What a Decade of Data Says About Philadelphia’s Next Wave of School Closures

The School District of Philadelphia (SDP) has gone through years of budget deficits and attempts to address them; while the least common out of their attempts, school closures have been utilized during those years to help confront these budget deficits. The last time SDP chose to close schools as a means of addressing their budget gap was in 2012 – 2013. Facing a potential future deficit of over $1 billion in the following 5 years, the Philadelphia School Reform Commission (PSRC), a partially state appointed, partially mayor appointed group, voted to close 23 schools, one of the largest sweeps of school closures in the nation at the time. Whether these closures actually addressed their budgetary concerns remains unclear to most Philadelphians, as not only are many still feeling the effects of the budget gaps in their communities, but SDP has found itself back in the same position it was in during the 2012 school year (SY). Now, as SDP faces another wave of school closures, questions arise on whether school closures remain the answer to address budget concerns, or if these closures continue to perpetuate negative circumstances for already vulnerable districts.

Upon analyzing the data from these indicators from the 2019-20 SY through to the 2024-25 SY, as well as bringing in our previous SDOH data, there were 3 major findings that highlight Philadelphia’s education trends over time, how this data has connected to past budget decisions, and how current trends align (or don’t) with SDP’s new suggestions for addressing their budget.

Catchment and Enrollment Data Analysis

Finding 1: The average catchment retention rate is declining. 

To better understand how SDP chose the schools they did for closure, we need to differentiate and better understand the difference between enrollment and catchment, and analyze the attendance and state testing data that influenced SDP’s decision making. When we reference enrollment data for schools, we are referring to the number of students that actually attend the school. When we refer to catchment data, we are referring to the number of students who, geographically, are assigned to the school, not how many attend. To better understand catchment and enrollment in Philadelphia, we chose to analyze three indicators: 1) enrollment-to-catchment ratio, and 2) the proportion of catchment students who remain in their assigned catchment. 

Across schools with reported values for indicator 1, Philadelphia’s school-level enrollment-to-catchment ratio declined from 0.78 in SY19-20 to 0.66 in SY24-25. Across schools with reported values in indicator 2, the city-wide average number of students enrolled in their catchment decreased from 51% in SY19-20 to 44% in SY24-25. 

The school-level enrollment-to-catchment data in Philadelphia over the past 5 years has shown a declining trend between neighborhood student populations and school enrollment. This trend is particularly relevant when examined alongside Philadelphia’s SDOH indicators. Our previous analysis identified substantial geographic differences in certain SDOH indicators like unemployment, poverty, educational attainment, and disability prevalence. Districts that have come up in our analysis in the past include North, Lower North, West, and University Southwest. These districts are important to investigate when evaluating school enrollment patterns, as it helps us better understand the social climate of the community through the lens of education, as well as helps us better understand how the lack of access to quality education further perpetuates cycles of poverty within these communities. 

Finding #2: Severe attendance problems remain widespread

Research has shown that chronic absenteeism is often cross-referenced with student success, as the number of days a student is actually sat in the classroom is a strong correlator to standardized testing success. Student performance indicators chosen for analysis include the percentage of students attending less than 80% of school days and PSSA below basic to advanced school scores for schools with available data. We have chosen to only analyze the four districts that were flagged in our analysis. 

Looking at districts like North, whose chronic absenteeism rates have stayed at or slightly above 30% over the past 3 years, we begin to see the connections between SDOH indicators, how the data from those indicators shows up in the community, and in turn, how the impact of these indicators affects other areas like education. 

Finding #3: Already-vulnerable districts saw low PSSA averages. 

Federal policies, like Title I, have eliminated the need for districts to achieve certain test scores in order to receive funding. However, it is still important to understand a district’s performance on standardized testing, as it does provide an objective understanding of a student’s knowledge in core subjects. For districts in already vulnerable positions, their PSSA results help create a more cohesive picture of the community as a whole, specifically the most vulnerable members of the community, its children. 

In the graph above, PSSA scores for districts deemed the most vulnerable in our SDOH indicator analysis compare the percentage of students who scored basic v. average on 4 years of standardized tests (2021 – 2025). In the most recent year of test results available, all 4 districts had almost 50% of their 3rd – 8th grade students scoring below basic on the PSSA’s. This begs the question: if almost half of elementary and middle school students are significantly underperforming on standardized testing, are they set up to be successful members of society? Are they gaining the resources and skills necessary to not only survive in their communities, but contribute and give back to them? 

In our last (e)mpatic series narrative, we outlined the 17 schools suggested for closure, as well as the districts that they currently reside in. With 16/17 of the schools geographically located in districts that are struggling SDOH- and education-wise, will these closures truly bridge the gap in their budget that they are hoping to, or will it create an even larger divide for districts that are already falling behind? All eyes will be on SDP as it continues to navigate this budget gap, with the hopes that previous mistakes in the most recent school-closure wave don’t come up again.