“Keep the school open with existing teachers and principal and provide comprehensive outside support.” This is what 54% of poll respondents said when asked how to address a poorly performing local school this past June. In a poll conducted by Phi Delta Kappan and Gallup,  one thousand Americans responded to this question as they have in the past: preserve the school and reform it.

Paradoxically U.S. citizens always defend their local schools in polling, and at the same time object to national trends and policies in public education.  This is the perennial sky view vs. ground view of public schools. Schools viewed as test scores and dropout rates are called dysfunctional and permissive. Schools viewed as diverse and overcrowded communities are called under-funded and inclusive.

The prevailing view comes from Washington, where Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has sanctioned the sacking of dysfunctional schools and the re-invention of education from the ground up by charter schools and private ventures.  While extreme cases call for extreme measures, the reinvention of schooling is not as simple as the Secretary imagines it to be.

Parents and local stakeholders in the public schools understand this. They know that principals and teachers develop to meet the needs of their communities.  A principal has to learn how to get parents into the building, how get them involved in their children’s education, how to balance academic subjects with athletics. A teacher has to understand the demands on the students, the language barriers, the baby-sitting demands, the neighborhood conflicts that interfere with schooling. None of this can be taught in schools of education. They are adaptations that good teachers make to serve their schools.

When a school is demolished, much of this lore dies with it.  You can build a new school around excellent faculty, but they will have to adapt to their community in the same way that the previous faculty did.  Perhaps they will even be better teachers than their predecessors in three or four or five years, if they stay that long. But if they are recruited by Teach for America or KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) they probably will not stay that long. They will be exhausted by the rigors of school-building and leave after their obligated service. The sky-view reformers should think twice before closing a school.

This is the season when thousands of schools decide how to reinvigorate their programs, their faculty, their curriculum, their disciplinary codes.  They have their work cut out for them. But they should remember that the majority of the parents and stakeholders in their community are pulling for them. They appreciate school reform from the ground view and want it to succeed.  They know that the quality of life in school buildings matters more than the test scores headlined in the media.  They know that schools offer a sanctuary for kids who otherwise learn in the streets.

Here’s to those who choose to transform, rather than demolish, schools in need.