What are some of the most prominent factors that lead local educational agencies to consider school closures?

This, and following a well thought-out process, is key to completing a successful school closure. That hasn’t changed over time. The major new factor I’ve seen over time is the role of social media. Rumors spread quickly, and it’s easy for misinformation to take on a life of its own. If they don’t hear it directly from the superintendent, it’s just a rumor. At the end of the day, the superintendent embraces the role of communicator-in-chief.

Phase one is preparation and making the case. Closing schools is an economic decision but it’s never just about numbers. My first [piece of] advice is simple: Don’t close schools unless it’s unavoidable. It is often the most painful and contentious decision a board will ever face. People may agree that closures are necessary, if it is not their own school. Leaders must consider both the financial variables and anticipate the emotional and political weight of the decision.

Once the difficult decision has been made, the superintendent and board make the case to parents, staff, students, unions and the broader community. They present the financial realities, explaining the consequences of not closing schools, and engaging in open conversations with all stakeholders.

It’s important to frame closures in a way that the alternative to closing schools is clear. Declining enrollment often means eliminating programs that support students. In the end, the focus must remain on what is best for all students.

The roles of the superintendent and board also need to be clear. The superintendent takes the lead as the primary voice in the community. Closing schools is not a technical administrative task, but a complex change-management project. While the board ultimately makes the decision, the superintendent is responsible for developing and implementing an inclusive process that ensures all stakeholders are heard.

In this role, the superintendent becomes the communicator-in-chief, meeting continuously with key stakeholders to explain the challenges and outline the reasoning. These conversations won’t eliminate resistance, but they can build understanding and trust. When the final recommendation is presented to close specific schools, the groundwork of open dialogue can help make the decision more credible, though still painful.

Phase two is the forming of the school closure committee (SCC) to advise the superintendent. The SCC typically includes staff, union representatives, parents, community members and administrators, while the superintendent and cabinet serve in an advisory role. Their task is to review all aspects of the district relevant to school closure — budget information, enrollment trends, facilities capacity and programs — and then provide input on which schools to recommend for closure.

Transparency is critical. After each meeting, the information shared with the SCC is made available to the community, along with explanations of why it matters. Communities are also given opportunities to ask questions, with the district providing clear responses and addressing rumors. Confidentiality is protected during the critical prioritizing stage, when members must weigh the painful question of which schools to close.

The SCC ideally should be guided by a facilitator who can keep discussions focused, identify key decision-making variables, and help move the group toward consensus. If the SCC cannot reach consensus, the responsibility ultimately falls back to the superintendent, who must weigh the input and make a recommendation.

Phase three is the recommendation for board action. The superintendent brings a formal recommendation to the board identifying which schools should be closed. Before a public announcement is made, school communities directly impacted should be notified first. Staff are told in person, and meetings are quickly scheduled so families can hear the reasoning behind the recommendations, ask questions and voice their concerns.

These meetings are understandably emotional, filled with frustration, sadness and anger. Families are being asked to let go of institutions that hold deep personal meaning to them. Board hearings follow, giving the public a final chance to respond before the board decision. It is one of the most difficult moments in district leadership — painful for all involved, but necessary for the long-term health of the district.

Phase four is the transition period, preparing schools for closure and ensuring students, families and staff are supported throughout the process. On one level, this involves technical logistics like transferring supplies, materials and furniture and making sure receiving schools are ready to accommodate new students and staff. But the deeper challenge lies in the psychological impact.

For students, staff and families leaving a school, the sense of loss is significant. Site leadership plays a critical role in this phase. Principals and school staff must not only manage the operational details but also nurture a new school culture — one that honors the past while helping students and families build a sense of belonging in their new environment. Providing a closing event, such as a community fair at the end of the year to help bring closure to the process, is important.

Economic: School closures are an economic decision. Declining enrollment leads to reduced funding, and districts often face the reality of being “land rich but cash poor.” The choice to close schools is because the alternatives are worse — such as the risk of state takeover, cutting vital programs or being unable to provide competitive pay increases for staff.

Psychological: For students, staff and families, school closures represent a major life transition that comes with a deep sense of loss. People move through this process at different rates, and emotions often run high. Anger, fear and frustration are part of the grieving process. The most important thing leaders can do is not to be surprised by this reaction and to listen, provide space for people to express those emotions and continue to communicate — clearly and consistently — the reasons why closures are necessary for the long-term health of the district.

Political: Closing schools is also a political process. Board members are elected officials, and superintendents function in many ways like a mayor and CEO combined — responsible for both the educational mission and the fiscal health of the district. Board members can face intense pressure, including threats of recall or losing re-election. Navigating this requires balancing the business needs of the district with the political realities of governance.

The role of principals is especially critical during this transition. They must plan intentionally for the cultural changes that come with merging communities and guide their school through the process of creating a new, shared culture. In some cases, this may even involve leadership changes — such as a principal from a closing school moving into a leadership role at a receiving school.

Another difficult but sometimes unavoidable part of this process is staff layoffs when changes cannot be managed through attrition. This is one of the most painful aspects of school closures and must be approached with the utmost compassion, including assistance in finding new employment. Arrangements can be made with unions to allow staff impacted at the sites closed to choose where they would like to be assigned.

Constant communication with those impacted and the community at-large is important as well as counseling and facilitation supports for the schools involved. The frustration and grieving continue during this transition phase and may even become exacerbated. Parents and students can visit their new schools and be welcomed accordingly.

Beyond cost reductions, districts may generate new revenue through leasing unused school property, providing a steady income stream. The outright sale of property can yield tens of millions of dollars, depending on the location and value of the site.

School closures can also improve student outcomes by allowing districts to redirect resources into classrooms, expand academic programs and strengthen support services.

As far as drawbacks are concerned, the most significant downside is the disruption to school communities. The transition can be painful, and it often takes time for students, staff and families to heal and adapt to a new environment.

Once the process is approved, the board should allow the superintendent to implement the process already discussed. The board’s role then shifts to receiving the superintendent’s recommendation, along with the rationale and details of the process, and providing space for the community to share their opinions. Ultimately, board members must make the final, difficult decision on the recommendation and may choose to modify the recommendation.