School Closures: What can be done about them?

School Boards are being attacked for closing schools, and challenged to see schools as hubs for service. They are blamed for not finding community uses for empty classrooms so as to keep schools open. There is anger that empty schools are not repurposed for community use. These issues will be discussed, barriers to solutions examined, and some suggestions for changes made.

Do School Closures have to occur at all?

As student populations decline or relocate, facilities become too costly to operate, and as students’ requirements change, there will be the need for school closures.  No one wants a one-room school house for their children’s schooling anymore!

School Boards are funded by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and Boards make choices about the uses of these resources. As their main responsibility under the Education Act is student achievement, they may make the decision to maintain or enhance supports for students in the classroom instead of keeping open empty and expensive schools.

Schools as Hubs

Schools are natural hubs within their communities, providing meeting space for local groups and services for children, youth and families. Their fields and playgrounds are valuable community space. Beginning in 2013, to provide seamless service for young children, capital funding has been provided to School Boards to retrofit school space to increase the number of in-school child-care spaces. 

Current Barriers to Schools Expanding their Role as Hubs

School Boards’ funding is driven by pupil enrolment.  The MOE defines school space as empty if it is not filled by elementary or secondary students according to their formulas. Other school uses do not count. Boards are then rewarded for having full schools by receiving full operational funding. If all their secondary or elementary schools are full, Boards can levy Educational Development Charges that provide substantial funds to buy land for new schools.

Facility Partnerships are another possibility for schools with empty space. However, according to MOE guidelines, the partner has to agree to take on the maintenance and repair costs of the part of the school building they are using. There are also other requirements to be fulfilled. Many partners are unwilling to come forward on these onerous terms.

Recommendation:

The MOE needs to find a resolution to contradictions: the encouragement of schools to be hubs in their community; and the financial pressures placed on School Boards to close schools as enrolment falls.

Current barriers to Repurposing Closed schools for Community Use

Boards are motivated to sell their properties for an important source of funding for renovations or new schools.  Under Regulation 444, properties must be sold at appraised market value and first offered to preferred agents--- other school boards, community colleges, universities, and the local municipality--- who may not be able to afford the purchase. Even if there is a community group that can raise the purchase funds, sustaining the operation may be an issue.  Old schools may be just as much a liability for cash-strapped local community groups as they were to the Boards. Finally, the Ontario MOE has the final control over the building, sale and demolition of Board’s property.  The MOE decisions are not made in conjunction with other Ministries and the needs of municipalities.

Other jurisdictions have adopted Integrated Service Delivery (ISD), an approach that values co-ordinated neighborhood services, and requires each Ministry to be working within an integrated policy framework for children, youth and families. In Manitoba, a co-ordinating cabinet committee undertakes this task.  Public buildings are owned by the Province, not one Ministry.  A recent Toronto symposium on ISD showed growing interest.

Recommendation:

The Ontario Government should adopt Integrated Service Delivery and identify the key Provincial and municipal policy, funding and governance structures that are required for integrated approaches at the neighborhood level.