Q&A: Why schools are closing

Today, a Seattle citizens committee will submit its final list of school-closure recommendations to Superintendent Raj Manhas.

The initial list of 12 building closures, affecting 16 programs, has generated much controversy since it was announced May 17.

At a series of five community meetings over the past week, parents and kids fought for their schools. They wore school shirts in school colors, made impassioned speeches, and in the case of Sacajawea Elementary, sang a song. Some argue the closures — to go into effect in 2007-08 — disproportionately affect poor students and students of color. Still others say they want to avoid pitting one school against another and advocate keeping all schools open.

Manhas this week will review the committee's recommendations and pass them onto the School Board. The board is scheduled to vote July 26.

Q: Why does the district say it needs to close schools?

A: Seattle Public Schools taught 97,267 students in 121 buildings in 1965. Now the district has half as many students but almost as many school buildings. It hasn't closed a school in 19 years.

Keeping all those partly empty buildings open is expensive, and the district, based on an estimate of 11 schools and an average per-school operating cost, says closing schools would save about $4.8 million annually.

District officials also say closing schools will help the district run more efficiently and cohesively.

Q: What happens to students, teachers and staff at the affected schools?

A: In some cases, students at closed buildings will move together to a new building. In others, students at closed schools will go to other area schools.

The district doesn't expect many layoffs as a result of the closures. Teachers should move with students. But some staff jobs that are duplicated could be lost. Librarians, counselors and janitors, for example.

Q: How does this save money?

A: Half the money saved would come from building maintenance and overhead costs, including utilities, custodial staff and groundskeeping. The other half would come from program costs.

The district hasn't calculated the first-year costs of mothballing unused buildings, so those costs aren't included.

The School Board voted two weeks ago to put half the savings back into the remaining school buildings and programs. That would leave, at the most, about $2.4 million to put toward closing the district's $20 million budget gap in 2007-08.

Q: If it doesn't help the deficit, what's the district going to do about that?

A: The district has already tentatively figured out a way to fill a $15 million budget gap in next year's budget using reserves. Closures will make a dent in the $21 million 2007-08 budget shortfall, but the district will still have to look for other solutions like cutting administrative staff and programs.

Q: Why doesn't the district just lay off administrators or even teachers to save money?

A: The district is limited by contractual obligations regarding class sizes and can't just lay off teachers. In 2004, the district agreed to a five-year, $25 million contract that gave raises to teachers and other employees represented by the Seattle Education Association. Since school closures won't close the gap alone, the district may look at other cost-saving measures in addition to closing schools.

Q: Can't the district just sell a building or two?

A: District spokesman Peter Daniels said selling buildings would be a short-term fix and wouldn't address the ongoing funding problem Seattle Public Schools faces. Also, school districts are limited in what they can spend money on. If the district sells a building, it can use the proceeds only for capital costs — buildings and building maintenance, for example. The district needs money in its general fund to spend on teachers and programs.

Q: What's going to happen to buildings that close?

A: That's not clear. The district could rent them out, leave them empty, or sell them. However, school officials say they're hesitant to sell buildings because the district may not be able to afford to buy them back if enrollment grows again.

Q: How did the committee decide which schools to close?

A: The School Board set three principles to guide the process and eight criteria to determine which schools should close. The principles are academic effectiveness, fairness across the city and minimal disruption. The criteria are: effective instruction, the ability to commit more resources to students, opportunity to consolidate schools, family satisfaction and enrollment, building condition, operating cost per student, building capacity and community connection.

The board also divided the city into four parts, using Interstate 5 and I-90 as boundaries, and set targets, asking the committee to recommend closing two buildings in the northwest portion of the city and three buildings each in the northeast/central, southwest and southeast portions.

Q: Where does the Seattle Council PTSA stand on closings? The teachers union?

A: Both groups have shown support for the closures.

Most of the PTSA board members acknowledge that the district has shown a need for school closures, said President Sherry Carr, but the group hasn't — and won't — take a stand on individual schools. Carr was a member of the superintendent's committee that recommended school closures last year.

The SEA has supported the closures.

Emily Heffter: 206-464-8246