CREATING OPPORTUNITY OUT OF CRISIS: A QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY

OF SCHOOL CLOSURE IN AN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICT

By

Michael Victorino Gallego Santos

B.S. (University of California, Davis) 1984

M.S. (California State University, East Bay) 2001

A Dissertation

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctorate in Education

Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership for Social Justice

California State University, East Bay

2013 ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! Copyright by Michael Victorino Gallego Santos 2013

! ""!

CREATING OPPORTUNITY OUT OF CRISIS: A QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY

OF SCHOOL CLOSURE IN AN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICT

Abstract

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to investigate the implementation of school closure in an urban school district. Oakdale Unified, a pseudonym for a large school district in

California, has been beset by fiscal and academic challenges over the past few years. At the height of the crisis, the school district had no recourse but to close schools. This study aspired to learn about the problem by asking research questions related to school closure board policies, school closure processes and criteria, public and community involvement during decision- making, and the consequences arising after closure. In this research, the methodology included the review of board policies, the examination of extant data, and the interview of six purposefully selected individuals. Five major findings were derived from emergent themes: 1)

School closure was not clearly stated or defined under board policies, but could be referenced under related policies that promote community relationships and other democratic principles; 2)

The criteria used for closing schools had an enhanced academic focus that aspired to identify and reform underperforming schools under NCLB guidelines; 3) District officials informed and engaged the community in the school closure process by allowing them to participate in a task force that worked collaboratively with district staff to create the decision-making matrix; 4) The rise and proliferation of charter schools in OUSD could be linked to the community’s initial quest to establish quality schools in every local neighborhood; and 5) Displaced individuals continued to experience social and emotional feelings far beyond the closing of their school.

Keywords: school closure and restructuring, school reform, NCLB, charter school

! """!

California State University, East Bay

College of Education and Allied Studies

Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership for Social Justice

This dissertation was presented by

Michael Victorino Gallego Santos

It was defended on

September 20, 2013

and approved by

______Jose Lopez, Chair Educational Leadership for Social Justice

______Judy Guilkey-Amado Educational Leadership for Social Justice

______Margaret Harris Educational Leadership for Social Justice

! "#! Dedication

First and foremost, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to God, our Almighty Father.

I would have not completed this fulfilling work without your guidance and direction. Thank you for providing me with inner strength and wisdom as I completed this journey.

Secondly, I would like to thank Mrs. Evangelina V. Santos, my wife, my best friend, and most avid supporter, for inspiring me to achieve my goals and dreams. Her loving and caring self have provided me with confidence to complete this monumental milestone amidst numerous personal and professional challenges. Thank you for always being there for me.

Next, I would like to acknowledge my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Victorino and Milagros

Santos, for always leading by example. My parents have made many sacrifices for my siblings and me, so we could pursue our educational and professional goals. Dad and mom never provided us with the material things that teenagers desired. Instead, they gave us the gift of a lifetime, a quality college education. Thanks, dad and mom, for showing and teaching us the value of education.

And finally, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to the next generation of Santoses.

Always remember that anything is possible through perseverance, dedication, and commitment.

Always aspire to become the best that you can be. Continue our legacy by serving others and making a difference in this world.

! #! Acknowledgements

This dissertation represents my personal and professional journey during the past few years. As a high school principal, I was shaken and disturbed when I learned that my beloved school was going to close. However, through the unwavering support of mentors, role models, and colleagues, I have managed to cope with the situation, and “turn something negative into a positive.” Through their unselfish guidance and support, I have continued to grow and develop into the educational leader who I am today.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to special people who have guided me along the way. First, I would like to express my deep appreciation to Dr.

Jose Lopez, my dissertation committee chair. A few years ago, you convinced me to join the doctoral program despite personal qualms and doubt. Thank you for being such an amazing role model and mentor. I have learned so much under your leadership.

I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Judy Guilkey-Amado and Dr. Margaret Harris.

Thank you, Dr. Guilkey-Amado, for opening up opportunities for me throughout my career.

Thank you, Dr. Harris, for your insights and perspectives on my dissertation. I have high regard and great respect for both of you as a friend, mentor, and colleague. I am grateful for your willingness to work with me on my journey.

I would also like to mention Dr. Gilberto Arriaza for offering encouragement and advice when I needed them most. You are the older brother that I never had. I appreciate your kind, encouraging words, and your big heart. In a world of ups and downs, I really valued your advices, and putting things in perspectives for me.

And finally, I would like to acknowledge Ms. Julie Ann Talbo, a former student, and Ms.

Asia Camagong, my niece. I would like to thank you for helping me gather and organize

! #"! materials for my research. I hope that you have benefitted from the experience. I wish you much success as you aspire to achieve your personal and professional endeavors.

! #""! Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 The Dilemma Behind School Closure ...... 5 Engaging the Public and Community in the Decision-making Process ...... 9

Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 12 Financial and Academic Reasons for School Closure ...... 14 Fiscal and Resource Management ...... 15 Academic Performance and Accountability ...... 16 School Closures and the Charter School Movement ...... 18 School Closure Codes, Regulations, and Policies ...... 22 School Closures Decision-Making Process ...... 24 School Closures Criteria ...... 28 School District Responsibilities After School Closure ...... 32 Research Questions ...... 35

Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 36 Research Design ...... 36 Research Questions ...... 38 Contextual Setting of the Research Site ...... 40 Participants ...... 43 Instrumentation ...... 45 Qualitative Research Method #1: Review of Board Policies ...... 46 Qualitative Research Method #2: Review of Extant Data ...... 48 Qualitative Research Method #3: Interview of Different Stakeholders ...... 48 Data Collection ...... 49 Data Analysis ...... 50 Limitations of the Study...... 52 Subject Positioning ...... 54

! #"""! Chapter 4: Results and Outcome ...... 56 School Closure Policy Study ...... 57 Decision-Making Criteria for Closing Schools ...... 65 Public and Community Engagement ...... 71 Lessons Learned From School Closure ...... 77 Summary of Findings ...... 83

Chapter 5: Conclusion ...... 87 Summary of the Findings ...... 87 Discussion of the Findings ...... 89 Implications for Practice ...... 101 Creating a School Closure Policy ...... 103 Developing a Decision-Making Framework for Closing Schools that Effectively Engages the Community ...... 108 Using School Closures as a Vehicle for Reform ...... 111 Providing Alternative Learning Opportunities Through Charter Schools ...... 115 Establishing Support Services for the Displaced After School Closure ...... 117 Implications for Future Research ...... 119

APPENDICES ...... 123

APPENDIX A. List of Closed Schools in California ...... 124 APPENDIX B. Sample of School Closure Timeline Template ...... 130 APPENDIX C. Sample of Scoring Rubric for School Closure ...... 132 APPENDIX D. Comparison of OUSD Number of Schools Versus Student Enrollment ...... 136

REFERENCES ...... 137

! "$! LIST OF TABLES Tables

Table 1: State Codes and Regulations for School Closure ...... 23

Table 2: A Profile of Interview Participants ...... 44

Table 3: Philosophy, Goals, Objectives and Comprehensive Plans (BP 0000) ...... 58

Table 4: Community Relations (BP 1000) ...... 60

Table 5: Facilities (BP 7000) ...... 62

Table 6: A Comparison of School Closure Criteria ...... 68

Table 7: Oakdale Unified School Closure Criteria (2011 to 2012) ...... 69

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! $! ! LIST OF FIGURES

Figures

Figure 1: Number of School Closures (1994 to 2004) ...... 3

Figure 2: Number of Charter Schools in California (2003 to 2011) ...... 19

Figure 3: Characteristics of School Districts ...... 46

Figure 4: Number of Charter Schools is OUSD...... 77

Figure 5: Student Enrollment in Charter Schools in OUSD ...... 79

Figure 6: Enrollment Numbers in OUSD ...... 80

!

! $"! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"!!

Chapter 1

Introduction

School closure has a longstanding history in the United States’ public school

systems. Declining birth rates, an aging population, and difficult economic conditions

have resulted in significant public school closures since the 1960s (Valencia, 1984). From

the late 1960s to the mid 1970s, statistics showed that an estimated 29,000 schools closed

nationwide (Ebmeier, 1986). In the late 1970s, data revealed approximately 7,000 schools,

affecting about eighty percent of the nation’s school districts, closed (Valencia, 1984;

Stinchcombe, 1984). In the 1980s, a continued pattern of declining enrollment forced a

large number of districts to close schools (Ebmeier, 1986).

However, in the 1990s, the number of school closures gradually declined, but

suddenly resurfaced during the last decade. In rural and suburban environments, school

closure occurred when small schools in remote areas were consolidated to raise fiscal

efficiency and improve educational quality (Howley, Johnson & Petrie, 2011). In urban

settings, schools have been closed for budgetary reasons as well as for their inability to

meet student performance standards (Engberg et al., 2012; Steiner, 2009; Cook, 2004).

Pappano (2011) pointed out that 1,515 elementary and secondary schools were closed

nationwide during the 2008-2009 school year, while another 242 were closed in 2005-

2006. Consequently, the American Association of School Administrators reported that

approximately 6% of United States school districts closed or consolidated schools during

the 2009-2010 school year, and eleven percent considered doing so in 2010-2011 (Wolfe,

2010). ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!#!!

In this decade, school closures appear imminent as school districts experience uncertain and challenging economic times. In California, many districts, especially in urban communities, have strived to remain fiscally solvent amidst their fiscal and academic challenges. The 2011 Second Interim Report from the California Department of

Education demonstrated the critical budgetary disposition of several school districts. The report showed that 12 school districts have filed for a “negative certification” with the state on their end of the year budget reports, indicating that the district would be unable to fulfill its end of the year financial obligations (California Department of Education,

Second Interim Report, 2011). On the same report, the information also disclosed that

176 school districts have been classified as having “qualified certification” status, meaning that they would not be able to fulfill their financial obligations for the current fiscal year (California Department of Education, Second Interim Report, 2011). The precarious budget situation of financially challenged school districts could lead district leadership to consider every cost cutting option, which would include school closure.

In the era of school accountability, state and federal legislation gives local school districts the authority to close and to restructure schools for academic purposes. The No

Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), enacted in 2001, has placed a strong focus on student performance and improving academic achievement for the disadvantaged (United States

Department of Education, No Child Left Behind Act, 2001). Under this legislation, schools, local educational agencies, and states are held accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students, and for turning around low-performing schools

(United States Department of Education, No Child Left Behind Act, 2001). NCLB also ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!$!!

stipulates schools that continually fail to meet identified academic growth targets could be subjected to severe consequences or sanctions which may include school closure

(Minthrop & Sunderman, 2009). In fact, Section 1116, Subsection (vi) of the No Child

Left Behind Act (2001) referred to the abolishing or restructuring of the local educational agency as a possible corrective action strategy for failing to meet student performance standards. In addition, the section also referred to closing and converting failing schools into public charter schools as a viable option to improve school quality (United States

Department of Education, No Child Left Behind Act, 2001).

This study highlights the challenges affecting our public school system in

California. The unfortunate convergence of fiscal and academic constraints suggests that the number of school closures could continue to rise into the next decade. Lapkoff and

Gobalet (2005) illustrated the steady rise of school closures in California over a ten year period. In their research, they indicated that 210 California public schools, excluding charter schools, were closed from 1994 to 2004. Furthermore, they pointed out that the number of school closures in 2004 was more than three times the 2001 figure and more than five times the 2000 number:

Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Number of 9 12 5 10 10 13 12 12 32 33 62 school closures

Source: California Department of Education, 2011-2012 Figure 1: Number of school closures (1994 to 2004)

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!%!!

Unless the current state of affairs dramatically changes, the ominous pattern will continue during the subsequent years. The issue of school closure merits closer investigation due to its potential impact and implications to the public school system.

School closure has been a recurring phenomenon that has been making major headlines. The occurrence has not drawn the interest of politicians and civic groups until recently, when closed schools have been replaced with alternative schooling. Prevalent during the late 1970s and the 1980s, the issue has surfaced today in response to financial and academic crises, as well as periodic declines in our student populations (Ebmeier,

1986; Valencia, 1984; Stinchcombe, 1984). As school districts experience financial uncertainty, top officials are propelled to examine every cost cutting and revenue generating strategy, which could lead to the closing of schools. In addition, as educational institutions continually fail to meet federal and state accountability standards, school districts often do not have another alternative but to close underperforming schools.

School closure is also a highly sensitive, highly emotional issue that raises anxiety for different segments within the school community. To mitigate this, research suggests that school leaders provide the public and school community with an opportunity to participate in and have a voice in this decision making process (De Witt & Moccia, 2011;

Lytton, 2011; Datnow, 2000). For instance, De Witt & Moccia (2011) discussed how public engagement should be a high priority in dealing with school closure because involvement fueled trust and minimized confusion within the public sector. Lytton (2011) described the importance of open communication and transparency to articulate the purpose as well as the reason for the closure of their neighborhood school. Datnow ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!&!!

(2000) recommended using collaborative decision-making to make the outcome more palatable for all stakeholders. The literature accentuates the value of public and community engagement during school closure because limited involvement may lead to various consequences such as infighting, potential lawsuits, recall elections, protests, and demonstrations (Dillon, 2006).

The Dilemma Behind School Closure

Arguments for and against school closure are found within the research literature.

Some organizational theorists claim that school closure is a desirable practice because of its potential to cut costs and raise revenues (Dowdall, 2011; McMilin, 2010).

Furthermore, proponents add that school closure could be used as a reform strategy to turn around failing schools (Stein, 2012; Steiner, 2009). Critics, however, argue that closing schools is an undesirable practice because it places disadvantaged youth in vulnerable situations.

Sunderman and Payne (2009) discussed the potential impact of school closure on children. In reference to a Chicago public school study by De la Torre and Gwynne

(2009), they emphasized closing schools had a negative impact on students’ math and reading achievement during the year that the district announced the school closing.

Furthermore, they also cited a University of Colorado study by Kirshner, Gaertner and

Pozzoboni (2010) that indicated a 31% loss of student attendance in the district after closure. In this research, Kirshner et al. (2010) showed that 175 out of 558 students exited the public school system by moving, transferring, or dropping out after closure. They also suggested that school closures increased the likelihood of student dropouts, in turn, ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!'!!

lowering graduation rates. Likewise, a study by Rumberger and Larson (1998) revealed that students who changed schools even one time were twice as likely not to graduate from high school. Engberg et al. (2012) showed how transitions to new schools could have an adverse effect on attendance and achievement gains for students from closed schools, but also how districts could minimize the effects of closure if students moved to higher-performing schools. The desire to meet organizational and student needs poses a difficult decision-making dilemma for school district leaders.

In Michigan and Alabama, schools have been closed within this last decade due to reduced birth rates, declining enrollment, and decreased state funding, which has placed school districts in tenuous situations (Reid, 2003). In Utah, elementary schools have been closed in response to low enrollment and high operational costs (Cook, 2004). Similarly,

Pennsylvania school districts have closed public schools due to the dwindling population of school-aged children, mounting budget pressures, deteriorating facilities, poor academic performance, and the growth of charter schools (Dowdall, 2011; De la Torre &

Gwynne, 2009; Steiner, 2009).

For financially strapped school districts, officials have viewed the act of closure as a potential strategy to recover from budgetary problems. Howley et al. (2011) pointed out that closing schools cut costs, raised revenues and eventually built organizational stability. Erickson (2010) added that vacated school buildings could be leased or sold to ease financial constraints placed on districts. However, despite these perceived benefits,

McMilin (2010) cautioned policy makers and implementers to refrain from using this practice because closing schools might not necessarily yield expected financial outcomes. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!(!!

He recommended that school closure policies be viewed as the final means to resolve fiscal challenges. To develop financial and organizational stability, McMilin encouraged policy makers and implementers to consider alternative strategies such as redistricting, reorganization, reconfiguration and reconsolidation before succumbing to school closure

(Esselman et al., 2012; Murphy, 2008; Malen et al., 2002; Collins & Porras, 2002).

A second reason for closing schools could be attributed to student achievement and performance purposes. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 gave local educational agencies the authority to abolish, restructure, and reopen schools for continuously failing to meet performance standards (United States Department of Education, No Child Left

Behind Act, 2001). In the business sector, large companies close and reconfigure their corporate branches for being unproductive (Murphy, 2008; Collins & Porras, 2002).

Using a business approach, the same principle could be applied in the educational arena.

If a school continually fails and is beset by academic challenges, school district administrators could decide to close the floundering institution for underperformance.

The Chicago public school system, for example, has recently closed and reconsolidated schools for academic purposes (Steiner, 2009). In some cases, the general public may accept the act if it perceives it as a tremendous opportunity to make positive changes. In this research, one interview participant expressed support of school closure as a school improvement strategy by stating, “I support closing schools for academic reasons because every student deserves a quality education” (Karen, personal communication, 2012).

Opponents of school closures challenge the policy of closing schools because they view education as a civil right. Civic and community leaders assert that all children are ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!)!!

entitled to the best educational experiences, so they can achieve their lifelong goals.

Moreover, student advocates further believe that children have the right to learn in their immediate surroundings, where community resources and support systems exist (Butler,

2010; Malone, 2008; Cleaver, 1999). De Witt and Moccia (2011) contended that these two arguments should serve as criteria for the decision-making process because closing schools has had the potential to produce adverse conditions for displaced students.

De La Torre and Gwynne (2009) illustrated how a child’s academic performance could suffer from school closure and displacement. Their research studied the effects school closures had on the reading and math scores of eighth-grade students. Students scored below their expected level due to the disruptions caused by closures. Rudo (2001) illustrated how school closure disrupted the learning process, creating emotional distress, and negatively impacting the academic performance of displaced students. In their case study, Kirshner et al. (2010) documented test scores dropping 12% in reading, 9% in math, and 19% in writing as a result of closure. In addition, Bridgeland et al. (2006) pointed to a dropout rate that rose from 7% to 15% and a graduation rate that fell from

71% to 49% resulting from school closure. The research literature has presented evidence that raise “warning signs” for key decision makers.

In addition, community advocates would argue that neighborhood schools should be left untouched because of the role that they play in today’s society. Schools provide important services and support systems that benefit the needy (Maeroff, 1998). Noguera

(2006) pointed out that our public schools were social institutions, which provided stability for individuals and families. Moreover, schools have developed into safe havens ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!*!!

where students feel valued and cared for (Wertz, 2003). They have also emerged as resource centers that reduce and/or prevent high school dropouts, substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and a whole lot more (Dupper & Poertner,

1997). Research indicated that school-family-community partnerships have improved school programs and school climate, increased parents’ skills and leadership, connected families with others in the school and the community, and improved children’s chances of success in school and life (Butler, 2010; Malone, 2008; Maeroff, 1998; Dupper &

Poertner, 1997).

Engaging the Public and Community in the Decision Making Process

The decision to close schools is a complicated issue because of its multi-faceted nature. The eventual outcome, which is influenced by numerous internal and external factors, has multiple impacts on different community groups. Determining a fair and acceptable process in reaching a final outcome is the primary challenge for policy makers and implementers. De Witt and Moccia (2011) encouraged involving students, faculty, staff, parents, and the community in decision-making to allow the process to run efficiently.

In a time of public mistrust of public education and elected officials, managing community conflict is an important element of a successful public school system

(Morikis, 2010). In terms of school closure, Thomas (1977) pointed out that community conflict often accompanies school closures, and creates feelings of fear, hostility, and organized opposition. While community conflict cannot be avoided, he claimed that effective leadership from the board and the superintendent could control and manage the ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"+!!

situation (Thomas, 1977).

Various perspectives exist in determining the role of the community during the decision making process to close schools. Because of the volatile nature of the issue,

Thomas (1977) recommended that the final decision involved in school closure not be limited to a select group. Brazer, Rich and Ross (2010) endorsed Thomas’ (1977) recommendation by stating that participation and collaboration between students, parents, site administrators, teachers, staff, the public, and the local community be enriched during the entire process. Full engagement of stakeholders suppressed suspicions and doubts, enabling everyone to work cooperatively to achieve a common goal (Brazer et al.,

2010).

Datnow (2002) suggested educating all stakeholders on every aspect of the issue, so they could make informed decisions. She endorsed using evidence-based data and established research-based practices to make sound decisions. In Alameda, California, the school district engaged its community to help address an existing budget deficit (Dillon,

2008). The district organized community committees to act as a problem-solving group.

The team, not the school board or administration, ultimately provided the recommendation to close schools. In this case, involvement diffused public outcry and outrage stemming from policy implementation (Dillon, 2008).

Citizens often believe that they have little influence or voice in political decisions and are least likely to participate in these types of activities (Finnigan & Lavner, 2011).

Westheimer and Kahne (2004) reminded citizens that every member of a true democratic society has had the freedom to participate in public and civic affairs. Apple and Beane ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!""!!

(2007) added that citizens had the right to be informed and participate in creating policies and programs for themselves and young people. Since school closure brings potential consequences to neighborhoods and communities, it is advisable for school leaders to solicit feedback from the general public. Distrust and detachment will continue to persist unless all community members perceive that their voices are heard (Finnigan & Lavner,

2011).

The school closure issue deserves close scrutiny because it appears to be a developing trend that will linger through the next decade. As school districts face ongoing fiscal and academic challenges, the implementation of school closure policies may be essential. Careful advanced planning must be managed and executed through all phases of a school closure process: planning and establishing the decision-making framework; gathering and evaluating information; developing factors, weights, and priorities; analyzing options; and announcing final decisions and implementing them.

The decision to close a school is not likely to be easily reached without conflicting points of view, but it need not result in an enraged community or a school district with its credibility and support damaged (Lytton, 2011). Used in a positive fashion, the process could benefit most, if not all, the stakeholders through community engagement, creative dialogue, and mutual respect. This research strived to collect and yield current information on the topic. The investigation aspired to provide school districts with a new decision-making framework to manage the process effectively.

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"#!!

Chapter 2

Literature Review In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the number of school closures in California increased due to the passage of Proposition 13, a tax initiative that repealed the property tax-based finance system for public schools (Sonstelie, Brunner & Ardon, 2000).The new law, along with an economic recession, an ongoing state budget problem, and declining enrollment has prompted an abundance of school closures in the state (Ebmeier, 1986). In addition, declining birth rates, government revenue shortfalls, population redistribution, uneven housing growth, foreclosures, concerns about school quality and safety, and an emerging charter school movement continued to influence an already developing trend

(Lapkoff & Gobalet, 2005). In the 1980s, the California Department of Education reported that approximately 32 secondary schools were closed (California Department of

Education, “List of Closed Schools”, 2012). From the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s, records indicated that the number of public school closures in California increased to approximately 210 schools (Lapkoff & Gobalet, 2005). By 2004, demographers pointed out that public school closures were nearly twice the amount compared to 2003, and five times greater than 2000 (Lapkoff & Gobalet, 2005).

Through the course of time, large school districts such as Los Angeles, San

Francisco, Oakland, and San Diego have wrestled with school closure decisions. School districts in these large metropolitan areas had to cope with changing social, economic, and political pressures, which ultimately led to elementary and secondary school closures. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"$!!

The Los Angeles Unified School District, for example, the second largest school district in the nation, closed schools due to budgetary problems (Merl & Caldwell, 2005), The

San Francisco Unified School District elected to exercise the same practice based on the anticipated loss of 1,175 students from 2001 to 2008 (California Department of

Education, DataQuest, Enrollment Data, 1996 - 2012).

In a downtrodden economy, the recent pattern suggests that additional school districts would be faced with making similar decisions. The Oakdale Unified School

District, a pseudonym for a large urban district in Northern California, has experienced ongoing declining enrollment and initiated additional school closures in the fall of 2012

(Johnson, 2011). The school district has lost approximately 6,029 students from 2002 to

2012 (see Figure 6). As a result, the school district has opted to close five elementary schools, and has chosen to consolidate and restructure high schools at the end of the

2011-2012 school year (Oakdale Unified School District, “Letter from the Superintendent on School Closures,” 2011). Similarly, in Southern California, the San Diego Unified

School District has recommended closing, relocating, and reconsolidating twelve schools for the 2013-2014 school year to compensate for a $118 million budget shortfall (Plautz,

2011).

As the nation and the state of California continue to wrestle with economic uncertainty, financially challenged school districts appear to have minimal options to remain fiscally solvent. Due to a lingering recession, the public school system has been forced to deal with more budget cuts and fewer resources for programs and personnel

(Ellerson & McCord, 2009, p.6). This condition has a profound effect on publicly ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"%!!

financed school districts especially as federal and state accountability measures call for improving student achievement. Although the research on the relationship between funding and academic performance has been mixed, there exists a body of knowledge that examines the impact of inadequate funding on student learning. Ellerson and

McCord (2009), for example, indicated how gains in student achievement and progress in narrowing the achievement gap have been hampered due to the capacity of schools to deliver essential services. Husted and Kenny (1999) reported how reduced funding and minimal resources have negatively impacted student performance during testing.

Wenglinsky (1997) talked about how funding inequalities continue to widen the achievement gap between different student subgroups. Their assertions illustrated the relationship between funding inadequacies and student performance. In an era of student accountability, the two factors deserve careful examination because of their connections to NCLB. Under the legislation, failing and underperforming schools could be closed for their inability to meet desired outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2004).

Financial and Academic Reasons for School Closure The research literature presents compelling arguments for closing schools based on financial and academic reasons. The following section discusses the rationale for closing schools based on two distinct theoretical frameworks. The first framework infuses the concepts of the organizational turnaround model to operationalize school closures

(Murphy, 2008). The second paradigm uses the guiding principles of No Child Left

Behind (2001) to justify school closure. The two theories afford decision-makers and policy implementers with foundational knowledge to engage in critical conversations ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"&!!

regarding the topic of school closure.

Fiscal and Resource Management Educational institutions have looked to the corporate sector for ideas about management for generations. School districts have borrowed these ideas to use as sound business practices to address financial issues. Under the context of the organizational turnaround model, Murphy (2008) suggested that fiscally challenged businesses use

“efficiency oriented tactics” to reduce expenditures and manage loses (Murphy, 2008, p.

809). The organizational strategy calls for downsizing the workforce, cutting back on aggressive business functions, minimizing unexpected and incurred expenses, and slashing overhead costs. In addition, other methods that could be used to reduce expenditures while increasing productivity and uniformity may include the closing, the reconsolidating, the reorganization, and the restructuring of the organization (Howley, et al., 2011; Murphy, 2008).

In education, the closing and reconsolidating of schools could be viewed as a cost-cutting strategy for the following reasons: 1) It eliminates the salaries of administrators and some non-teaching staff; 2) It reduces the building's security and utility costs to a bare minimum; and 3) It can lower central office expenses, such as food service and facilities maintenance (Bhatt, 2005). Furthermore, if a district could lease or sell a vacant property, Erickson (2010) claimed that the activity could provide a source of revenue as well. De La Torre and Gwynne (2009) agreed with Erickson (2010) that closing an underutilized building yielded savings that could be allocated towards other areas, thus compensating for other budget deficits. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"'!!

The research suggests that school closure and reconsolidation could be used as a vehicle to establish the following to achieve financial stability: 1) combining smaller school districts; 2) closing smaller schools and sending students from the closed schools to larger schools; and 3) building new, low maintenance, environment friendly facilities

(Howley et al., 2011). Combining smaller schools or districts into larger ones appears to have the capability of improving educational costs and raising school efficiency (Cox &

Cox, 2010). Through this process, students could be combined into one building, and the vacant facility could be re-designated for other purposes (Dowdall, 2011). The vacant school buildings could also be leased or sold to generate revenue (Erickson, 2010).

However, Streifel et al. (1991) cautioned decision-makers and policy implementers to exercise prudence in initiating such strategies, arguing that the strategy might not yield the anticipated financial outcomes. Thus, prior to implementing the activity, he suggested conducting a thorough analysis of indirect consequences and cost-avoidance options before policy implementation (Streifel et al., 1991).

Academic Performance and Accountability The onset of state and federal accountability measures has altered the educational landscape by requiring districts and schools to produce desirable student outcomes based on performance standards (Darling-Hammond, 2004). The federal legislation known as

No Child Left Behind (2001) has made a tremendous impact on academic institutions because of its strong focus on student achievement and standardized testing (Hunter &

Bartee, 2003). The Act, which was created to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity, has strived to measure an educational institution’s prowess ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"(!!

by gauging student proficiency on challenging academic achievement standards and assessments (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001). NCLB holds schools accountable to ensure that all student subgroups meet performance indicators. Schools that are unable to meet academic growth targets on standardized testing could be subjected to a set of severe sanctions, which would include school closure and reconsolidation (Powers, 2003).

Under NCLB, school districts may consider closing failing schools to implement reform initiatives. “Low performing” and “underachieving” schools, as measured by indicators such as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index

(API), could be identified as prime candidates to initiate comprehensive school wide reform (Engberg, et al., 2012). Smarick (2010) contended that closing a school and starting over served as an effective reform strategy that could enhance educational quality.

Smarick’s claim (2010) was supported by NCLB guidelines, giving school leaders the authority to embark on school closure, reconsolidation, reconstitution, and restructuring as a means of launching school improvement efforts (Scott, 2009).

School districts have begun to explore school closure as a way of initiating reform and raising student achievement. In 2009, the Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative, a derivative of No Child Left Behind, was launched to spur innovation and to reform failing schools at the state level (McNeil, 2010). Under the provision, schools that have been identified as “underperforming” must implement one of four reform strategies: 1) the turnaround model, an approach that calls for reconstituting the organizational structure and make-up of a low performing school; 2) the restart model, a technique that involves closing a school and converting it into a charter school; 3) the school closure ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!")!!

model, a strategy that necessitates permanently shutting down the school and moving students to another campus; and 4) the transformation model, a method by which the school is required to institute comprehensive instructional reforms (Minthrop &

Sunderman, 2009).

As schools fail to meet student performance standards, school districts across the nation have begun to exercise the recommended intervention strategies outlined in federal and state legislation (Hess, 2001). In Illinois, for example, Chicago Public Schools closed approximately 60 schools as part of the Renaissance 2010 campaign, a school reform effort that planned to close and re-open new, state-of-the-art, 21st-century small, charter or contract schools (Ayers & Klonsky, 2006; Duncan, 2006). In Colorado, 8 school buildings in Denver were permanently closed in 2007 for low achievement, and were reopened with new grade configurations and other programmatic changes (Steiner, 2009).

In Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Public Schools closed 22 schools in 2006 due to low student performance and the need to reduce excess capacity in a failing school (Dowdall, 2011).

School Closure and the Charter School Movement A new condition that appears to have a striking correlation to urban school closures deals with the proliferation of charter and magnet schools. Charter schools, which initially surfaced in Minnesota in 1991, have emerged as a popular alternative to regular public schools in California and throughout the nation (Hess, 2001; Dowdall,

2011). California’s charter school legislation, which was passed in 1992, has contributed to the significant number of charter schools that have risen throughout the last few years

(Weiss, 2011). From 2003 to 2011, California Department of Education records showed ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"*!!

that 919 charter schools enrolled about 375,358 students in the state, and that number continues to increase:

2003 - 2004 - 2005 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010 - 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of 443 502 560 585 682 746 823 919 schools

Enrollment 164,808 179,810 199,916 222,942 252,722 285,617 323,859 375,358

Source: Ed-Data, 2010-2011, California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit–CBEDS Figure 2: Number of charter schools in California (2003-2011)

The charter school movement has gained popularity because of the potential to provide a great number of students with innovative academic programs (Hubbard &

Kulkarni, 2009). The support of charter schools stems from the belief that removing direct student accountability from local districts and placing it on chartering agents and its parents promote greater results, more efficiencies, and thus better educate underserved students in the standard system (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006). Furthermore, supporters would assert that charter schools provide an alternative form of education for children who are unable to adapt and thrive in a large, intimidating public school setting (Maranto,

2011). Under the charter or magnet school system, parents may opt to enroll their children in alternative themed schools that cater to individual student needs (Smarick,

2011). ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!#+!!

Charter school critics, on the other hand, argue against the restrictive nature of

“schools of choice.” Tienken (2011) contended that charter schools threaten our unitary, democratic public schools system. He claimed that charter schools had the ability to develop admission criteria and educational agenda that excluded certain student groups.

When schools are free to control who gets in and who does not, when they can ‘‘invite’’ certain groups of students and create microcosms of populations with the same or similar values and beliefs, racial/ethnic composition and social class standing, maintaining equity becomes problematic (Hubbard & Kulkarni, 2009). Furthermore, critics of charter schools believe that these institutions challenge Horace Mann’s ideology of combining social classes and ethnic groups in one common school to remove social injustices and promote a common set of moral and political values (Hewitt, 2011; Brick, 2005).

In addition to their exclusive nature, some public school educators would contend that another hidden purpose behind the creation of charter schools was to promote the privatization of public schools (Burch, Donovan & Steinberg, 2006). Privatization, as defined within the scope of the educational arena, refers to “the marketing of services, initiatives, programs and policies, including charter schools, vouchers and the contracting out of services and management, provided by specialty service providers” (Burch, et al.,

2006, p.129). These so-called “specialty service providers” are educational management organizations (EMOs) that are comprehensive in nature and include companies that manage entire school systems or entire schools (Burch et al., 2006, p.129). Privatization of public elementary and secondary education is designed to satisfy political motives and inject market incentives into the system (Brown, 2002). ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!#"!!

No Child Left Behind seems to endorse the principle of privatization by supporting the closing of failing public schools and reopening them as public charter schools (Nelson, 2007), There may be some merit to the claim based on Section 1116 of

No Child Left Behind (2001) that provides local educational agencies (LEAs) with the ability to implement alternative governance arrangements for the school consistent with

State law. In addition, elements of NCLB endorse using the restart or charter school model as one of four ways to reform failing schools (Minthrop & Sunderman, 2009).

Karp (2008) argued that the implicit NCLB agenda on privatization opened up the public education sector to commercial exploitation by allowing for-profit firms and businesses to run schools. For-profit companies are appearing on the educational scene, touting their programs as the savior for education, seeking to make profits from a billion dollar industry (Furtwengler, 1998).

Weiss (2011) reported that there were 1.8 million students across the nation enrolled in charter schools, up from 340,000 a decade ago. She further added that the number of charter schools continued to grow by roughly 7% a year, and was expected to top 5,300 by the end of this year. The charter school movement warrants critical examination not only because of its current role in the public education system, but also because of its sudden propensity to surface during urban school closures (Oakdale

Unified, School Portfolio Management, 2012). The topic requires close scrutiny because of the potential impact of these educational institutions on the organization and the community.

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!##!!

School Closure Codes, Regulations, and Policies As school districts consider closing schools, central office administrators are encouraged to examine state and local policies related to the issue. Policy, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, refers to “a definite course or method of action, selected among alternatives, and in light of given conditions, guide and determine present and future decisions” (Webster, 2013). In education, governing boards are foremost responsible for setting policies, developing the overall vision for education in their institution, and in alignment with this vision, establishing short and long term goals

(Land, 2002; Danzberger et al., 1992). Good policies generally contain the following elements: the reflection of the board's vision for the school system, coherence with other policies, specification of goals and objectives, definition of roles and responsibilities, flexibility for the operation of the policy, specification of outcomes to measure success, and compliance with state and federal mandates (Land, 2002; Danzberger et al., 1992).

In California, literature on policies, codes, and regulations related to school closure are listed in various state and local publications. At the state level, the provisions are referenced under the Education Code, the California Government Code, the

California Code of Regulations and the Public Resource Code. Materials could be accessed through the California Department of Education website under a state framework for closing schools, entitled The Closing a School Best Practices Guide

(California Department of Education, The Closing a School Best Practices Guide, 2012).

At the local level, information about school closure and its related policies could be ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!#$!!

retrieved from various sections of a school district’s board policy (Oakdale Unified Board

Policy and Administrative Regulations, 2012).

At the state level, the California Department of Education does not stipulate school districts to take specific actions when closing schools. Instead, the Department guides them by providing pertinent information on legislation and best practices. As a school district attempts to implement school closure efforts, the California Department of

Education encourages local policy makers and implementers to consider the following state codes and regulations prior to launching school closure strategic plans:

Table 1: State Codes and Regulations for School Closure

Type of Legislation Focus Area General Description

Education Code, Community Specifies that community involvement be part Section 17387 Involvement of the decision-making process

Education Code, Advisory Mandates that the governing board appoint a Section 17388 & Committee District Advisory Committee (DAC) to give 17389 advice on school closure issues

Defines the required composition of the District Advisory Committee

Government Code Zoning Stipulates that land designated as an “open Sections 65560 & space” zone be preserved for park and 65912 recreation purposes

California Code of Racial Balance Defines a district’s responsibility to avoid Regulations, Title 5 and Equity racial segregation among its schools

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!#%!!

California Environmental Encourages an environmental analysis of Environmental Quality Factors school closure to examine potential effects on Act (CEQA) the receiving site and its students

Local decision-making frameworks should reflect compliance to federal and state laws (Land, 2002). With uniformed alignment, policy makers and implementers could develop and implement school closure policies consistent with these statutes. If this is the case, then it could be surmised that the ideal policy for closing schools includes the use of an advisory committee composed of various community stakeholders who examine zoning regulations, racial balance, and environmental factors.

School Closure Decision-Making Process Closing schools is a difficult and emotionally draining experience for school district officials and school communities. Because schools are viewed as important assets in the neighborhood, school closure is seen as a devaluation of the community (McMilin,

2010). The local community views neighborhood schools as more than a building.

Schools, as public institutions, are often beloved places where classmates develop relationships and parents form lasting bonds with staff members, and one another, over time. A sense of community has been formed around schools through countless student and parent meetings, sporting events, drama productions, classroom volunteering, and others (Wertz, 2003).

School closure threatens highly valued social and professional interactions that have deepened over time (DeWitt & Moccia, 2011). When a school closes, every member of the school community experiences feelings of sadness and grief (Karen, personal ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!#&!!

communication, 2012). The event takes away relationships and a sense of belonging that have grown dear to people (Wertz, 2003). School closure conjures emotions that could be likened to the severe loss of a loved one (Byrd, 2006). When the event becomes inevitable, school officials must find ways to build a coping mechanism to make the process more manageable for various stakeholders (Lytton, 2011).

The research suggests that school district officials engage a wide range of internal and external constituents during the decision making process. Steiner (2009) recommended that the decision-making process encouraged participation from various segments of the community including civic, local, political and service organizations. In deciding which schools to close, Dillon (2006) encouraged that different stakeholders be included in dialogue to solicit input and feedback on the topic. In addition to building public and community involvement, school closure consultants endorsed using established and identified criteria to make the decision-making process more manageable

(Dowdall, 2011; McMilin, 2010; Lapkoff & Gobalet, 2005). By working with the general public on developing criteria, district officials could develop a fair process for closing schools (Steiner, 2009), Furthermore, top-level administrators could convince community members to trust the system and accept the final outcome (Finnigan & Lavner, 2011).

School districts have implemented different strategies to encourage public participation in creating the decision-making process and criteria for closing schools. In

Chicago, district officials met with local unions, religious and community groups, elected officials, and parent groups to solicit input on school closure (Steiner, 2009). The district posted a survey on its website and organized neighborhood focus groups where parents ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!#'!!

and other community members could express their opinions. In Ingham County,

Michigan, the school board assembled a 32-member steering committee, composed of parents, teachers and administrators from each closing school, senior citizens, and other community members to study the issue. The group reviewed school district data, held a community forum, and came back with recommendations to the board (Wertz, 2003). In

Seattle, Washington, the board similarly created a 15-member school closure task force that was assigned to gather public input, develop school closure criteria, and ultimately make recommendations on which schools to close (Dillon, 2006).

In Florida, district officials worked collaboratively with community members and launched a series of “call to action” meetings to talk about the district’s school closure policy, process and criteria (Stover, 2009). In New York, the approach to school closure included community discussions using technology. Feedback was solicited through informational e-mails, blogs, and frequently asked questions on district and school websites (De Witt & Moccia, 2011). In Philadelphia, town hall meetings and public hearings at different venues, were held before and after the recommendation was given in order to give the community an opportunity to comment before reaching a final decision

(McMilin, 2010).

In California, the State Department of Education highly encourages school districts to form a District Advisory Committee (DAC) to engage various stakeholders in deciding which schools to close (California Education Code, Section 17387, 2012). The advisory group, commonly referred to as the 7/11 Committee, is given the task of gathering facts and information needed to drive the decision-making process. The research literature ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!#(!!

highly recommends involving the public and the community in resolving the school closure issue. Failure to include affected stakeholders in the process presents some serious repercussions for educational leaders.

In Washington, D.C., for example, a school chancellor and mayor were ousted due to their perceived insensitivity of not listening to neighborhood concerns (Samuels, 2011),

In Chicago, public outcry caused the legislature to impose a temporary moratorium on school closure, eventually leading to new laws that called for earlier notice, public input, and greater transparency around the closure criteria (Dowdall, 2011). In San Francisco, families rallied in front of the central office to initiate petitions and stage a one-day attendance boycott in response to a proposed school closure (Dillon, 2006). Limited input from the public and community has led to a variety of consequences that include infighting, potential lawsuits, recall elections, protests, and demonstrations (Dowdall,

2011).

To minimize the severe consequences emanating from policy implementation,

Murphy (1991) suggested using democratic and collaborative principles as the framework for decision-making. Doyle (2004) endorsed Murphy’s notion (1991) by adding that the approach fostered openness, communication and sharing within the decision-making body. Recognizing others’ expertise and experiences could provide a humanistic aspect to the school closure decision-making process. Pines et al. (1998) continued by saying that when decisions were collectively made, authority became dependent on everyone’s expertise rather than on one’s position. Furthermore, they claimed that the decision- making process goes beyond soliciting input to authentic participation. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!#)!!

Researchers endorse collaborative decision-making as the preferred strategy for resolving the school closure issue. As suggested by various researchers, collaboration shows promise because of its ability to conceptualize the problem in a broader manner, promote a wider range of solutions, and foster an environment for greater problem solving. In addition, the process encourages participation from multiple stakeholders, taking the group’s recommendation and developing it into a course of action (Brazer et al., 2010; Welch, 1998). By working together, the school district and local community could reach consensus on a mutually agreed upon outcome.

School Closure Criteria

Existing literature on school closure has strongly recommended that policy makers and implementers use established criteria to drive the decision-making process (Council of Educational Facilities Planners, 1976). In the attempt to define and outline the criteria for closure, Dillon (2006) recommended that school districts find a way to embrace parents and community members who have had strong vested interest in the final outcome. These stakeholder groups possess a wealth of knowledge that could yield valuable insights in developing a well-balanced, closure criteria, and therefore, feedback from these individuals is highly desired.

School facilities consultants and advisors agree that establishing defined criteria for school closure is a critical part of policy implementation (Dillon, 2006). In Seattle,

Washington, the state legislature requires school districts to adopt criteria for school closure with input from citizens (Washington State Legislature, 2011). In Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, school districts are encouraged to develop transparent, quantifiable criteria ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!#*!!

to generate public acceptance for the closings and resulting changes (Dowdall, 2011). In each circumstance, a well-crafted, identified criterion for closure was infused into the decision-making process to minimize confusion, angst, and anger between the organization and the community (McMilin, 2010).

School closure criteria may vary for individuals districts, and may include a variety of factors such as educational adequacy, academic performance, finances, enrollment decline, neighborhood impact, building condition, utilization, reuse options and a lot more (California Department of Education, The Closing a School Best Practices Guide,

2012; Chicago Public Schools Policy Manual, 2007). In their research, demographers

Lapkoff and Gobalet (2005) recommended using the following criteria as potential guidelines for school closure:

• Financial considerations. A school district is encouraged to conduct a financial analysis of the proposed closures indicating the potential financial savings. Since reducing budget deficits have been often cited as one of the principal reasons for closing schools, district leadership must weigh the financial impact resulting from the action. In their planning, district leaders must account for the net value yielded by the projected savings from the closing of the school and the costs to maintain the facility (McMilin,

2010).

• Attendance and enrollment boundaries. Schools with declining enrollment are prime candidates for school closure. School officials should minimize closing schools in neighborhoods that project future population growth stemming from housing and urban development. When redistricting or establishing new attendance boundaries, district ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!$+!!

officials needs to be mindful of racial balance and diversity. Equal educational opportunities for all students must be guaranteed during boundary realignment to ensure equitable distribution and use of resources (Brown & Knight, 2005).

• School size. Optimal minimum and maximum enrollment sizes are rather subjective, but should be decided early in the process. Decision makers need to consider the impact of school size on student performance and behavior (Flaherty, 2001; Ayers et al., 2000).

Small schools produce equal or superior achievement for students in general (Cotton,

1996). Researchers claim that large schools have had a negative impact on low socio- economic disadvantaged students of color (Howley, 2011).

• School location. If two schools are in close proximity to one another, district officials should consider consolidating them based on location. School districts closing more than one school should spread closures across the district. Direct and indirect costs of the decision due to student departures should be analyzed. In one school district, for example, district administrators predicted a savings of $700,000 through consolidation, but discovered losing $2.4 million in funding as a result of students leaving the district

(Lytton, 2011).

• Facilities characteristics. The condition of permanent and portable buildings, the age of facilities, campus acreage, environmental conditions, renovation, and special features such as computer labs and playgrounds must be assessed. Some might feel the need to preserve an underutilized school building for historical purposes or landmark value. It should be noted that schools built in the 1950s and 1960s have outlasted their value, and have sometimes developed into architectural eyesores (McLean, 2003). ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!$"!!

Furthermore, once a school has been closed, the district has the responsibility to put it in some productive use, or at least make sure that infrastructure does not become a blighting presence or a magnet for illicit activity (Dowdall, 2011).

• Access, traffic and student safety. District officials should seek city or county traffic data, and work with local city officials to create safety zones and procedures around schools. School closure and reconsolidation could necessitate student traveling, which causes concerns for children and their parents (McLean, 2003). District administration should work with city planners to develop adequate crosswalks, appropriate sidewalks, bicycle trails, overhead walkways, and other safety measures to accommodate the busy activities around neighborhood schools.

• Transitions. District officials should minimize the number of students displaced by school closure. When a school has been closed and students have been dispersed to another site, activities must be in place to allow for a smooth transition (Hughes, 2003).

Support services and systems for displaced students, families, and staff members should be available (Dillon, 2006).

• Location of special programs. Top officials must decide whether to keep special programs such as special education, career academies, dual immersion schools, and others at specific sites. Moving them to another location may distress program participants, but relocation of special programs may help balance enrollments (Lapkoff &

Gobalet, 2005).

• School performance, In these times of state and federal accountability, school districts have the opportunity to close, reconsolidate, reconstitute, and restructure schools ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!$#!!

based on academic achievement. These reform strategies give educational leaders the opportunity to turn around failing schools (Malen et al., 2002).

Previous school closures suggest that adopting objective and specific criteria could help convince the public of the legitimacy of the process (Dillon, 2006). However, there is little research or consensus about what these criteria should be (Steiner, 2009).

Individual school districts have the autonomy of developing their own criteria and strategy for closing schools. As school districts strive to create a decision-making framework for closing schools, district leaders are asked to think about organizing a steering committee or task force to guide the process (Dowdall, 2011). It is also important that district officials remain transparent and communicate the established process and criteria with the general public during the entire course.

School District Responsibilities After School Closure The effects of school closure linger after the school building has been formally shut down. After students and staff members have been displaced to their new school site, an emerging situation that needs to be monitored relates to the creation of a caring, inclusive, and cohesive school community that embraces its newcomers. When a school closes, students and staff members exhibit fear of the unknown, and behave with nervousness, apprehension, and anxiety. In his study, Cotton (1996) noted how the anxiety level of students, staff members, and parents rose with the thoughts of attending a school in a totally foreign environment. Schools, especially at the high school level, present an overwhelming and intimidating environment for individuals who are unfamiliar with their new surroundings. DuFour and Eaker (1998) pointed out that ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!$$!!

students could get lost, become alienated, and experienced traumatic situations in large comprehensive high schools. Ayers et al. (2000) added that children sometimes failed to received needed services, support, and attention because of the enormity of the newly consolidated school. Furthermore, Flaherty (2001) stated that large school environments made it more difficult for displaced students to establish a sense of belonging.

To alleviate the intimidating condition for displaced individuals, transitional activities should be intact to promote a cohesive and nurturing school environment. In her research, Curtin (2006) suggested creating a long-term transition plan that addressed the mental and emotional anguish that accompanied the school closure experience. Byrd

(2006) proposed including post-closure activities that account for the humanistic aspects of the event. Other research has expressed creating a strategic plan that listed various activities and programs to ease fears and tensions from affected individuals (De Witt &

Moccia, 2012; Rocchio, 2006).

To ease the pain, researchers talk about a wide array of actions that could be applied as part of the transition process. Nitta, Holley and Wrobel (2008) recommended preserving something relevant in the closing school’s neighborhood to preserve its rich history and tradition. McDeVitt, Dosen and Ryan (2006) suggested affording room for affected individuals to express their range of emotions after closure. The healing process may include individual opportunities to experience different stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and finally acceptance (Kubler-Ross, 1969). Support services, such as individual and group counseling sessions, should be available to give individuals a cathartic way of expressing their inner most feelings and emotions (Morton, 2009). ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!$%!!

School districts that have previously experienced school closures have developed various ways to create transitions. In Worthington, Ohio, for example, parents from the receiving and closing schools met together to find ways to ease the transition for parents, students, and staff (Wertz, 2003). Through collaborative efforts, the group developed welcoming and social events to acclimate newcomers to the receiving school. Staff members from the receiving schools felt the hurt of incoming parents, students, and staff; they acted with genuine care and compassion in welcoming them to their campus.

Other districts have used relationship-building strategies to allow for a smooth and seamless transition. In their research, Nitta et al. (2008) discussed how district officials have organized community and team-building activities to allow parents and parents feel part of the establishment. Akos and Galassi (2004) talked about how school districts have hosted guided tours of buildings in the spring prior to the transition, self- guided tours for students and families during the summer, scavenger hunts at the receiving site for small groups of students during orientation, and dry-run walkthroughs of student class schedules prior to the opening day of school. Parents have been invited to attend informational fairs and have been recruited to become members of school committees such as the School Site Council, Parent Teacher Association, the Athletic and

Band Booster Club and others (Akos & Galassi, 2004).

School closure has the potential to produce traumatic experiences for students, parents, and staff members who have established close bonds in their former school.

When a school closes, these deep bonds and relationships are suddenly cut off. In addition, valuable services and resources, which families and community members have ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!$&!!

relied on, could be completely severed (Dupper and Poertner, 1997). As school districts consider implementing the policy, educational leaders must be highly aware of the repercussions of school closure on families and the community. School districts officials need to assume responsibility in finding ways that enable everyone to get fully accustomed to a new setting.

Research Questions This research explored the series of events that led to public school closures in an urban school district. To gain a deeper understanding of the problem, the study examined various factors that influence the final outcome. The four research questions that drove this study include:

1. What do district board policy and administrative regulations state about the

decision-making process related to closing schools?

2. What criteria were used in the district during the decision to close schools? 3. How did school officials inform and engage the community in the school closure process? 4. What important lessons surfaced from the implementation of the school closure policy?

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!$'!!

Chapter 3 Methodology This study was designed to examine the intricate nature of school closure in an urban school district by analyzing the series of actions that occurred and influenced the final outcome. The investigation included the review of different school closure policies from similar districts, the processes and protocols used to arrive at a final decision, the degree of public and community engagement that transpired during the process, and unintended consequences that resulted from policy implementation. The following sections discuss these key elements of the research: 1) the research design; 2) the research questions; 3) the participants of the study; 4) the contextual setting of the research site; 5) the instrumentation used; 6) data collection; 7) data analysis; 8) the limitations of the study; and 9) subject positioning.

Research Design

To investigate the school closure issue, the researcher conducted a qualitative case study to gather information on an urban school district, which has recently closed schools for financial and academic reasons. In this study, the researcher reviewed school closure policies, extant data, and interview records. Through these actions, the researcher aspired to learn about the entire experience from written documents and interview records.

For the first part of the investigation, the researcher performed a review of school closure policies from five school districts. To accomplish this purpose, the researcher reviewed each of the school district’s websites to retrieve materials for the study. For the second part of the research, online searches were also performed to gather facts and ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!$(!!

figures about the identified school district. Ed-Data, a state-sponsored website that contains fiscal, demographic, enrollment and performance data on California K-12 schools, was accessed to learn more about the profiles of the school districts in the study.

DataQuest, a California Department of Education database, was used to obtain information on free-reduced lunch (FRL) and English language learners (ELL).

For the final part of the research, an interview session was scheduled to learn about the latest round of school closure in the district. The researcher used purposive sampling to select the participants for the interview. Purposive sampling involved having the researcher choose participants for the study based on their knowledge of the situation

(Creswell, 2009; Erlandson et al., 1993). Using the approach, the researcher assembled a representative group of district and community stakeholders who possess historical and institutional knowledge of the entire landscape. Interview participants were asked to provide testimonial accounts of school closure in OUSD through their personal stories.

Storytelling, also referred to as research narrative, is a legitimate form of knowledge construction where individuals interpret the flow of experience by sequencing events and assigning meaning to them based upon their previous experiences (Fairbanks,

1996, p. 322). Used primarily in anthropology and history, this type of qualitative method is appropriate because it illustrates people’s accounts and sheds light on the event

(Fairbanks, 1996). Without the research narratives, the investigation solely depends on textual devices and critical interpretations to draw conclusions. In this study, storytelling and narratives allow the researcher to recapture the dynamics of the school closure dilemma through the lens of individuals who lived through the experience. Their realistic ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!$)!!

accounts would authenticate the activities and events that transpired during the arduous process.

Prior to conducting the interviews, a pilot study was completed to simulate the actual interview. To test out the research questions and methodology, separate personal interview sessions were arranged with two individuals who lived through the school closure in their district. Four research questions were posed during a one-hour session.

The questions were used to determine the rationale for closing schools, the process and criteria used in deciding which schools to close, the degree of public and community engagement involved during the ordeal, and any immediate consequences resulting from the final decision. The pilot study found that the interview responses had strong correlation to important key concepts discussed in the literature review.

The pilot study provided valuable insights and experiences in anticipation of implementing the actual interview. The process afforded the opportunity to identify gaps of information through the questioning. The responses allowed the researcher to evaluate and calibrate the research questions, reshaping them to yield a more comprehensive response. The pilot study also enabled the researcher to think about probing and clarifying questions that could be asked, if needed.

Research Questions In this study, four research questions were designed to inquire about school closure policies, the criteria used for closure, the level of public and community engagement, and the lessons learned from policy implementation. They are written as follows: ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!$*!!

1. What do district board policy and administrative regulations state about the

decision-making process related to closing schools?

2. What criteria were used in the district during the decision to close schools?

3. How did school officials inform and engage the community in the

school closure process?

4. What important lessons surfaced from the implementation of the school closure

policy?

The first research question focused on examination of school closure policies of similar districts. To develop a greater understanding of the school closure policy, the research called for a comparative analysis of board policies from different urban school districts. As part of the policy study, the research required the examination of key ideas, phrases, and words from the districts’ school closure policies. If a policy was not evident, the researcher examined other related provisions that appeared to have a distinct correlation to school closure. Since the research literature stressed the significance of transparency, community involvement, and the decision-making process in closing schools, the study explored board policies surrounding these items (Samuels, 2011;

Dowdall, 2011; Steiner, 2009; Stover, 2009; Dillon, 2006).

The second research question concentrated on the criteria used in deciding which schools to close. The purpose of the question was not only to learn about the identified criteria for closing schools, but also the process used in creating a school closure list. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!%+!!

Furthermore, the researcher attempted to understand how district officials weighed academic and non-academic factors to inform their final decision.

The third research question was formulated to determine the amount of public and community engagement involved throughout the entire process. In the previous chapter, the literature pointed to the significance of being transparent, establishing communications, and enhancing public involvement during school closure (Samuels,

2011; Dowdall, 2011; Steiner, 2009; Stover, 2009; Dillon, 2006). To learn how the district tried to achieve this purpose, the researcher examined documents such as minutes, agendas, presentations and handouts. In addition, interviews were conducted to understand the public’s perception of the district’s attempt to involve them in school closure.

The fourth research question was developed to answer important lessons learned from the implementation of school closure. For this part of the study, the researcher gathered personal accounts from affected stakeholders to determine their dispositions after being displaced to a new campus. Additionally, the question was also used to determine if any repercussions arose from the implementation of the policy from the stakeholders’ perspectives.

Contextual Setting of the Research Site The Oakdale Unified School District (OUSD) is a large urban school district composed of approximately 46,472 students (Ed-Data, 2011-2012). The school district is composed of 136 total public schools: 58 elementary schools, 14 middle schools, 12 high schools, 3 K-8 schools, 1 6 -12 secondary school, 13 alternative schools and 35 charter ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!%"!!

schools (Oakdale Unified, Portfolio of Public Schools, 2011-2012). Student enrollment data reflect the following ethnic breakdown: 40% Hispanic/Latinos, 32% African

American, 13% Asian, 8% White and 7% other (Ed-Data, 2010 -2011). District figures portray a significant number of English Language Learners (28.8%) and students on the

Free Reduced Lunch program (57.0%) (Ed-Data, 2011-2012).

Within the past decade, OUSD has faced a substantial budget shortfall that has negatively impacted its operations. In 2003, the school district board sought an emergency loan from the State of California to meet its financial obligations.

Consequently, the district was placed under state receivership and lost its governing authority (Murphy, 2010). Under state takeover, neither the superintendent nor the school board has very little or no governance over many areas of the district’s functions

(Oluwole & Green III, 2009). Instead, a State Administrator is appointed to oversee many of the district’s operations, which could include areas such as human resources, facilities, finance, and instruction. Self-governance can only be reinstated after the school district passes an extensive review, which is normally performed by a state auditing firm

(Financial Crisis and Management Assistance Team Manual, 2012).

From 2003 to 2006, the State Administrator who was assigned to OUSD explored the closing, redesigning, and restructuring of schools to resolve the district’s fiscal and academic challenges (Sturrock, 2004). At the time, the State Administrator made the decision to close schools due to the fiscal implications of declining enrollment, and the low academic performance of neighborhood schools. Ultimately, the State Administrator used school size, school proximity, school performance, student enrollment, and facilities ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!%#!!

capacity as the primary criteria in deciding which schools to close. The criteria laid down the foundation for subsequent OUSD school closures that occurred a decade later.

Even though OUSD exited state takeover in 2009, the district’s financial condition is still in a precarious state, especially after the institution filed a “qualified” certification on its second interim budget report in 2009- 2010 (California Department of

Education, Second Interim Report, 2009-2010). A “qualified” certification means that school districts may not meet their financial obligations, based upon current budget projections for the following year (California Department of Education, Second Interim

Report, 2009-2010). The school district must monitor its spending prudently in order to avoid reverting to state takeover.

In addition to financial challenges, OUSD is also facing student performance and achievement issues. The school district is currently classified as a Program Improvement

(PI) district, which means that it has failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements as outlined in No Child Left Behind legislation (California Department of

Education, Accountability Progress Reporting, 2012). Under PI status, the school district is required to make significant student achievement gains on standardized testing. If not, the district is required to initiate one of four intervention strategies, which could include the closing and restructuring of schools. Currently, records indicate that 42 elementary schools and 40 secondary schools in the district are labeled as PI schools (California

Department of Education, Data Quest, 2012).

OUSD closed and reconsolidated neighborhood schools in the early 2000s, and closed additional ones at the end of the 2011-2012 school year (Waloff, 2011). School ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!%$!!

closures presented an intriguing case study because of the processes, procedures, and protocols that arose from policy implementation. The topic warrants close examination because of the underlying impact the activity brings to the organization and the community. Moving forward, the school district needs to learn from its past experiences, and become more prudent with its current practices to build organizational stability.

Participants The individuals who participated in the interview segment of the study were chosen using purposive sampling. Purposive sampling provides the researcher with a way to select participants with the knowledge needed for the study (Creswell, 2009; Erlandson et al., 1993). Purposive sampling also helps the researcher discover, understand, and gain insights by creating a representative group of individuals who could share realistic accounts from their personal experiences (Merriam, 1998). In this study, the sample group was composed of various stakeholders from the school district and the community who experienced school closure under different roles and capacities. The individuals were selected because of the historical and institutional knowledge that they possess about the organization and the community. Their stories and expertise would authenticate the series of actions that transpired during the school closure process.

The following profile characterizes the interview participants who form the sample group:

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!%%!!

Table 2: A Profile of Interview Participants

Interview Participant Profile

Participant 1: Margie Former Oakdale Unified administrator who served as principal of a closed elementary school

Participant 2: Kevin Former Oakdale Unified administrator who served as a network executive officer of a closed elementary school

Participant 3: Melinda Current Oakdale Unified central office administrator; former district teacher and site administrator

Participant 4: Karen Current elementary school teacher in Oakdale Unified who taught at a recently closed school; a community member; a parent of children attending schools in the district

Participant 5: Linda Director of a non-profit organization in Oakdale; served as a school reform consultant for Oakdale Unified; a community member

Participant 6: Timothy An Oakdale Unified graduate; born and raised in Oakdale; a community member and activist

The criteria for selecting the interview participants were based on multiple factors: 1) their current employment status (previous versus current); 2) their role during closure (district staff versus non-district staff; 3) their residence status (resident versus non-resident); 4) their level of authority (district versus site level), and 5) their advocacy ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!%&!!

standing (for or against closure). To obtain a balanced perspective on the issue, these characteristics were evenly weighed to create the representative sample group.

Instrumentation

In order to examine the school closures critically, this study employed three qualitative methods aspired to find answers to the four research questions. The following instruments were used: 1) the review of school board policies; 2) the review of extant data; and 3) one-on-one personal interviews of various stakeholders. These forms of instrumentation were selected because of their ability to produce a representative picture of the problem by accessing the research literature, examining various data sources, and analyzing personal stories behind the ordeal. Collectively, the qualitative research methods would actualize and validate the activities that transpired during the process.

The first research question was addressed through a critical review and examination of various school board policies. The second and third research questions were investigated by reviewing and analyzing extant data from journals, manuals, reports, publications, and various district and state databases. The review of board policies was essential because it allowed a comparative analysis of school closure policies from five school districts. The review of extant data was important because it provided a profile of each district, as well as vital information on academic programs, finances and reform efforts. The interview sessions were valuable because they provided realistic perspectives of the issue from the professional and personal experiences of various stakeholders.

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!%'!!

Qualitative Research Method #1: Review of Board Policies

To begin the school closure board policy study, the researcher conducted an online search using the Ed-Data database to find schools that possessed similar profiles. To limit the number of results from the search, the researcher used enrollment, ethnicity, English

Language Learners (ELL) and charter school enrollment as filters to generate a list. The process produced four school districts that closely resembled OUSD’s demographics. To find a greater match, the researcher continued to investigate the prospective school districts by reviewing their Academic Performance Index (API) scores and Free and

Reduced Lunch (FRL) numbers retrieved from DataQuest. In the end, the researcher was able to identify and select the school districts for the policy review:

Largest District % English % % Charter District Type Enrollment Ethnic API Language Eligible Enrollment Group Score Learners FRL

District 1: Large 46,472 Latino 726 28.8% 57% 20.8% Oakdale urban Unified

District 2: Large 29,883 Latino 707 32.7% 69% 3.4% Westside urban Unified

District 3: Large 38,810 Latino 686 27.0% 84% 11.1% Valley suburban Unified

District 4: Large 33,306 Latino 797 23.6% 46% 3.3% Sharksville Urban Unified

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!%(!!

District 5: Large 47,939 Latino 760 22.7% 71% 9.4% Kingsville suburban Unified

Source: Ed-Data, 2011-2012; DataQuest 2011-2012 Figure 3: Characteristics of school district Although the profiles show some variations between the school districts, these factors appear to be subtle, and therefore, have little or minimal influence on the policy review. The school districts demonstrate relative similarities in terms of district size, enrollment, ethnicity, student performance scores, and ELL population. Furthermore, based on FRL data, the school districts also appear to serve similar communities. The researcher acknowledged these potential variables in the policy study to put the investigation into the proper context.

The selection of the school districts was essential before proceeding with the policy comparisons. Once the school districts were determined, the next phase of the investigation required looking at board policies and administrative regulations from the identified school districts. To accomplish this goal, the researcher conducted online searches of the selected school districts’ websites to find their school closure board policies. Once located, the researcher analyzed the important components and content of the policy, paying close attention to main titles, language and underlying themes. The researcher also looked for related policies that may have profound school closure implications.

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!%)!!

Qualitative Research Method #2: Review of Extant Data This part of the study included the collection and examination of extant data from various source documents. To find current numerical facts and figures on school closure, the researcher performed online searches for journals, manuals, reports, and other publications that provided metrics on school closure. The researcher accessed national and local databases to seek potential trends and patterns related to school closure. For this study, the researcher collected extant data using Ed-Data and DataQuest to retrieve information on student enrollment, academic achievement, and student demographics.

Similarly, the researcher accessed the school districts’ websites to review documents such as the District Strategic Plan, the Facilities Master Plan, the School Accountability Report

Card (SARC) and others.

Qualitative Research Method #3: Interview of Different Stakeholders The interview method was one of the three modes of instrumentation used to gather qualitative data for this study. The interviews, which supplemented the literature and online searches, provided a value-added component because they presented the context to engage in face-to-face conversations with individuals who have actually lived through the closure experience. Honest and open dialogue posed another strategy of gathering authentic and realistic data through personal storytelling. The methodology allowed the interview participants to convey the humanistic and emotional side of the issue. According to Young & Saver (2001), it was through genuine repetition and storytelling that humans narrated ways of knowing and being. They added that we live and think about the world within a story structure that was “brain-based and deeply ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!%*!!

human” (Young & Saver, 2001, p. 80). Kearney (2002) added that storytelling and narratives were principal ways of understanding the lived world.

In this investigation, the interview sessions were designed to last for one hour.

The process involved asking semi-structured, open-ended questions on policy implementation, decision-making, public and community engagement, and the consequences of school closure. Six interview participants, representing the school district and the community, were purposefully selected to make up the sample group. The participants were chosen because of their capacity to help the researcher best understand the problem and the research question (Creswell, 2009).

Data Collection Data collection in this study involved the combination of using literature and database searches as well as the interview method. To conduct the school closure policy study, the researcher navigated through the school district websites to search for board policies and administrative regulations. To find relevant facts and figures for the study, the researcher explored educational databases at the state and local level to obtain data.

As the researcher reviewed the various the data sources, important notes were written in a journal. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, the researcher typed and converted the handwritten notes into a Microsoft Word document. Subsequently, the researcher organized the information into charts, graphs, and tables to visually represent any notable trends that emanated from the research. The statistical and numerical data served as points of reference for different aspects of this study. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!&+!!

For the interview segment of the research, preparatory activities were simultaneously being completed, while the policy review was underway. To initiate the process, the researcher contacted the interview participants, via email or phone calls, to inform them about his intent to include them in the study. The researcher explained the purpose and characteristics of the research design. He discussed the ethical and confidentiality clauses associated with the research. Once the prospective interview participants agreed to get involved, the researcher arranged a scheduled interview session with them. The researcher or an associate met with the selected individuals to administer the qualitative interviews.

The interview session was scheduled for approximately one hour. During the interview, the researcher asked semi-structured, open-ended questions on policy implementation, process and protocol, decision-making, public and community engagement and the resulting outcome. The researcher captured the responses of the interview participants using a speech recognition device. The recorded responses were later transcribed and decoded for deeper analysis. Towards the end of the session, interview participants were notified about the possibility of conducting a follow-up interview, via phone call, if additional questions arose.

Data Analysis Data analysis was conducted after sufficient information was gathered. Initially, to analyze the data obtained during the policy study, the researcher organized the facts and figures using a text document and spreadsheet. The researcher developed charts, graphs, and tables to distinguish any patterns that could emanate from the data. As ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!&"!!

important pieces of information surfaced, the researcher recorded them into the journal and analyzed the material for meaning. After review, the researcher determined that the gathered information would be used as foundational knowledge to compare different aspects of the school closure issue.

In the interview portion of the research, data analysis involved making sense out of the responses generated by the interview participants. To begin analyzing the recorded information, the first part of the process involved the organization and preparation of data.

This step included the transcription of the recorded material into a manuscript format, which was done by a professional transcription agency. After the manuscript was produced, the researcher read the document several times to familiarize himself with the contents. The researcher identified key phrases and clauses using different highlighter pens. He jotted down notes and recorded general thoughts on the document. Then, the researcher began to note similarities and connections based on the interview responses.

The next step of data analysis required the detailed examination of the information using the coding process. Coding, as a qualitative analysis technique, involved the process of organizing material into chunks or segments of texts before bringing meaning to the information (Creswell, 2009). In this study, the researcher used the chunking process to identify key phrases, clauses, and sentences from the manuscript.

After completing this step, he grouped the materials according to five major categories: a) policy implementation; b) process and protocol; c) decision-making; d) public and community engagement; and e) other. Once under these headings, the researcher continued to examine each phrase or clause, looking for key words, ideas, or texts that ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!&#!!

resonated within the grouping. These emerging themes gave rise to the findings in the study.

The final step of data analysis involved making interpretations and meaning out of the emerging findings. To achieve this purpose, the researcher analyzed the findings and looked for possible connections between the findings, the evidence, and the research literature. In addition, the process required generating and presenting assertions based on the data.

Limitations of the Study

There are multiple factors that could limit the scope of this research. First, it should be known that the researcher served as the principal of a closed school. Based on the disclosure, some readers may surmise that bias existed within the research. Initially, the assertion was true due to the emotional nature of the topic. However, as time passed, I have been able to move on and have come to accept the current reality. As a researcher, I have removed myself from the role of district and site administrator. As an educational leader, my motivation for conducting the research lies in learning how to create a positive outlook from a crisis situation. The lessons learned from the school closure experience could provide policy makers and implementers with a foundation to drive the decision- making process.

The second limitation of the study related to the expertise and experiences of the interview participants. In as much as the researcher assembled a group of individuals who could provide diverse perspectives of the topic, it should be noted that interview participants could possess their own individual biases stemming from deep emotional ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!&$!!

feelings attached to the issue. In addition, it should be recognized that the interview participants provided personal stories and accounts based primarily on their individual experiences, thus, offering a filtered version of the entire experience. To place the information in proper context, the researcher asked the interview participants to disclose and then explain their personal beliefs and attitudes behind the responses. Furthermore, the researcher attempted to understand the positional stance of certain interview participants during follow-up interviews. Altogether, the researcher weighed the legitimacy of the responses to deal with potential bias. The researcher accounted for these variables in the report of findings.

The third limitation of the study deals within the context and place where the school closure occurred. Since the research site had unique features that set it apart from other school districts, the resulting outcome may be restricted to academic institutions that share the same characteristics. In this study, it should be noted that the research focused on an urban school district that once experienced state receivership. Under this unique condition, one has to recognize that the series of events, as well as the final outcome, could have been influenced by a different governance structure. It is unknown how the final results and outcomes would differ if the research were performed under different circumstances.

And finally, the fourth limitation of the study could be attributed to the elapsed time that occurred between the school closures and the actual research. Since the research was conducted a few years after a series of school closures, it was difficult to recreate the tone and setting of the moment. Moreover, it was also hard to duplicate the emotional ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!&%!!

nature of the dilemma. Key stakeholders could have moved away, thus altering the organizational and community landscape. Also, affected individuals could have fully adapted, coped, and transitioned into their new settings. This current reality made it difficult to authenticate the experience, especially as people’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs have changed. Due to the elapsed time, testimonials from affected stakeholders could have lost their luster and meaning over time. The research could have been more significant if it was conducted at the height of the ordeal.

Subject Positioning

This qualitative case study attempted to tell the story of school closure using different perspectives. To elicit multiple perspectives from various stakeholders, the researcher assembled a representative sample group who experienced school closure under different circumstances. The researcher purposefully selected interview participants consisting of central office and site administrators, staff members, parents, and community members. The researcher arranged a sample group that could provide a balanced and authentic perspective to the issue.

The interviews were designed to engage the participants in face-to-face dialogue with the interviewer. The sessions were set up to encourage honest and open conversations about the topic. Subject positioning on certain aspects of the issue could have surfaced during the interviews. To minimize individual biases, the researcher weighed the interview participants’ responses within the context of their role(s) and the interview questions. To establish reliability and validity, individual responses were compared to one another and assessed for value. Furthermore, the researcher analyzed the ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!&&!!

collective responses of the interview participants, and corroborated them with current knowledge from the research literature. The researcher believed that comparing the interview responses to the research literature raised the qualitative reliability and validity of the research study.

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!&'!!

Chapter 4 Results and Outcomes During the last few years, school districts in California have struggled to meet financial and academic challenges. Unfortunately, unless the current state of affairs improves, school districts are often times subjected to implement school closure to meet organizational and educational needs. Due to declining enrollment and funding shortages, school district officials try to avoid school closure because of the potential impact it brings to the district and the students. For example, the research literature noted a drop in student performance, poor attendance rates, and decreased enrollment as conditions resulting from school closure (Kirshner et al., 2010; De la Torre & Gwynne, 2009;

Rumberger & Larson, 1998). However, as options become limited, many districts are sometimes placed in an uncompromising position, and have no recourse but to implement the strategies to close schools.

This qualitative case study sought to reveal school closure policies used by similar districts. The research also focused on learning the series of activities and events that led to policy implementation in an urban school district in Northern California. To guide the investigation, four research questions were developed to explore school closure policies, processes and criteria, decision-making, public engagement and lessons learned from the experience. Presented here is a discussion of themes and findings that emerged during the course of the study.

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!&(!!

School Closure Policy Study Research Question #1: What do district board policy and administrative regulations state about the decision-making process related to closing schools?

To address the first research question, a comprehensive search for school closure policies and/or provisions was conducted. In the review of school board policies from five school districts, it was discovered that there was no evidence of an explicit and exclusive policy labeled “school closure.” However, upon a thorough review of the board policies, school closures appeared to be implied and infused across other related policies.

After perusing the documents, the most relevant policies associated with school closure appeared to relate closely to philosophy and goals, community relations, and facilities

(Oakdale Unified Board Policy, 2012; Westside Unified Board Policy, 2012; Valley

Unified Board Policy, 2012; Sharksville Unified Board Policy, 2012; Kingsville Unified

Board Policy, 2012).

Using the Governance and Management Using Technology (GAMUT) online website (www.gamutonline.net), I was redirected to the school districts’ websites and their board policies. After browsing each site, I was able to locate a directory that listed the following headings: BP 0000 (Philosophy, Goals, Objectives and Comprehensive

Plans), BP 1000 (Community Relations), and BP 7000 (Facilities). As researcher, I studied the content of these provisions in depth, so I could gain a deeper understanding of their relationship to school closure. In my investigation, I found that the provisions contained key ideas and language associated with school closure. I also learned that the ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!&)!!

concepts were linked to the Educational Code, management resource policies, and other legal guidelines.

The following charts reflected a comprehensive summary of the key concepts and language that surfaced from my discovery:

Table 3: Philosophy, Goals, Objectives and Comprehensive Plans (BP 0000)

District Related Board Policies Key Ideas Key Words

District 1: BP 0000 Vision Inclusive of parents, Parents Oakdale BP 0100 Philosophy guardians, staff, students, Unified BP 0200 Goals for the District and community members Community

Input from parents, Fiscal integrity guardians, staff, students, and community members

Effective communication

Maintain positive relations with parents/guardian and community, emphasizing communication and inviting participation

District 2: BP 0000 Philosophy Democratic values Parents Westside BP 0100 Mission Statement Unified BP 0200 Goals and Objectives Free society Community of the School District Ongoing partnership Learning Environment Support and supplement

District 3: BP 0000 Vision District beliefs, values, and Parents Valley BP 0100 Philosophy tenets Unified BP 0200 Goals for the District Community BP 0300 Objective/Goals Guiding vision Indicators for the Fiscal integrity District Effective communication

Input from stakeholders ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!&*!!

using surveys, focus groups, advisory committees, public meetings, and forums

Maintain fiscal integrity

District 4: BP 0000 Vision District beliefs, values and Parents Sharksville BP 0100 Philosophy tenets Unified BP 0200 Goals for the School Community District Work together in BP 0310 Sharksville Unified partnership Inclusion and the City Collaborative Effective communication

Positive relationships

Input from stakeholders using surveys, focus groups, advisory committees, public meetings, and forums

Maintain fiscal integrity

District 5: BP 0000 Concept and Roles Democracy Parents Kingsville BP 0100 Philosophy Unified BP 0200 Goals for the District Ongoing partnership Community

Effective communication Diversity

Open, honest, and timely communication and collaboration

Maintain fiscal integrity

! By comparing each school district’s board policy, slight variations in titles, language, and format can be noticed. However, the substance of each policy is relatively similar. Every policy referred to the significance of building good partnerships and ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!'+!!

working relationships with parents and the community. Furthermore, the policies articulate the importance of effective communication, community input, and democratic principles.

Board Policy 1000 (Community Relations) supported the main ideas expressed in

Board Policy 0000 (Philosophy, Goals, Objectives and Comprehensive Plans). A review of the policy showed recurring themes related to communication, collaboration and participation:

Table 4: Community Relations (BP 1000)

District Related Board Policies Key Ideas Key Words

District 1: BP 1000 Concept and Roles Establish two-way Community Oakdale BP 1100 Communication with effective communication involvement Unified the Public system BP 1220 Citizen Advisory Partnership Committees Collaborate as partners Advisory capacity Keep community members well-informed

Expression of public interests and concerns

Establishment of citizen advisory committees

District 2: BP 1000 Concept and Roles Open, transparent, and Responsible Westside BP 1100 Communication with inclusive participation management Unified the Public BP 1220 Citizen Advisory Free flow of public Decision-making Committees information process

Meaningful dialogue Diverse stakeholders

Building positive relationships

Communication ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!'"!!

Public awareness

Community involvement and input

Establishment of citizen advisory committees

District 3: BP 1000 Concepts and Roles Communications Community Valley BP 1010 Goals and Involvement Unified Objectives Better understand the BP 1100 Communications beliefs, attitudes, and Partnership with the Public opinions held by the BP 1140 Responsibility of community Advisory capacity the Governing Board Consider problems and BP 1210 School Community issues as the need arises Associations BP 1220 Citizen Advisory Expression of public Committees interests and concerns

Public awareness

District 4: BP 1000 Concepts and Roles Establish two-way Community Sharksville BP 1100 Communication with effective communication Involvement Unified the Public system BP 1220 Citizen Advisory Partnership Committees Collaborate as partners Advisory capacity Keep community members well-informed

Establish citizen advisory committees

District 5: BP 1000 Concepts and Roles Working together for a Community center Kingsville BP 1100 Communication with strong community Unified the Public BP 1220 Citizen Advisory Better communications Committees and relationships with people

Building positive relationships ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!'#!!

Public awareness

Community involvement and input

Establishment of citizen advisory committees

! Board Policy 1000 (Community Relations) stressed the value of open, transparent communication with the public. Furthermore, the provision indicated the merit of community input and feedback through participation in advisory committees. The concepts of responsible management and decision making surfaced from this policy, showing possible connections to school closure.

Board Policy 7000 (Facilities) made strong reference to providing safe and adequate facilities to support the goals and mission of the school district. The provision pointed to the significance of continually assessing short-term and long-term facilities needs. By thoroughly reviewing the policy, an investigator could see how the policy closely linked to school closure decisions (see Table 5).

Table 5: Facilities (BP 7000)

District Related Board Policies Key Ideas Key Words

District 1: BP 7000 Concepts and Roles Provide safe and adequate Facilities master Oakdale BP 7110 Facilities Master facilities plan Unified Plan BP 7150 Site Selection and Assess short term and long California Development term facilities needs Environmental Quality Act Establish a facilities advisory committee

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!'$!!

Solicit community input

District 2: BP 7000 Concepts and Roles Provide a healthy Facilities master Westside in New Construction environment plan Unified BP 7100 Planning BP 7150 Site Selection and Expansion Projected Development enrollment Assess short term and long term facilities needs Residential housing growth Consider social, economic and political factors Grade Solicit community input configuration

Attendance boundary

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

District 3: Not available Not available Not available Valley Unified

District 4: BP 7000 Concepts and Roles Provide safe and adequate Facilities master Sharksville BP 7110 Facilities Master facilities plan Unified Plan Assess short term and long Projected term facilities needs enrollment

Residential housing

Grade level configuration

District 5: BP 7000 Concepts and Roles Provide safe and adequate Facilities master Kingsville BP 7110 Facilities Master facilities plan Unified Plan BP 7111 Evaluating Existing Expansion Projected Buildings enrollment BP 7150 Site Selection and Assess short term and long Development term facilities needs Residential housing growth ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!'%!!

Consider social, economic, and political factors Grade level configuration Solicit community input Over-enrollment and under- enrollment

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

The policies presented emerging themes that connect school closure and decision- making and revealed that each school district placed a high premium on community involvement and participation. As universally expressed in BP 0000, BP 1000, and BP

7000, I also found that the school districts valued the building of community relations by encouraging participation and soliciting feedback. In OUSD, the school district formed a task force, consisting of district staff and community members, to draft the criteria for school closure (Melinda, personal communication, 2012). This action was consistent with the research literature, which documented how schools across the nation attempt to enhance public involvement when dealing with the same condition (DeWitt & Moccia,

2011; McMilin, 2010; Steiner, 2009; Dillon, 2006; Wertz, 2003). The policy review implied that school districts understood the value of effectively communicating and engaging the general public in the decision-making process.

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!'&!!

Decision-Making Criteria for Closing Schools Research Question #2: What criteria were used in making the decision to close schools?

School closures in Oakdale Unified could be traced back on two separate occasions. One wave of school closures occurred in 2003-2004 when the school district entered state receivership, while another set of school closures occurred in 2011-2012 when the school district employed a restructuring initiative (Waloff, 2011; Murphy,

2010). To gain a better understanding of the school closure criteria used during these two periods of time, I had to revisit relevant documents as well as interview six individuals who possessed historical and institutional knowledge about the issue.

To place the first round of school closures into context, I talked to two individuals who served under different leadership capacities during that time period. Kevin, one of the interviewees, was a central office administrator who supervised a group of underperforming schools. He had the unenviable task of notifying some of his assigned schools that they were slated for closure. He also had the responsibility of preparing and facilitating the process for his assigned sites. Margie, the second interviewee, was one of the elementary school principals who worked under Kevin’s supervision. Her school was subjected to closure due to low student enrollment and achievement. When asked to recount school closure conditions under a period of state receivership, Kevin stated, “The

State Administrator made the political decision to close schools, but yet, the process still needed to be figured out” (personal communication, 2012). Margie offered this comment, ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!''!!

“You know, there was no handbook, there was no roadmap, there was no guidance on how do you close your school” (personal communication, 2013).

The next set of school closures were completed under a different time frame and under a new set of circumstances. In 2011-2012, school closure was enacted to initiate a reform agenda that aspired to restructure failing schools. To recapture this time period, I interviewed four individuals who could provide an accurate account of the situation based on their personal stories. First, I interviewed Melinda, a former OUSD teacher and site administrator, who experienced the occurrence as a central office administrator. Then, I talked to Karen, a veteran elementary school teacher who currently resides in the community and has taught in two previously closed elementary schools. Third, I spoke to

Linda, a community member who formerly worked as an educational consultant for the district. And finally, I interviewed Timothy, a local resident who graduated from OUSD, and currently acts as a community advocate and activist.

I purposely posed the research question to these individuals, hoping to gain valuable insights from people who have lived through the experience. When asked about the criteria used during the most recent round of school closures, the interviewees responded as follows. Melinda stated,

We applied an actual matrix to the schools. The schools that bubbled up were then

recommended to the Board for closure. We applied the criteria equally, without

weighing one over the other. If you bubbled up in this matrix as one of the ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!'(!!

schools that really needed to be closed, then that would help release resources so

the other schools would stay open. (personal communication, 2013)

Karen shared her knowledge in this fashion:

The first school closure (criteria) wasn’t quite as clear. We were just told schools

were being closed, and we just made assumptions about why. The second school

closure was much more organized because I think they learned from their

mistakes from the first closure. I don’t think API scores should be the sole basis

of school closure. (personal communication, 2013)

Linda talked about underutilization as being one of the criteria for closure:

When you're losing enrollment and your budget is strapped and you have all these

buildings. Literally, that's a financial burden. When you have all these buildings

for 1000 students and there are 200 students in them, you still have to open it, heat

it. So, that's a criterion for closure, the utilization one. Oh, and then, No Child

Left Behind landed on the scene. (personal communication, 2013)

Timothy readily offered his perspective in this manner: “Too many schools, too many empty classrooms, low enrollment, and structural deficit” (personal communication,

2013).

By comparing and contrasting the responses of the six interview participants, I sensed that an evolving school closure decision-making model, based on specific criteria, ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!')!!

was beginning to define and crystallize itself. The personal interviews unveiled criteria for closing schools that have gradually evolved over recent years. As validated in other source documents, I found school closure criteria that were more robust and included more academic areas (See Table 6).

Table 6: A Comparison of School Closure Criteria

During State Receivership After State Receivership

2003 - 2004 20011 - 2012

School Size School Size

Student Enrollment Student Enrollment

Financial Considerations Financial Considerations

Facilities Capacity Facilities Capacity

School Proximity School Proximity

School Performance School Performance

School Choice

Program Relocation

Receiving School Analysis

Source: Oakdale Unified School Closure Documents, 2003-2004 and 2011-2012)

More significantly, a deeper analysis of the school closure decision-making model used in 2011-2012 revealed a detailed matrix consisting of specific indicators and metrics within each criterion:

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!'*!!

Table 7: Oakdale Unified School Closure Criteria (2011-2012)

School Specific Indicators Metrics Closure Criterion

School size Total number of students Number of students enrolled in the school (per grade level) Facilities capacity and usage Total number of class sized rooms

Percent of the facility capacity that is utilized

Student Total number of students Total prior year enrollment enrollment Comparison of three year enrollment change

Number of students projected for the upcoming year

CBEDs data

Financial Suspension rates Revenue loss and deficit considerations Average Daily Number of classified and certificated employees Attendance Attendance rate (ADA) Site assets and liabilities Chronic absence rate

Suspension rates

Facilities Facilities utilization Total number of class sized rooms capacity Classroom availability Percent of the facility utilized

School School radius Number of students who live within a specific proximity radius School attendance boundaries Number of students who live in the school’s attendance area ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!(+!!

School API growth Current API scores performance Three year API growth

Prior year to current year API difference

Student achievement and performance change in ELA

Student achievement and performance change in math

School choice School transfer requests Number of students on the waiting list for the upcoming year

Number of times selected based on the individual’s request

Program Specialized programs Number of students in specialized programs relocation such as STEM, academies, and special Types of services for students and families education Unique facilities needs

Student access

Receiving Quality of receiving School performance ranking school school analysis School choice ranking

Facilities capacity

Source: Oakdale Unified, School Closure Powerpoint Presentation, 2011-2012

The main theme that arose from the data was the evolution of a well developed, highly established decision-making matrix used for school closure purposes. Compared to the previous model, the current matrix places a broader focus on academics. The added ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!("!!

dimension provided educational decision makers with a clear rationale for closing schools and initiating reform efforts.

Public and Community Engagement Research Question #3: How did school officials inform and engage the community in the school closure process?

To examine how the school district informed the public and the community about the school closure process, I revisited practices and activities that were implemented during state receivership in 2003-2004 as well as those used in 2011-2012, In 2003 -

2004, I discovered that the school district conveyed the message of closing schools through public announcements, press releases, newsletters, memoranda, flyers, hand outs, and the district website. Since school closure was a relatively new occurrence, there was a lot of hype surrounding the issue. The media played a large role in disseminating information to the general public. Margie, a former OUSD elementary school principal who dealt with school closure, expressed the following thought:

I think ours was played in the news media more so than anything else, because it

was the first. There was a lot of political hype. The emphasis was on the school’s

failure to educate children, as opposed to the money aspect of the issue, and that

was the media hype during that time. (personal communication, 2013)

Kevin, a former OUSD district administrator, talked about how school closure was communicated to various stakeholders: ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!(#!!

! Board meetings were held to first announce the school closure. Then, it was the

typical kind of word by mouth. First, the principal will be called in and [told] that

we’re looking at possibly closing your school. Of course, then, the principal

would tell their staff. Staff would probably start talking to parents. (personal

communication, 2013)

In 2011-2012, I learned that the school district employed similar strategies used in

2003-2004. However, the evidence suggested that the school district appeared to place a greater emphasis on community involvement by organizing events such as community forums, school site and neighborhood meetings, engagement sessions, and board meetings. The intent of these events was to disperse important information and solicit input from the general public. Overall, it appeared as if the school district took a more proactive approach and was more transparent with its messaging during the last round of school closures. Linda articulated the difference in communications in this fashion:

Yes, they had formal community forums in these neighborhoods. They had

people charged at the district level go into communities and answer questions

(personal communication, 2013).

Melinda, however, wondered about the effectiveness of the communication strategies by saying: ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!($!!

There has been direct communication with principals, where the superintendent

actually articulates what's going on, politically, in the district. But, we still have a

structural deficit where it doesn't get straight to teachers. Information gets to

teachers through their principals. (personal communication, 2013)

The effectiveness of the communication plans in both time periods was viewed with mixed feelings. Although some interview participants acknowledged that the communication lines were improved the second time around, others believed that communication gaps still existed (Melinda, personal communication, 2013). However, some interviewees also questioned the authenticity and validity of the community meetings. A comment from an OUSD board member who attended an engagement meeting revealed the following message:

What I resent the most is the way I treated the parents at those engagement

meetings. Those weren’t engagement meetings. It was an ‘I came down and told

you, This is the way it is’ meetings. (As quoted by a Rockdale Unified board

member who attended a community forum, 2011)

The interview responses demonstrated diverse viewpoints about the district’s ability to inform the public about closure activities. The interviews accentuated the need to develop more communication schemes to allow every stakeholder to gain deeper knowledge and understanding of the issue. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!(%!!

For the second part of the research question, I had to examine how decision- making was conducted under two distinct conditions. In 2003-2004, it should be noted that the State Administrator rendered most of the critical decisions during state receivership. In 2011-2012, the superintendent and the governing board possessed the ability to make decisions about school closures. Comparing both periods, it should be observed that the decision-making styles in 2003-2004 and 2011-2012 clearly differed from one another. During state takeover, the decision-making process was more autocratic, and it remained in the hands of the State Administrator. During local governance and control, the superintendent and governing board had more autonomy to make decisions, and thus afforded the public to provide input and feedback on the matter.

In the research study, I discovered that selected community members were given the opportunity to serve on a school closure advisory group during the most recent round of school closures. As community representatives in an advisory group, I learned that these individuals were asked to engage in discussions, gather information, and make recommendations about closure (Melinda, personal communication, 2013). In addition, they were asked to determine the meaning of “quality schools,” so they could create a school closure-matrix that laid the foundation for the decision-making process (Oakdale

Strategic Master Plan, 2012; Oakdale Facilities Master Plan, 2012).

From my research, I also determined that re-organization transpired at the district level in order to achieve this purpose. The Office of Quality Community Schools

Development (QCSD) was created to pursue and achieve the vision (Oakdale Strategic

Master Plan, 2012; Oakdale Facilities Master Plan, 2012). Under the leadership of an ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!(&!!

executive director, the Office worked with community members to plan, coordinate, and facilitate the closing and restructuring of schools. The Office implemented a reform initiative that aspired to actualize the superintendent’s vision of transforming the school district into a place that produces results for all students,

A letter from the superintendent to the community encapsulates the overarching philosophy behind the mission:

Over the past year, we’ve spent a lot of time discussing the more inspiring aspect

of our restructuring efforts. We’ve received encouraging feedback on the

importance of caring for the whole child and supplementing quality instruction

with services that facilitate high levels of learning. It’s been exciting to see

consensus grow around the need for a new way of educating our students, but as

much work as we’ve done to get to this point, the hard part is just beginning.

Transforming the organization into a school district that produces results for all

children also requires tough choices and unpopular decisions – none more so than

school closure.

The school closure piece is the most painful part of restructuring, and the

recommendation to close schools is one of the most difficult I’ve made. At the

same time, we remain firm in our conviction that this tough road is the best course

for the future of our students. (Adapted from a Letter by the Superintendent to

Community Members, Oakdale Unified, 2011).

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!('!!

The QSCD arranged engagement meetings with community members, families, parents, teachers, and principals to determine the meaning of “quality schools” (Oakdale

Strategic Master Plan, 2012). Through the discussions, district staff and various stakeholders were able to generate the outcome standards and indicators of quality schools (Oakdale Unified, OUSD School Quality Standards, 2012). In a QSCD document, quality schools were characterized as follows: 1) having quality learning experiences for all students; 2) providing safe, supportive, and healthy environments for children;

3) promoting learning communities focused on continued improvement; 4) possessing meaningful student, family and community partnerships; and 5) having effective school leadership and resource management (Oakdale Unified, OUSD School Quality Standards,

2012).

In the end, I surmised that QSCD staff and community members worked collaboratively to create the meaning of quality, and then developed a school closure- decision making framework based on that concept. Then, I discovered that the decision- making framework included a scoring and ranking system that served as a metric for recommending school closures. During the last round of closures, one could conclude that the school district involved the community in its reform efforts, by allowing the public to give feedback in creating the processes and criteria used for closing and restructuring schools.

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!((!!

Lessons Learned from School Closure

Research Question #4: What important lessons surfaced from the implementation of the school closure policy?

From the interviews, I learned that charter schools and transitions remained to become noteworthy items for further discussion. The charter school topic was repeatedly mentioned because of its distinct presence and abundance in the district. Ongoing transitions also emerged as an additional topic that warrants discussion because of the toll school closure brings to affected individuals. These two subjects were unexpected findings that surfaced from the interviews and will be explored in this section.

Ever since the passing of charter school legislation in California in 1992, Weiss

(2011) demonstrated that the number of charter schools throughout the state had steadily risen over time. After reviewing Oakdale Unified data, I discovered that the number of charter schools in the district depicted the same pattern. The following chart portrays the increase in charter schools from 2002-2012:

2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

13 15 19 26 27 32 32 32 31 33

Source: Ed-Data, 2002-2012 Figure 4: Number of charter schools in OUSD Data sources reveal that there are 33 charter schools in the district, which accommodate 20.8% of the total student population (Ed-Data, 2011-2012; DataQuest

2011-2012). The percentage is significantly large in comparison to similar school districts

(see Figure 3). To learn about the rise of charter schools in OUSD, interview participants ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!()!!

provide some historical knowledge on the topic, Timothy explains the situation by saying

“The number of charter schools that have started each year have been accelerating. When the state administrator came in 2002-2003, you can see how that accelerated the process”

(personal communication, 2013). Linda provides another viewpoint on the subject:

Thirteen year ago, schools were overcrowded. Faith-based organizations were

concerned about the quality of education in the city. So, they formed a community

group to take action on the issue. They demanded a decent school in every

neighborhood for every family. They wanted to build a quality system of ‘schools

of choice’ for every family. The event marked the beginning of schools closures

and the emergence of charter schools in the district. (personal communication,

2013)

Melinda adds her perspective on the matter:

!During state administration, we opened a whole lot of schools and they were

called ‘small schools’ because that was the movement. Ten years later, we never,

ever thought about the fact that the state budget in California would get worse.

When you can’t maintain schools, they result in closure. To address the economic

condition at the time, a lot of people felt that the district was closing schools so

they could convert them to charters. (personal communication, 2013)

The responses of the interview participants reflected the initial events that led to the proliferation of charter schools in the district. It would be interesting to hypothesize ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!(*!!

how the recent round of school closures in 2011-2012 impacted the continued formation of charter schools in OUSD. The research attempted to draw a correlation between the two factors, but limited data makes it challenging to formulate an assertion at this time.

The topic necessitates further research in order to collect longitudinal data and eventually create an accurate representation of the situation.

A second issue that stemmed from the relationship between school closure and charter schools related to student enrollment. In Oakdale Unified, student enrollment figures in charter schools demonstrated significant growth over the past decade:

2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2077 2787 4289 6668 7158 7552 7861 8256 7894 9646

Source: Ed-Data, 2002-2012 Figure 5: Student Enrollment in Charter Schools in Oakdale Unified Conversely, the surge in charter school numbers correlated to a decline in student enrollment numbers in the public schools system:

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!)+!!

2002 - 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

52501 50437 49214 48135 47012 46431 46516 46616 46584 46472

Source: Ed-Data, 2002-2012. Figure 6: Enrollment numbers in Oakdale Unified

When asked to comment on the dynamics of student enrollment in public and charter schools, Timothy offered his insights as follows:

The pattern now is that they close schools. If there is an empty or underutilized

facility, charter schools apply to use it. So, the district closes public schools and

opens up a charter school in that same site, which then pushes down the

enrollment in the public schools even further, and then gives them more

justification to close schools. (personal communication, 2013)

Melinda expresses her feelings between the interrelatedness of charter and public

schools and their potential impact of student enrollment and funding:

Well, if I'm a charter school coming in a neighborhood where there is another

traditional public school, that means parents have a choice between going to the ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!)"!!

charter school or going to your traditional public school. Since public schools are

funded by enrollment, if the kids are going mostly to the charter school, then my

enrollment will decline in the traditional school. Then, my funding is going down,

so that remains as a threat. (personal communication, 2013)

The intriguing nature of the responses led to follow-up conversations regarding the interrelatedness of declining enrollment, reduced funding, school closures and the continued rise of charter schools. Since the most impacted stakeholders on the issue involved families and neighborhoods, I decided to seek out community members who could provide greater perspectives on these underlying factors. Karen, an OUSD teacher and community member, shed her perspective by stating, “Every year, we go through this.

We don’t have any money this year. We have lost this many kids, and we’re not going to get any funding” (personal communication, 2013). Linda, another longtime resident of

Oakdale, addressed the topic by responding, “Declining enrollment equates into dollars lost for a system. School closures started coming in when a continuing financial situation was happening (personal communication, 2013). Timothy, a community member and activist, presents an additional perspective on the matter:

Charter schools are not required to take all students. Charter schools have

skimmed off the top and play games with enrollment and test scores. Public

schools don’t do that. We were told that schools needed to close because we had

too many of them that were under-enrolled. So, why were public schools ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!)#!!

converted to charters, managed by private companies, and essentially serve the

same students? (personal communication, 2013)

The interview responses provided some perspectives on the rise of charter schools and their potential impact on student enrollment, funding, and school closures. The interrelatedness of these elements presents another area for study, and perhaps could serve as a basis for developing grounding theory.

And finally, the last issue that came up from the interviews was the need to continue transitions beyond school closure. Individuals affected by school closure described the importance of continuing transitional activities and events after closure. As told by interview participants, individuals claim that the post-closure syndrome experienced by displaced students and staff is masked by everything else that surrounded the issue. Kevin, a former OUSD employee who served as network executive officer during the school closures, described the significance of preparing for the aftermath of the event: “The most important lesson is that to really try to plan out the processes because the impact is going to be so traumatic and so emotional. One really needs to take the time and plan it out ahead of time (personal communication, 2013).

Margie, a former OUSD elementary school principal of a closed school, expressed the need to tend to the humanistic side of school closure. They did really good on the logic side. They failed miserably on the human side of the school closure and that was a piece that was never addressed (personal communication, 2012). ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!)$!!

However, Karen, a displaced elementary school teacher affected by school closure, exposed the reality of the ordeal:

Teachers felt inadequate and felt that they were part of the problem even

though they were not. Some of the teachers were kind of feeling on edge

too because they felt like they were being blamed for bringing their

problems over to the school. (personal communication, 2013)

In my research, I found that OUSD made efforts to address transitions after closure by planning activities such as hosted tours and orientation sessions. However, based on the interview responses, it appeared as if affected individuals desired more support services to enable them to cope with the ordeal. Kubler-Ross (1969) claimed that the grieving process involves going through phases of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and then acceptance. In the case of school closure, affected individuals who were displaced to another school after closure should have the opportunity to go through the range of emotions in an individual or group setting, District officials are encouraged to be sensitive, respectful, and understanding of people’s feelings after closure, and provide support systems and services that allow people to cope with the current reality.

Summary of Findings

Five emerging themes gave rise to the findings of this study. The first emergent theme centered on how the different school districts placed a high value on community involvement and participation. From Research Question one, I discovered that the school closure related policies, examined in the policy review, indicated the importance of building community relations and seeking feedback from different stakeholders in the ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!)%!!

decision-making process. Furthermore, the school districts acknowledged the significance of communicating effectively with the public and community by using different strategies such as community forums, neighborhood meetings, engagement sessions, and others.

The notion of being transparent and communicating intent is pivotal to the success of addressing district-wide issues.

The second theme that surfaced during the research dealt with the significance of communicating and engaging the public during the school closure process. In Research

Question two, I learned that a school closure decision-making matrix, which was created with public and community input, evolved during the last round of school closure. In

Research Question three, I learned that the school district desired a collaborative approach in developing the matrix and attempted to communicate effectively with the public to keep them apprised of school closure information and developments.

The third theme that stemmed from the research related to the possible connection between school closures, school reform and NCLB. In Research Question three, I learned about the district’s desire to close and restructure schools to initiate reform efforts. The superintendent aspired to create “quality schools” to allow students to receive the best education. As the district attempts to achieve its vision, one can see a striking pattern that suggests comprehensive reform along NCLB lines. The implications of the reform initiatives to the NCLB intervention strategies will be further analyzed in the next chapter.

The fourth theme that arose from the research related to the roots of the charter school movement within the district. In the early 2000s, interview records revealed that civic and community leaders led a campaign to build a quality system of “schools of ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!)&!!

choice” for every family in OUSD (Linda, personal communication, 2012). The movement was in response to the flagrant need of rectifying deplorable conditions in neighborhood schools. It could be surmised that the circumstance led to the beginning and the eventual rise of charter schools in the district.

Today, the record indicates that the number of charter schools in OUSD has grown to 33, an increase of 39% from 2002-2012 (see Figure 4). Some interview participants felt that the continued rise of charter schools in the district posed a threat to public schools in light of declining enrollment and limited funding (Melinda, personal communication, 2012). Some interviewees also continued to raise questions about the relationship between school closures and the movement (Karen, personal communication,

2012; Timothy, personal communication, 2012). The role of charter schools in these two separate instances requires further research to fully determine the impact of the movement on the organization and the community.

Finally, the last theme that emanated from the research dealt with the humanistic aspect of school closures. Individuals affected by the school closures indicated that the emotional toll of school closure continues after the school has been shuttered. They discussed the psychological and emotional strains associated with their transition to a new environment. Displaced staff members and students coped with school closure in their own personal way. However, all of them articulated the need to establish post- closure activities and events to help them adjust to their new surroundings.

The emergent themes from this research could be synthesized to form the following findings: ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!)'!!

1) School closure was not clearly stated or defined under board policies but

could be referenced under related policies that promote community

relationships and other democratic principles.

2) The criteria used for closing schools had an enhanced academic focus that

aspired to identify and reform underperforming schools under NCLB

guidelines.

3) District officials informed and engaged the community in the school closure

process by allowing them to participate in a task force that worked

collaboratively with district staff to create the decision-making matrix.

4) The rise and proliferation of charter schools in OUSD could be linked to the

community’s initial quest to establish quality schools in every local

neighborhood.

5) Displaced individuals continued to experience social and emotional feelings far

beyond the closing of their school.

The research yielded findings that will be discussed in the subsequent chapter.

The findings have implications that deeply affect the organization and the community. As school closure continues to become an ongoing issue for many school districts, policy makers and implementers may wish to examine different facets of the issue with a critical lens. The cyclic nature of education suggests that school closure will eventually disappear, but it will resurface based on the internal and external pressures exerted by our ever- changing society. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!)(!!

Chapter 5

Conclusion

This final chapter examines the significance and implications of the findings related to the OUSD case study on school closures. These findings, crafted from emergent themes, will be summarized and discussed. They will also be reviewed within the framework of the existing research on school closures in order to synthesize key concepts and ideas gained from the study. The following discussion aspires to combine theory and practice to provide foundational knowledge based on the OUSD experience.

This research illustrated how OUSD, on two separate occasions, determined that it was necessary to close neighborhood schools. In both instances, school district officials claimed that school closures were deemed essential in order to maintain fiscal stability.

Furthermore, they contended that the implementation of school closure policy was essential in order to reform failing schools.

Summary of the Findings

The purpose of the study was to delve deeper into the dynamics and events leading to school closure. Four research questions served as the primary guide to the inquiry process. The research questions were purposefully designed to learn more about the complex nature of the issue. The questions were formulated to investigate school closure policies, process and criteria, decision-making, and the impact of policy implementation on the organization and its stakeholders. The findings of the research, as well as its implications for practice, are thoroughly discussed later in the chapter. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!))!!

The first research question was crafted to examine the body and content of school closure policies from five different school districts. This question led to the discovery that each school district lacked a clearly stated, formalized provision that identified school closure. Instead, concepts associated with school closure were incorporated in other policies such as district philosophy, mission, vision and goals, community relations, and facilities.

The second question was devised to determine the processes and criteria used to close schools. For the second research question, I learned that a framework that contained established criteria and quantitative measures was the primary driver in the decision- making process. Compared to previous decision-making templates, the newer version possessed more academic areas and metrics. As opposed to the previous process, the public and the community had a more defined role in developing the model. They did not only work collaboratively with district staff to create the school closure framework, but they also had greater participation in making the recommendations for closure.

The third question was developed to study how the district communicated the closure and involved the public in the decision-making process. The findings from the third research question reinforced the findings from the second research question stated in a similar, yet alternative way. This study revealed that the district actively communicated and engaged the community in decision-making by allowing community members to participate in the creation of a decision-making matrix.

The final question attempted to derive any additional lessons learned from the experience. Of the four research questions, the findings produced from the last question ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!)*!!

posed an intriguing area for exploration because the notion of the closing and restructuring of schools had NCLB and school reform implications. As schools fail to achieve student performance standards, school officials can pursue NCLB strategies to turn around and reform underperforming schools. In addition, the presumptive history of charter schools emerging from a grass roots community movement is significant. Finally, the residual and lingering effects of closure on displaced individuals are a worthwhile area to explore.

Discussion of the Findings

The findings pose deep implications for school districts that are considering closing schools. These findings offer factors and variables to consider as district officials develop strategic and master plans. By paying close attention to lessons learned from school districts that have gone through the process, perhaps policy makers and implementers could minimize mistakes. Having more knowledge about school closures and the experiences other districts have had may allow educational leaders to make sound judgments to meet organizational and student needs. The following passages discuss the research questions and their findings.

Research Question #1: What do district board policy and administrative regulations state about the decision-making process related to closing schools?

Finding: School closure was not clearly stated or defined under board policies but could be referenced under other related provisions. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!*+!!

The review of board policy from five similar school districts showed the absence of a clear cut, well-defined school closure policy. After an extensive search to locate a specific policy, a clause, or a section that was exclusively labeled as “school closure policy” was not found. Instead, other board policies that have topics connected to school closure were present. After examining the main titles listed under the board policy directory, Philosophy, Goals, Objectives and Comprehensive Plans (BP 0000),

Community Relations (BP 1000), and Facilities (BP 7000) are board policies that demonstrated the most relatedness to school closure. Because of their implications to the topic, I decided to investigate each policy more deeply for content and language.

During a review of the policy, Board Policy 0000 (Philosophy, Goals, Objectives and Comprehensive Plans) contained ideas that represented the mission and vision of the school district. One theme that resonated across the policy was building relationships and establishing community involvement. BP 0000 referred to communicating the district’s vision to staff, parents/guardians, and the community as well as “soliciting input and feedback” on various issues (Oakdale Unified Board Policy, 2012; Westside Unified

Board Policy, 2012; Valley Unified Board Policy, 2012; Sharksville Unified Board

Policy, 2012; Kingsville Unified Board Policy, 2012). In addition, the policy referred to the value of exercising “beliefs, values and tenets” that are aligned to “democratic principles” (Oakdale Unified Board Policy, 2012; Westside Unified Board Policy, 2012;

Valley Unified Board Policy, 2012; Sharksville Unified Board Policy, 2012; Kingsville

Unified Board Policy, 2012). Research literature highlighted the value of democratic and ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!*"!!

collaborative decision-making and the usage of these principles when resolving issues

(Doyle, 2004; Flynn, 1998; Pines et al., 1998; Murphy, 1991).

Similar to BP 0000, Board Policy 1000 (Community Relations) also contained key ideas, clauses, and language that are relevant to school closure. The provision outlined the value of “establishing effective two-way communication systems between the organization and the community to identify community concerns”, and “keep them well-informed about district needs” (Oakdale Unified Board Policy, 2012; Westside

Unified Board Policy, 2012; Valley Unified Board Policy, 2012; Sharksville Unified

Board Policy, 2012; Kingsville Unified Board Policy, 2012). The policy also articulated the need to provide community members with opportunities to express interest and concerns about district-wide issues. Furthermore, the policy articulated the importance of forming “citizen advisory committees” in dealing with district-wide issues (Oakdale

Unified Board Policy, 2012; Westside Unified Board Policy, 2012; Valley Unified Board

Policy, 2012; Sharksville Unified Board Policy, 2012; Kingsville Unified Board Policy,

2012). The notion of involving the public and community in the decision-making process was a desirable practice identified in the literature, and it merits consideration as district officials grapple with contentious issues (Samuels, 2011; Lytton, 2011; Dowdall, 2011;

Dillon, 2006).

Lastly, Board Policy 7000 (Facilities) appeared to exhibit a strong association with school closure. The provision outlined the significance of providing safe and adequate facilities to support the educational needs of children by assessing short-term and long-term needs (Oakdale Unified Board Policy, 2012; Westside Unified Board ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!*#!!

Policy, 2012; Valley Unified Board Policy, 2012; Sharksville Unified Board Policy,

2012; Kingsville Unified Board Policy, 2012). The provision referred to maintaining a facilities master plan that meets the changing needs of students as dictated by ever- changing social, economic, and political factors. The facilities master plan, which supports the mission and vision of the school district, contains information, procedures, and guidelines from the California Department of Education’s “Closing a School Best

Practices Guide” (California Department of Education, Closing a School Best Practices

Guide, 2012).

In the absence of a bona fide school closure policy, BP 0000, BP 1000, and BP

7000 could be viewed as guiding principles to direct the school closure decision-making process. Policy makers and implementers are encouraged to examine, critically, the content and language of the policies if presented with making school closure decisions.

Combining different elements of the board policies could be an avenue for the development of an established school closure policy. A new policy that incorporates communication, transparency, and collaboration could surface and become a framework for administering school closure decisions.

Research Question #2: What criteria were used in the district during the decision to close schools?

Finding: The criteria used for closing schools had an enhanced academic focus that aspired to identify and reform underperforming schools under NCLB guidelines. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!*$!!

This study revealed that the criteria for closing schools developed over two separate periods and evolved over time. In 2003-2004, OUSD school closures were based primarily on school size, student enrollment, facilities utilization, school proximity, and their impact on finances (Margie, personal communication, 2012). Academic criteria were added later after district officials realized the strategic aspect of incorporating an educational reform agenda during policy implementation (Kevin, personal communications, 2013). During the latest round of school closures in 2011-2012, a newly established and expanded decision-making framework with a greater focus on academics was used.

In addition to the academic criteria used in 2003-2004, the latest model incorporated school performance, school choice, program relocation, and receiving school analysis as major areas of evaluation. Within each category, specific indicators with metrics assessed the educational effectiveness of OUSD schools. Schools that scored high in the decision-making matrix were identified as prime candidates for school closure.

By applying a ranking order that placed a heightened focus on academic areas such as

Academic Performance (API), specialized programs, and school quality, district officials were able to distinguish underperforming schools that needed reform.

In the era of school accountability, Program Improvement (PI) districts are encouraged to initiate any one of the four NCLB strategies to reform Program

Improvement schools. If PI schools are unable to attain their student performance goals under NCLB standards, they could be subjected to implementing reform strategies ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!*%!!

including the following: 1) the turnaround model, an approach that calls for reconstituting the organizational structure and make-up of a low performing school; 2) the restart model, a technique that involves closing a school and converting it into a charter school; 3) the school closure model, a strategy that necessitates permanently shutting down the school and moving students to another campus; and 4) the transformation model, a method by which the school is required to institute comprehensive instructional reforms (Minthrop

& Sunderman, 2009). In OUSD, district officials have launched school reform efforts that link deeply with the NCLB recommendations. OUSD has created a district-wide initiative that strives to build “quality schools” through the closing and restructuring of schools

(Oakdale Unified, “A Letter by the Superintendent to Community Members,” 2011).

Facilities consultants and experts say that there is no perfect formula for determining the components of the decision-making matrix. School closures across the nation have relied on a plethora of criteria to ground their final decision. School districts differ in how certain criteria are weighed and give varying considerations to softer elements such as a building’s historical significance (Dowdall, 2011). Nevertheless, the research indicated that school closure decisions typically begin with the more obviously quantifiable criteria and incorporate other factors later (Dowdall, 2011). In OUSD, school closures first began with metrics that heavily weighed fiscal matters, but later they evolved to include an educational reform agenda along NCLB lines.

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!*&!!

Research Question #3: How did school officials inform and engage the community in the school closure process?

Finding: School district officials informed and engaged the community in the school closure process by allowing them to participate in a task force that worked collaboratively with district staff to create the decision-making matrix.

BP 0000 (Philosophy, Goals, Objectives and Comprehensive Plans), BP 1000

(Community Relations), and BP 7000 (Facilities) expressed OUSD’s intent to inform and engage the community in the decision-making process. Staying true to their ideals, I discovered that OUSD officials communicated school closure to the general public using multiple measures. OUSD did not only use press releases, the media, and modern technology to disseminate information. OUSD also organized community forums, engagement sessions, roundtable discussions, and board meetings. Compared to the first round of school closures, it appeared as if school officials attempted to foster greater public and community involvement through these gatherings. OUSD was more proactive and transparent about the school closure process and gave different stakeholders more opportunities for input, feedback, and discussion.

In terms of decision-making, the research literature documents the significance of public and community engagement during school closure (Dowdall, 2011; Steiner, 2009;

Dillon, 2006; Wertz, 2003). Consistent with the literature, OUSD assembled a task force, composed of district staff and community members, to drive the school closure process. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!*'!!

In the end, the task force worked collaboratively to gather information, develop criteria, assess data, and make recommendations for closure. Education Code Section 17388 stipulates the formation of a district advisory committee when closing schools (California

Department of Education, Closing a School Best Practices Guide, 2012). Commonly referred to as the “7-11 Committee”, the group serves in an advisory capacity by providing direction and guidance on this issue.

In the OUSD experience, the task force emerged after school district officials decided to restructure the organization and form the Office of Quality Community

Schools Development (QCSD) (Oakdale Strategic Master Plan; Oakdale Facilities Master

Plan). QCSD aspired to actualize the superintendent’s goal of creating quality schools by implementing the full service community schools model. Under the leadership of an

OUSD central office executive director, a task force was eventually assembled to create a decision-making template based on the district’s definition of quality schools (Oakdale

Strategic Master Plan, 2012). In 2011-2012, the newly established matrix was used to decide which schools to close.

The research literature revealed how the level of public and community engagement during school closure could vary depending on the school district (Dillon,

2011). Some school districts fully endorse active participation and have developed numerous opportunities to get the general public involved, while other school districts have encouraged partial participation during the process (Dillon, 2011). OUSD appeared to prefer the partial approach, and thus it took an active role to manage the process. In this study, although OUSD used a committee during school closure, I learned that the ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!*(!!

group served in an advisory role, and it had limited capacity during the decision-making process. A central office administrator facilitated group activities, provided advice on specific topics, and guided the direction of the committee. The committee’s task was relegated to researching information and making recommendations for closure.

Nevertheless, the district was still able to accomplish its purpose and embark on the journey to implement comprehensive reform.

Research Question #4: What important lessons surfaced from the implementation of the school closure policy?

Finding #1: The rise and proliferation of charter schools in OUSD could be linked to the community’s initial quest to establish quality schools in every local neighborhood.

The charter school movement is a recent phenomenon that has gained continued momentum in education. Ever since the passage of the Charter Schools Act of 1992, the number of charter schools in California has increased significantly within the past decade

(see Figure 2). In OUSD, the number of charter schools has steadily risen from 20012 -

2013, and has appeared to reflect statewide trends (see Figure 4). An examination of

OUSD data revealed that 33 charter schools exist in the district, serving 20.8% of the total student population (Ed-Data, 2011-2012; DataQuest 2011-2012). The percentage is approximately 16%-50% greater compared to similar districts (see Figure 3). ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!*)!!

In OUSD, the beginning of the charter school movement could be attributed to the community’s desire to address overcrowded, poor learning conditions in the early 2000s

(Linda, personal communication, 2013). This study revealed that community leaders and activists rallied together to form a civil movement that aspired to establish a quality system of schools of choice for every family in the community (Linda, personal communication, 2013). As Linda, a longtime community resident stated, “The campaign was driven by the community, endorsed by the district, and facilitated by an educational consultancy firm (Linda, personal communication, 2013). As a result of their advocacy, a community task force was able to persuade district officials to pass a “small schools” policy. The policy resulted in the creation of 10 new, small autonomous schools in the district (Linda, personal communication, 2013).

Ten years later, educators and community members expressed mixed feelings about the outcome of the “small schools” movement in OUSD. A former OUSD educator suggested that the policy attracted students from nearby communities to attend viable programs in OUSD (Kevin, personal communication, 2012). Another advocate of “small schools” contended that the model provided students with opportunities to receive quality education in their immediate neighborhoods (Linda, personal communication, 2013).

However, opponents of the “small schools” argued that the policy has resulted in the conversion of public schools into charter schools, and the movement also paved the way for outside agencies and organizations to submit private charter proposals to the district

(Timothy, personal communication, 2012). ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!**!!

The abundance of charter schools in OUSD poses an intriguing scenario between public and charter schools, especially in terms of enrollment and funding. Since public schools are funded through student enrollment, some individuals expressed concerns that the vast number of charter schools in OUSD could influence public school funding

(Karen, personal communication, 2013; Melinda, personal communication, 2012;

Timothy, personal communication, 2012). The competition for prospective students could lead to lower enrollment in the public school system. Since public schools receive funding based on a per-pupil spending formula, fewer students could mean less revenue for schools (Melinda, personal communication, 2012). The relationship between the large number of charter schools in OUSD, declining enrollment, and lesser revenues requires additional research. Because of the lack of longitudinal data, it is premature to generate a conclusion at this time.

Finding #2: Displaced individuals continued to experience social and emotional feelings far beyond the closing of their school.

School closure is a highly charged issue that produces emotional strain on many individuals who have been affected by the event. Since schools are places where classmates develop relationships and parents form lasting bonds with staff members and one another, school closure presents a traumatic experience when these relationships are severed, and the sense of belongingness that has grown dear to people has been cut

(Wertz, 2003). When schools close, the local community is saddened by the loss of an ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"++!!

important part of their lives (Byrd, 2006). In the words of Margie, a former OUSD principal of a closed school, “The way I felt when I got the news that I had to close my school was the same feeling I had when my parents died” (Margie, personal communications, 2013).

Sometimes, people are more interested in everything else that surrounds the issue, so they do not really examine the affected individuals whose emotions reveal the severity of the ordeal. School district officials are encouraged to pay closer attention to the human toll that accompanies school closure because the distress, anguish, and grief linger after the final decision has been made. Affected individuals often continue to experience psychological and emotional distress beyond closure. Since grief is highly individualized, affected individuals may need to undergo a myriad of coping mechanisms to deal with the current reality. An individual may need to go through such stages of grief, which includes denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance (Kubler-Ross, 1969).

Support services should be readily available to allow affected individuals to receive treatment and counseling (Morton, 2009).

OUSD attempted to devise different strategies to assure for a smooth and seamless transition. OUSD created a survival handbook that provides parents, students, and families with valuable information and tips regarding the transition process (Oakdale

Unified, Parent and Family Guide to Transitioning Student Transfers, 2011). The handbook listed informational items such as a timeline, a frequently asked questions

(FAQs) section, welcoming activities and events, support services, and others. It also outlined planned activities for displaced families and students, which included bus tours, ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"+"!!

campus visits, informational fairs, and open houses (Oakdale Unified, Parent and Family

Guide to Transitioning Student Transfers, 2011). A transitional coordinator was assigned to provide support services during the transitional period.

Despite OUSD’s attempt to offer different types of activities during school closure, affected individuals have suggested that the events include personal and emotional care and extend beyond its current scope. Displaced individuals feel that school district officials need to attend to the residual effects that school closure brings to people. Since school closure has the tendency to cause psychological distress that is not visibly apparent, affected individuals need to be continually supported and cared for, especially during the most critical time of the ordeal---the year after school closure.

District officials are encouraged to be sympathetic and empathize with the plight of these individuals, giving them ample time for recovery. District officials have the responsibility to tend to the humanistic side of school closure in order to create a healthy, non-stressful, positive working environment for everyone.

Implications for Practice

The research presents intriguing findings that policy makers and implementers may consider as they contemplate implementing school closure. Having a school board policy that identifies the philosophy and goals of school closure is certainly needed to guide the process. However, other factors that necessitate deep thought and analysis before policy implementation include developing the criteria for closure, drafting a strategic plan that outline the steps of school closure, and preparing for the unintended consequences of the event. I recommend that policy makers and implementers consider ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"+#!!

incorporating these key elements in their school closure plans to minimize anxiety and uproar from various stakeholders.

This study revealed the value of having established criteria as grounds for school closure. I discovered that a quantifiable decision-making framework with specific categories and metrics is critical in reaching the final outcome because it could be argued that decisions are made on facts and data instead of emotions. Secondly, advanced strategic planning is very important before the actual implementation of the policy.

Factors that should be considered during the planning phase include opportunities for educational reform, access to quality learning environments, and public and community engagement. And finally, the importance of accounting for the humanistic element of school closure should be closely monitored. The unpredictability of school closure brings about issues and situations that no one could have prepared for. I encourage district officials to take a proactive role and work collaboratively with various stakeholders to tend to the residual effects of the problem.

School closure is a highly controversial, politically charged topic that could polarize different segments of the community. Furthermore, it is an emotional topic that brings distress and anxiety to affected students, parents, and staff members. However, when carefully planned and managed, the entire affair could produce a suitable outcome that appeases the needs and concerns of various stakeholders. The following section capitalizes on the lessons learned from the OUSD experience. By considering the newfound knowledge gained through this research, I hope that district-level decision ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"+$!!

makers and governing board members exercise the ability to make the best possible decision despite extremely trying conditions.

Creating a School Closure Policy

The cyclic nature of education suggests that school closure will continue to reoccur as the financial and economic landscape changes. Therefore, because of unpredictability of the event, I encourage district officials to prepare for the unexpected and regularly examine their existing board policies. Unfortunately, in terms of school closure, I discovered that school board policies do not have a specific provision exclusively devoted to school closure. Instead, I found that topics related to the issue are embedded within other policies.

School closure may not be explicitly written in board policy because of the political nature of the topic. Perhaps, the absence of a written policy was intended to minimize public emotions, sentiments, and reprisals emanating from policy implementation. The research literature provided evidence on the aftermath of the decision-making process and school closure (Dowdall, 2011). In some instances, the public and the community have undertaken actions that have adversely impacted policy makers and implementers. In the literature review, examples point to lawsuits, recall elections, boycotts, and ousters resulting from closure decisions (Dowdall, 2011; Samuels,

2011; Dillon, 2006). In school districts that have closed schools, it appeared as if public approval or disapproval of governing board members’ actions has manifested itself through local voting polls. Also, in highly politically driven communities, political ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"+%!!

pressures have sometimes become so overwhelming that superintendents and governing board members have resigned from their positions (Woodall, 2013).

Based on the OUSD experience, I recommend that district officials adopt a board policy solely labeled as “school closure policy.” Such a clause would enable district officials to express the rationale involved in policy implementation and implement action plans pertaining to the topic. Having a clearly written, well-defined school closure policy, which outlines the district’s philosophy, ideals, and values, is beneficial in articulating the intention to close schools. A school closure policy would not only provide justification for policy implementation, but it could also serve as a platform for planning and implementing strategic action plans. By creating logical steps that are aligned with the policy, district officials would possess the ability to present convincing arguments for closing schools. Also, although different stakeholders may not agree with the actions, they may learn to understand the thinking behind policy implementation.

If school districts decide to develop a school closure policy, I recommend drafting a provision that includes the following parts: 1) goals and objectives; 2) definitions; 3) public and community engagement; 4) criteria for closure; 5) decision-making; 6) communications; 7) district role and responsibility; and 8) other considerations. These subsections should reflect the belief system and core values of the organization.

Furthermore, the key ideas and concepts under each subsection should be molded to fit organizational and community needs. As a starting point, I propose including basic principles that arose from this research: ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"+&!!

• Goals and objectives: The section should articulate the purpose and reasoning behind

closing schools. Financial and academic hardships should be conveyed as extenuating

circumstances that necessitate school closure. The provision should be grounded on the

mission, vision, values, and goals of the school district. The introductory paragraph

should present positive and convincing arguments for closing schools, which include

opportunities for financial recovery and educational reform.

• Definitions: To foster and enhance understanding of the issue, I believe that the terms

“financial hardship” and “academic hardship” should be defined. In addition, the school

closure policy should explain key words and concepts that are foreign to non-educators.

A brief glossary of terms that include academic vocabulary such as Program

Improvement (PI), Academic Performance Index (API), Adequate Yearly Progress

(AYP), Average Daily Attendance (ADA) as well as budget vocabulary such as First and

Second Interim Report, Negative and Qualified Certification, General and Categorical

Funds, Revenues and Expenditures should be listed.

• Public and community engagement: The district’s belief regarding the public and

community’s role during the entire process should be expressed. The school closure

policy should identify opportunities to solicit input and feedback on the issue. It should

accentuate the role of the public and community in the decision-making process. The

subsection should reference the Education Code (i.e. Education Code 17388) and other

clauses in board policy (BP 0000, BP 1000, BP 7000) to substantiate the role of the

public and the community during the decision-making process. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"+'!!

• Criteria for closure: The school closure policy should discuss the grounds to be used in

closing schools. I recommend that the subsection outline the essential characteristics of

highly effective, quality schools. If school closure is necessary, I suggest looking closely

at schools that fail to meet facilities and academic standards. School closure criteria that

equally weigh financial and academic factors should be applied in determining which

schools to close.

• Decision-making: The subsection should identify the role of the public and the

community in decision-making. Whether the school district prefers partial or full

participation of different stakeholders in decision-making, I believe that the style and

process need to be articulated in this section. Advisory versus decision-making roles

should be differentiated, clarified, and defined. The community should be relegated to

serving in an advisory capacity, with the purpose of making recommendations to the

governing board. The governing board has the ultimate authority to decide which schools

to close.

• Communications: The subsection should describe the various ways that the district

aspires to disseminate school closure information with the general public. Opportunities

to learn about potential school closure in an individual or group setting should be

indicated. In addition to discussing traditional means of communication such as news

releases and community forums, I recommend that school districts describe ways to

communicate and interact with key decision-makers using emails, blogs, and other forms

of social media. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"+(!!

• District role and responsibility: The section should acknowledge the need for transitions

after school closure. Key concepts and ideas should be devoted to tending to the

aftermath of the event on affected individuals. Support services and systems should be

identified as part of this subsection. I recommend that a description of a post-school

closure committee be written in order to address and appease concerns of displaced

students, parents, and faculty.

• Other considerations: In this section, I encourage school districts to draft policy regarding

other items that could conceivably arise from the implementation of school closure. Since

school districts have unique characteristics, I suggest that the subsection be written to

address school districts’ organizational needs. Some areas to consider may include the

redistribution of equipment and materials, funding reallocation, personnel moves,

facilities repurposing, and others.

The above section contains recommendations about possible content and language

that could be adopted in drafting and finalizing a school closure policy. I encourage

school districts to develop their own policy in order to prepare themselves for the

unexpected onset of the event. In the end, the school closure policy should act as a living

and working document that aligns to the credo of the organization. Once written and

adopted, the policy should be used as a reference point to guide the district, especially if

school closure eventually becomes a stark reality.

! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"+)!!

Developing a Decision-Making Framework for Closing Schools that Effectively

Engages the Community

One of the major lessons learned from the research was the importance of having

well-established criteria as the basis for rendering a final decision. From the OUSD

experience, I have learned that the usage of specific, objective, data-driven criteria was

instrumental in driving the school closure process. In addition, I have learned that

allowing the community to work collaboratively with district staff in the creation of

criteria used for school closure was perceived in a favorable way. In the end, OUSD did

not only effectively manage the process, but it also attained its desired goal.

School districts have the autonomy to develop their own school closure policy to

meet organizational needs. In my study, I found out that equal access and opportunities to

educational programs, a school’s academic performance, finance, enrollment decline,

neighborhood impact, school boundaries, building condition, facilities utilization, reuse

options, and school choice have been used by district officials to guide school closure

strategic action plans. With a wide range of criteria, I encourage school districts to focus

on laying down the foundation for their school closure decision-making framework in the

following areas:

• Student Performance: With a heightened focus on student accountability per NCLB, I

recommend using student performance as a criterion for school closure. Indicators such

as Program Improvement (PI) status, Academic Performance Index (API) and Adequate

Yearly Progress (AYP) should be weighed to determine school effectiveness and

productivity. Other quantitative data such as rates for suspension, expulsion, attendance, ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"+*!!

and graduation should also be considered. Schools that fail to demonstrate considerable

academic growth over five years should be assessed and recommended for closure and/or

reform.

• Racial and Socio-Economic Diversity: When closing schools, I strongly recommend that

district officials conduct intensive analysis on the impact of boundary realignment on

student demographics and enrollment. Displaced students should be strategically and

equally distributed to receiving schools to maintain racial and socio-economical diversity.

The California Code of Regulations, Title 5, sections 90-101 define a district's

responsibility to avoid racial segregation within its schools. Decisions about school

closure and subsequent student placement should not exacerbate racial isolation

(California Department of Education, The Closing of a School Best Practices Guide,

2012).

• Facilities Condition: Students should not be subjected to attend schools in dilapidated

school buildings with inadequate facilities. They have the right to attend schools that

provide a safe, positive learning environment. Students should have universal access to

technology and other resources. Facilities managers and experts should conduct a

facilities study to determine optimum learning conditions for students.

• Location of Special Programs: The relocation of programs such as career academies and

special education must be carefully examined. Students must be given access and

opportunities to enroll in these special programs. Transportation should be considered, at

least during the transition year, to allow students to participate in the program. Open

enrollment, based on parent request, should be approved under special circumstances. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!""+!!

• Quality of Receiving Schools: There is a body of research that illustrated how transitions

to new schools can have an adverse effect on attendance and achievement gains for

students from closed schools, but these effects can be minimized when students move to

higher-performing schools (De Nisco, 2013). From a policy standpoint, this suggests that

if a district needs to close schools because of fiscal challenges or overcapacity, then

closing low performing schools and transferring students to higher performing schools

can minimize adverse effects (De Nisco, 2013; Engberg et al., 2012). It should be noted,

however, that the notion does not necessarily support school closures as a means for

improving student achievement (Engberg et al., 2012).

Collectively, these criteria could serve as the foundation for developing a school

closure decision-making framework. The criteria provide decision makers with a

financial and academic component to decide which schools to close. Infusing these

factors into a decision-making framework could ensure educational quality and integrity

using low cost, high leverage strategies. A school closure policy that combines these

areas presents a wonderful opportunity to implement school reform, and simultaneously it

develops a fair and equitable learning environment that fosters student success.

Of course, in the development of the school closure decision-making framework,

district officials need to engage various stakeholders, so they feel empowered and valued

and get various community perspectives. I highly recommend that district officials invite

the community members to share their knowledge by openly discussing the process.

Whenever possible, I suggest that the school district invite community members to join

steering committees and task forces to make school closure a collaborative process. By ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"""!!

allowing individuals to participate in designing criteria and having a voice in decision- making, school district administration could convince community members to trust the system. By working in a systematic way, all parties could learn mutual respect for one another and appreciate each other’s perspective to achieve a common purpose.

Using School Closure as a Vehicle for Comprehensive Reform

The OUSD experience presented an intriguing case study about school closure.

The school district demonstrated that it could create opportunity out of crisis. Beset by financial and academic challenges, the school district has managed to gain local governance and crawl out of state receivership in the 1990s. Furthermore, OUSD has been able to develop a school reform agenda that aspires to improve student achievement amidst school closures. Today, combining school closure with a reform model could be viewed as a plausible way of instituting change that is more acceptable to the general public. By closing and restructuring schools using the full service community design,

OUSD has proven that a school district could turn a negative situation into a positive experience.

During the last round of school closures in 2011-2012, the school district declared its intent to close and restructure schools due to the following reasons: 1) the district operates too many schools for the number of students in the district; 2) the district operates too many under enrolled schools and very small schools, not otherwise designed to be small; and 3) the district does not provide a quality program with adequate services to meet students’ and family needs in every neighborhood (Oakdale Unified School

District, “Expanding Quality and Releasing Resources,” PowerPoint Presentation, 2012). ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!""#!!

From an academic perspective, OUSD insisted that closing schools was necessary to improve the educational quality of failing and underperforming schools. In this case study, I have learned that the argument of providing better learning opportunities for children was a difficult position to argue against. School closure and educational reform carried a lot of political influence and credibility with the public sector. Therefore, the school district was able to implement the full service community schools model as a catalyst for reform (Oakdale Unified, “A Letter by the Superintendent to Community

Members,” 2011).

The OUSD school closure situation provided us with an example on how to leverage educational reform strategically with school closure. If a school district faces the same situation in the future, perhaps district leaders could use a similar tact as OUSD to manage the process. Based on the findings of this research, I suggest that educational leaders explore combining school closure with the following reform agendas:

• Full service community schools: The full service community schools offer a wide

array of services for neighborhoods. For students and families, schools as

community centers provide important support systems that benefit disadvantaged

youth. Depending on the districts and their partnerships with local organizations,

full service community schools could provide medical and dental services, act as

food banks, offer ELL classes, teach parenting skills, and offer other services.

• College and career academies: With a strong focus on globalization, some school

districts have embraced the notion of college and career readiness as being deeply

intertwined. School districts have begun to implement college and career ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!""$!!

academies that focus on a specific industry sector to prepare students for high

skilled jobs in the next decade. The implementation of college and career

academies in comprehensive high schools has demonstrated a positive impact in

student performance. Academy students have exhibited enhanced self-motivation

leading to significant improvements in their academic performance, behavior, and

attendance (Blomenkamp, 2009). Therefore, as an attempt to provide a rich and

engaging learning experience for all students, some school districts have explored

and incorporated Wall-to-Wall academies as part of their educational program.

• K-8 and 6-12 schools: This design moves away from the typical middle school

and high school configuration. Depending on the situation, changing grade level

configurations could accommodate more students and, therefore, maximize

facilities utilization. Academically speaking, a K-8 or 6-12 design provides

greater opportunities for vertical articulation and coordination within a school site.

Peer mentoring and tutoring programs could be created to serve the multiple

needs of students.

• Schools of Choice: The traditional way of education, which was based using the

concepts of the factory model, is not fully meeting the educational goals of all

students. In impoverished urban school districts, the system has produced students

who have become uninterested in their schooling, and eventually drop out. To

foster the love for learning, mastery of rigorous curricula, pursuit of productive

employment, and the need to compete in a global economy, district officials

should consider offering alternative forms of education to meet the individual ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!""%!!

needs of students. Themed charter or magnet schools that promote Science,

Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) or dual immersion have attracted

students and families.

• Reconsolidation: This process involves shutting down a school and moving

students to another campus. The strategy is often used to combine smaller schools

into a bigger school. Reconsolidation appears to have some financial value,

especially when underutilized buildings resulting from student under enrollment

are closed. Moving students from an underperforming school to a higher

performing school gives them greater opportunity to achieve academic success

(De Nisco, 2013; Engberg et al., 2012).

Educational practitioners could correlate the reform models to one of the four intervention strategies identified under NCLB. In combining these reform models with school closure, I suggest that district officials communicate intent strategically and be extremely deliberate with strategic planning. The political nature of NCLB could create a negative view of the reform efforts especially if the public perceives the activities to have a hidden agenda. The political fallout could present some serious repercussions for policy makers and implementers. If school districts decide to follow OUSD’s route, I encourage district officials to be transparent with the process. I recommend that they find strategies to market and publicize their reform efforts in a convincing way. School district officials need to convince the public that school reform is essential to develop greater learning opportunities for children. School reform is a valuable tool for launching school improvement programs that aspire to meet NCLB guidelines. ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!""&!!

Providing Alternative Learning Opportunities through Charter Schools

Parents and families seek the best possible education for their children. Many feel that their children, who are their most precious commodity, deserve the best possible learning opportunities that will allow them to achieve their lifelong dreams and goals.

Furthermore, many parents express that they would like their children to receive quality education in their immediate surroundings where resources and support systems exist.

Typically, most parents send their child to neighborhood schools. However, some choose to enroll their children in alternative settings such as a charter or magnet school.

Over the past few years, charter and magnet schools have gained popularity, and they have become a favorable alternative to public schools. Proponents of charter and magnet schools cite the following reasons as desirable conditions offered by these academic institutions: 1) They provide a more personalized learning environment for students because of their small size; 2) They offer rich instructional programs that cater to the unique needs of students; 3) They have specialized themes or focus areas that stimulate student interest and motivation; and 4) They provide support services that are atypical in comprehensive high schools. These benefits make charter and magnet schools very attractive to some parents.

In our democratic society, everyone has the right to make choices. In education, parents should be given the option of sending their children to a public or charter school.

However, school districts should regulate the proliferation of charter schools in their district and review charter proposals for their purpose and intent. Charter or magnet school proposals that enrich the programmatic offerings within the school district should ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!""'!!

be approved. I suggest that a district charter school committee be formed to review and determine the outcome of the application process. Proposals that align to the district’s mission, vision, values, and goals should be allowed to operate in the district.

Per federal and state legislation, charter schools should abide by the same accountability measures and standards required of public schools. These schools should be mandated to develop and submit strategic actions plans for student achievement and provide reports on a regular basis. Charter terms and limits should be based on student performance data. These educational institutions should be subjected to regular audits as well. By monitoring the activities of charter schools, charter school inadequacies and controversies that have recently made headline news could be avoided.

Regardless of one’s disposition over public versus charter schools, individuals should view the relationship of the two distinct programs in a symbiotic manner. Despite their differences, I believe that public and charter schools can co-exist to bring rich, engaging instructional programs for every student. As one of my interview participant’s stated, “We’re educating the same children. It’s not a competition about who can get what kids, who can get the higher performing kids or the lower performing kids.”

(Margie, personal communication, 2012) She continued by adding, “There needs to be an honest collaboration that strongly demonstrates that we are here together to educate the students. We need to determine how we can work together as opposed to against each other (Margie, personal communication, 2012). The above perspective should remind us of our moral purpose as educators, which simply put, should reinforce the notion, “It’s still and should be all about the kids.” ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!""(!!

Establishing Support Services for Displaced Individuals after School Closure

One aspect of school closure that is overlooked often relates to the humanistic side of the ordeal. After the logistical and the operational tasks have been completed, district officials still have the responsibility of making sure that students, parents, and staff members have fully transitioned to the process. School district officials are encouraged to account for the ongoing psychological and emotional feelings that have been experienced by affected individuals after their displacement from school closures.

As a former principal of a closed high school, I can personally attest that the transition process lingers for the next couple of years. More importantly, I would say that the year after closure is the period of time where most support is needed. I encourage district officials to be sensitive, acknowledge, and understand the effect on school closure on people. I urge them to develop intervention strategies that allow affected individuals to complete the transition process.

On a personal level, school closure had a dramatic impact on my psyche and sense of well-being. The year after closure was especially a difficult time period to deal with. The series of events that led to the final decision were still fresh and remained in my mind. I regularly reflected on the entire scenario, continually questioning the justification of the act. I would personally question myself to see if there was anything else that could have been done to keep the school open. Memories of being part of the closed school community would surface in a moment’s notice. In as much as I tried to forget the entire situation, I quickly realized that what transpired has now become a ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"")!!

trademark in my professional career. I established my final resolution on the topic when I fully researched and eventually understood the entire dynamics of the issue.

Students, parents, and staff members who had deep connections with their closed school also had a difficult time adjusting to their new surroundings. During their informal conversations with me, they expressed feelings of uneasiness and inadequacy in their new school. They talked about having to navigate the school’s established culture to assert their existence as being part of the staff. My former teachers would discuss how they were perceived as outsiders, how they were given very little credibility, and how they were treated as second-class citizens. All of these feelings conjured up anxiety and frustration. To cope with the situation, the teachers established their own support network consisting of colleagues from the closed school. As part of the group, they elected a representative to be the conduit to site administration.

I encourage district administrators to examine the aftermath of school closure. I recommend that district and site administrators work collaboratively to organize team- building activities and support systems for staff, especially the first year after closure. I suggest planning and implementing staff development activities that build relational trust.

I also recommend that staff members engage in self-study and discussion sessions to allow themselves to develop cohesively as a professional learning community (DuFour and Eaker, 1998).

After closure, the creation of a post-closure committee is highly recommended.

The post-closure committee should include a top central office administrator, a facilities manager, a district lead psychologist in addition to principals, counselors, students, ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!""*!!

faculty members and parent representatives from the closed and receiving schools.

Committee members should be assigned certain roles to ensure for a smooth and seamless transition. Planned activities could include coordinating the transfer of classroom materials and supplies from one building to another, developing counseling services for individuals who suffered deep emotional distress from the event, organizing team and community building activities at the receiving site, and a whole lot more. In informal conversations with former colleagues, they divulged that having a support group or network directly after school closure would have allowed them to cope more effectively with the entire process.

Implications for Further Research

This research study on school closure really allowed me, as researcher, to examine the topic from different dimensions. The case study produced valuable, newfound knowledge that could be used during policy implementation. At the same time, even though the case study has yielded some valuable findings, many aspects of the school closure still necessitate further exploration. First, the relatedness of school closures and the rise of charter schools pose an intriguing area for research. Second, the redistribution of funds and equipment after school closure also presents an important area to study. Lastly, teacher retention and attrition after closure could be another area that warrants future research.

The relationship of school closure and charter schools presents many different areas for further study. First, the possible connection of charter schools immediately surfacing after school closure warrants additional research. From the OUSD experience, ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"#+!!

some circumstantial evidence validated this point, but additional research needs to be conducted on the topic. The next important topic, which is related to the school closure and charter school relationship, deals with the privatization of public schools.

Privatization refers to the marketing of services, initiatives, programs and policies, including charter schools, vouchers and the contracting out of services and management, provided by specialty service providers (Burch et al., 2006). It also means that schools could be managed by educational management organizations (EMOs) and other private entities. In my research, I encountered the concept of portfolio management, wherein the district allows charter schools to be run and managed by outside agencies. This aspect of the school closure and charter school issue also merits more research.

Another area of school closure that requires further analysis relates to the redistribution of materials, equipment, and funding resources after school closure. In my research, I learned that part of the allure for closing school involved the possibility of acquiring resources from the closed schools and redistributing them to other schools. By reallocating assets and revenues from the closed school, district officials hope to improve the quality of marginally performing schools by providing them with additional materials.

In this instance, the concept of equity versus adequacy necessitates more exploration. A systematic, equitable way of dispersing equipment, materials, and resources resulting from school closure should be developed. It would certainly benefit school districts to learn how to manage the process properly.

Finally, one last aspect of school closure to consider pertains to teacher retention and attrition after closure. From my personal observations and private conversations with ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"#"!!

administrators and teachers affected by the ordeal, many of them expressed bitterness and resentment of the resulting outcome. Some of them felt jaded years after the final decision had been rendered. Many have left the district and sought employment elsewhere. Veteran teachers and administrators who served the district for many years did not finish their careers in the same district. I think that this topic presents another important area for research because I am curious to determine how many teachers and administrators left because of closure. I am interested in exploring their personal feelings, especially since most of these departed individuals have served in various leadership capacities. Teacher retention and attrition after closure presents another related area of study.

I have learned a great deal about school closure after conducting this research.

Whereas my initial reaction and response to the issue was primarily driven on emotions, today, I have learned how to view the situation in a more pragmatic manner. Based on the facts and findings of this study, I have been able to fully understand the intricate dynamics and implications associated with policy implementation. This case study encapsulates my personal quest during these past few years. Figuratively speaking, I can close a chapter of my professional experience, and venture to resolve other issues that may lie ahead.

I am confident that policy makers and implementers will take note of the valuable lessons learned from this study. The research provides new foundational knowledge upon which to base school closure decisions. I hope that school districts are not presented with making the very difficult decision of closing schools. However, in the event that the ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!"##!!

policy implementation is necessary, there is a premise, based on theory and practice, in dealing with this highly emotional issue. The cyclic nature of education documents the tendency of certain issues to wax and wane. By being adequately prepared to deal with unexpected occurrences such as school closure, school districts would be able to maintain organizational stability, and thus, really focus on the ultimate mission, which is providing quality education for all students.

! "#$!

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! %&&'()*+',!

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! "#-!

APPENDIX A: LIST OF CLOSED SCHOOLS IN CALIFORNIA

School Location Date Currently at this location Discontinued

Apollo Junior Anaheim 1979 Demolished High School

Argyll Academy Los Angeles 1982 All-girls school evolved into co-ed Campbell Hall School under new name

Aviation High Redondo 1981 Redondo Beach Performing Arts Center School Beach (California)

Chester F. Awalt Mountain 1980 Assumed the name of Mountain View High School View High School when the Mountain View Union High School (Castro Street) was closed.

Samuel Ayer Milpitas 1980 Milpitas Sports Center, Teen Center and High School Adult Education Center

Birmingham High Los Angeles 2009 Renamed Birmingham Community School Charter High School

Blackford High San Jose 1991 Boynton High School continuation school School (San Jose) and Harker Middle School (private)

Buchser High Santa Clara 1981 Renamed Santa Clara High School School

California Berkeley 1980 Reopened in 1986 as Clark Kerr Campus, Schools for the University of California, Berkeley Deaf and Blind

Camden High San Jose 1980 Mostly torn down to make space for a School (San Jose, shopping center, portion remain as California) Camden Community Center

Campbell High Campbell 1980 Campbell Community Center School (California)

! "#.!

Castro Middle San Jose 2006 Renamed Moreland Middle School School

Citrus Union High Glendora 1958 Citrus College means, high school students School subsequently went to Glendora High School

Anderson W. Glendale 1983 Reopened in 1998 as Clark Magnet High Clark Junior High School School

Corvallis High Studio City Osaka Sangyo University of Los Angeles School and Bridges Academy (California)

Covington Junior Los Altos 1980 Demolished in 2001, rebuilt as Covington High School, Los School (elementary) Altos

Crescent Junior Buena Park 1979 Demolished for housing High School

Crestmoor High San Bruno 1980 Peninsula High School (San Bruno) School continuation school and a municipal courthouse

Edgewood High West Covina 1988 Coronado Continuation School School, West Covina

Ellwood P. Palo Alto 1979 Cubberley Community Center Cubberley High School

Excelsior High Norwalk 1981 Norwalk Adult School School (Norwalk, California)

Harry Ells High Richmond 1985 LoVonya Dejean Middle School School

Granada Hills Los Angeles 1994 Renamed Granada Hills Charter High High School School, now an LAUSD Magnet School

! "#/!

Holy Name Pomona 1949 Pomona Catholic High School Academy

Jacob Riis High Los Angeles 1994 Renamed as Mary McLeod Bethune Junior School High School

Kennedy High Barstow 1977 Barstow Junior High School School, Barstow

Kern County High Bakersfield 1945 Renamed as Bakersfield High School in School and Kern the same location County Union High School

Fermin Lasuen San Pedro 1971 High School

La Palma Junior Buena Park 1979 High School

La Sierra High Sacramento 1983 School

Los Angeles Los Angeles 1935 Renamed John H. Polytechnic High Polytechnic High School School

Los Nietos Valley Downey 1919 Renamed Downey High School Union High School

Lowell High Whittier 1980 Southern California University of Health School (Whittier, Sciences California)

Marina High San Leandro 1980 Converted into a continuation school School which lasted until 1989 Now Stenzel Park occupies part of the former campus.

Marywood Orange 1980 Diocese of Orange headquarters Central Catholic Church for Girls, Orange

! "#0!

Mercy High Carmichael School, Carmichael

Miraleste High Palos Verdes 1991 Renamed Miraleste Intermediate School School, Palos Verdes

Monte Vista High Whittier 1979 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department School (Whittier) Training Center

Mount Caramel Los Angeles 1976 Formerly at 7011 South Hoover Street, Mt. High School (Los Carmel Park. The actual demolition of the Angeles) school was used in the movie Rock ‘n’ Roll High School, which used the school as a location. It can be seen at 1:48 of the trailer.

Mountain View Mountain 1980 Closed and demolished for housing. Union High View Portions of the campus remain as Eagle School Park. Chester F. Awalt High School was then renamed to Mountain View High School.

William N. Neff La Mirada 1980 Demolished, now industrial buildings at High School Alondra Blvd. & Trojan Way (Operated as a continuation school until 1989)

Notre Dame High San Francisco 1981 Notre Dame Senior Plaza School, San Francisco

Pacific High San Leandro 1983 Demolished, now Marina Square Center School Outlet Mall

Pius X High Downey phased out by St. Matthias High School School, Downey, 1998 California

Palisades High Los Angeles Renamed Palisades Charter High School School

Pleasant Hill High Pleasant Hill 1980 Reopened at 1997 as Pleasant Hill Middle School School

! "#1!

Pomona Catholic Pomona 1967 Damien High School Boys High School

Ravenswood High East Palo 1976 Demolished, now Gateway 101 Shopping School Alto Center

Red Hill Middle San Anselmo 1985 Red Hill Community Park School, San Anselmo

Riverview Union Antioch 1931 Antioch Historical Society Museum High School

Rolling Hills High Rolling Highs 1991 Renamed Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Estates School in a consolidation of three high schools

Royal Oak High Covina Now Royal Oak Middle School School, Covina

Samuel Rogers San Jose 2006 Easterbrook Discovery School K-8 Middle School

San Carlos High San Carlos 1988 Demolished for housing School

San Francisco San Francisco Mostly demolished for housing, the Polytechnic High gymnasium remains as the home for Arco School Sports

Serramonte High Daly City 1981 Jefferson Union High School District School office, Serramonte Del Rey

Sierra High Whittier 1979 Whittier Adult Center, Sierra Vista School (Whittier) Alternative High School

Southern Orange 2000 Olive Elementary School California Christian High School

Sunnyvale High Sunnyvale 1981 The King’s Academy (private) School (California)

! "#2!

Sunset High Hayward 1990 Hayward Adult School School

Trident Junior Anaheim 1979 Gilbert South Continuation High School, High School Polaris Education Center, Anaheim Adult Education

University High Oakland 1948 Became first campus of Oakland City School (Oakland, College, which moved in 1967, becoming California) Merritt College. It housed Oakland Technical High School while the original location was retrofitted for earthquakes in the 1970s. Now part of the Children’s Hospital and Research Center Oakland.

University of San San Diego 2005 Campus was demolished. School was Diego High moved to Del Mar and re-opened as School Cathedral Catholic High School

Venice Union Los Angeles 1935 Renamed Venice High School (Los Polytechnic High Angeles, California) School

West Los Angeles Los Angeles 2008 Baptist High School

Wilmington High Wilmington, Renamed Phineas Banning High School School Los Angeles

Wilson High San Francisco 1996 Phillip & Sala Burton High School and School, San Leadership High School Francisco Adapted from: California Department of Education, 2012

!

! ! ! !

! ! ! "$3!

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE OF A SCHOOL CLOSURE TIMELINE TEMPLATE

Month Task name Duration Start Finish One Two Three Four Five Six Seven

Board workshop to ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! scope the project !

Appoint 7/11 District ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Advisory Committee !

Ensure curriculum and ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! instruction are included

Appoint a subcommittee ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! to serve as research group for 7/11 committee

Sub-committee begins ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! facility and demographic research

Report progress to ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Board. Allow for community discussion at board meeting

Present 7/11 committee ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! progress port to Board. Public discussion

Begin dialogues with ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! various community groups that may be affected

Begin discussions with ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! staff at site that may be affected

Present 7/11 committee ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! final report with recommendation to Board

Board discussion and ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! community member discussion ! "$"!

Continue to meet with ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! school site groups of potential sites affected

Receive public input at ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! affected school sites

Task name Duration Start Finish One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Continue Board ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! discussion

Continue public input ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Arrange special Board ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! meeting (large enough area to accommodate all participants)

Board announces ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! decision

Plan enrollment options ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! and site visitations for affected staff, students, parents

Discuss facilities ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! options and requirements at site(s) to accommodate displaced students

District sends letter to ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! parents to inform students of new school assignments

Plan for needed facilities ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Announce actual date of ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! closures

Appoint District ! ! ! ! Transition Team (DTT) ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As long as needed DTT conducts inventory ! ! ! ! of essential facilities

%456784!9:;<=!+5>?9;:@?5!)865:7<8@7!;9!'4AB57?;@C!#3"#! ! "$#!

APPENDIX C: SAMPLE OF SCORING RUBRIC FOR SCHOOL CLOSURE

The scoring guide below is intended to serve as a tool for possible use by appointed members of the school closure committee as well as by other interested community members. The guide provides some information that, when used with data provided on the district web site, will aid users in evaluating schools and closure scenarios. It is not intended as an all-inclusive means to arrive at a numerical score for a school or a scenario. In adopting the closure criteria, the Board did not weight them, that is, indicate which of the criteria is more important than another.

A score of 1 means the school or scenario is more likely for closure or adoption and a score of 4 means the school is less likely to close and the scenario is less likely for adoption.

The criteria below are factors that the community committees and the expert group will use to evaluate proposals for consolidating and / or closing schools.

1. Facility Condition. Conditions include all items of the physical plant, playgrounds, accessibility and grounds. Only school facilities not previously modernized or recently constructed will be considered for closure. This would include the facilities in the various planning stages of Measure J.

1 2 3 4

Extensive list of repairs Extensive list of repairs Repairs Schools have needed; substantial issues but awaiting funding in underway or recently been with key systems, the state emergency recently renovated, rebuilt or windows, electrical repair program. completed. funded in Measure J. plumbing, etc.

! 2. Enrollment. School enrollment, current and projected, will serve one criteria. Board Policy 5116 establishes guidelines for school sizes below. Schools that are larger than minimum size at each level may also be considered for consolidation / closure.

a. Elementary: 450-800 b. Middle: 900-1200 c. High School: 1200-1800

! "$$!

1 2 3 4

Far below threshold, Far below threshold, At or above Far above elementary below elementary>350 but <450; threshold; threshold; 350, middle below middle schools>800 but elementary elementary >600; 800, high schools <900 and high >450<600; All All middle below 1000 schools>1000 but <1200 middle 1200 schools >1500 <1500

! 3. Low Capacity Utilization. Site enrollment, current and projected, below optimal utilization will be one criterion for consolidation / closure. Schools considered for consolidation will be ranked using enrollment as a percent of student capacity of the facility.

1 2 3 4

Utilization <60% Utilization >60% Utilization >75% Utilization >90% <75% <90%

! 4. Available Capacity within Family or Adjacent Family. Schools considered for consolidation should be adjacent to other sites with available capacity. Adjacent sites must be expandable (have available land / space for classrooms), using modular building installations.

1 2 3 4

Adjacent capacity Adjacent capacity >1000 Adjacent capacity >500 Adjacent capacity >1500 <1500 <1000 <500

! 5. Special Schools / Programs. Where possible, special programs or schools will be consolidated into regular schools, program, or classes. For special education, this means moving more rapidly toward more inclusive practices. Alternative programs such as continuation schools, necessary small schools, pre-school and adult education will be considered for consolidation into other buildings. Funding for QEIA and the transferability of those funds will also be a consideration.

! "$-!

1 2 3 4

Few special Some programs Multiple School is located where programs to be that would need to programs that additional middle school seats moved or programs be transferred could not easily are needed, has acreage to at the school easily together to another be separated or expand to become K-8 or 6-12 transferred to other school. transferred. and has available seats so that sites. few if any portables would be needed.

! 6. Grade Configurations. In order to maximize the number of consolidations / closures, alternate grade configurations in addition to current grade configurations will be considered including K-8 and 6-12. Configuration changes must be cost neutral to the operating budget.

1 2 3 4

Due to neighborhood Due to transfer School is located School is located enrollment, school lacks enrollment, schools where additional where additional space within the building lack space within the middle school seats middle school seats and acreage to add building and acreage to are needed and has are needed, has portables to expand to K- add portables to expand acreage to expand acreage to expand 8 or 6-12. School not to K-8 or 6-12. School to K-8 or 6-12 but to become K-8 or 6- located where additional not located where portable 12 and has available middle school seats additional middle classrooms would seats so that few if needed when middle school seats are needed need to be added any portables would school(s) close. when middle school(s) be needed. close.

! 7. Geographic Equity. To the degree possible, consolidation / closure proposals will allow the district to operate schools / programs to serve the geographic areas of the district. Equity considerations include the distance from school, geographical limitations and safe paths to schools.

1 2 3 4

Closing this school Closing this school Closing this school Closing this school would not impact would have a would have a larger would result in key geographic program moderate impact on impact on program programs or levels not equity and would only program equity and equity and would add being accessible in one minimally add to the overall would add a significantly to geographic area of the distances that students moderate amount of walking distance. district and/or would travel to school. walking distance to add significant walking school. distance. ! "$.!

! 8. Academic Performance. Academic performance including API Scores and API Growth will be criteria in the consolidation / closure process. The faculty / staff of a high performing school that was closed could replace or augment the staff at a low performing school that remained open (subject to statute and collective bargaining agreement limitations). These decisions for school reconstitution would follow (or come at a time after) the decision of which school would be closed.

1 2 3 4

API scores <600 API scores >600 <700 API scores >700 <750 API scores >800 and 6-year growth and 6-year growth >40 and –year growth >70 and 6-year growth <40 <70 <90 >90

! 9. Improved Conditions for Students / Student Mobility. To the degree possible, school closure plans will include moving students from non-renovated to new or recently renovated facilities. Plans will be evaluated for the number of students moved.

1 2 3 4

Closing this school Closing this school Closing this school Closing this school would result in would result in a would result in all the would result in all the students moving to a majority of the students students moving to a students moving to a renovated school and moving to a renovated non-renovated school non-renovated school the total scenario school and the total and the total scenario and the total scenario would move fewer scenario would move would move >1400 would move >1700 than 1200 students. >1200 but <1400 <1700 students. students. students.

! 10. Financial Advantage. Since school closure is one aspect of the overall financial solvency plan, closing schools on properties that will bring a greater market value will be a factor.

1 2 3 4

School is in the top School property value School property value School property is in 25% of market is >25% and <50% of is >50% <75% of the bottom quarter of value properties. market value market value all market value properties. properties. properties.

%456784!9:;<=!D8E7E?48!F@?9?84!,BG;;>!+>;EA:8!+:?78:?5C!#3"#!

! ! "$/!

APPENDIX D: COMPARISON OF OUSD NUMBER OF SCHOOLS VERSUS STUDENT ENROLLMENT Number of schools

Type of School 2000 – 2001 2011 - 2012 Difference

Elementary (K – 5) 54 58 +4

Middle School (6 – 8) 14 14 +0

High School (9 – 12) 7 12 +5

K – 8 School 2 3 +1

Secondary School (6 – 12) 0 1 +1

Alternative Education 7 13 +6 Schools

Charter Schools 8 35 +27

Total Public Schools 92 136 +44

Student Enrollment

2000 – 2001 2011 - 2012 Difference

53780 38440 -15,340

,;A:B8=!HF,)C!&;:79;>?;!;9!&AI>?B!,BG;;>EC!#3""J#3"#! ! "#$!

REFERENCES

Aarons, D. (2009). Closing schools in Chicago found to yield few gains. Education Week,

29 (10), p. 6.

Akos, P., & Galassi, J. (2004). Middle and high school transitions as viewed by students,

parents and teachers. Professional School Counseling, 7(4), 212-221.

Apple, M., & Beane, J. (2007). Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education (2nd ed.).

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ayers, W., & Klonsky, M. (2006). Chicago's renaissance 2010: The small schools movement

meets the ownership society. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(6), 453-457.

Ayers, W., Klonsky, M., & Lyon, G. (2000). A simple justice: The challenge of small schools.

Williston, VT: Teachers College Press.

Bhatt, S. (2005, March 24). School closures are a risk, experts say. Seattle Times. Retrieved from

http://seattletimes.com/html/education/2002185891_closures21m.html

Blomenkamp, J. (2009). Career academies as instruments of school reform and change.

Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers. 84(8). 40-42.

Brazer, D., Rich, W., & Ross, S. (2010). Collaborative strategic decision making in school

districts. Journal of Educational Administration. 48(2). 196-217.

Brick, B. (2005). Changing concepts of equal educational opportunity: A Comparison of the

views of Thomas Jefferson, Horace Mann and John Dewey. American Educational

History Journal, 32(2), 166-172.

Bridgeland, J., DiIulio, Jr. J., & Morison, K. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of

high school dropouts. A report by Civic Enterprises in association with Peter D. Hart

Research Associates for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ! "#%!

Brown, F. (2002). Privatization of public elementary and secondary education in the United

States of America. Education and the Law, 14(1-2), 99-115.

Brown, A., & Knight, K. (2005). School boundary and student assignment procedures in

large, urban, public school systems. Education and Urban Society, 37(1), 398-418.

Doi:10.1177/0013124505277736

Burch, P., Donovan, J., & Steinberg, M. (2006). The new landscape of education privatization in

the era of the NCLB. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 129-135.

Butler, K. (2010). Double duty: Schools as community centers. District Administration,

50-58. Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com/article/double-duty-

schools-community-centers

Byrd, G. (2006). Responses from the Field. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry & Practice,

10(1), 42-44.

California Department of Education. (2012). Closing a School Best Practices Guide. Retrieved

from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/schoolclose.asp

California Department of Education. (1996-2012). Enrollment data. DataQuest. Retrieved from

http://www.cde.ca.gov

California Department of Education. (2009-2010). Second interim report. Retrieved from

http://www.cde.ca.gov

Cleaver, S. (1999). Schools to the rescue. Scholastic Inc., 120(6). Retrieved from

&''()**+++,-.&/01-'2.,./3*45/+-6*15'2.06,7-(829:#$;<=%%!

Collins, J., & Porras, J. (2002). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies.

New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

! "#>!

Cook, G. (2004). Dealing with decline. American School Board Journal, 191(9), 22-26.

Retrieved from http://www.asbj.com

Cotton, K. (1996). School size, school climate, and student performance. Portland, OR:

Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. Retrieved from http://

educationnorthwest.org/resource/825

Council on Educational Facilities Planners. (1976). Techniques for closing schools. Educational

Facilities Digest, 8, 2-7.

Cox, B., & Cox, B. (2010). A decade of results: A case for school district consolidation?

Education, 131(1), 83-92.

Curtin, D. F. (2006). Responses from the Field. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry &

Practice, 10(1), 41-42.

Dansberger, J.P., Kirst, W., & Usdan, M. D. (1992). Governing public schools: New times, new

requirements. Washington D.C.: Institute for Educational leadership.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College

Record, 106, 1047-1085.!

Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models, Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 22(4), 357-374.

De la Torre, M. & Gwynne, J. (2009), When schools close: Effects on displaced students in

Chicago public schools. Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of

Chicago. Chicago, IL.

De Nisco, A. (2013). Districts get creative when enrollment drops. District Administration,

49(7), 31-33.

! "?=!

De Witt, P. & Moccia, J. (2011). Surviving a school closing. Educational Leadership, 68(8), 54-

57.

Dillon, N. (2006). The hardest choice. American School Boards Journal. National School

Boards Association. 39-41.

Dowdall, E. (2011). Closing public schools in Philadelphia: Lessons from six urban districts.

Philadelphia, PA: The Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved from

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Philadelphia_Research

_Initiative/Closing-Public-Schools-Philadelphia.pdf

Doyle, L. (2004). Leadership for community building: Changing how we think and act. The

Clearing House, 77(5), 196-199.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for

enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IA: National Education Service.

Dupper, D., & Poertner, J. (1997). Public schools and the revitalization of impoverish

communities: School-linked community resource centers. Social Work, 42(5), 415-422.

Duncan, A. (2006). Chicago’s Renaissance 2010: Building on school reform in the age of

accountability. Phi Betta Kappan. 457-458.

Ebmeier, H. (1986). The effect of closing a high school on parent attitudes, student attitudes, and

student achievement. A dissertation paper presented during the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. 1-70.

Ellerson, N. & McCord, R. (2009). One year later: How the economic downturn continues to

impact school districts. American Association of School Administrators. Retrieved from

http://www.lakewoodcityschools.org/userfiles/2312/file/OneYearLaterReport.pdf

Engberg, J., Gill, B., Zamarro, G., & Zimmer, R. (2012). Closing schools in a shrinking district: ! "?"!

Do student outcomes depend on which schools are closed? Journal of Urban Economics,

71(2), 189-203.

Erickson, P. (2010, July 1). Close calls: When schools shut down, administrators must decide

how to use these landmarks. American School & University, 26 -29. Retrieved from

http://asumag.com/constructionplanning/close-calls

Esselman, M., Lee-Gwin, R., & Rounds, M. (2012). Rightsizing a school district. Phi Delta

Kappan, 93(6), 56-61.

Finnigan, K., & Lavner, M. (2011). A political analysis of community influence over school

closure. The Urban Review, 44(1), 133-151. doi:10.1007/s11256-011-0179-9.

Flaherty, L. (2001). School Violence and the School Environment. School Violence:

Assessment, Management and Prevention. American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.

Fairbanks, C. (1996). Telling stories: Reading and writing research narratives, Journal of

Curriculum and Supervision. 11 (4), 320-340.

Hewitt, P. (2011). Why I don’t support charter schools, School Administrator. 68 (7), 28-29.

Hess, F. M. (2001). Whaddya mean you want to close my school? The politics of regulatory

accountability in charter schooling. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 141-156.

Howley, C., Johnson, J., & Petrie, J. (2011). Consolidation of schools and districts: What the

research says and what the research means. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy

Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/consolidation-schools-

districts

Hubbard, L. and Kulkarni, R. (2009). Charter schools: Learning from the past, planning for

the future. Journal of Educational Change. 10:173-189. DOI 10.1007/s10833-009-

9109-y ! "?@!

Hughes, B. (2003). Surviving closings and consolidations: The secret may be an open

attitude and a healthy dose of public input. School Administrator, 60(7), 16-18.

Hunter, R., & Bartee, R. (2003).The achievement gap: Issues of competition, class, and race.

Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 151-160. doi:10.1177/0013124502239389.

Jimenez-Castellanos, O. (2010). Relationship Between Educational Resources and

School Achievement: A Mixed Method Intra-District Analysis. Urban Review,

42: 351–371, DOI 10.1007/s11256-010-0166-6

Johnson, C. (2011). Oakdale reopens book on closing schools. San Francisco Chronicle.

Karp, S. (2008). Undoing the damage that Bush leaves behind. Our Schools, Our Selves, 18(1),

229-243.

Kearney, R. (2002). On stories: Thinking in action. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kirshner, B., Gaertner, M., & Pozzoboni, K.M. (2010). Tracing transitions: The effect of high

school closure on displaced students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(3),

407- 429.

Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. London: Macmillan.

Land, D. (2002). Local school boards under review: The role and effectiveness in relation to

student’s academic achievement. Review of Educational Research. 72 (2), 229 -278.

Lapkoff, S. & Gobalet, J. (2005). The school closure crisis: A challenge for demographers.

Saratoga, CA: Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. Retrieved from

http://www.demographers.com/SchoolClosureCrisis.pdf.

Lewis, P. (2011). Storytelling as Research/Research as Storytelling. Qualitative

Inquiry; 17(6), 505-510. DOI: 10.1177/1077800411409883

Loubert, L. (2008). Increasing Finance, Improving Schools. Review of Black Political ! "?#!

Economics, 35: 31–41; DOI 10.1007/s12114-008-9019

Lubienski, C.& Lubienski, S. (2006). Charter schools, academic achievement and NCLB.

Journal of School Choice, 1(3), 55-62, DOI: 10.1300/J467v01n03_07

Lytton, M. (2011). Have all the costs of closing a school been considered? Organization for

Economic Co-Operation and Development, 1-4. Retrieved from

http://www.oecd.org/edu/countrystudies/centreforeffectivelearningenvironmentscele/483

58265.pdf

Maeroff, G. (1998). Schools as community agencies help needy kids. Education Digest, 29-34.

Malen, B., Croninger, R.G., Muncey, D., & Redmond-Jones, D. (2002). Reconstituting schools:

"Testing" the "theory of action.” Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2),

113-132.

Malone, H. (2008). Educating the whole child: Could community schools hold an answer? The

Education Digest, 6-8.

Maranto, R. (2011). Why I like charter schools. School Administrator. 68 (7), 30-31.

McDevitt, P.J., Dosen, A.J., & Ryan, F. (2006). Process of compassion: Pastoral care during

school closings. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry & Practice, 10(1), 24-40.

McLean, R. (2003). Seven red herrings: The opposition to closure of aging urban schools.

Clearing House, 76(3), 140-142.

McMilin, E. (2010). Closing a school building: A systematic approach. Washington, D.C.:

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities.

McNeil, M. (2010). Reviewers winnow race to top hopefuls. Education Week, 29(23), 1-20.

Merl, J., & Caldwell, T. (2005, Nov. 24). Four Pasadena schools to be closed. Los Angeles

Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/24/local/me-schools24 ! "??!

Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven

accountability for school improvement—And why we may retain it anyway. Educational

Researcher, 38(5), 353-364. doi:10.3102/0013189X09339055

Morikis, P. (2010). An analysis of the financial and political consequences experienced by

school corporations when closing a school or consolidating schools. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ERIC database at http://www.proquest.com. (ED516228)

Morton, R. (2009). School Closure: Through the eyes of teachers, (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas.

Murphy, J. (2008). Turning around failing schools: Policy insights from the corporate,

government and nonprofit sectors. Educational Policy, 23(6), 796-830.

doi:10.1177/089590480832067

Murphy, J. (1991). Restructuring schools: Capturing and assessing the phenomena. New York,

NY: Teachers College Press.

Nitta, K., Holley, M., & Wrobel, S. (2010). A phenomenological study of rural school

consolidation. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 25(2), 1-19.

No Child Left Behind Act (2001). United States Department of Education. Public Law 107 –

110. 1-670.

Noguera, P. (2006). Confronting the urban in urban school reform. The Urban Review, 28(1),

1-19. doi:10.1007/BF02354375

Pappano, L. (2011). Closing time. Ed: The Magazine of the Harvard Graduate School of

Education, 22-25. Retrieved from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news-

impact/2011/05/closing-time/

! "?;!

Plautz, J. (2011). Committee recommends more San Diego school closures. San Diego, CA:

KPBS Public Television, Retrieved from http://www.kpbs.org/news

Pines, R., Seidel, S. & DiTrani, G. (1998). The national education association teacher

education initiative. The Educational Forum, 62(3), 258- 264.

Powers, J. (2003). An analysis of performance-based accountability: Factors shaping school

performance in two urban school districts. Educational Policy, 17(5), 558-585.

Reid, K. (2003). Budget woes forcing districts to close schools. Education Week, 22(31), p. 5.

Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org

Rocchio, D. (2006). Responses from the Field. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry

& Practice, 10(1), 44-45.

Rudo, Z. (2001). Corrective action in low-performing schools and school districts. Austin, TX:

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from

http://www.sedl.org/pubs/policy91/policy91.pdf

Rumberger, R. & Larson, K. (1998), Student mobility and the increased risk of high school

dropout. American Journal of Education, (107)1,1-35.

Samuels, C. (2011). School closings: No fiscal savior, study cautions. Education Week, 31(10),

12-13.

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Scott, C. (2009). Top down, bottom up: California districts in corrective action and

schools in restructuring under NCLB. Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy.

Smarick, A. (2010). The Turnaround Fallacy. Education Next, 10(1), 20-26.

Smith, N. (2007), Charters as a solution? Education Next. 7(1), 57-59, Retrieved from

http://www.educationnext.org ! "?

Sonstelie, J., Brunner, E., & Ardon, K. (2000). For better or for worse? School finance reform

in California. A report from the Public Policy Institute of California, 1-251.

Steiner, L. (2009). Tough decisions: Closing persistently low-performing schools. Lincoln, IL:

Center on Innovation & Improvement.

Stinchcombe, J. (1984). Response to declining enrollment: School closing in suburbia.

Landham, MD: University Press of America.

Stover, D. (2009). The breaking point. American School Board Journal, 26-29, Retrieved from

http://www.asbj.org

Streifel, J., Foldesy, G., & Holman, D. (1991). The financial effects of consolidation. Journal

of Research in Rural Education,7(2), 13-20.

Sunderman, G., & Payne, A. (2009). Does closing schools cause educational harm? Arlington,

VA: Mid Atlantic Equity Center.

Tienken, C. (2011). Charter schools: Education reform or business? Kappa Delta Pi Record,

47(3), 107-109.

Thomas, D. (1977), Declining school enrollments. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Health, Education, & Welfare National Institute of Education.

Toch, T., Jerald, C., & Dillon, E. (2007). Surprise: High school reform is working. Phi Delta

Kappan, 88(6), 433-437.

Valencia, R. (1984). School closure and policy issues: Policy paper number 84-C3.

Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance. 1-29.

Weiss, S. (2011). Charter choice. State Legislatures, 37(8), 20-23, Retrieved at

http://www.ncsl.org/magazine

! "?$!

Welch, M. (1998). Collaboration: Staying on the bandwagon. Journal of Teacher Education,

49(1), 26 -37. doi:10.1177/0022487198049001004

Wenglinsky, H. (1997). How money matters: The effect of school district spending on academic

achievement. Sociology of Education, 70: 221-237.

Wertz, D. (2003). Shutting the doors. American School Board Journal, 26-28.

Westheimer, J. & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for

democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237-269.

Wolfe, F. (2010). School districts nationwide considering school closures. Education Daily,

43(56), 1-3.

Woodall, A. (2013, April 5). Oakdale Unified superintendent resigns to be with family. The

Times, p. 1A.

Young, K., & Saver, J. L. (2001). The neurology of narrative. SubStance: A Review of Theory

and Literary Criticism, 30 (1 & 2), 72-84.

!