Anchorage School Board to vote Tuesday on 2 elementary closures – Anchorage Daily News

Report on Proposed Anchorage School Closures and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction

The Anchorage School Board is scheduled to vote on a proposal to close two elementary schools, Fire Lake Elementary and Lake Otis Elementary, effective in the spring. This report analyzes the proposal, its rationale, and its implications, with a significant focus on its alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

2.0 Rationale for Proposed Closures

The Anchorage School District (ASD) administration has presented the closures as a necessary measure to address significant operational and demographic challenges. The primary drivers for this “right-sizing” initiative are rooted in principles of efficiency and sustainable resource management.

2.1 Declining Enrollment and Facility Utilization

The district has experienced a sustained decline in student enrollment, with a reduction of nearly 7,500 students in neighborhood schools over the past decade. Consequently, many facilities are underutilized. Both Fire Lake and Lake Otis elementary schools are operating at approximately 50% of their intended capacity. This inefficient use of infrastructure places a strain on the district’s budget and resources, detracting from the ability to deliver on SDG 4 by concentrating resources where they are most effective.

2.2 Budgetary and Operational Efficiency

Administrators argue that consolidating schools will lead to more effective use of funds and personnel. Smaller, under-enrolled schools often require more combined-grade classes and are more vulnerable to operational disruptions, such as teacher absences. By consolidating students into fewer buildings, the district aims to optimize resource allocation, ensuring that funding is directed toward educational quality rather than maintaining underutilized infrastructure, a key component of sustainable community management (SDG 11).

The selection criteria for the schools slated for closure included:

• Available capacity at nearby schools to absorb displaced students.
• Current building conditions and deferred maintenance costs.
• Enrollment data and long-term demographic trends.
• Efficiency of transportation routes.

3.0 Analysis of Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

The proposed closures have multifaceted impacts on several key Sustainable Development Goals. While the district’s rationale aligns with goals of efficiency, community feedback highlights potential negative consequences for educational equity and community well-being.

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   The proposal directly impacts the delivery of inclusive and equitable quality education. The district’s position is that consolidation will strengthen educational delivery by creating more robust school populations. However, the plan necessitates the redistribution of over 400 students, which can disrupt their learning environments. Stakeholders have expressed concerns that this could lead to larger class sizes and overburdened teachers, potentially diminishing the quality of education. The stability of the school day, which is crucial for student well-being, is also at risk.
2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   A significant concern is the impact on students with special needs. The plan requires the relocation of several Special Education programs, including Life Skills, Structured Learning, and School Based Behavioral Support programs, to different schools. Parents have noted that existing programs, such as those at Lake Otis, are conveniently located for families who rely on them. Disrupting access to these specialized services risks exacerbating inequalities for vulnerable student populations, running counter to the core objective of SDG 10 to ensure equal opportunity for all.
3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   Neighborhood schools often serve as vital community hubs. Their closure can weaken social cohesion and remove a key local institution. While the district’s plan to repurpose the vacated buildings addresses the goal of sustainable infrastructure use, the loss of the neighborhood school as a community anchor remains a primary concern for residents. The proposal to allow charter schools to lease the buildings represents one form of adaptive reuse.

4.0 Community Feedback and Stakeholder Concerns

Public testimony and community feedback have been predominantly critical of the closures. Parents and staff have voiced concerns regarding the disruption to students’ lives, particularly those who depend on the stability and familiarity of their local school. A recurring criticism was leveled at the term “right-sizing,” with stakeholders arguing that it masks the negative human impact of increased student-to-teacher ratios. Community members emphasized that the schools are more than just buildings; they are families and foundational parts of their neighborhoods. The potential for future growth in surrounding areas was also cited as a reason to keep the schools open.

5.0 Proposed Mitigation and Future Use of Facilities

In an effort to align with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), the district has outlined plans for the use of vacated and underutilized spaces.

5.1 Repurposing of Closed Schools

If the closures are approved, the Fire Lake building would be leased to Eagle Academy Charter School, and the Lake Otis building would be occupied by Rilke Schule German School of Arts and Sciences. This ensures the continued use of the infrastructure for educational purposes.

5.2 Co-located Childcare Initiative

The administration also proposes establishing co-located childcare operations in vacant spaces within five other school buildings. This initiative directly addresses a critical community need, as Anchorage faces an estimated 8,000-slot deficit in childcare capacity. By providing these services, with a portion of slots reserved for district employees and first responders, the plan supports working families, thereby contributing to SDG 8.

6.0 Conclusion

The Anchorage School Board faces a decision that balances fiscal responsibility and operational efficiency against the goals of educational equity and community stability. While the administration’s proposal is grounded in the need for sustainable management of resources in the face of declining enrollment, it poses significant challenges to achieving SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) for all affected students. The final vote will determine the district’s path forward in navigating these competing priorities.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 4: Quality Education

• The article’s main focus is on the closure of elementary schools, the redistribution of students, and the potential impact on the quality of education. It discusses issues like class sizes, special education programs, and the overall learning environment, which are central to SDG 4.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• The decision to close schools is presented as a “right-sizing” effort to manage city resources and infrastructure more efficiently in response to demographic changes (declining enrollment). This relates to sustainable urban planning. The article also discusses repurposing the vacated school buildings for other community needs like charter schools and child care, which is a component of sustainable community management.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 4: Quality Education

1. Target 4.1: Ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education.

   The article addresses this target by discussing the potential impact of school closures on the quality of primary education for over 400 students. A parent’s concern that the plan involves “sticking teachers with more students than they can handle” directly questions whether the resulting education will remain of high quality and equitable.

2. Target 4.2: Ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education.

   This target is directly addressed by the district’s plan to “use vacant space in five school buildings for co-located child care operations.” The article notes that this plan aims to alleviate a city-wide shortage, as “Anchorage child care centers fall about 8,000 slots short of the needed capacity.”

3. Target 4.5: Ensure equal access to all levels of education … for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities.

   The article highlights this target by detailing the relocation plans for students in “Special Education programs.” It specifies that “Lake Otis Life Skills students would move to Airport Heights or Russian Jack” and other special program students would also be relocated, raising questions about continued equal access for these vulnerable students.

4. Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.

   The district’s decision-making criteria, which include “building conditions and maintenance needs” and low utilization rates, relate to the management and upgrading of education facilities. The debate centers on whether closing these schools and consolidating students into others will ultimately provide a more “effective learning environment” or disrupt the stability that students rely on.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

1. Target 11.3: Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management.

   The school district’s “right-sizing” initiative is an act of urban planning and resource management in response to declining population and enrollment. The process described, which “released an online survey and held three events to hear feedback from parents, teachers and community members” and included “more than four hours of public testimony,” reflects the participatory aspect of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

SDG 4: Quality Education

1. Student-teacher ratio (Implied): Linked to Target 4.1, the concern about “sticking teachers with more students than they can handle” implies that the student-teacher ratio in the receiving schools is a key indicator of educational quality.
2. Utilization rate of education facilities: Linked to Target 4.a, the article explicitly states that the schools considered for closure are “hovering near 50% of their intended capacity,” making this a direct indicator used in the district’s decision-making.
3. Number of available child care slots: Linked to Target 4.2, the plan to create “co-located child care operations” can be measured by the number of new slots created, addressing the stated deficit of “about 8,000 slots.”
4. Access to specialized education programs for students with disabilities: Linked to Target 4.5, an indicator would be the successful and uninterrupted provision of services for students in Life Skills, Structured Learning, and School Based Behavioral Support programs following their relocation.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

1. Mechanisms for public participation in urban planning: Linked to Target 11.3, the article mentions several indicators of participation, including the use of an “online survey,” the holding of “three events to hear feedback,” and the allocation of “more than four hours of public testimony” in school board meetings.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: adn.com