Declining enrollment in public schools is a fiscal catastrophe for districts like DJUSD.
At first glance, declining enrollment might not seem like a crisis. Fewer students might conjure images of smaller class sizes, less crowding, and more individualized instruction. But the reality is far more sobering—and for districts like DJUSD, it represents not just a logistical challenge but a slow-moving fiscal catastrophe that threatens the future of public education in Davis.
The basic economics are straightforward: for each student lost, the district loses approximately $10,000 in average daily attendance (ADA) funding (to give this a nice clean, round number).
So if DJUSD loses 100 students in a single year—as current projections predict it will continue to do annually over the next decade—that’s $1 million gone. But the district can’t simply cut $1 million in costs to match the loss. Why? Because school budgets aren’t as flexible as you might think.
According to Bruce Colby, DJUSD’s longtime budget expert, now retired once again, the district can save only about 60 cents on the dollar for every student lost. That means with every 100-student decline, the district is still short roughly $400,000—and that shortfall compounds year after year. The district is always chasing the savings, but never quite catching up.
One of the biggest misconceptions about declining enrollment is that districts can just “right-size” —close a school here, combine a classroom there, and everything balances out. There are two problems with this—one is that even if you could right-size to a given level, the next year you have to do it again—and that means continued cuts.
But it’s actually more tricky than that.
“Without new housing, the district will continue to lose students — 100 per year, every year — and face the real possibility of closing two or three schools by the end of the decade.”
The reality, however, is that student losses are dispersed unevenly across campuses, grade levels, and programs. A few students disappear here and there, not in neatly packaged cohorts. You can’t close half a classroom.
Consider this example: DJUSD has eight elementary schools, each with three first-grade classes. If you lose just two students per class—a realistic scenario given enrollment trends—that’s 48 fewer first graders across the district. In theory, that’s enough to eliminate one or two teaching positions. But in practice, it would require reshuffling dozens of families, potentially forcing them to switch schools mid-year, separating siblings, or pulling students out of magnet programs. And all of that upheaval might save you just one teacher’s salary.
Even larger-scale solutions are elusive. Closing a school sounds like a simple fix, but, according to district data, even shuttering an entire elementary campus saves only about $500,000—and you’d need to be looking at at least 200 to 350 students to make that kind of closure even begin to make logistical sense. Losing 1000 students might mean cutting a school, but not more than one school.
Again, you’re left chasing the loss. You’re shedding students, cutting classes, losing programs, and ending up in a worse financial position than you started.
The real problem is structural. School districts benefit from economies of scale—the more students you have, the more efficiently you can spread fixed costs like administration, transportation, maintenance, and utilities. But when enrollment drops, you don’t lose costs at the same rate. You still need a principal, a school nurse, a janitor, heating, electricity, and safety staff—whether you have 500 students or 450.
Each student lost costs the district approximately $10,000 in average daily attendance funding.
So what happens when you lose students? You end up cutting the very things that make schools attractive in the first place: arts programs, athletics, electives, counseling, enrichment. And once those go, more families leave—and the spiral continues.
As Colby and Superintendent Matt Best have pointed out, even in best-case scenarios—such as closing an entire school—the math still doesn’t work out. Closing a school with 500 students would eliminate $4.5 million in ADA revenue. You might save $1.3 million in teacher compensation and another $500,000 in operational costs. But that still leaves you short by more than $2.5 million.
Which brings us to the other half of the equation: housing.
Last week, Superintendent Best and Chief Strategy Officer Maria Clayton delivered a sobering presentation to the Davis City Council. Without new housing, the district will continue to lose students—100 per year, every year—and face the real possibility of closing two or three schools by the end of the decade.
This isn’t a speculative threat. Davis has seen a steep drop in birth rates, from 632 in 2003 to just 346 in 2023. Kindergarten enrollment this year came in 100 students short of expectations. Families aren’t moving in—largely because they can’t afford to. And while DJUSD has managed to backfill some of the enrollment loss with non-resident students (mostly children of UC Davis employees), that workaround is nearing its limit.
In contrast, neighboring districts like Woodland and West Sacramento are holding steady, thanks to housing developments that attract young families. The same could happen in Davis—if projects like Village Farms and Willow Grove are approved.
Together, those two developments could add around 1,000 new students over the next 15 years, enough to stabilize DJUSD’s enrollment and revenue. Without them, the district faces not just school closures, but broader restructuring: boundary shifts, program consolidation, and the possible loss of core educational offerings.
School districts cannot simply cut costs to match the loss in enrollment.
We’ve seen this story play out before. When Valley Oak Elementary was closed, it caused years of upheaval and left lasting scars. When Emerson Jr. High faced possible closure, the community responded not by slashing—but by approving Measure W to keep the school open. The community understood, then as now, that cutting our way out of this problem isn’t a real solution.
We can’t cut our way to stability. We can’t shuffle kids around like numbers on a spreadsheet. And we can’t keep pretending that housing policy and school funding are separate issues.
Declining enrollment is not just a school district problem. It’s a citywide challenge that affects everyone—whether you have children in the schools or not. Strong public schools are the backbone of community identity, local property values, and long-term economic health. If we allow our schools to erode, we erode the very fabric of Davis.
We face a real choice in the years ahead. We can approve housing that invites families into our city, stabilizes enrollment, and protects the quality of our public education. Or we can continue down the path of slow decline, budget shortfalls, and painful closures.
It’s time to stop kicking the can down the road. The storm is here. And if we want to preserve the soul of our schools—and the programs that define them—we must act now.
Don’t even need to read this again, since we’ve already seen this nonsense.
Rule #1: Don’t rely on a self-interested entity (like a school district) to put forth numbers which go against its own interests.
If you shut the entire thing down (no cost whatsoever), they’d still be collecting parcel taxes.
Also, funding from the state is not “free” or “unlimited”. If that was the case, just think of how much money the state and school districts could make if every parent had as many children as biologically-possible.
“In contrast, neighboring districts like Woodland and West Sacramento are holding steady, thanks to housing developments that attract young families. The same could happen in Davis — if projects like Village Farms and Willow Grove are approved.”
And what happens when families in THOSE communities age-out of the system? Do they just keep building more? (DJUSD itself knows that it can’t continue relying upon growth in those communities to feed its own system – they’ve acknowledged this themselves.)
From article: “The real problem is structural. School districts benefit from economies of scale — the more students you have, the more efficiently you can spread fixed costs like administration, transportation, maintenance, and utilities. But when enrollment drops, you don’t lose costs at the same rate. You still need a principal, a school nurse, a janitor, heating, electricity, and safety staff — whether you have 500 students or 450.”
You don’t need any of those things at a given school, when it’s shut down.
Also, this type of statement assumes that DJUSD is the “perfect size” in regard to economies of scale. In other words, smaller districts would not be able to survive (despite plenty of them existing throughout the state), and larger districts (like the troubled San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, and Los Angeles systems) are somehow “too large” to enjoy economies of scale.
Note how there’s zero evidence put forth that DJUSD is the “perfect size”, and that the problem is that the city is not a “perfect size”.
Like Goldilocks and the Three Bears, David and the school district are putting forth the claim that DJUSD is “just right” – unlike all of the other districts across the state (most of which are experiencing the same problem as DJUSD).
I think that Davis is ready for some growth, but I don’t see this as a solution for our declining enrollment for some years. Maybe there should be a complete reorganization of our schools. Maybe move to K-5, 6-8, 9-12? Or K-8, 9-12 and get rid of middle schools altogether? Think about consolidation of schools and programs into a different format.
I think the biggest problem right now is that we’ve made it so an increasing percentage of people who work at UC Davis live outside of town. That causes problems with traffic. It causes problems with schools. And it’s a byproduct of our growth policies which has made Davis unaffordable to parent-age families. It also means increasingly, young teachers don’t live in town and also don’t end up staying at DJUSD very long because they don’t have ties to town and don’t get compensated very well. It’s a problem that is going to have all sorts of repercussions down the line. Now people like Ron don’t care because he doesn’t live in town and doesn’t have kids. But I think a lot of people in town do care as illustrated with their ongoing support for schools via the parcel tax.
My position has nothing to do with living in town (or not). And by the way, NO ONE has school-age children beyond a few years before they themselves age-out of the system. This is also the problem with the Ponzi scheme that you and others advocate.
But you do realize that places like Woodland mediate the prices in Davis, right?
Your entire premise is flawed in multiple ways (e.g., that building more would lower prices, that the houses that would be built would be affordable, that young families would then choose a shoebox in Davis compared to what they could get in Woodland, etc.).
I also still don’t understand why any city would purposefully pursue young families with no money. They have some of the highest “unfunded” demands (schools, libraries, parking spaces for multiple cars, etc.).
I will acknowledge, however, that I simply don’t support building more housing for the supposed purpose of lowering housing prices. That’s why I don’t think Tiburon and Atherton, for example, should have that as a goal – despite having no connection to those towns.
The market ultimately works itself out – people without much money don’t move to places they can’t afford. This is also related to the reason that so many people from the Bay Area move to Davis (and are subsequently priced-out of their original homes).
Au contraire
Ha! (I think.)
Another problem with all of this is that unless young people move to Davis for the sole purpose of having kids (that they otherwise wouldn’t have elsewhere), you’re advocating for what is essentially “poaching” of kids from the school districts were they otherwise would have lived and attended school.
It’s not as if the state starts printing more money if the overall (declining) kid population is simply “re-shuffled”.
As such, you and those who think like you don’t seem to care about the impact that has. Which is ironic, because out of the two of us – you’re the “its supposedly for the kids” guy.
I’m not entirely sure if this is an example of the impact that DJUSD is having, but Spring Lake originally had several potential school sites (but WJUSD only built one school – which isn’t sufficient for the neighborhood). And now, WJUSD is also declining to commit to another school at the planned technology park that migrated from Davis (and added 1,600 housing units in the process).
Had Woodland/Spring Lake parents not had the option of attending DJUSD, perhaps WJUSD would have committed to another school by now. And had DJUSD taken action earlier, it’s likely that some of those working at DJUSD would not be commuting to Davis/DJUSD by now.
(WJUSD is also refusing to close schools in the older parts of town where enrollment is declining.)
DJUSD did at least acknowledge, however, that the proposed housing developments would create its own set of problems for DJUSD – as you noted in another article. (Regarding attendance boundaries.)
David Greenwald said … “ In contrast, neighboring districts like Woodland and West Sacramento are holding steady, thanks to housing developments that attract young families. The same could happen in Davis—if projects like Village Farms and Willow Grove are approved.”
I attended the Fiscal Commission meeting last week and Matt Kowta presented the fiscal analysis of Village Farms. In it he said the low priced homes would be priced at $740,000. When you add up the annual housing costs for a $740,000 home with a $600,000 mortgage, those annual hosing costs are over $60,000 per year. Using the “housing costs should not exceed 30% of gross income that means a household income of over $200,000. How many young families have that much of a household income? Village Farms needs to build housing that is between 900 and 1,200 square feet so that they have prices well under $600,000. Those will be affordable ( with a small “a”) for young families.
Our elected leaders on City Council need to think about carrots. Passing an ordinance that gives developers a fast track for approval of 900 to 1,100 square foot residences in a development with mostly those affordable residences would address Davis’ housing issues … and be appropriate Social Justice.
Matt says: “Village Farms needs to build housing that is between 900 and 1,200 square feet so that they have prices well under $600,000. Those will be affordable ( with a small “a”) for young families.”
Assuming that’s true (regarding the price), families still aren’t going to choose a 900-1,200 square foot house (with a 1-car garage, etc.). Unless you define “family” as no more than 2 people.
Instead, they will choose Woodland.
I still don’t see why any city would purposefully pursue “families” in the first place, especially those who don’t financially offset the enormous impact they create (multiple cars, need for schools, libraries, etc.).
RO, Davis can’t be Davis, we must be all things to all people, and make space for all who “want” to live here. Me, I’m moving to Atherton soon, found me a nice apartment right next to a nice estate owned by a well-known basketball player. I insisted Atherton take me in — y’know because of Social Justice :-|
Of course Atherton will be just fine, because the super wealthy will find a way. Davis, on the other hand, will eat it’s own tail and keep going, because, well, Social Justice :-|
” In it he said the low priced homes would be priced at $740,000. When you add up the annual housing costs for a $740,000 home with a $600,000 mortgage, those annual hosing costs are over $60,000 per year.”
The mortgage would be $2700 per month, which is just over $32,000 per year, so I’m not sure where the other $27,000 would be coming from. (https://www.mortgagecalculatorplus.com/)
There are plenty of families in Davis paying $2700 per month in rent right now who would doubtless love to buy a house.
We deliver to Woodland every week. Many of those to whom we are delivering have long ties to the Davis community and would love to buy homes in Davis, but there was insufficient inventory in the range they were looking for when they were shopping. They want yards and open space.
“Our elected leaders on City Council need to think about carrots. Passing an ordinance that gives developers a fast track for approval of 900 to 1,100 square foot residences in a development with mostly those affordable residences would address Davis’ housing issues….”
Villages Farms is subject to a public vote no matter what incentives the city council offers. Any ordinance they pass won’t override the specific provision of Measure J that mandated votes for Nishi and Village Farms. Your incentive might be useful to other developers along Covell or elsewhere, but I doubt if you’ve asked any developers whether they would consider this sufficient incentive, nor what impact it might have on their likelihood of getting financing for their project.
I suspect Matt will respond (and I haven’t looked at the mortgage calculator), but I do know that ongoing housing costs far-exceed the cost of a mortgage.
“In it he said the low priced homes would be priced at $740,000. When you add up the annual housing costs for a $740,000 home with a $600,000 mortgage, those annual hosing costs are over $60,000 per year.”
The mortgage would be $2700 per month, which is just over $32,000 per year, so I’m not sure where the other $27,000 would be coming from”
Don, using your calculator link the payment would be $3876/month and $46,512/year.
That’s a on a $600,000 thirty year mortgage at the average rate today of 6.71%.
That doesn’t include home insurance and other costs. So Matt’s numbers might be high but not that much out of touch.
You’re welcome to correct me if I made any wrong assumptions or calculations.
Also, when you calculate the difference between a $740K house (plus closing costs), vs. a $600K mortgage, there’s the “small matter” of the difference (downpayment) between those two numbers.
You are correct. I neglected to reset the current interest rate. My figure used 3.5%, which would be nice but very unlikely.
Housing is expensive. Who knew. I have a great idea, let’s block it and make it more expensive. That’s a brilliant idea.
Don, here is a partial list of the components of housing costs
mortgage payments,
mortgage balance life insurance,
utilities (gas, electricity, water, sewer, storm sewer, public safety, garbage, recycling, green waste),
property taxes,
homeowners insurance
FEMA flood insurance,
home maintenance and repairs
HOA fees
The property taxes, parcel taxes (and any Mello Roos) alone would likely be more than $10,000/year for a $740K house. (And increasing every year.)
This is also one of the reasons that a “pre-owned” house usually makes more sense. (Many of them have no Mello-Roos.)
You’re criticizing them for building housing that is well below the median housing price in the city.
Yes I am. The current median price in Davis is the result of the historical classist (originally racist) approach to housing … following a dictum of “if we build it big enough and expensive enough “they” will come and “they” won’t.
In addition the $740,000 homes were only a small portion of the total. Most of the homes were well above the current Davis median.