MEMORANDUM

TO: Dr. Meria Carstarphen and AISD Board of Trustees

FROM: Susan Moffat, Dr. Kathryne Tovo, Larry Amaro, Sally D. Brackett, Chad
Williams
RE: Supplemental Report for AISD Facility Master Plan
DATE: March 23, 2011

Executive Summary

The looming state budget gap has placed AISD in an unprecedented financial crisis,
sparking pressure to close schools for perceived quick savings. We appreciate the
difficult decisions facing the district and the need for the conscientious austerity planning
to ensure the most efficient school system possible. But decision-makers must be fully
informed about the documented academic and financial impacts of school closures, both
to protect Strategic Plan goals for academic achievement and to ensure that savings
related to closures are truly sufficient to outweigh attendant costs. This report reviews the
known impacts of closures, suggests further evaluation of administrative facilities,
specifies actions to increase the joint use of facilities with other entities, and provides
process recommendations for ongoing facility planning efforts.

A significant body of research has found that school transitions, such as those
precipitated by closures, correspond with a measurable drop in student academic
achievement, loss of self-esteem, and increased dropout rates, and that these negative
effects are particularly acute for African American, Hispanic, and low SES students.
While clearly detrimental to the AISD Strategic Plan goal of closing the achievement
gap, academic losses triggered by closure may also increase the risk of a school returning
to low-performing status under state or federal mandates. Such an event would result in
substantial ongoing costs for AISD in the form of mandatory interventions, potentially
including highly-paid monitors, continuing detailed reports and analyses, increased
teacher ratios, tutoring, summer programs, student transportation, and other expensive
remedies.

Additional studies have shown that the disruption of neighborhood schools, whether by
closure or boundary realignments, have reduced area home values by an average of 9.9%,
in turn decreasing property tax revenues. School closures have also resulted in
diminished support for public education in general and have had negative effects on
enrollment. One district found that more than 20 percent of the students in a closed
school left the district completely. Another district postponed a school closure after
determining that losing just 100 students and the state funding associated with their
enrollment would have completely erased any potential savings. In a survey of districts
that calculated actual savings after closing schools, 67 percent found that they had saved
no money at all or that the closure had, in fact, cost money; those districts that did save
money concluded savings were lower than anticipated.

1
A large body of research has also addressed the misconception that smaller schools are
inherently less efficient to operate than larger schools. In a review of studies spanning
four decades, researchers found that once a school enrollment reaches 400, no additional
benefit is realized from economies of scale by increasing school size. Further, many
outcome measures were optimized in schools with 300–500 students, the same size
elementary school preferred by the highest number of respondents in the AISD Facility
Master Plan survey. Studies also found that students from disadvantaged backgrounds
tended to do better in smaller schools, and that students in the elementary and middle
school grades were more adversely affected by larger schools. Attendance rates were also
markedly better in smaller schools, an important financial consideration given that
funding is awarded based on Weighted Average Daily Attendance.

Perhaps most surprising, the preponderance of research showed that economies of scale
began to disappear once the student population of a school exceeded 1000. This finding
held true for all schools, including secondary campuses, leading reviewers to state “if per
pupil expenditures were the only consideration, this would cap optimal school size at
1000.”1 At least one study found that the increase of behavioral problems alone in larger
schools was sufficient to nullify any benefits.

School closures are likely to decrease parent involvement, as, in most cases, students will
be reassigned to a school further from the family home. This change may pose an
insurmountable hardship for low-income families who lack ready transportation and have
a chilling effect even on those with means. In any case, it will be costly to make up:
researchers at the University of New Hampshire recently found that schools would have
to increase spending by more than $1,000 per pupil to achieve the same results gained by
strong parental involvement.

In light of the potential academic and financial costs associated with school closures, we
urge the district to find efficiencies first in its administrative facilities. In addition to the
task force recommendations regarding the Baker Center, Carruth Administration Center,
and Alternative Learning Center, we recommend the district conduct a thorough
evaluation of other non-campus facilities, including the Pleasant Hill Annex, a facility of
nearly 26,000 square feet housing just 16 employees, and the Central Supply Warehouse,
which the 2009 MGT Efficiency Study recommended closing as a Year 1 option for an
estimated an annual savings of $1,812,543.

Finally, this report suggests ways to identify increased opportunities for potential joint
use of facilities with other entities and provides a short list of process recommendations
for continued facility planning.

1
John R. Slate & Craig H. Jones, “Effects of School Size: A Review of the Literature with
Recommendations.,” Essays in Education, University of South Carolina , Vol. 13 (2005).
www.usca.edu/essays/vol132005/slate.pdf

2
1. Introduction

We, the undersigned members of the AISD Facility Master Plan Task Force (FMPTF),
served as active participants throughout the nine-month life of the task force. We are in
general agreement with the majority of the task force recommendations, but strongly
believe that the recommendations related to campus closures and administrative facilities
require a fuller context.

The task force report notes that “significant concerns were expressed by some members
of the task force regarding the impact of school closures.” However, a majority of task
force members expressed a disinclination to expand upon this statement or to provide
supporting research for this perspective in the group’s final report. As the task force had
previously voted at its November 11, 2010, meeting to allow the filing of a minority
report, we respectfully present this supplemental information to the AISD Board of
Trustees in this form.

AISD faces an unprecedented financial crisis and may ultimately have no choice but to
close schools if the looming state budget gap worsens. We understand that reality.
However, the Facility Master Plan is intended to span a period of ten years, and we
believe decision-makers must be fully informed about the documented academic and
financial impacts of school closures as they make long-range determinations.

We appreciate the difficult decisions facing the district and the need for the conscientious
austerity planning to ensure the most efficient school system possible. However, based on
the body of existing research, we urge AISD leaders to pursue school closures only as a
last resort and only if the full financial savings are meticulously identified in advance and
will be so significant as to substantially outweigh the documented costs to students,
teachers, and communities. If AISD must close campuses, we concur with the task force
recommendation to identify these schools only after conducting careful and thorough
campus-based research and authentic community dialogues.

2. Balancing Operational Savings with Strategic Plan Goals

The issue of school closures was by far the most difficult topic faced by the task force.
Some members who voted in favor of closing specific campuses cited as support a
section of the 2009 AISD Efficiency Study, produced by MGT of America, Inc.:

"If the District were to consolidate schools and eliminate some excess capacity, it could
realize a savings in operating funds. Given the data . . . the District should take a
conservative approach to school consolidations to allow some capacity for enrollment. A
conservative approach would close seven elementary schools and one middle school . . . "

3
In the above statement, it is clear the MGT study authors are viewing campus closures
from the single perspective of operational savings. But the MGT study also states that a
long-range facility master plan should incorporate "[a]n examination of the District's
educational mission and goals . . .". Given these statements, we believe that a truly
efficient Facility Master Plan should seek a balance between operational savings and the
District’s educational goals. Neither objective should wholly negate the other.

The top two goals of AISD's Strategic Plan state that all students will perform at or above
grade level and that achievement gaps among all student groups will be eliminated. Many
factors are known to contribute to the student success embodied in these twin goals,
including a stable campus, strong parental involvement, and community support. Not
surprisingly, a significant body of academic research has found that transitioning students
to a new school, as would occur with school closures, is associated with a measurable
loss in academic performance. Additionally, school closures have the potential to chill
parental involvement, particularly in low-income communities where there are typically
fewer transportation options, and to erode community trust, a commodity already in short
supply in many of these same neighborhoods. In view of these critical factors, we believe
any contemplation of school closures should first include a full discussion of the potential
impacts to AISD’s primary Strategic Plan goals.

3. Academic Impacts of School Closure

A significant body of research dating back decades has found that school transitions
generally correspond with a measurable drop in student academic achievement.2 Further,
these academic losses occur with both unexpected transitions, such as changing schools
due to a family move or school closure, and normative transitions, such as the anticipated
moves from elementary to middle school or middle to high school.3

Academic decline and loss of self-esteem due to school transitions has been found to be
particularly acute for African American, Hispanic, and low SES students.4 Related
research has also linked school transitions with increased dropout rates.5 In fact, this is a
chief reason that the K–8 grade configuration is considered beneficial to student
academic achievement, as it eliminates one of the most difficult school transitions from

2
Robert D. Felner, Judith Primavera and Ana M. Cauce, “The Impact of School Transitions: A Focus for
Preventive Efforts.” American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 9, No.4 9:4 (1981).
3
John W. Alspaugh, “Achievement Loss Associated with the Transition to Middle School and High
School.” Journal of Educational Research 92:1 (Sept.–Oct., 1998).
4 Edward Seidman et al., “The Impact of School Transitions in Early Adolescence on the Self-System and

Perceived Social Context of Poor Urban Youth.” Child Development 65: 2 (April 1994): 507–522. See also:
Patrick Akos, John P. Galassi, “Gender and Race as Variables in Psychosocial Adjustment to Middle and
High School.” The Journal of Educational Research 98:2 (Nov.–Dec., 2004):102-108.
5
John W. Alspaugh, “The Relationship of School-to-School Transitions and School Size to High School
Dropout Rates.” The High School Journal 81:3 (Feb. - Mar., 1998):154–160.

4
elementary to middle school.6 In essence, the fewer school transitions a student must
make, the better off he or she will be academically.

The majority of campuses recommended for closure in the task force’s preliminary
recommendations are located in low-income neighborhoods with high minority
populations, the very demographic most at risk for academic loss if these students are
destabilized through school closures. Further, all of the elementary schools originally
presented for closure by the task force are currently rated as Exemplary or Recognized in
state academic rankings, an exceptional achievement especially for schools located in
high-poverty areas. We are forced to question the message this sends to students,
teachers, and families who have worked so hard to attain academic success only to have
their schools closed in the name of “efficiency.” For impoverished school communities
who have achieved their success against much greater odds, this message may be
particularly damaging.

Though the names of individual campuses were removed from the task force’s final
report, the identities of these schools were publicly revealed on the AISD website and
during district-sponsored community dialogues in January. Unfortunately, this action has
already resulted in some destabilizing of the campuses in question. One administrator
estimated that his campus had lost nearly a month of academic focus as students, parents,
and staff were distracted by fears of closure and efforts to support the school. A
community volunteer in another threatened school reported that teachers were already
looking for other jobs.

Most tellingly, a third campus noted a drop in kindergarten applications as families

sought a better guarantee of future stability. It is doubtful these parents were aware of the
research linking school transitions to losses in academic achievement. Yet many chose to
look elsewhere rather than to subject their children to an unnecessary transition by
enrolling them in a school at risk of being closed.

In the case of campus closures, academic studies and parental instincts agree: a stable
school environment provides the best chance of academic success. Additional transitions
should be avoided where possible.

4. Financial Impacts of School Closures

a. Potential Costs Under State Mandates

In recent years, AISD staff, students, parents, and community supporters have worked
tirelessly at eastside campuses and other low-income schools to redress a regrettable
history of neglect. These efforts have now begun to bear fruit in the form of demonstrable
academic gains. Among East Austin middle schools, Dobie today is rated as
6Jonah E. Rockoff & Benjamin B. Lockwood, “Stuck in the Middle: Impacts of Grade Configuration in
Public Schools.” Journal of Public Economics 9:11-12 (Dec. 2010):1051–1061.

5
Academically Recognized. Similarly, Webb, Garcia, and Pearce have successfully shed
their former Academically Unacceptable (AU) labels and are now rated in the Acceptable
range.

But these gains are recent and arguably fragile. As research shows, destabilizing students
at any of these four campuses through closure and reassignment, as suggested by the task
force report, will almost certainly raise the odds that at least one school, if not more, will
return to an Academically Unacceptable (AU) rating. While the academic losses for
students would be hard to bear, such a regression would also mean increased financial
costs for AISD.

One of the chief cost savings in closing a school is found in the elimination of positions
and salaries. Typically, a principal and various non-teaching staff lose their jobs in a
closure or consolidation (some teaching positions will also lost through a consolidation,
but these are likely to be fewer as long as the student/teacher ratio remains unchanged).
While initial salary savings may seem substantial, they may be quickly erased—and
expenses deepened—by the costs of dealing with an AU campus.

Under Texas law, each first-year AU campus must participate in specific intervention
activities to collect and analyze data to determine factors contributing to unacceptable
performance and must develop a school improvement plan (SIP) that addresses all
performance measures.7 All costs are borne by the district, and requirements and
expenses escalate with each successive year a campus remains AU. These expenses
include:

• Funding a state-mandated Campus Intervention Team (CIT). The current pay scale for
state-mandated CIT monitors and managers may run as high as $600-$800 per day plus
travel expenses. Based on a 9-month school year, a single member of the CIT may cost a
district between $108,000 and $144,000 per year—more than an AISD principal makes—
and a minimum of two CIT members are required.8

• Ongoing provision of detailed reports and analysis. For each AU campus, districts are
required to create and update a variety of detailed documents including a School
Improvement Plan (SIP), focused data analysis, student level reviews, CIT on-site needs
assessment and resources, and other detailed monitoring and reporting requirements.
Reporting of this nature demands significant staff time, in addition to that of the paid CIT
monitors, and often includes highly paid administrative employees.

• Mandatory additional improvements. At any stage in a school’s AU status, the TEA

Commissioner may recommend additional improvements, and the district must find a
way to pay for implementing them. In addition to new programs, improvements for an

7
For details on Texas requirements for AU campuses, see http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?
id=2147495562&menu_id=2147483703
8
For pay structure for CIT members, see http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3046

6
AU school would typically include reducing class size, meaning increased costs for
additional teacher salaries.

b. Potential Costs Under Federal Mandates

In addition to state-mandated costs, the federal No Child Left Behind law exacts
additional expenses related to failing schools.9 These may include:

• Funding for mandatory transportation. If a Title 1 school fails to make federally-

mandated Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two consecutive years, federal law
requires the district to provide transportation for students to another school of their
choice. The Title 1 school must use its Title 1 funding to pay for mandated transportation,
which further strains the campus budget.

• Funding for tutoring, afterschool programs, summer school. For any Title 1 school that
fails to make AYP for three years, the district must provide supplemental services
including tutoring, afterschool programs, and summer school. Again, the cost of
providing these services is borne by the district.

c. Potential Impacts to Property Values and Tax Base

In addition to the above costs, school closures have been found to negatively affect
property values, a decline that in turn reduces tax revenues for the district and other local
taxing entities. A 1999 report published in the Journal of Urban Economics found that
the disruption of neighborhood schools, whether by closure or boundary realignments,
reduced house values by an average of 9.9%. Using data spanning a 12-year period, the
authors found that “the loss of a neighborhood school reduces house values, all else being
equal.” The authors further noted the “substantial” tax impact of what they termed “the
neighborhood schools effect.”10

Not surprisingly, several studies have also found that the quality of a neighborhood
school has a direct impact on property values. A 2010 study published in the Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review found that the price of a house in an area associated
with a high quality school increases as the quality of the school increases. Further, that
price premium “remains substantially large, especially for houses associated with above-
average schools.”11 This finding echoed the results of a number of earlier studies,

9
See NCLB http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html; see also
http://www.greatschools.org/definitions/nclb/nclb.html
10 William T. Bogart & Brian A. Cromwell, “How Much Is a Neighborhood School Worth?” Journal of

Urban Economics 47 (2000): 280–305. www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/class/aede680/irwin/pdf/53.pdf

11
Abbigail J. Chiodo et al., “Nonlinear Effects of School Quality on House Prices,” Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Louis Review 92: 3 (May/June 2010): 185–204.

7
including the above-cited Journal of Urban Economics report, which stated: “It is well
known that the quality of the local public school system is a crucial determinant of the
demand for housing in a neighborhood. Any change in the perceived quality of the local
public school system is likely to have an important impact on housing demand and
therefore housing prices in an area.”12

Proximity of the school is also a factor in determining property values. A 2004 Clemson
University study examining six years of data found that residents paid a premium to live
in areas with high quality schools and that “the greater distance to assigned K–12 schools
has a negative impact on the value of the property.”13 The National Realtors Association
concurs, noting that over one-fifth of homebuyers list proximity to good quality schools
as one of the most influential factors in the decision to purchase a home.14

None of this is particularly new news. In fact, one of the most comprehensive surveys on
this issue was performed in 1974 by a group of researchers at the University of
Washington, who conducted interviews with school officials in 60 districts nationwide to
gain specific information about the impacts of elementary school closures.15 Forty-nine of
the districts surveyed had already closed schools or planned to do so within the next year.
Of the twenty districts that had closed schools and conducted a follow-up evaluation, the
majority found that:

“ a. neighborhoods quickly diminished in viability after the elementary schools

were closed; some neighborhoods, depending on the area, were completely destroyed.”

“ b. support for public education diminished in the districts as a result of the

closure decisions.”

d. Additional Potential Costs

In actual school closures, districts often realize fewer savings than projected due to
unexpected costs. A financial study conducted by the Seattle Public Schools in 2007 after
a round of school closures described the costs that had not sufficiently been anticipated.
The district had accounted for packing and moving costs, but administrators soon
recognized a need for increased staff to assist with logistics of the move as well as to help
students and staff transition into new educational environments.16 While the district did
12
13
Kwame Owusua-Edusei, & Molly Espey, “School Quality and Property Values in Greenville, South
Carolina,” Working Paper Series, WP18808, Clemson University, Dept. of Agricultural and Applied
Economics, (April 2003).
14
Realtor.org, “Field Guide to Schools and The Home Buying Decision,” 2008 National Association of
Realtors Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers (updated 2009). http://www.realtor.org/library/library/fg307
15
Richard L. Andrews et al., “The Environmental Impact of School Closures,” 23 August 74.
www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED112521
16
The Seattle Public School District has since created formal program design and transition teams to
facilitate subsequent school closures and consolidations.

8
realize some long-term savings from reducing staff and building maintenance, non-
capital expenditure costs associated with school closures totaled approximately $266,000
per school and 47 percent more than originally estimated.17 The Seattle findings echo
those of the above-cited University of Washington study, which also concluded that
many school closures netted fewer savings than projected:

“Those districts that had calculated actual cost savings concluded that fewer dollars
had actually been saved than had been expected, and 67 percent of those districts
concluded that they had saved no money, or that actual costs exceeded the in-building
cost savings.”

The Seattle study offers a rare analysis of useful look at the long-term costs and savings
related to school closures. Authors of the study attributed the failure to realize anticipated
cost savings to a number of factors. Some, like increases in transportation costs, could be
managed by securing more accurate data in advance, but others— such as “reduced
school support, increased crime rates, decreased property values, and disruption of
educational programs”—would require significant and thorough research and evaluation.

AISD should also consider the possible financial loss in state funding represented by
students who might choose to leave the AISD system entirely as a result of school
closures. Other districts’ experiences suggest that a significant number of students at
campuses that close do opt to leave the district rather than -enroll in their new assigned
school. For example, the post-closure study of the Seattle Public Schools showed that
almost 21 percent (154 pupils) of the total 743 students affected by school closures left
that district.18 Further complicating the picture, only 36% to 58% of the eligible students
at each closed campus enrolled in the expected receiving school. That district’s
experience should serve as a caution against making plans predicated on certain levels of
post-closure student enrollment in the receiving schools or in funding tied to Weighted
Average Daily Attendance for those students.

Studies based on several California school districts reveal similar findings.19 “The effects

17
Holly Ferguson, Manager for Strategic Alignment, “School Closure Update.” Report to School Board
Finance Committee, 14 November 2007 (revised 4 December 2007).
http://www.seattleschools.org/area/capacity/schoolboardfinancecommreport120407.pdf
18
Although about one-quarter of these were non-residents assumed to have returned to their home districts,
the total figure without those numbers is still high—and there is no doubt that such attrition rates cause a
significant loss of state dollars. Ibid.
19These findings are of particular concern in AISD's current situation because despite repeated requests,

task force members never received detailed, disaggregated cost savings for any of the individual schools
recommended for closure. The operations cost savings, for example, were generated from both actual costs
and cost avoidances, but no further information exists to help distinguish the former from the latter. Several
recommendations did not include estimated transportation costs. Moving/site preparation costs represented
what staff referred to as “ballpark figures” rather than researched estimates; it was not clear whether the
salaries and benefits savings were based on average costs for a campus type (i.e. elementary of certain size)
or actual costs at a particular campus. Broader considerations, such as the possibility that a significant
number of families might transfer their children out of the public school system or the potential impact

9
of school closure on subsequent enrollments seem to depend upon the circumstances
under which closure occurred, but we have found that closure of neighborhood schools
can result in substantial losses of public school students,” writes demographer Jeanne
Gobalet. She encourages districts contemplating closures to first calculate the potential
consequences, and she cites one district that postponed closures after determining that
“losing just 100 students and the state funding associated with their enrollment would
completely offset savings made by closing a school.”20

As the University of Washington researchers concluded, “Closure is a simple solution to

the problem of excess space. But at the same time, closure is most assuredly a source of
other problems, problems far more intricate and complex and much more difficult and
costly to solve.” 21

For these reasons, we encourage AISD to proceed with caution when considering the
closure of neighborhood schools, particular those with high academic ratings, and to
develop more detailed financial projections related to closure and consolidation
decisions. The likely decline in surrounding property taxes, loss of community support
for public education, potential costs under state and federal mandates, potential declines
in enrollment, and additional unanticipated costs related to school closures are all
significant financial factors that must be carefully weighed against projected savings.

e. Financial Impacts Related to School Size

During the course of our work as a task force, many members took as an article of faith
the notion that smaller schools are inherently more expensive to operate than larger
schools. In fact, a 2005 review of research on the effects of school size presents a far
more complex picture.

In “Effects of School Size: A Review of the Literature With Recommendations,”

researchers John R. Slate and Craig H. Jones analyzed more than 85 studies on this topic
spanning four decades.22 While noting that the definition of large and small varied from
study to study, they concludedfound that the preponderance of research supported the
following points:

school closures could have on revenue generated from property values, were not evaluated.

20
Jeanne Gobalet of Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc., “The School Closure Crisis: A
Challenge for Demographers.” Paper delivered at the Population Association of America meeting, 31
March 2005: 9 and 12. http://www.demographers.com/SchoolClosureCrisis.pdf
21
Richard L. Andrews et al., “The Environmental Impact of School Closures,” 23 August 74.
www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED112521
22
John R. Slate & Craig H. Jones, “Effects of School Size: A Review of the Literature with
Recommendations.” Essays in Education, University of South Carolina 13 (2005).
www.usca.edu/essays/vol132005/slate.pdf

10
• Once a school enrollment reached 400, no further benefit was realized from economies
of scale by increasing school size, and research did not support consolidating schools
larger than 500 students.
• Many outcome measures seem to be optimized in schools with 300–500 students.
• Economies of scale began to disappear once student population exceeded 1000 for all
schools, including secondary campuses. This finding led reviewers to state “if per pupil
expenditures were the only consideration, this would cap optimal school size at 1000.”
• Students from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to do better in smaller schools.
• Students in elementary and middle school grades were more adversely affected by
larger schools.
• Studies demonstrated that smaller schools have higher daily attendance rates.
• Larger schools were found to have increased dropout rates and discipline problems.

The prevalence of studies showing that schools actually become less cost-effective once
enrollment exceeded 1000 raises an interesting question. Rather limiting our focus to
consolidating a handful of elementary schools with less than 400 students into larger
buildings, why not discuss breaking up our larger inefficient secondary schools into new
more efficient buildings of 1000 or less? While it is generally assumed that a larger
school results in more varied course offerings, the review by Slate and Jones found that,
in fact, increasing school size beyond 500 students did not typically result in increased
curricular offerings. (Of course, we do recognize that this is Texas and that football teams
are a different matter.)

In their concluding recommendations to school boards and administrators, Slate and

Jones urged decision-makers to “avoid simplistic notions of economies of scale”
underscoring that “beyond 1000 students, the inefficiency of large bureaucracies is likely
to waste more resources than can be gained by increasing size.” They further stressed that
school size is a more important factor for low SES students and that the effects of
increased school size will be “very negative” for this population, including higher
dropout rates, increased discipline problems, and declining parent involvement. They
cautioned districts to use statistical models with great care, if at all, citing misleading
results due to the lack of objectivity in assigned formulas and the problem of quantifying
variables. Finally, they expressed the need for decision-makers to consider what benefits
would accrue to students as the result of an increase in school size, noting a past
“overemphasis on reducing expenditure rather than a focus on how school size affects the
quality of students’ education.”

“Dollars & Sense II: Lessons from Good, Cost-Effective Small Schools”23 provides
concrete examples to further illustrate the cost-effectiveness of smaller schools.
Analyzing the budgets for 25 successful small schools from across the nation with a
variety of educational styles and diverse student populations, researchers found that, on
average, these small schools spent less per student than other schools in their respective

23
Barbara Kent Lawrence et al., “Dollars & Sense II: Lessons from Good, Cost-Effective Small Schools,”
KnowledgeWorks Foundation (2005).

11
districts. On a similar note, the Texas Comptroller’s FAST report recently awarded the
highest efficiency rating in AISD to Pease Elementary, one of the district’s smallest
campuses with a current enrollment of 256 students.

As a basis for comparison regarding school sizes, the average enrollment of a U.S.
elementary school in 2008–-09 was 470 students; in Texas, the average elementary
enrollment during that period was somewhat higher at 562.24 The average enrollment of a
U.S. secondary school (including both middle and high schools) during that same year
was 807 students; in Texas, the average secondary school enrollment was again
somewhat higher at 943.25 Though Texas does tend to slightly higher enrollments, as
these statistics show, huge schools are hardly the norm, either nationally or statewide.

Austin residents responding to the AISD Facility Master Plan survey also demonstrated a
preference for human-scale schools. For elementary school size, the top choice was 300–
500 students (selected by 44% of respondents), with the second choice being 500–700
students (41%). Only 5% of respondents chose an elementary school with more than 700
students, and just 1% chose a size more than 900 students. For middle schools, the top
two choices were 600–800 students (39%), followed by 800–1000 students (32%); only
1% of respondents chose a middle school of more than 1000 students in size. For high
schools, the top two preferences were evenly split between the 1000–1500 range (32%)
and 1500–2000 (32%), with the next closest choice in the 500–1000 range (18%). Eleven
percent of respondents chose the 2000–2500 size for high schools, while 4% chose a high
school with less than 500 students. The largest high schools drew the fewest supporters,
with only 1% choosing a high school in the 2500–3000 range and another 1% choosing a
size over 3000.

As research and case studies show, it is clearly possible to build, maintain, and operate
such human-scale schools cost effectively. Further, economies of scale do not increase
once a campus passes the 400-student mark and cost-effectiveness has actually been
shown to decrease at a size over 1000 students. For these reasons, it would be a mistake
to assume that AISD’s smaller campuses are automatically less efficient or more costly
than their larger counterparts. Like people, successful schools come in all sizes.

5. Impacts on Parent and Community Engagement

Parental engagement has a demonstrable positive effect on student achievement. In fact,

researchers at the University of New Hampshire recently found that schools would need
24
U.S. Department of Education, “Digest of Education Statistics, Table 103,” National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2010menu_tables.asp
25
U.S. Department of Education, "Digest of Education Statistics, Table 104,” National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences,
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2010menu_tables.asp

12
to increase spending by more than $1,000 per pupil to achieve the same results gained by
strong parental involvement.26

But parents can't be involved if they can't get to their child’s school. In virtually all cases,
a school closure moves students to a campus further from the family home. For low-
income families who lack ready transportation, the change may pose an insurmountable
hardship. For example, when a former AISD superintendent proposed closing Webb
Middle School several years ago, Webb parents studied the Capital Metro transit options
and determined that it would take 90 minutes and two bus changes each way for them to
get to Pearce Middle School, where their students were to be enrolled. Bus fares aside,
even the most dedicated parent would find it difficult to carve out three hours for
transportation alone just to attend a child’s school event or parent/teacher conference.
The impact on parental involvement is a very real cost that should be evaluated especially
when considering schools for closure in low-income neighborhoods.

Parental involvement should also be considered in evaluating an all-transfer school such

as Pease Elementary. Located a few blocks from the Capitol, this diverse campus has
long been the choice of downtown workers who want to stay engaged in their children’s
education. Its central location makes it easy for parents to drop by before or after school
or on lunch hours, enabling them to attend school programs, volunteer in the library,
schedule a parent-teacher conference, or just meet a shy kindergartener for lunch. If
Pease students are dispersed to their home attendance zone schools, parents who work
downtown will lose a priceless opportunity to stay engaged in their students’ education,
and AISD will lose a valuable resource.

Finally, there is the potential impact of school closures on community engagement. While
vital to every campus, this issue is particularly sensitive for neighborhoods that have
suffered a history of significant educational inequity. It’s no secret that AISD’s relations
with school communities in East Austin have been strained by the residue of segregation
and neglect. Now, after decades of tension, AISD has finally begun to build authentic
trust with families and communities. Parents, neighborhood leaders, and district staff
have invested significant time and resources in eastside schools over the last few years,
and tangible progress is now evident on many campuses. But, as with academic progress,
these gains in community engagement are still tenuous, and there is arguably no quicker
way to alienate a community than by closing a neighborhood school. If campus closures
fall disproportionately on East Austin, as suggested by the task force report, it may be
difficult – if not impossible – to rebuild these hard-won advances in community trust.

While not easily quantified in dollar amounts, school closures do have real costs to a
community as well. After a neighborhood elementary school in DeKalb County, Georgia,
closed, area residents noted that many formerly active neighbors and young parents
moved away, community gatherings dropped off, and the sense of neighborhood renewal
26
Andrew J. Houtenville and Karen Smith Conway. "Parental Effort, School Resources, and Student
Achievement." J. Human Resources XLIII (2): 437-453

13
was diminished. As one resident summarized, “They took away the neighborhood school.
It changed us. It changed the neighborhood.”27

It takes time, thought, trust, hard work, and ongoing human relationships to create a
successful school community. Any proposed efficiency measure that would destabilize a
successful campus must be carefully weighed against AISD’s primary Strategic Plan
goals of strong academic achievement for all students. While campus closures may
appear to provide a quick fix financially, we believe the overall risks to student academic
achievement, district tax revenues, parental engagement, and community trust are likely
to outweigh the benefits, especially for students already living in challenging
circumstances due to poverty.

6. Administrative Facilities Require Further Scrutiny

At one of the group’s final meetings, the task force members agreed by consensus to
suggest that AISD trustees consider the sale of Baker Center, the Alternative Learning
Center, and the Carruth Administration Center.28 We support these proposals.

We also strongly believe that additional opportunities exist to increase the efficiency of
other non-instructional facilities. Two facilities we suggest for immediate evaluation are
the Pleasant Hill Annex and the Central Supply Warehouse.

Pleasant Hill Annex, a facility of nearly 26,000 square feet, serves as the Science
Resource Center, but houses just sixteen employees. AISD should consider whether the
science materials and animals stored there can be accommodated in less or different
space so that the facility can be used more efficiently as staff and administrative offices.29

Similarly, we believe the Central Supply Warehouse and its site should be fully
evaluated. The 2009 MGT Efficiency Study, which recommended closing this facility as
a Year 1 option, estimated an annual savings of $1,812,543, with a five5-year total
savings of $9,062,715. Actual savings would likely be greater, as the study notes: "These
fiscal impact estimates do not account for the savings that would accrue to the District
27Bill Torphy, “How School Closure Impacted a Community.” Atlanta Journal-Constitution 11 April
2010. http://www.ajc.com/news/how-school-closure-impacted-449907.html

28 The task force ceased formal votes after the community dialogues. Although the FMPTF received
information about administrative facilities and individual members requested several times that the topic be
discussed, the group did not review options related to the Carruth Administration Center, the Baker Center,
or other non-school facilities until after two members presented a memorandum on January 18, 2011,
outlining potential administrative savings. Staff indicated that the task force should discuss administrative
facilities after they had identified which school campuses would close; in the end, insufficient time and
information prevented an informed discussion.
29
Individual task force members raised the question of the Pleasant Hill Annex in later task force meetings,
but insufficient time and information prevented an informed discussion.

14
from eliminating the carrying value of stock on hand, selling or transferring warehouse
delivery vehicles to other departments and selling or transferring the warehouse facility."

In response to questions from task force members about the Central Supply Warehouse,
staff indicated that the cold storage areas were still needed, though it was not specified
how much of the total 96,303 SF building area iwas required for this purpose. Staff also
noted that a portion of the site’s 18.7 acres iwas in a floodplain, but again, did not specify
the percentage. The Central Warehouse is located at 3701 Woodbury Drive, just south of
St. Edward's University in an area that is increasing in value and can be is fairly easily
accessible accessed from Ben White Boulevard. If the warehouse could be eliminated or
even downsized, this property might provide a future site for an administration building
or a Performing Arts Center. Alternatively, if the district decides to retain the warehouse
is to be retained, it might be possible to relocate the Science Resource Center here to free
up the Pleasant Hill Annex for administrative use. At the very least, the site should be
evaluated to determine whether a portion that is not in the floodplain could be carved off
for possible sale or lease.

A careful review of other administrative facilities may present other additional

opportunities for greater efficiency. For example, it may be possible for staff at the
Nelson Field Bus Terminal to use just the permanent building, allowing removal of the
1969 portable structure. Because the task force focused almost exclusively on school
closures for much of its existence, suggestions of this kind were left largely unexplored.
We strongly urge AISD to undertake a thorough examination of all remaining non-
campus facilities as soon as possible.

AISD has long had a practice of housing administrative and other necessary, non-
instructional uses on campuses where the student population is not at full capacity. We
cannot evaluate the breadth, scope, or impact of this practice because we did not receive
the detailed information we requested multiple times on the extent of these uses currently.
But we do encourage the district to expand this practice wherever possible, particularly
when it offers a viable financial alternative to closing school campuses or when it it will
enables AISD to terminate leases on rental space for administrative employees. We also
encourage AISD to make public the extent to which school facilities with lower student
populations are utilized if all district uses, not just student population, are considered in
those determinations. To members of the public who view campuses with low student
populations as examples of inefficient use of resources, such information may present a
more complete picture of the actual utilization of these facilities.

In essence, we believe that AISD should focus first on achieving efficiencies and savings
through administrative spaces before displacing students through school closures. If
administrators and staff move into underutilized schools, that space becomes more
efficiently used, achieving at least one aim of a school closure and consolidation.30

30Whether this approach would net AISD the same degree of savings is not something we can assess as we
were unable to obtain necessary data, despite several requests. As noted, among the information we

15
7. Recommendations Regarding Joint Use of Facilities

AISD’s J. J. Pickle Elementary School/St. John Community Center is a model example of

a joint use educational facility that also serves broader community needs as well. Other
possibilities may exist throughout the district to transform existing school campuses with
extra capacity into spaces that accommodate city, county, or compatible private uses. As
early as the first community dialogue last year, members of the public suggested that
AISD focus attention on expanding joint use opportunities, as well as improving cost
recovery for community use of school facilities. The FMP Facility Master Plan majority
report includes general recommendations in line with these goals, but does not provide
specific information or a suggested course of action.

We encourage AISD to undertake the following actions:

a. Proactively identify campuses or other district facilities that could prove good
candidates for joint use ventures.
b. Reconfigure students in underutilized campuses to make available as much classroom
space as possible. Issue Requests for Proposals to identify educational groups, such as
Austin Community College or child care providers, interested in leasing excess space and
assuming maintenance and operation costs.
c. Evaluate facilities located on larger parcels of land (including Delco Activity Center,
Alternative Learning Center, Pleasant Hill Annex, and Baker Center) to determine the
feasibility of subdividing and selling excess portions of land, with first preference given
to other public or educational uses.
d. Create district-level operating policies and procedures that encourage community-
generated proposals and facilitate the implementation of sound facility and operating
plans.

In recent years, the recommendation to explore joint use opportunities for underutilized
as well as new campuses has been endorsed by AISD's Community Committee on
Neighborhoods and Schools (2008), the City of Austin's Families and Children Task
force (2008), and the Joint Subcommittee of AISD, the City of Austin, and Travis County
(2009). The Austin City Council recently expressed renewed interest in this area, and the
Comprehensive Plan Framework that Council endorsed on March 10, 2011, includes
several key strategic directions related to the joint use of school campuses.

Excellent models exist around the country and can suggest directions for AISD and its
public and private partners to explore. The City of Austin’s Families and Children Task
Force final report reviews some best practices; similarly, the Planning Commission
Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee devoted time in several meetings to discussions
requested was a comprehensive listing of administrative uses already in place on underutilized school
campuses. Staff have said they do not factor administrative offices into utilization rates because those uses
can be moved if a campus closes. But these uses will need to be housed in some district facility; if a school
facility is housing a necessary administrative use, that school is being used more efficiently than reflected
in the utilization rate.

16
about joint use opportunities and submitted a memorandum to City Council about
city/school district collaboration possibilities that encourages joint use of school
facilities. We encourage AISD to use these documents to begin exploring the possibilities
that exist within the district and particularly at under-enrolled campuses. [INCLUDE
THE RELEVANT PAGES FROM FWC REPORT AND THE OTHER REFERENCED
DOCS IN AN APPENDIX? – only if it’s easy]

Joint use partnerships offer numerous benefits, chief among them the ability for
municipalities to leverage resources and better meet community needs. From a financial
perspective, sharing space with non-district partners would reduce AISD’s operational
costs and could even generate revenue that offsets instructional costs.

8. Selected other facility-related options for increasing revenue31

We applaud AISD’s renewed commitment to seeking private funding, expanding

partnerships, and pursuing other revenue-generating ways to offset costs during this
period of financial crisis. We agree with the FMPTF task force recommendation that
AISD increase cost recovery for community use of schools. Current district policy does
require outside groups to pay for custodial and other support, but anecdotal evidence
suggests a need for more standardized practices. Schools perform a valuable community
service when they provide meeting space for diverse community groups and activities,
but there may be a need to evaluate rental and other assessed charges to ensure that fees
are appropriate. Likewise, the task forceFMPTF recommends that AISD evaluate fees for
non-district use of House Park and other athletic and activity facilities and aggressively
market these as potential sources of revenue.

AISD might also explore the academic and potential financial benefits of expanding
tuition-based prekindergarten beyond Becker Elementary, the one campus in the district
that now offers this option. As stated in the 2006 Becker proposal, tuition-based
prekindergarten supports district goals of “improving early childhood education for all
students; ensuring student diversity; providing more specialized opportunities; and
maximizing district resources and facility use.” When surveyed in Spring 2010 as part of
the Facility Master Plan process, respondents expressed strong support for expanding
prekindergarten to allow students who do not qualify for free pre-K to attend and pay
tuition.32 We understand concerns about the potential impact on the child care industry
(and particularly infant care programs), but a thoughtful exploration could identify
neighborhoods with demonstrable need for additional quality child care options. The
State of Texas sets maximum rates for prekindergarten tuition and stipulates what costs
31
We are encouraged by AISD’s plans to increase private support through its foundation. Other districts
have raised significant funds through private foundations; Lake Oswego, Oregon, for example, raised $1.4
million in 2010 and seeks to raise $2 million in 2011. Rebecca Randall, “To Close or Not to Close—A
Decision on LO Schools Looms.” Lake Oswego Review 3 February 2011.
http://www.lakeoswegoreview.com/news/print_story.php?story_id=129669429067256400
32
Seventy percent of individuals who attended the community dialogue and 88 percent of the groups
supported an expansion. Of the web respondents, only 44 percent supported an expansion but 22 percent
answered, “I don’t know.” An additional one percent did not answer the question.

17
can be passed along to tuition-paying families, but initial analyses suggest that tuition
revenues can be set below the maximum rate andmight still offset some of the program’s
general instructional and infrastructure costs. We encourage district staff to conduct more
in-depth financial analyses in light of the community support for such an expansion.

9. Process Recommendations

We fully support the FMPTF task force recommendation to create a committee that will
continue to engage in facility planning to build upon the work of the Task ForceFacility
Master Plan. In this section, we outline several process recommendations we believe may
be helpful in this continuing work.

In the rapid decision-making that characterized the series of meetings before and after the
January community dialogues, the FMPTF task force did not have sufficient time to
evaluate each option according to its established criteria, nor to revise and revisit options
in light of community feedback. To ensure informed consideration of any campus
options, we encourage AISD administrators and trustees to review the extensive
community feedback presented throughout the process and to use it to inform the ongoing
meetings with individual campus communities.

In particular, the compelling campus-specific information presented in response to the

FMPTF’s initial recommendations deserves a close review. To name just a few examples:
Joslin Elementary stakeholders have noted that theirs is one of only three campuses in the
district with classrooms equipped with technology for students with auditory
impairments. Ortega Elementary community members pointed out that teachers and staff
had raised more than $400,000 in outside funding just in the previous year. Parents at
Zilker Elementary, a campus that came under scrutiny for its high FCI number, reviewed
the detailed FCI report and discovered more than $2.1 million in previous bond items that
were not accounted for in the FCI and almost $3.7 million in costs the community
deemed unnecessary, such as a stand-alone gym and a new flagpole.33 Members of
several school communities have remarked on the seeming disconnect between the task
force criterion to consider academic excellence and the options that proposed to close
exemplary campuses, or the criterion related to underutilization and the proposals to close
campuses with full enrollment.

At least one member of the public with significant professional expertise in this area has
suggested that AISD could realize considerable cost savings by contracting for
architectural, maintenance, and construction services rather than maintaining departments
within the organization. AISD should explore this idea and should look not just to other
school districts but also to industry for best practices in this area.

Community members further expressed an interest in seeing additional criteria used to

make decisions related to facilities. Based on their suggestions and our research into best

33

18
practices among other districts, we recommend that AISD consider expanding beyond the
task force’s criteria if emergency school closures or other significant facility changes
become necessary. Additional criteria could include consideration of a campus’s record
of raising external funds; potential to qualify for targeted facility grants, such as historic
preservation money; recent bond investments; a campus’s “walk score,” assessing how
many students live within walking distance; a campus’s energy efficiency as reflected by
its relative operating costs; and the popularity of a campus’s programs.34

Finally, we were distressed by the number of citizens who perceived potential conflicts of
interest in the task force membership and its consultants. While we take no position on
these allegations, we do believe it is important to scrupulously avoid even the appearance
of such a conflict, especially on an emotionally volatile issue like school closures.

To alleviate these concerns and to provide firm ground rules moving forward, we
strongly urge AISD to adopt the following procedures:

(a) Ensure that any decisions contemplated for individual AISD campuses are evaluated
against the task force’s board-approved Educational Framework and established criteria
and that new information presented by campuses is fully considered.

(b) Ensure that any discussions of closure and consolidation include consideration of
actual costs and expenses for the individual campuses in question, not general estimates,
and that actual costs be differentiated from so-called cost avoidances. Identify any
campus positions that would be eliminated and the net savings attributal to personnel
loss.35

(c) Ensure that the FMP consultants’ construction affiliate is removed from eligibility for
any construction contracts that may result from specific or general recommendations
contained in the Facility Master Plan.

(d) Ensure that the leadership and membership of future community task forces will be
composed to avoid a majority of AISD employees or individuals who work as paid
consultants for the district.

(e) If district facilities must be closed for any reason, retain buildings wherever possible
and seek educational or community lessees for interim use; if it is determined that
34
In a round of school closure decisions in 2005, Seattle Public Schools adopted criteria similar to that of
the FMPTF but also include “walk scores” and school popularity. The latter criterion is measured based on
the number of students who listed a particular school as their first choice and intended to “minimize
disruption to popular programs.” See “Reshaping the Future of SPS. Superintendent’s Preliminary
Recommendation. Analysis of Proposed Building or Program Closure, Consolidation or Relocation School
Closure Decision-Making Model.” http://www.seattleschools.org/area/spsplan/criteria.xml
35
Throughout the process, task force members were reminded that AISD needed to cut “people, programs
or buildings.” But the message that if school facilities were not closed, jobs would be lost is a false
dichotomy: some of the biggest savings realized in closing campuses come with the elimination of staff and
administrator positions.

19
property must be sold, offer right of first refusal to buyers engaged in educational or
community uses.

(f) If campuses must be closed for any reason, devote sufficient financial and staff
resources to student transition needs, develop a timeline for reopening those facilities
where feasible, and, if possible, allocate some of the savings realized to strengthen and
enrich programs at the receiving schools.36

Again, we fully support the FMPTF recommendation to create a committee that will
continue long-range facilities planning. We believe a truly efficient facility master plan
must be a living document, adaptable to population shifts, new curricular requirements,
or other future changes in our community and our schools.

10. Conclusion

An abundant body of research has identified the deleterious effects of school closure on
students, families, and communities. Academic losses and other negative effects,
including increased dropout rates and decreased self-esteem, have been found to be
particularly acute among African American, Hispanic, and low SES students. Research
has further shown that school closures do not always result in anticipated savings and
may, in fact, have a negative financial impact due to related losses in property values,
declines in enrollment, unanticipated transition costs, and the potential for expensive
remedies under state and federal mandates if academic losses return a school to low-
performing status.

Additionally, studies show that smaller schools are not inherently more expensive to
operate than larger schools and that no further efficiencies are gained once a school’s
population exceeds 400-500 students. In fact, economies of scale begin to disappear at
the 1000-student mark, leading researchers to conclude that if facility decisions are
driven by cost per pupil alone, all schools should be capped at 1000 students.

For these reasons, we believe AISD should proceed very cautiously on school closures,
focusing first on finding additional efficiencies in its use of non-instructional space and in
increased opportunities for joint use of all facilities.

Depending on the severity of state action, school closures ultimately may be necessary to
close the looming budget gap AISD now faces. But we must be certain that all expenses
are accurately identified in advance and that the actual savings will substantially offset
the very real costs to academic achievement and to Austin students, families, and
communities.

36
The Seattle school board, for example, committed that half of the anticipated savings would be used for
academics.

20
Submitted March 23, 2011, by:

Susan Moffat
Dr. Kathryne B. Tovo
Larry Amaro
Sally D. Brackett
Chad Williams

Contact: Susan Moffat

512-590-0227
barbaro@bga.com

21