Districts from Philadelphia to Los Angeles have large numbers of schools that lost at least 20% of their students during the pandemic.
Days before Christmas, the school board in Jackson, Mississippi, voted to close 11 schools and merge two more — a drastic move that parents in the district had long feared. Some on the list have lost 30% or more of their students since 2018.
Despite the district’s high poverty, Superintendent Errick Greene said he could no longer afford to staff social workers and counselors at schools with long stretches of declining enrollment. Many older buildings were falling apart. It made no sense, he said, to have plumbers and HVAC technicians “racing hither and yon across the city” each morning to keep them running.
“Should we really be investing this money in these school buildings if they’re at best at half capacity?” he asked.
Such questions are weighing heavily on district leaders throughout the country. Fresh from the academic struggles that followed the pandemic, and with federal relief funds soon to run out, they now confront a massive enrollment crisis.
…
A shorter student roster each year might not make headlines, but it could serve as a harbinger of things to come, Goulas said. Administrators in shrinking schools often must merge classrooms, eliminate jobs or rely on donations to save popular sports or music programs.
I don’t see anything in the article mention if the enrollment reduction is due to population loss in the area, enrollment in charter or other schools, or a decision to “home school.”
Maybe I missed it.
Mostly private and home school in my area. The district is still showing a 10% loss in enrollment despite being the #1 relocation destination in the US in 2023 (according to Uhaul, so take from that what you will). We’re gaining population, and still public school enrollment is going down.
Private and charter schools are all completely full. There are so many homeschoolers that businesses that do extra-curriculars (music lessons, dance programs, sports, etc) are all offering morning and mid-day sessions to keep up with demand. The local little league is talking about having two teams limited to homeschoolers so they can practice mid-day and free up the fields during after school hours.
Meanwhile the public schools struggle to keep their teacher slots, which are allocated based on enrollment.
I know people here in South Texas who work in “Title 1” schools that are predominantly minority and the kids just flat out disappeared. Some were working jobs to support their families, others moved to Mexico or near there, and others they can’t find the family anymore, so most likely the whole family moved somewhere else.
We moved our kids to a private school after school went remote and we saw first hand how terrible the teachers were. We were blown away by just how ineffective they were. Since moving to a private school our kids struggled for the first year but then really started to catch up and are now a couple years ahead of their old peers.
We know others that just decided to switch to programs like K12.
What I find weird about this article is that they should be celebrating smaller class sizes. This should allow them to spend more time helping the students that they do have.
You last point is where my mind is at. We’ve been bemoaning enormous class sizes and not enough resources to go around for almost 20 years, this seems like it would be the perfect opportunity to spring board a new era of public education. While I understand that butts in seats = funding, perhaps something can be done to ensure kids keep receiving an education with the benefits of smaller classrooms.
I imagine the lower enrollment equates to lower funding which means they have to reduce costs. Every organizations number one coat is usually payroll, right?
Here’s an example in California:
Because of its size, California has the most schools where enrollment loss hit at least 20% during the pandemic — over 1,400. High-priced areas like Silicon Valley reflect a host of recent demographic trends, including record-low birth rates and a limited housing market. Other families left districts during school closures for private schools and charters. All of these factors add up to fewer school-age children attending traditional public schools.
20% during the pandemic
This I can understand, though I know people’s views on pandemic/isolation are varying. I don’t think enrollment data during that time should skew or influence current trends though.
I’m not in the education field, but unless I’m missing something, I don’t think it makes sense to talk about low attendance rates and closing school based on pandemic attendance. I see these comments supporting lower attendance now, so I’m curious what those figures are.
Meanwhile schools around dc are approaching 30 kid class sizes. This is weird!
People are moving where they want to live? Which would be weird for poorer places to be able to do so. Declining birth rates?
That’s how it is in California despite the amount of students decreasing, a lot of teachers have left and they don’t hire new ones
Less kids in a single classroom is good.
While I agree, state funding for districts is typically decided based on student enrollment and attendance. Fewer students attending classes means drastically less funding for the district. So even if enrollment has dropped 30%, that doesn’t mean they have the same number of teachers for 30% fewer students. Classes are bigger than ever these days, because schools can’t afford to hire enough teachers, (and teachers are fleeing the job to work elsewhere.)
Cut sports, hire teachers.
I wonder how much of this is on charter schools.
