Davis, CA – In a sobering presentation before the Davis City Council on Tuesday night, Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) Superintendent Matt Best delivered a clear warning: without new housing development in Davis, the city’s schools face steep enrollment declines, major budget cuts, and potential school closures over the next decade.
Joined by Chief Strategy Officer Maria Clayton, Best laid out a detailed analysis of enrollment trends, demographic projections, and the impact of the city’s chronic housing shortage on the future of public education in Davis.
The presentation, which Best described as the product of months of public engagement and internal study, painted a clear picture of a school system at a crossroads—caught between the legacy of slow-growth housing policies and the stark realities of declining birth rates and an aging population.
“We’re projecting a drop of about 100 students per year, every year, for the next ten years,” Best said. “That’s a thousand students lost. And that has a real and immediate impact on how our schools are funded, staffed, and sustained.”
Best began by showing a 20-year enrollment chart for the district, revealing a relatively stable student population until the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a sudden and significant dip. While the district has partially recovered, enrollment remains well below its 2005 levels.
The most striking shift, however, lies in the composition of the student body. In 2005, DJUSD had about 8,500 students, with only 200 of those coming from outside the district. Today, that number stands at roughly 8,250 students—but nearly 1,300 of them are non-residents, mostly children of employees who work in Davis (particularly at UC Davis) but live elsewhere, a trend driven in part by the high cost of local housing.
“About 95% of our non-resident students have parents who work in Davis,” Best explained. “That includes UC Davis, which is the county’s largest employer. But more than half of our employees don’t live in town. They can’t afford to.”
The underlying demographic driver, Best emphasized, is a collapse in local birth rates. In 2003, there were 632 births in Davis. By 2023, that number had fallen to just 346. This year, the district enrolled only 412 kindergartners, nearly 100 fewer than expected—a dramatic decline that will ripple through all grade levels in the years ahead.
This local trend stands in contrast to the rest of Yolo County. While DJUSD is shrinking, districts in Woodland and West Sacramento are holding steady, buoyed by new housing developments that attract young families.
“In 1995, we had the same number of students we do today—but 20,000 fewer residents and 20,000 fewer university students,” Best said. “That tells us the city is growing, but not with families.”
Clayton walked the council through the potential impact of two major housing projects—Village Farms and Willow Grove—both of which are expected to go before voters in the next two years due to Davis’ Measure J.
Village Farms, with 1,800 proposed units, could generate about 700 new students over a 15-year buildout. Willow Grove, formerly known as the Shriners property, includes 1,215 units and could add more than 300 students over eight years.
“If both projects are approved, our enrollment could stabilize and even return to current levels by 2040,” Clayton said. “But without them, we’re looking at school closures, model changes, and painful boundary shifts.”
A projected “cone of enrollment” showed three scenarios: a continued decline without either project; modest relief if only one is approved; and stabilization if both move forward. In the worst-case scenario, the district would likely need to close two or three schools by the end of the decade.
Best reminded councilmembers that DJUSD is already one of the lowest-funded districts in California—ranking 18th from the bottom out of over 1,000 districts. The district relies heavily on local parcel taxes, which still only bring its funding up to about 90% of the state average.
Over the past four years, DJUSD has reduced its budget by $7.5 million in response to a 300-student enrollment decline. Further losses, Best warned, would threaten the viability of many of the district’s most cherished programs.
“The economics of declining enrollment are brutal,” he said. “You can’t cut fast enough to keep up. Programs become unsustainable before a school even closes, and students suffer.”
Throughout the presentation, Best and Clayton framed housing not just as a land-use issue, but as critical educational infrastructure.
“If we don’t have new housing, we will need to restructure the district,” Best said. “That means school closures, consolidations, and program shifts. It’s not something we want to do—but it’s unavoidable if these trends continue.”
Clayton noted that the location of new developments would also require a major rebalancing of school boundaries. Village Farms and Willow Grove are both situated in the northeast part of Davis, meaning a surge of students would cluster in areas served by North Davis, Korematsu, and Harper schools.
“In that scenario, we’ll have enough students and enough seats—but not in the right places,” she said. “Boundary changes will be disruptive, but far less so than school closures.”
In response to council questions, Best confirmed that if only Village Farms passes, at least one school would likely still close. If neither project passes, closures could number two or three.
Councilmember Bapu Vaitla noted that, while both developments would make a positive impact, their build-out timelines and housing types will affect how quickly relief comes.
“The community will need to understand how these projects translate into enrollment year by year,” he said. “This is about planning for the Davis of 2045. Your tools will be essential for our general plan update.”
Public comment reflected deep concern—and in some cases, frustration—over Davis’ long history of stalled growth and housing inaction.
“This is about the soul of our community,” said Rochelle Swanson, a former councilmember and representative for Village Farms. “We’ve improved our school campuses, passed bonds, and now we’re talking about closing them. That’s heartbreaking.”
Joe DiNunzio, president of the school board, was equally blunt: “The storm is here. We’ve kicked the can down the road on housing for 20 years. We’re out of road.”
Vanessa Errecarte, a Davis parent and outreach coordinator for Willow Grove, urged the council to consider the human side of the equation.
“It’s more fun for kids to bike to each other’s houses than to drive from Woodland,” she said. “Let’s build a future where families can stay here.”
Some commenters voiced skepticism of the developments, raising concerns about flood risks, soil contamination, and affordability. But the overwhelming theme was urgency—an acknowledgment that the choices made now will define Davis for generations.
DJUSD will continue its aggressive outreach campaign this spring, with more than 80 community meetings scheduled. The school board will make a final decision on district restructuring in October 2026, to be implemented for the 2027–2028 school year.
Between now and then, the city’s voters may determine not only the shape of Davis’ neighborhoods, but the survival of its schools.
“We have amazing schools,” Best said in closing. “But it’s the programs inside those schools that matter. And without new housing, those programs—and the students they serve—are at risk.”
It’s difficult for me to even fathom that a school district which refuses to right-size itself (and is already poaching students from surrounding communities) would even have a “seat at the table” in regard to pursuing more sprawl.
The sheer nerve/gall it takes to do so is downright astonishing. But the other problem is that they apparently have the council’s ear.
Also, Davis voters themselves were foolish to approve parcel taxes to increasingly accommodate non-resident students.
But I am at least glad to see an acknowledgement that the pursuit of sprawl would create its own problems for the district:
“Clayton noted that the location of new developments would also require a major rebalancing of school boundaries. Village Farms and Willow Grove are both situated in the northeast part of Davis, meaning a surge of students would cluster in areas served by North Davis, Korematsu, and Harper schools.”
“In that scenario, we’ll have enough students and enough seats—but not in the right places,” she said.”
But Ron, I’ve pointed out so many times the economic flaw of right sizing. To paraphrase Bruce Colby – you end up chasing the dollar, but never catching it.
Isn’t that “chasing the dollar, but never catching it” what’s going in with building housing to save the school district? How is it not? This strategy seems insane. Is this also how we ‘save the water district’ — by having more hookups? Do we ‘save the airport’ by campaigning to bring more pilots to Davis?
David: School districts throughout the state are facing this same issue. And even though they “kick and scream” at first, they almost always end up downsizing, regardless.
There is a declining need overall for schools (including universities, for that matter).
This is similar to what happens with prison and military base closures, as well. (That is, the self-interests come out of the woodwork, and literally put forth the same type of claims.)
This is also related to the reason that school districts are among the biggest defenders of “undocumented” students. They get money from the state for each attendee – “documented”, or not.
Another key point: these arguments you made were brought up during the parcel tax election and rejected by a large margin as the voters voted to renew the tax permanently by a 70-30 margin. Doesn’t that suggest that the voters fundamentally reject your arguments?
It suggests that they reject that “portion” of the argument.
But it’s not even really an argument, regarding the declining overall need. It’s demographics.
On a related note, if DJUSD convinces voters to approve more sprawl, that’s simply another form of “poaching” of an existing pool of potential students. (Also known as “re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”.)
I also find it astonishing regarding the lack of concern that DJUSD has regarding the impact of the two forms of poaching that it advocates.
Wait, explain that – building homes in Davis is poaching?
Assuming that a development houses “X” number of families with young children (who would ultimately age-out of the system within a few years anyway), those families have to come from “somewhere” (another school district).
And since there’s a statewide “oversupply” of schools, it would likely cause some other school district to increasingly face the same issue.
That doesn’t seem like an argument likely to resonate with Davis voters
You asked me a question, which seemed to have an obvious answer.
But my comment was actually referencing the lack of concern from the school district itself, and was not intended as anything other than that.
Furthermore, even if we accept your argument – there’s another flaw – “poaching” students as you phrase it is not necessarily a bad thing as DJUSD is the top school district in the region. So drawing students from elsewhere is a net plus.
According to Niche’s 2025 rankings, DJUSD is recognized as the top school district in the Sacramento area:
• Best School Districts in the Sacramento Area: 1st out of 17 
• Districts with the Best Teachers in the Sacramento Area: 2nd out of 24
• Best Places to Teach in the Sacramento Area: 4th out of 28
If the district of residence (Woodland in Ron’s case; Dixon in mine) is concerned about the impact of outbound interdistrict transfers to DJUSD, Woodland or Dixon JUSD can deny them. The first step in an interdistrict transfer is to apply to leave the district of residence. Then, and only then, can a student be accepted to attend the other school district. So nobody is “poaching” without the permission of both school districts.
Ironically, David – your citation “proves” my point.
What do you think would happen if surrounding districts are further “poached” of students? Do you think the resulting reduction in funding would improve those districts?
Your response demonstrates the same lack of concern that those associated with DJUSD have.
Don says: “Then, and only then, can a student be accepted to attend the other school district. So nobody is “poaching” without the permission of both school districts.”
That’s my understanding, as well. Other school districts may have their own reasons for approving it. (For example, in Woodland – the school district does not want to commit to building another school at the planned technology park that “migrated” from Davis – and added 1,600 housing units during that move.)
Seems likely that by allowing DJUSD to poach Woodland’s kids, WJUSD can avoid building another school. (This is a very “sore subject” for a group of parents in Woodland, and has been going on for a very long time.)
But I can only speculate as to WJUSD’s potential motive.
Also, the situation you’re describing does not address the “other” form of poaching that I mentioned to David (above). That is, if more housing is built in Davis (and more families actually occupy it), no “permission” is needed at all to poach students (who would otherwise be attending school elsewhere).
Ron is making the most valid points in this discussion.
So as of now, it appears that (both) WJUSD and DJUSD are planning to send at least some of the kids occupying the 1,600 housing units that will be built at Woodland’s planned technology park to Davis schools.
“it appears that (both) WJUSD and DJUSD are planning to send at least some of the kids”
The districts are not “sending” the kids anywhere. They are allowing the parents to choose to enroll their kids in another district. Parents do that for many reasons, most common being to achieve the best educational placement for their kids, to preserve the friendships that their kids have developed, desire for continuity after moving out of the district, better programs in the district of choice for that particular child, continuation of extra-curricular activities, and much more. It’s a decision that is made, from my experience, for the best interests of the student and sometimes for the convenience of the parents.
“Seems likely that by allowing DJUSD to poach Woodland’s kids, WJUSD can avoid building another school. (This is a very “sore subject” for a group of parents in Woodland, and has been going on for a very long time.)
But I can only speculate as to WJUSD’s potential motive.”
DJUSD is not “poaching” anyone. Parents are making those decisions. If the residents of Woodland wish to have a new elementary school, and believe the interdistrict transfers are preventing that, they can prevail upon their district trustees to curtail the outgoing transfers.
Don says, “DJUSD is not “poaching” anyone. Parents are making those decisions.”
“Some” parents are choosing to do so (and some of them include DJUSD employees who wouldn’t be needed in the first place, if the system was right-sized).
But again, the question (from a system/community standpoint) isn’t what’s best for an individual, the question is what impact that has on a system/community as a whole. That’s the entire problem with DJUSD’s position in the first place.
Really? Pursue sprawl so that you don’t have to “right-size”? That’s insanity. But it’s even more insane that this is considered to be a defendable position by some others.
Your position is similar to those who state that Davis should pursue sprawl, to accommodate the desires of a very small minority of the residents in Davis and surrounding communities. And without even considering the impact that has (besides sprawl).
Don says, “If the residents of Woodland wish to have a new elementary school, and believe the interdistrict transfers are preventing that, they can prevail upon their district trustees to curtail the outgoing transfers.”
As I said, there are parents who have been exerting an extreme amount of pressure on WJUSD to build another school. WJUSD has been extremely resistant to those efforts. Part of the reason for that resistance may be due to “unspoken” reality that a lot of “other” WJUSD parents send their kids to Davis schools, thereby alleviating WJUSD from the expense of building and operating another school on the side of town where the city has pursued sprawl. Which will likely lead to more DJUSD “commuters” when those 1,600 housing units are built are built at the technology park.
Spring Lake itself was originally planned with several school sites. It’s likely that DJUSD’s poaching activities (combined with WJUSD’s encouragement) is part of what led to the abandonment of all of those sites except one – which cannot even accommodate the EXISTING neighborhood (let alone the 1,600 additional housing units planned at the technology park).
Another factor is that WJUSD (like DJUSD, and every other school district) is resistant to closing down schools in the part of town where enrollment is actually declining. That, combined with DJUSD’s willingness to poach students has likely led to the abandonment of school sites in Spring Lake, AND the lack of a plan to build a school in the technology park.
In other words, the poaching has likely already had a negative impact.
All of this (the pursuit of sprawl, the impact on surrounding communities) is an example of an overly-influential school district’s self-interest run amok.
Ron O: ‘Which will likely lead to more DJUSD “commuters” when those 1,600 housing units are built are built at the [Woodland] technology park.’
Do you oppose Woodland building that technology park?
If Woodland didn’t build that technology park, then where would you expect the hypothetical occupants to go?
Hiram: It’s irrelevant, regarding whether or not an individual “opposes” (or supports) anything in Woodland. Those decisions are made by representatives.
Regarding the “hypothetical occupants”, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Are you referring to the non-existent commercial tenants, or the non-existent residential tenants (so far)?
I’m more interested in Davis, than Woodland. My connections to Davis (which I don’t care to discuss) are likely to be life-long.
Ron O: I mention the Woodland tech park project because you said probably many of their hypothetical occupants would become commuters to Davis. If that’s a reality you’re concerned about, then why not build in Davis and avoid that commute?
Hiram: I like how you think that my opinion (or yours) would make any difference regarding what Woodland does.
The planned Woodland technology park is essentially the “remnant” of what was planned for the location where Bretton Woods is being built, now.
But it does appear that they’re not going to build a school at that site, despite the efforts of a group of parents in Spring Lake.
So let me ask you a question now. Wouldn’t it make more sense to adjust the size of the school district, rather than let the school district dictate the size of the city?
It’s easy to label housing growth as “sprawl,” but what we’re really talking about is people—families, teachers, and workers who contribute to Davis but are increasingly pushed out due to restrictive housing policies. The district isn’t just “poaching” students from other areas; it’s filling classrooms with the children of people who work in Davis but can’t afford to live here. That’s not an education problem—it’s a housing problem.
Let’s not ignore the real consequences of anti-growth attitudes. By refusing to build, we shrink our schools, weaken our economy, and push out young families who want to be part of this community. The very people who benefited from Davis’s growth, strong schools, and community investments are now denying that same opportunity to the next generation. That’s not just hypocritical—it’s unfair.
And let’s talk about these developments. Village Farms and Willow Grove are not some out-of-character suburban sprawl projects. They align with Davis’s values—compact, sustainable, and planned with transit, biking, and walkability in mind. Growth does not mean abandoning what makes Davis special; smart growth ensures we preserve it.
Refusing to build won’t keep Davis in control. The state has already made it clear that cities failing to meet housing requirements will lose local authority over zoning. If Davis doesn’t act, Sacramento will. Wouldn’t it be better to shape our own future rather than having one imposed on us?
The real “astonishing” thing isn’t that DJUSD is advocating for a future with enough students to sustain itself. It’s that some people would rather see Davis decline than evolve.
Check out Ezra Klines new book. Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s abundance agenda is all about fixing the artificial scarcity that’s holding back housing, infrastructure, and economic growth. And yet, it’s the exact kind of scarcity mindset—especially around housing—that’s hurting Democrats nationally. When blue cities refuse to build, they price out young families, drive up costs, and push people into red states where housing is more affordable. It’s a political own goal, and Davis is a perfect example of how this plays out at the local level.
Since when does a city have to grow to feed an over-bloated school system?
The school system serves the city and should be right sized according to the student demographics of that city.
If a city’s police department is too large should a city have to grow in order to justify it?
The answer is no.
It’s time to bite the bullet and right size the school district. It’s far overdo.
Superintendent Best says, “But more than half of our employees don’t live in town. ”
And how many of those DJUSD employees wouldn’t be needed if the district was sized according to the actual needs of Davis?
And how many more potential out-of-district employees might you hire, if the developments are approved? (There’s no particular reason to believe that they would live IN those new developments.)
Ron O.: The biggest employer in the district is UC Davis. It absolutely dwarfs DJUSD. Also, newer DJUSD employees are likelier to live outside of Davis, whereas older retiring DJUSD staff are likelier to live within the district. I think that trend would tend to hold no matter what size the district evolves to.
Schools are a canary in the coal mine. We dont build coal mines to house canaries…
There are a million and a half reasons to build more housing in Davis. THIS isn’t one of them
Declining enrollment is an indicator that we are a gentrifying city that is pricing out young families – its an INDICATOR of the problem, but it isn’t the problem itself.
We have many many other reasons to build housing, and when we do, this problem will take care of itself.
—-
Separate point: Even if we really did want to build housing for the sake of the schools, we wouldn’t be building projects like Village farms.
People who are having babies in their 20’s and 30’s CANNOT AFFORD even the more affordable single family homes in those projects, especially as one partner during child-rearing years often drops out of the workforce or works part-time. You need higher-than-average DUAL INCOME to afford even the downpayment-assistance units at village farms.
So we have a trailing indicator being used to sell a non-soultion. #golfclap
——
The housing we DO need is the housing that can be occupied by the 23,000 people commuting in every day. Townhomes / apartments / condos / co-ops / cluster houses…. the idea that single family homes are part of the solution in ANY WAY is out of touch with both the realities of our housing crisis and the realities of the market
I’m neither a rabid pro or con . . . but this statement: “THIS isn’t one of them” is for reals!
Follow the money . . . is there a back door way any of our school district officials are being paid off by any of the mega-developers, or funding for the schools is being enhanced through a back window somehow? Only her hairdresser knows for sure.
I can’t figure how such transparently ridiculous logic can be put forward as making a lick of sense. What is really scary is that anyone is buying it, except out of desperation to keep a school from closing. So the developers think that if they scare parents via the school district claims, them the scared parents will rally for a Measure J vote? It’s so bizarre, as in my home town every one of the four schools I went to have been closed, and housing (with kids) built on two of the four sites. The schools were fighting the citizens to close down the schools. In Davis, the school district is trying to promote housing (that won’t be built for years or decades) to “save” the schools today. Something isn’t adding up.
“Declining enrollment is an indicator that we are a gentrifying city that is pricing out young families – its an INDICATOR of the problem, but it isn’t the problem itself.”
I agree with this line, although I would argue that the school situation is about to become a real problem
It’s about to become a “real problem” for a handful of people who will eventually have to find other employment, and are trying to convince voters that this is a problem for “everyone”. As well as a handful of parents who (by the time a school actually closes) could be scared that they might have to send Johnny to a different school (for the last year or two that they’re in the system, before they age-out of it entirely).
What a tragedy.
It’s also a “tragedy” that the district won’t get one-time development fees, if the developments aren’t approved.
But again, at least the district noted that there’d also be (different) problems if the developments actually are built, as well:
“Clayton noted that the location of new developments would also require a major rebalancing of school boundaries. Village Farms and Willow Grove are both situated in the northeast part of Davis, meaning a surge of students would cluster in areas served by North Davis, Korematsu, and Harper schools.”
“In that scenario, we’ll have enough students and enough seats—but not in the right places,” she said.”
David, that is a teaser of a comment. What is it about the school situation that is about to become a real problem?
“We’re projecting a drop of about 100 students per year, every year, for the next ten years,” Best said. “That’s a thousand students lost. And that has a real and immediate impact on how our schools are funded, staffed, and sustained.”
“That’s a thousand students lost. And that has a real and immediate impact on how our schools are funded, staffed, and sustained.”
If the school system is downsized it makes it much easier to fund, staff and sustain.
They lose funding as they lose students.
“They lose funding as they lose students.”
But can’t that be offset, partially or wholly, but staff reductions, supply reductions, and at some point closing schools or portions of schools?
60 cents on the dollar per Bruce Colby. So if you lose 100 students, you lose $1 million in ADA, can shed $600K in cost savings, and end up in the hole about $400K. Each year.for ten years per their projections.
“Per Bruce Colby . . .”
Gee, just imagine how much DJUSD would be in a deficit if the entire thing closed down (while still collecting parcel taxes).
Why do you post absurd things?
To prove a point. One of which is that it’s beyond stupid to accept calculations from an organization that has a self-interest in avoiding downsizing.
That’s like the FIRST THING you learn in auditing, but it’s actually the FIRST THING regarding common sense.
When you do audits, you generally look at the numbers first? Before coming to a conclusion.
WhO is BC?
Shouldn’t you like know stuff?
David asks: “When you do audits, you generally look at the numbers first? Before coming to a conclusion.”
No. You analyze it yourself, usually as part of a team.
The LAST thing you’d do is accept a self-interested organization’s numbers, and call it a day.
So you just don’t look at any numbers and you plainly make a conclusion is that what you’re saying because that’s what you’re doing now
I’m saying that you obviously can’t rely upon a self-interested organization’s claims.
(Seems like common sense, don’t you think?)
By the way, aren’t you always claiming that prison closures can save money? (I don’t disagree with that, as long as those released don’t cause more damage.)
I agree that’s why they have by law audits
so… no matter what we care about… some people care about the schools, I’m particularly concerned about housing our workforce for economic develoment reasons… maybe people who own businesses in town care about customers at their stores…. and then ALL of us care about sales tax revenues that fund city services downstream for that…
… the solution to ALL of these is to build more workforce housing.
Can’t argue with that
There is no Davis workforce.
So everyone is retired?
I dunno – how many restaurants, coffee shops, retail hardware or nurseries are there in Davis? (Seems like a hardware/housewares department has closed down, as well as a lumberyard.
And temporarily, an entire University Mall.
In regard to the low number who might have “real” jobs, do they already have housing?