The Pittsburgh Public Schools board narrowly approved a state-mandated process that could lead to the closure of nine school buildings — a proposal already facing strong pushback from many parents and some teachers.
Five board members — the minimum required to pass the resolution — voted to begin the public hearing process. Board members Jamie Piotrowski, Devon Taliaferro, Sala Udin and Emma Yourd voted against.
State law requires school districts to hold public hearings for a minimum three-month period prior to any decision relating to school closures.
The Pittsburgh Public Schools buildings slated for closures are Baxter (Student Achievement Center), Friendship (Montessori), Fulton, Miller, Morrow Primary, Schiller, Spring Hill, Manchester and Woolslair.
No changes to any school buildings would take place before the fall at the earliest, and no school closures would take place in the 2025-26 school year. These proposed closures fall within a broader facilities plan, which includes a slate of consolidations and reconfigurations in addition to the closures.
The final plan for building closures could be subject to change. However, board president Gene Walker said he does not anticipate any major changes.
Walker introduced an amendment clarifying that a final vote on permanent closings would not take place until:
- The reconfiguration plan for the district is approved by a vote of the board.
- The superintendent has presented a final implementation plan to the board and the board has approved a final plan.
The amendment was unanimously approved.
The board will vote on the final plan once the public hearing process concludes. The board is required to advertise each hearing within the public comment period at least 15 days prior.
The earliest vote on the final plan could be in November if the district holds all public hearings in July, after which it would have to wait for three months before voting on any plan.
Search the full list of proposed changes to PPS schools
As the next step, board members will compile a list by July 3, informed by community members, of requirements for the reconfiguration plan that moves the school to the traditional K-5, 6-8 and 9-12 model and the implementation plan, which would include details about transition, staffing and transportation. The list would be used to provide guidance to the district administration, which would then provide a timeline for the implementation plan.
Board member Tracey Reed suggested the board should first work to build trust within the community.
“We need to be talking about what kids experience will be when they go to school, and how it will be dramatically different in this particular configuration, and what the district is going to do to ensure that it is a different experience,” she said.
Board member Taliaferro, whose district encompasses four schools slated for closures, echoed Reed, saying there wouldn’t be so much backlash if the board had led by asking what it wants for PPS and engaging the public from the very beginning.
She urged the board not to hold any public hearings in the summer months and to organize a district-wide door-knocking campaign to ask the community what they need.
“It’s very hard when, again, we don’t do our due diligence, inclusive of the voices of the people who will be most impacted by these changes,” she said.
During a June 18 meeting, board members emphasized that changes could be made to the current plan based on the public hearings, and a new resolution would be voted upon after that.
Walker urged the board not to further delay the process.
“I know that, for sure, the uncertainty of not knowing what’s going to happen can’t trump the fact that I know at the bottom of my heart that if we don’t do something, it’s not going to get better,” he said.
The vote, initially scheduled for last year, was delayed following strong public criticism of the district’s approach to community engagement. In May, the administration presented an updated feasibility report outlining preliminary attendance zones, financial analysis and transportation costs.
According to the administration’s feasibility report, the district estimates saving $103 million in the maintenance budget from closing the nine school buildings. With other changes, the district would end up with $2.4 million in net annual cost reduction.
The report proposes closing 12 schools and nine school buildings in three phases. A majority of those closures would occur in the 2026-27 school year. Northview Heights would reopen as an elementary school in June 2028. Other major changes include reconfiguring grades to the traditional K-5, 6-8 and 9-12 model and eliminating all magnet schools, except Montessori, at the elementary level.
Attendance zones and feeder patterns prompt skepticism
Administrators said they are continuing to refine attendance zones and feeder patterns, according to a statement from Chief Accountability Officer Ted Dwyer. Changes include expanding the Lincoln PreK-5 attendance zone and changes to high school zones in the East End.
During the June 18 meeting, Board member Yael Silk read out a list of questions sent from her constituents, along with answers given by the administration. The questions revolved around timelines for restructuring of schools, Individualized Education Plans [IEPs] for students with disabilities, magnet programs and the budgeting process.
Silk acknowledged that the district needs to make a majority of the proposed changes at once but said she did not support pushing it all through within a single year. She added that her support for the resolution would require a guarantee that no closures would take place prior to the 2027-28 school year, though she voted for it Wednesday without such assurances.
According to the latest plan, most of the school closures, except Spring Hill and the Gifted Center, would take place during the 2026-27 school year.
Taliaferro also expressed concerns about implementing the plan in a single year.
“You often talk about capacity of your staff, and my concern really sits in how we actually execute, or if we can execute closing all of these buildings in one summer and making those transitions,” she said.
Yourd had suggested amendments to the resolution to open public comment, like including further financial implications, transportation costs, new capital costs by each school, maintenance costs of closed buildings, alternative uses of closed schools, and details on transition plans for students with various needs.
“I would want to add language in this resolution that outlines for the administration exactly what we want in that transition plan, and what information the board feels we would need to move this process forward once the public hearings have concluded, because I feel that is important,” she said.
Parents, community urge ‘no’ vote
Questions and concerns with the current plan drew over 50 parents to a public hearing on Monday, where they urged the school board to vote against the resolution. Many parents, staff and advocates showed up to the public hearing — and a rally held immediately prior — asking the board for more information regarding transportation, special education plans or urging them to reconsider closures and magnet school policies.
Parent Meredith Knight said many families are facing a dilemma because they do not know critical details about transition plans and feeder patterns, leaving them unable to plan for their children’s future.
“Here we are, not sure whether this is going to save money or improve equity, but we do know it will be disruptive to our children’s education, and we do know that it will cause families to leave the district, because it already has,” she said.
Parents and teachers alike criticized individual school closures, saying they would disrupt student development and push families away.
“The district needs to stop acting as if we don’t have the understanding,” said Paulette Foster of 412 Justice, which led the rally Monday. “Allow us to help you understand the process because we know how to do what’s good for our children.”
The organization also wrote a letter to administration and board members, criticizing the district and asking detailed questions — collected from parents, students and educators — about student services, transportation zones, community engagement, staffing and budget, among others.
Rachel Schlosser, a parent who has two children with IEPs in PPS, questioned the lack of information about transition plans for students with disabilities, saying that the district will need to hold multiple IEP meetings before any proposed changes are implemented.
“Even if the student’s building assignment is removed, re-evaluations and subsequent IEP process can take up to 100 days,” she said, suggesting each affected student should have an IEP meeting prior to March 2026 to ensure enough time for re-evaluations.
Many parents of Dilworth students spoke against the elimination of magnet programs. Ashley Rooths McClain, who has a third grader at Dilworth, said cutting the magnet program would be disruptive for her child, who would have to switch schools in the fifth grade and then again for middle school.
“This creates unnecessary instability during two critical developmental years and could have serious emotional, social and academic consequences for all students, especially the class of 2032,” she said.
McClain authored and circulated an online petition, which has garnered over 550 votes, asking the board to consider phasing out the magnet program so currently enrolled students can continue without disruptions. She reiterated the request during the meeting.
Teachers, too, have their concerns.
Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers President Billy Hileman said closing schools would lead to overcrowding at the remaining buildings, putting strain on the staff. He also questioned the board on why they were opting to make the majority of changes in the 2026 school year instead of a slower, phased-out approach as suggested by consultants last fall.
“The proposed school closures are too many and cut too deep,” he said.
Lajja Mistry is the K-12 education reporter at Pittsburgh’s Public Source. She can be reached at lajja@publicsource.org.
MOST READ STORIES
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
