This brief investigates whether closing schools and transferring students for the purpose of remedying low performance is an option educational decision makers should pursue. The logic of closing schools in response to low student performance goes like this: By closing low-performing schools and sending students to better-performing ones, student achievement will improve. The new, higher-performing schools will give transfer students access to higher-quality peer and teacher networks, which in turn will have a beneficial effect on academic outcomes. The threat of closure may motivate low-performing schools (and their districts) to improve in order to preempt school closure. To investigate this logic, the authors draw on an evidence base that consists of peer-reviewed research studies and well-researched policy reports, but relatively few of these exist for school closures. They ask: (1) How often do school closings occur and for what reasons? (2) What is the impact on students of closing schools for reasons of performance? (3) What is the impact of closing schools on the public school system in which closure has taken place? and (4) What is the impact of school closures on students of various ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, and on local communities and neighborhoods? They conclude that school closures as a strategy for remedying student achievement in low-performing schools is a high-risk/low-gain strategy that fails to hold promise with respect to either student achievement or non-cognitive well-being. It causes political conflict and incurs hidden costs for both districts and local communities, especially low-income communities of color that are differentially affected by school closings. The authors provide recommendations based on their research findings for policymakers who may be considering closures as an option to improve academic performance. A list of notes and references is included.