I believe that persistently failing schools should be closed and replaced by expanded high-performing schools and new schools that have the DNA for success. Some cities are going about this process thoughtfully, slowly rebuilding their portfolio of schools with quality in mind.
Kansas City, it appears, is definitely doing the closure part; whether they do the "thoughtfully" part is a much different story.
The district announced plans to shutter nearly half of its schools. The problem is that the primary motivation is money--the system has an enormous deficit--not student achievement. So we need to wonder if the schools chosen for closure are the lowest performing or the most expensive? Will the closures be done methodically with a constant eye on improving achievement or swiftly to reduce costs post haste?
Closures only work as a school reform tactic if they are part of a much broader, carefully developed, and deliberately implemented strategy. To date, that full strategy doesn't appear to be in place in KC.
--Andy Smarick