New data gives insight into which Seattle schools could close

Seattle may close at least 20 of its 70 elementary school sites and redistribute students to increase enrollment at the rest. But will the plan lead to better student outcomes? Will it align with the district’s goals to improve third grade reading and seventh grade math scores? Will families of color feel more engaged? Will students feel safer?

Those are lingering questions that Superintendent Brent Jones and his staff will try to answer over the summer.

In the interim, the district released more data at Wednesday’s Seattle School Board meeting to answer questions about how much money it would save by closing individual school buildings and the criteria it intends to use to decide which schools may close for the 2025-26 school year.

The new approach was informed, in part, by four community sessions and a community survey in May and June. One of the common themes from those meetings was that the community wanted more transparency from Seattle Public Schools and they wanted to be included in the process. Another big theme was that many opposed the district’s plan to close schools.

Jones and his team said that they are listening to the community and plan to be more transparent.

“This is frankly scary for us,” Jones said. “We’re going to articulate when we’re struggling. We’re going to articulate when there’s a mismatch. We’re going to articulate when we don’t have the information. We will do that along the way so that there’s not going to be a surprise.”

What we learned this week

SPS had broadly noted the factors it would consider when deciding which schools to close: enrollment under 300 students, building age, location in relation to other elementary schools, program offerings and equity, for example.

It went a little deeper this week, releasing rating data on the condition of all of its elementary school buildings and their suitability as learning spaces. It also included each school’s current enrollment and the building’s capacity.   

The district rates the physical condition of the building on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being excellent or new and 0 unsatisfactory.

Buildings also have a learning environment score, which takes into consideration a building’s size, configuration, programs, aesthetics and safety.

The district also cares about whether a school is large enough to accommodate about 400 students and has enough space to add pre-K and inclusive special education classrooms.

Learning environment scores range from 1 to 5.99, with 1 to 1.99 meeting all of the district’s standards and 5 to 5.99 meaning the building is unsuitable for learning.

Using the data, it’s possible to make educated guesses about which schools could end up on the closure list and how much the district could save if those schools were shut down.

Decatur Elementary, for example, had 188 students last year and can fit roughly 236 students at capacity, fewer than the district goal of 400. It’s in poor to fair condition and gets a 3.18 (fair but below SPS standards in some areas) in the learning environment rating. Seattle Public Schools could save about $1.3 million, minus some expenses for maintaining and mothballing the building, if it closes the school, according to the data.

Sand Point Elementary School’s infrastructure is ranked somewhere between fair and good. But its campus is small. It had more students enrolled last year than it was built to educate: 194 versus 132 students. Its learning environment score is 3.77 — meaning that it does not meet SPS standards in some cases. If closed, the district would save $1.4 million, again, minus some expenses associated with mothballing and maintaining the building.

Without the closures, the district may have to make other reductions, including slashing nearly 157 positions, according to Wednesday’s documents. Among the options: getting rid of all elementary and K-8 assistant principals ($5 million); increasing class sizes from kindergarten through high school ($18.5 million); reducing all library positions to half-time ($2.7 million); and eliminating all school equity funds ($5.4 million).

How we got here

The School Board gave Jones permission in May to develop a plan to close about 20 elementary schools as part of an effort to eliminate a budget deficit in the 2025-26 school year and improve academic and support services for students in the remaining schools.

The district says it’s currently using about 65% of its elementary school space and that reducing the number of schools will increase use to about 85%. Jones argues that the remaining K-5 buildings will have pre-K, three teachers in each grade, more specialized staff and inclusive classrooms for students in special education programs who need intense support.  

Jones was initially expected to present a plan to the board for consideration in early June, but that was delayed. 

The new proposal will be delivered around mid-September, with a vote expected in December, before winter break.

More students would not necessarily solve the problem

The district has long cited declining enrollment as one of the reasons for its current predicament.

“That isn’t really the main issue,” said Fred Podesta, the district’s chief operations officer. “The reason we’re having the discussion is, how many buildings do we need to serve the students we have? Finances are related to this, but it’s not as causal as people think.”

Even if SPS somehow managed to get back the 4,900 or so students it lost since 2019, the district could still be in a financial bind. At best, it could break even; at worst, the cost of educating those students could put the district further in the red.

SPS would get about $66 million more in state revenue with the higher enrollment, but it would cost about $54 million directly to educate those students. There are also indirect expenses for administration, transportation, athletics and other services, which could add another $5 to $15 million more to the district’s budget.

Board advises keeping an open mind

One of the clear charges from the board directors to the district was to show the connection between closing schools and improving student outcomes.

Brandon Hersey, who represents Southeast Seattle, wants the district to return with answers demonstrating how the plan will align the district’s 3^rd grade reading and 7^th grade math goals.

He was also worried about how the remaining schools will be distributed around the city to ensure room for future growth. Jones’ team said they are hoping to have at least 10 schools in each of the district’s five regions. 

Vice President Michelle Sarju, who represents District 5, said the district should be specific and clear in its communications. 

“You shouldn’t have to have a master’s or a Ph.D. to understand this,” she said. 

Gina Topp said she wants Jones and his team to keep an open mind. The goal should be achieving better student outcomes, she said.

“I bought into the idea that closing schools will allow us to do that and to get additional benefits,” Topp said. “But as you go through this summer planning and you see [that] maybe the analysis shows that that’s not the case, I want there to be space that you come back with that response, too.” 

The district will hire outside experts to review the plan and help with implementation. Officials will also reach out to other school districts in California, Texas and Colorado that are facing similar enrollment challenges to learn how they are addressing it, Jones said.  

Jones is also contemplating having regular updates, and possibly workshop sessions, with the board and community during the summer.