A Leg Up or a Boot Out?

In the effort to achieve both efficiency and performance in the urban public school setting, a new strategy has arisen. This strategy is most commonly known as school closings but may also be referred to as school restructuring or school turnaround efforts. No matter the moniker, the purpose is the same. The school is under-performing, and officials decide something drastic has to change. The under-performing school may then be completely closed, or it may be temporarily closed — usually over a summer — and reopened under completely new leadership, with new staff and teachers.

This latter option describes what happened to the schools Umut Özek, Michael Hansen, and Thomas Gonzalez studied in their paper, “A Leg Up or a Boot Out? Student Achievement and Mobility under School Restructuring.” The driving research question of the authors’ June 2012 working paper asks how school closures affect outcomes — whether students get a ‘leg up’ (improved outcomes) or a ‘boot out’ (increased mobility) as a result of school restructuring.

Three main reasons exist for school closings and consolidations. First, school enrollment trends in urban centers in northeastern states and the Midwest have dropped by 17 percent over the past decade, a long-term trend accelerated by the economic crisis. Second, a rapid increase in the number of urban charter schools means an inherent decrease in public school enrollment. Finally, “No Child Left Behind” and other federal programs are demanding performance, or else. Combined, these factors mean school closures have become a major part of the urban education policy landscape.

The methodology of the paper includes an evaluation of student achievement and mobility outcomes after the 2008 large-scale restructuring effort in Washington, D.C.’s schools, under then-Chancellor of Schools, Michelle Rhee. Correlation is found between declining-enrollment schools and poorly performing schools, so, as a result, the authors argue they offer findings relevant to “understanding how accountability-induced closures may affect students.”

The authors document student outcomes in schools that underwent the closure process in Washington, D.C., in grades 3-8 and 10 over four school years, 2006-07 through 2009-10. The results indicate that students “showed lower achievement in the year of the announcement before the closures took place (Spring 2008) and in the year following the closure implementation (Spring 2009).”

However, the authors add that “in spite of this large, adverse effect in the short term, the estimates for student achievement in the second year following closure (Spring 2010) show no statistically significant difference from zero.” These findings are not dissimilar from other bodies of research. La Torre and Gwynne (2009) and Engberg et al (2011) both found decreases in achievement in the years immediately following closures but “no effect” in the following years. This is an interesting finding, as one of the major reasons for school closure or consolidation is the desire for the reopened school to turn out higher achievement outcomes.

The authors then move to investigating three different forms of mobility: “residential mobility, mobility to 20 charter schools, and mobility out of the local public school system entirely.” Their findings show none of the outcomes increase as a result of closures and restructuring.

Policy implications are mixed. The authors caution against swift action regarding school closings because, while there is no long-term adverse impact, performance loss occurs in the years immediately after the closings or consolidations. Further, no significant academic performance or mobility gains have been found in the years following school closings to date.

Feature Photo: cc/Rainier N.