Closure savings are labor savings
The District says shuttering 37 schools will lower expenses by $28 million annually. But in the short run there are “substantial” transition costs.
by Bill Hangley, Jr.
Philadelphia School District officials say that closing buildings will save them millions of dollars a year.
But a closer look at the numbers shows that the lion’s share of savings will come from eliminating jobs.
Officials have been adamant that their Facilities Master Plan, which would close 37 schools and relocate seven more, is a financial necessity that will ultimately save the District $28 million annually – but less in the first year.
Superintendent William Hite has been telling audiences, “We have to take some action – or we’ll have to close the District.”
And while closing the buildings themselves will eliminate some annual maintenance and utility costs, a detailed analysis provided by District officials shows that almost 80 percent of the plan’s projected savings depends on reductions to the District’s unionized workforce. The closure plan anticipates lower numbers of teachers, administrators, aides, nurses and safety officers – over $22 million in annual labor costs.
Officials say most staffing levels are determined by the number of students in a building, and thus most jobs in closed schools will follow students to their new schools.
But they say that consolidating schools is more efficient because it allows for a net decrease in the number of District employees, particularly in administration and maintenance.
“When you operate a small school … you still need that administrative staff,” said Matthew Stanski, the District’s chief financial officer. “That becomes more efficient the larger the school becomes.”
Deputy Superintendent Paul Kihn says the District’s savings estimates are based on data collected from last year’s closures and factor in an increase in overall transportation costs.
Kihn also believes that closings won’t trigger a larger-than-usual migration of students to more-costly charter schools, and that the District can stick to its relatively lean budget for post-closure improvements in the so-called “receiving schools.”
Next year, Kihn said, a total of $19 million is dedicated to investing in “high-quality seats” across the District; that figure will support everything from three new Renaissance charters to academic upgrades at low-performing schools and schools affected by closures.
“We’re not planning on spending money that we don’t have,” Kihn said.
But District officials also acknowledge “substantial” one-time transition costs in the first year that will eat into some portion of the $28 million in savings – exactly how much they are not prepared to say.
Since the plan was announced, critics have been making the argument that transition costs will offset the promised savings. They point to reports from Chicago and Washington, D.C., where school officials once promised windfalls from large-scale closures. In Chicago, leaked internal school district documents suggest that it underreported its closure-related transition costs by anywhere from $150 million to $400 million. In D.C. a 2012 auditor’s report found that the capital costs for closing 23 schools were $40 million, four times higher than original estimates.
The surprise expenses in these two cities reportedly came in such areas as building maintenance and severance pay.
Mary Filardo, who as head of the Washington, D.C.-based 21st Century School Fund has done extensive work around closures, said many of the unexpected costs there were the result of poor planning.
“There were a lot of amateurs,” she said. “They underestimated what was going to be involved. They didn’t properly mothball [closed schools] – and then, when they went to negotiate with charters about them, the buildings were a wreck.”
School districts can also see savings quickly eaten up by increased demand for transportation and charter-school slots, she said.