OPINION: There are no savings in decisions that harm students

As the Anchorage School District (ASD) pushes forward with its plan to close seven elementary schools, a single phrase has been repeated by district officials like a mantra: these closures will create “properly resourced schools.” The idea is straightforward: Consolidating schools will supposedly balance class sizes, increase support staff, and redirect enough resources to improve education quality.

But the narrative of “properly resourced schools” is misleading. In reality, it echoes a trend across the country, where nearly 1,000 schools close annually, often with no benefit to students. In fact, decades of research show that school closures negatively impact students academically, socially and emotionally, with effects that can last a lifetime. The idea that sacrificing these schools now will somehow pay off in the future is flawed and dangerous.

When schools close, the impacts on students are immediate and profound. Research reveals three predictable effects for students forced to change schools: attendance drops, test scores decline, and behavioral issues arise. This cycle has been well documented. Students uprooted from familiar teachers, friends and routines must adapt to new learning models, different staff, and unfamiliar environments, leading to academic setbacks and increased behavioral challenges. It is likely that these impacts will be even worse on a generation of elementary school students who have already experienced significant early childhood disruptions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

More concerning is that while some of these academic setbacks can be resolved over time, the behavioral and emotional effects often persist much longer, with consequences reaching into adulthood. A recent study from the University of Houston, which examined school closures in Texas between 1985 and 2016, found that displaced students were significantly less likely to graduate from high school, attend college, or secure stable jobs as adults. Notably, these negative outcomes were most severe for students of color and those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

The closures of schools not only disrupt student learning but also raise serious equity concerns. For example, Tudor Elementary, one of the schools ASD plans to close, has a student population that is 74% nonwhite and 70% economically disadvantaged. Five of the seven schools slated for closure serve largely low-income communities and are classified as Title I schools, which indicates they largely serve low-income communities. Closing these schools disproportionately affects minority and economically disadvantaged students, potentially violating both Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. For these students, access to a stable and supportive school environment is often a lifeline, and losing it can have lasting consequences.

Some advocates have even called for the U.S. Department of Education to issue federal guidance on how districts should approach school closures, to ensure that such decisions do not create inequitable outcomes. Without such protections, minority students and students with disabilities are disproportionately affected by closures, exacerbating existing educational disparities and making it more difficult for these students to succeed.

If ASD proceeds with this plan, we should prepare for the consequences: more students struggling to stay engaged, more disruptive behaviors in schools, and a greater need for costly learning intervention programs. We should also expect a decline in attendance as students and families, frustrated by these changes, disengage from the school system, or worse, leave it altogether taking public funds for education with them. Each of these outcomes comes with a financial cost that will likely exceed any short-term savings from closing schools.

The ASD “Rightsizing Plan” may promise short-term cost reductions, but the long-term price will be much higher. Rather than improving student outcomes, the plan risks turning well-supported schools into overcrowded institutions struggling to meet the needs of their students. If we truly care about creating a positive future for Anchorage’s children, we must focus on supporting, not shuttering, our schools. Investing in our schools is an investment in our children and our community, and no cost-cutting measure should come at the expense of their well-being and future success.

Amie Collins is a mother of three and executive director of Best Beginnings. She is a board member of the Tudor Elementary PTA and parent of two Tudor Elementary students.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.