending loss of federal pandemic relief funding, school districts nationwide are wrestling with whether to close schools — and, if so, how many. Seattle is weighing a plan to close a quarter of its elementary schools. Rochester, New York, voted last fall to shut 11 of its 45 schools. San Antonio recently closed 13, with two more slated to shut their doors soon.

School closures are hardly new, but two factors make the current wave different. First, shifts to homeschooling and private schools during the pandemic exacerbated the trend of declining urban enrollment. Second, the loss of pandemic relief funds (the so-called fiscal cliff) finally forced districts to find ways to save money.

As communities across the country grapple with this challenge, my research team at the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) and I urge them to follow a handful of proven, evidence-based guidelines. These will help minimize the pain and maximize the possibility that more children will get a better education — which should be the ultimate goal.

First, don’t duck the challenge. If enrollment and funding are cratering, district leaders have no choice but to act. Children in underenrolled schools lose when they are denied services and activities, from music and art to libraries and sports, that should be a normal part of their education. Propping up underenrolled schools hurts all the other students in the district.

For example, Chicago, facing a $391 million budget deficit, plans to add nine staff members at one high school, meaning there will be 31 adults for just 35 enrolled students. Propping up a school like this forces others to make cuts. Seattle, which is debating massive closures, is not considering teacher layoffs; because staff salaries are by far the biggest cost factor in the budget, its school closure plan will resolve less than half of the district’s $129 million annual deficit.

Read the full article about school closures by Robin Lake at The 74.