The district’s reasoning for closing Bancroft appears to change by the day.  I don’t blame anybody if they find it hard to keep track of.  I’ve written about it more extensively here.

Their strategy is simple:  shift gears, distort, backtrack, throw something at the wall, hope it deflects legitimate criticism, and close Bancroft anyway.

The district released a “Fact Sheet” about why Bancroft has to close.  I’m going to take the time to refute this, point by point.  I would’ve copied and pasted it in, but the district posted their justification as photos, rather than a document.  Nothing’s easy.

I’ll put the question the district poses, and I’ll refute relevant portions of their answer.

1. Why is it necessary to close any school in the Scranton School District?
   • The District points out that the Recovery Plan calls for building closures.  Indeed it does.  But the closures did not include Bancroft.  Adams and McNichols are listed as going this year.  None of these need to be closed, given the massive dollars the district has received in stimulus funding.  And let’s not forget that the district issued a $75 million capital improvement bond.
2. Why close the George Bancroft building?
   • The district cites a 2012 building study from the Palumbo group, then a 2018 study from PFM.  The PFM study relied on the 2012 study, and both are deeply flawed.  Why?  One is 10 years old and a lot of the repairs have been made, some are aesthetic, and one involves a piece of property that the district doesn’t even own.
   • The space issues that the district brings up ignore a lot of important and relevant points:
     • The pandemic temporarily moved kids to charters.  Many will return, because public schools offer more in terms of both academics and programs than charters.
     • The district, pre-pandemic, was on an upward trajectory, crossing the 10,000 student mark.
     • Scranton is growing– many people from New York and New Jersey are moving into Scranton because real estate is cheap and work-from-home is the new norm for many businesses.
     • The Laceworks project will mean A LOT of new families in the Bancroft footprint.
   • Note that, while the district talks about spacing capacity at Bancroft, it does not refer to long term growth projections for either building.  Please note that, currently, music rooms, art rooms, and the library have been converted into regular classroom space.  These programs will be directly impacted by this ill-advised closure.  Basically, both Tripp and Bancroft kids will be worse off, not better off, as the district contends.
   • There are other buildings that are in worse shape, according to the flawed 2012 study, including Robert Morris.  I don’t want to see that closed either, but why does that get saved and Bancroft does not?
   • The space study that the district keeps citing is flawed.  Regular Ed and Special Ed students are legally required to have different amounts of square footage allocated to them.  I pointed this out when I was on the Board (and many times since), but it was at the end of my tenure and was not addressed.  It still hasn’t been.  The closure of Bancroft will detrimentally impact students with special needs.
3. What are the specific problems with the Bancroft building?
   • The district’s position that TRAFFIC is an issue for Bancroft is absolutely laughable.  Whomever wrote this has never been to Tripp.  Tripp is a traffic nightmare!  Ask any parent or nearby resident.  Dear lord.  Oh, and Bancroft is the most walkable school in the district– while there is indeed traffic, most kids/families walk.
   • The district points out that the building is old and has infrastructure issues.  This isn’t any different than Morris, Armstrong, Whittier, Adams, or Willard.  Just as a reminder, the district has $75 million for capital improvements and $60 million in stimulus funds.  We can fix these buildings.  We spent $36 million on Tripp, but rehabbing Marshall and Lincoln-Jackson would’ve been a drop in the bucket compared to that.
   • The district contends that the building is not Covid-safe.  Again, that’s why there’s a stimulus package– for quite literally this issue.
   • The district points out that the building is not ADA compliant.  Barely any building is, and while it would be nice if they were, there is no legal requirement to have the building comply because they were built before the ADA was passed.  This is part of that “throw things at the wall” strategy I’ve mentioned.
4. Is it true there is an open sewage pit in the basement?
   • The answer is no.  Scare tactic from the district.
5. What would be the estimated costs of remediating Bancroft, if so decided?
   • The district’s response is, to put it bluntly, bullshit.  The figure they cite is from the Recovery Plan, which relies on 2012 figures.  Using a nearly decade old assessment isn’t good practice even in the remotest sense.  I’ve said it before, some of the items have been completed, some are aesthetic, some aren’t relevant, and one is for property the district doesn’t even own.  The district isn’t doing a good job of trust-building here.
   • The district ADMITS they can’t actually quantify the cost without a study.  So… get a study.  Get a real number.  I mean, come on.  Closing a building based on “what ifs” and inaccurate, outdated information is not best practices here.
6. Why can’t ESSER funds be used at Bancroft?
   • Whoever wrote this is either a master/mistress of rhetoric or just awful at it.  The question makes it sounds like the stimulus can’t be used.  Then in the SECOND SENTENCE says that the funds can be used to help fix Bancroft.  I can feel the desperation increasing as I read their bevy of excuses.
7. What will be the savings realized by closing the Bancroft building?
   • The district basically says “idk” and moves on.  Pretty sure that major moves like this that disrupt the lives of students and their families, not to mention put a dead building in the middle of a community, should have details of things like costs and savings.
8. Isn’t it unfair to break up the Bancroft community?
   • This is quite clearly a “yes” but the district says that disruption will be minimal.  Moving to a brand new building in the middle of a pandemic doesn’t sound minimal, but what do I know?
9. Why move students from Bancroft to ITE so quickly?
   • The district contends that fixing ventilation issues COULD take 12 months.  Do they know? Absolutely not.  They haven’t done an actual facilities study yet.  Or even bid out potential fixes.  There’s no concrete info available to predict anything, so the district puts out guesswork and hopes the public accepts it.  The following question doubles down on this by stating that functionally everything takes forever, and, as such, Bancroft could be closed for two years.  Again, all “ifs” and “maybes” — nothing concrete.
10. Covered in #9
11. How far is Bancroft from ITE?
    • It’s 1.6 miles.  Bancroft kids will be bussed this year, but quite clearly will not be next year.
12. Are their additional transportation costs…?
    • The district says no.  So… why is it going to be cut next year?
13. Demographic points — basically, Bancroft is significantly more racially diverse than Tripp.
14. Poverty information — Bancroft deals with more poverty than Tripp.

The rest of the questions I’ve pretty much dealt with in my previous answers.  One I’ll focus on is the “what if enrollment increases”– currently, Tripp is at 62% of enrollment capacity.  Again, lets get a breakdown for special ed vs regular ed needs.  And if it were so under-capacity, why are we losing the music and art rooms, as well as the library?  This doesn’t pass the smell test.  Also, “It is planned to move 5th grade to WSIS in 22-23” — where are they going to fit?  Will we be losing more music and art rooms?

None of this sounds good.

Anyway, there you have it.  A response to the district’s attempts to convince you that Bancroft needs to go, when, in fact, it does not.

Hopefully the people are able to see through this and rally to save Bancroft!