The story played out like a Hallmark movie that missed the mark. But depending on how it was viewed, it didn’t miss the mark by a little, it missed it by a fill-in-the-blank distance—somewhere in between a mile and a month. The DPS decision to close ten elementary and middle schools, then five, then two, last week was reduced to none. No DPS schools will be clos- ing but as is said in the advertising world, watch this space.
The original decision to close ten schools was based on both underutilization of the facilities—low enrollments—and fiscal challenges. The original list, said Denver Public Schools, included those with fewer than 215 students or larger schools with student bodies of less than 275. There was also red ink to consider said the district. Keeping the schools open would exacerbate a projected $23.5 million budget deficit.
When DPS first announced its plan in late October, Superintendent Alex Marrero said the closures would “right- size” the school district and more thoughtfully address personnel issues, staffing. It didn’t take long for community members, DPS school board members and others to react. While Marrero received some support, there was also a chorus of objections from others.
Former President and CEO of the DPS Foundation Veronica Figoli stood firmly with the superintendent and his decision on school closures. “We knew it was going to happen,” she said. Figoli said she understood the emotional reaction by parents and community members. But the reality of changing demographics, declining enrollments and budgetary realities gave Marrero few options. “As hard as it is,” she said, “leadership has to have the courage to look at a parent in the eye and say, ‘We cannot continue to do this.’”
The twin shadows of practicality and fiscal reality were echoed by Marrero. “As explained during the November 3 Board of Education meeting,” he said, “DPS allocates $7.5 million annually to subsidize small school. Five million of those dollars support the 10 small schools included in the recommendation. This means we take $5 million each year from other DPS schools, students and programs to subsidize these small schools.”
But community reaction was loud and could not be ignored. Parents did not want their children to have to change schools, citing everything from simple disruption to the emotional toll it might have on the young minds.
Milo Marquez, a member of the Latino Education Coalition, said DPS’s decision was done with little dialogue with those who would be most impacted. “Throughout this two-year process, the district remained committed to engaging with impacted school communities—not only to gather feedback, but also to share information on how unification efforts will benefit all students.” But it, said Marquez, didn’t live up to its word.
While DPS, parents and various voices in the com- munity were wrestling with this announcement, Jefferson County—the state’s second largest school district—was making a firm decision to close 16 elementary schools effective at school year’s end. One, more than any other variable, made its decision irrevocable: declining enrollment. It was also costing too much to keep open schools serving too few students. Student affected will be integrated into other nearby schools or parents of these students will make other decisions on their children’s’ education.
The announced Jeffco closures will be phased in over the next two years. All tolled, the closures will affect approxi- mately 2,400 children and slightly more than 400 staff. Despite a population boom over the last twenty years that, at one time, had nearly 100,000 students enrolled, current figures show only 69,000 students taking classes.
The weeks long tug-of-war over school closings between DPS and the school board, said one community member, demonstrated a “dysfunctional” relationship between the two bodies. Rosemary Rodriguez, a former school board member and Denver City Council president said much of the public acrimony might have been avoided with better communication between the two sides. “The rollout of these recommendations has to be done very carefully,” she said.
Denver’s and Jefferson County’s reality of changing demographics and declining enrollment is not unique in the metro area. In 2018, Aurora closed eight schools and in 2021 announced it was closing two more. And while there has been no recent announcement that it may do the same in the future with other schools, the city—which is now actually larger than the city of Cincinnati—may add more schools to those now shuttered for daily classes if current trends continue.
Aurora is one city with two distinct populations. On one side, the west side, is where more of its lower income population resides, including pockets of immigrant neighborhoods. Its school populations are static or slightly declining. The east side of the town, where incomes are significantly higher, is showing a dynamic growth curve where new communities and schools are popping up.
The patterns ongoing across the metro area and causing the state’s largest school districts to step back and reconsider the ways of spending money does not appear to be just today’s reality. It may simply be a precursor to what lies ahead.
