I think this idea is commendable - I agree with the excellent points you make as to the true cost of closing up these buildings, the real ramifications, and plummeting real estate valuation as a result. I hate to see any staff, including "overhead" staff (which I'm sorry to say I don't exactly know what that means) lose their jobs, as I'm sure these jobs are necessary in running the efficient/safe/clean "businesses" that these schools continue to run, on ever-dwindling resources (which I am sure have whittled them down as far as they can be whittled already). My question would be how many of these & other named jobs would be lost, and also, when talking about Arts Teachers, how this would impact the students. Would a student now having Art for a week, every 5 weeks, now only have it once every 10 weeks under this plan (because they'd be sharing their Art teacher with another school under this plan)? Or would this have no impact on student services, but actually make part-time jobs in one school full-time for some if serving 2 schools? I thank you for coming up with a feasible-sounding alternative plan which addresses the hidden costs of closing schools, its legal and other ramifications. The fact that you've shown how this can save even more money than closing the schools sounds worth pursuing to me.