State action is needed to ensure districts actually close underutilized schools

For the past six months, Columbus City Schools leadership has mulled the closure of multiple school buildings. In February, district superintendent Angela Chapman convened a task force that explored school closures, and—after much discussion—the group released in late June its final report, which includes a recommendation to close nine schools and one administrative building.

The need to evaluate its facilities footprint comes as the district has experienced enrollment declines in recent years—it’s lost 10 percent of enrollment since 2015—leaving some schools severely underenrolled. An analysis by Ohio State University professor Vlad Kogan found that the district now has more facilities (118) than other similarly-sized districts nationally. According to projections, the district would save some $90 million over the next decade if the task force plan goes into effect. These dollars could shore up district finances and perhaps help avert yet another ballot issue to raise local taxes. (Even after recent passage of a massive $100 million per-year levy, one school board member said last month, “We are going to be coming back for more money.”)

In light of the district’s enrollment woes and fiscal situation, the task force report should be taken seriously. But shortly after the report was released, the Columbus school board—the entity with authority to close schools—declined to take action. In defense, board members cited a desire for more “conversations” and “authentic engagement” with the community. While dialogue is undoubtedly important, this could easily turn into a delay tactic that kicks the closure can down the road. The board might bide its time and allow the recommendations to be ignored and forgotten—which is exactly what occurred the last time a task force examined facility usage in Columbus.

Why might the Columbus board be shy to close schools? The politics of closure—whether in Columbus or elsewhere—are indeed tough to overcome. Employee unions are almost sure to oppose them (this has been true in Columbus), and school boards, whose electoral fortunes often hinge on union endorsements, are loathe to resist their interests. Community members may also push back on proposals to close a school in their neighborhood. On the other side, few people are likely to rally in favor of shutting schools, even though research indicates that students benefit when low-performing schools are closed and they transfer to more effective ones.

Given these headwinds, it’s worth considering how state policymakers can move a closure process ahead when it becomes necessary. To be clear, the final decision about shutting a school should remain in the hands of district boards. It is a complicated process that requires sensitivity to local circumstances. That said, the State of Ohio still has an obligation to promote an efficient public-school system. In fact, advocates often remind lawmakers of the constitutional admonition of a having a “thorough and efficient system” of schools. One aspect of this mandate is to ensure that districts responsibly steward taxpayer dollars, which includes closing under-enrolled buildings that are costly to operate and draw resources away from schools more in need of them. 

Of course, Columbus isn’t the only district that may need to pursue building closures in the months and years ahead. Enrollment has slipped statewide, and demographic trends are working against schools. In May, the U.S. Department of Education released projections that Ohio’s public school enrollment will fall another 7 percent by 2031. The question then is how exactly state policymakers can create a policy environment that increases the likelihood that local boards take action without setting rigid, ham-handed closure rules. The following offers six possibilities.

1. Provide short-term grants that help districts close buildings and transition students to new schools. State lawmakers could create a grant program that eases the transition costs of closing schools. The funds could be used to provide supports that help students transition to another school (e.g., services to help new students fit in or address transportation issues). This could help alleviate one of the primary concerns related to closures, which is their impact on displaced students.
    
2. Create a state committee that periodically reviews school utilization and performance data and recommends schools for closure. This committee would dig into school capacity, enrollment, demographic, and performance data and then release a report containing recommendations about which district schools should be closed. While local boards wouldn’t be required to follow these recommendations, the report could provide some political cover for school boards that need to close schools. It could also offer valuable data—e.g., how a district’s facility footprint compares to other districts or demographic trends—that help drive fact-driven community discussions around closures. The reports might also identify underutilized schools that should be offered under provisions discussed in point five below.
    
3. Eliminate school funding guarantees that allow shrinking districts to avoid rightsizing their budgets. As discussed in this piece, Ohio’s funding formula includes “guarantees”—excess dollars that protect districts from funding losses tied to enrollment declines. In effect, guarantees let district boards off the hook for making tough decisions—such as closing schools—that keep their budgets in line with enrollments. State legislators should encourage more efficient district operations by removing guarantees from the formula.
    
4. Require districts to certify that they are not operating under-enrolled buildings before putting a local tax issue on the ballot or receiving state aid for school construction. School boards often seek additional funding by putting a local tax measure on the ballot. Before they ask voters for more dollars, state lawmakers could require districts to certify that they are not operating any under-enrolled school buildings. They could also require districts to certify this as a condition for receiving state funding for school construction projects. This would ensure that districts have exhausted at least one cost-savings option before they can tap additional revenues.
    
5. More strictly enforce the state’s right-of-first-refusal law for public charter schools. Districts with vacant or severely underutilized school buildings are required under current law to offer such facilities to local public charter and independent STEM schools for sale or lease. This is an important provision, as it helps to ensure districts are not operating under-enrolled buildings and supports non-traditional public schools’ facility needs. Unfortunately, the law seems to be weakly enforced and hasn’t had its intended impacts. As discussed in this piece, state legislators should revamp these “right-of-first-refusal” provisions to ensure they are being carefully followed.
      

    

6. Ensure that the district-school “restructuring” law is implemented. Current law requires a chronically low-performing district school to contract with an outside operator, replace its entire teaching staff, reopen as a charter school, or permanently close.[1] Enforcement of this law was suspended during Covid, but as the state reboots its accountability system, this provision should return. The restructuring options may not result in the closure option being selected, but enforcement would push tough decisions about school turnaround or closure to the forefront. In the interest of students, districts should not turn a blind eye to extremely low-performing schools. State policymakers should make sure this isn’t happening.

Ohio policymakers can and should nudge along districts such as Columbus’s that need to downsize their facility portfolios. Considering the ideas above could help local school boards more effectively navigate the challenging and politically fraught process of closing schools.