Boston Public Schools has proposed closing three schools — Charlestown and Greater Egleston high schools and East Boston Early Education Center — as part of its decade-long restructuring strategy.
BPS’s long-term facilities plan focuses on facilities, enrollment, and the capacity to offer programs. While relevant, these measures don’t directly establish whether a school has effective teaching, strong student relationships, or an educational environment suited to its learners. Declining enrollment and fewer opportunities for inclusion were among BPS’s stated reasons for closing Charlestown High. Yet it remains unclear what initiatives were attempted to reverse the downturn, how effective they were, and why further improvements aren’t being pursued.
While BPS warns that building utilization below 84 percent can strain resources and restrict programs, low enrollment doesn’t necessarily mean a school is failing.
At the same time, BPS should recognize that some students, with or without disabilities, thrive in smaller, inclusive settings. Intentionally designed small schools can offer stronger relationships, greater familiarity with individual learners, and a less overwhelming social environment.
Closing a school — of any size — should never be the default move. Decisions must clearly define the problem being solved and be backed by transparent comparisons of educational outcomes, costs, and impacts on students, not just declining enrollment.
Jia-Jing Lee
Cambridge
The writer is an education strategist.