Neighborhood Effects: The Influence on School Closures and Openings

Monday, April 28th, 2014 Katie AnthonyApril 28th, 2014 • Bookmarks: 84

In May 2013, the Chicago Board of Education announced the closure of 49 elementary schools, which was met with public outcry. Recent research shows that past closures in Chicago schools were not equally distributed across the city, but have been concentrated in disadvantaged neighborhoods where schools were also under-performing and under-enrolled. In their paper “Closing and Opening Schools: The Association between Neighborhood Characteristics and the Location of New Educational Opportunities in a Large Urban District” Julia Burdick-Will, Micere Keels, and Todd Schuble examine trends in changes due to school locations and demographics due mainly to government intervention in Chicago.

Over the last 10 years, shrinking urban populations and budgetary pressures have lead 12 major United States School districts to sell, lease, or reuse over 260 shuttered school buildings, while additional unused sites linger on the market. For the reutilized buildings, over 40 percent have converted to charter schools, even though debate continues as to whether this is best for local communities. Although school closures may be necessary to reduce budgetary deficits and consolidate district resources, their prevalence in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and the noted effects of increased segregation following the introduction of charter schools, may make school officials want to carefully consider this research examining whether these new schools will be the community anchors they had desired.

Based on Chicago’s early success with charter schools, in June 2004 then Mayor Richard M. Daley started the Renaissance 2010 initiative. This public-private partnership aimed to close low-performing public schools and replace them with 100 new mainly charter and contract schools. Although the literature shows that charter schools tend to lead to an increase in minority student segregation, Renaissance 2010 had explicitly stated goals of stabilizing mixed-income neighborhoods and drawing middle-income families to low-income neighborhoods.

Although the city of Chicago’s population is roughly 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic, whites make up only about 10 percent of the Chicago Public School’s (CPS) population. To determine what other student, school, and neighborhood characteristics influence school closures and openings, the authors use CPS, Common Core, and 1990, 2000, 2010 Census data. Statistical analysis was used to determine what demographic and locational differences might have an impact on local school closing and openings over time. Elementary schools are the focus of the study, as the majority are neighborhood schools that do not allow for citywide open enrollment.

The authors find that neighborhood indicators differ between school closures to school openings. Burdick-Will et al. point to lower school rankings, a decline in enrollment, a high number of black students, and location in a disadvantaged neighborhood as associated with Chicago school closures. Interestingly, closed schools had slightly less than average (91.5 percent versus 95.5 percent) proportions of poor students than schools that remained opened. Further, the study finds that the number of local white residents had no effect on closure status.

The majority of new schools opened in neighborhoods with high minority representation that also showed signs of socio-economic revitalization. The new schools are dispersed more widely across the city than the two main areas on the West and South sides where closures occurred. Of the schools that opened in the 2000s, 28 were neighborhood schools whose students were accepted within pre-determined spatial boundaries, while the other 56 determined admissions via a citywide lottery to which all Chicago students could apply. Neighborhoods where public schools had closed are 6.6 times more likely to have a new school open, according to the authors. A 10 percentage point decrease in white residents made a new school about 1.5 times more likely, and overall, black and Hispanic segregation increased in the new schools, as compared to CPS as a whole. Overall, new schools also had fewer students on free or reduced price lunches, which indicates these schools were either drawing middle-income students to the public school system or pulling them away from other CPS schools.

The limited number of new and open enrollment schools furthered concerns among some that CPS would become a two-tiered educational system. Burdick-Will et al.’s paper shows that some of the common trends regarding increased racial segregation in charter schools emerged with Renaissance 2010, but overall, schools were infused with a wider range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Although charter schools tended to locate in revitalizing neighborhoods, schools with explicit missions to cater to disadvantaged students help negate certain neighborhoods and populations being abandoned.

As Chicago and other urban areas grapple with what to do with their closed school buildings, they would be well-served to consider all aspects of increasing the number of charter schools into their education systems. Although it may allow more educational options for students, these advantages may not be evenly distributed throughout the entire system and can further segregation. If stratification occurs at the elementary level, it can be increasingly difficult for certain students to gain the skills needed to succeed in high school, which can decrease their likelihood to graduate and attend college.