DAVIS, CA – The Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) will present a preview of its Boundaries and Planning Community Outreach presentation Thursday evening during a special meeting, as the district continues to grapple with steep and ongoing declines in student enrollment.
According to the district’s staff report, DJUSD has lost approximately 300 students since 2019. Staff note that the decline stems primarily from lower birth rates and the high cost of housing in Davis, which have combined to drive down the number of school-age children in the community.
During the 2024–25 school year, DJUSD staff conducted extensive information gathering and analysis focused on boundary area populations, enrollment data, and long-term demographic trends. In spring 2025, the district launched its “Housing-Schools Connection” roadshow, holding more than 60 meetings with individuals and community organizations across Davis. The goal was to share information about how housing development—or the lack thereof—affects school enrollment, and to discuss how the district is preparing for the challenges ahead.
At Thursday’s meeting, district officials will preview a presentation designed to model a worst-case scenario: a potential decline of approximately 1,000 students over the next decade. Staff will present two main concepts to the Board of Education. One focuses on localized, near-term adjustments over the next three years, while the other addresses districtwide, long-term planning for sustained enrollment decline.
The purpose of Thursday’s meeting is to give the Board of Education an early look at the presentation before it is shared with the public at a series of community outreach meetings beginning in November.
District staff emphasize that no final decisions have been made about school closures or boundary changes. However, the presentation makes clear that continued enrollment decline could force difficult decisions in the coming years. DJUSD officials have projected that, without new housing developments, the district may have to close between one and three schools over the next decade.
In earlier public remarks, DJUSD explained that the outcome of two housing development votes expected in 2026 will play a decisive role in the district’s future. If both housing measures pass, the district anticipates some need for boundary adjustments but believes closures may be avoided. If one project passes, the district might still face the need to consolidate one or two schools. If neither passes, DJUSD has warned that closures are likely unavoidable.
DJUSD Superintendent Matt Best has been forthright about the district’s fiscal challenges, noting that declining enrollment creates a financial imbalance that is difficult to overcome. “The financial loss from declining enrollment is the inverse of economies of scale,” Best said in a recent interview with the Vanguard. “When a district grows, revenues grow faster than variable costs. But when a district shrinks, the loss of revenue is greater than the savings. The numbers don’t balance.”
Best said the district cannot sustain its current level of programming without reversing the enrollment trend. “We cannot right-size our district in a way that maintains quality programs for students without new enrollment,” he said. “There’s no version of this that doesn’t involve hard choices.”
According to state data and independent research, including a 2020 report from the Public Policy Institute of California, school districts across the state are facing similar pressures. Declining birth rates, rising housing costs, and shifting population patterns are driving down enrollment in many communities. The financial implications are severe, as district funding in California is directly tied to attendance.
For DJUSD, the problem extends beyond numbers on a spreadsheet. Best has described it as a question of identity and opportunity. “This is not about one housing project,” he said. “This is about the structural ability of our district to offer AP courses, music programs, languages, and electives.”
District officials also emphasize that, while per-pupil spending may increase when enrollment falls, the overall budget shrinks. Many district costs are fixed, such as utilities, maintenance, and administrative expenses, making proportional cuts difficult. As Best has explained, “You can’t lay off a quarter of a principal or half a school nurse.”
If new housing projects are approved, DJUSD would still need to redraw school boundaries to accommodate new students. But if the projects fail at the ballot box, district officials warn that they may be forced to consolidate schools to remain financially viable.
In the coming weeks, DJUSD will invite students, staff, families, and community members to a series of public meetings to review the proposed concepts and share feedback. The district expects to refine its long-term plans based on community input before bringing final recommendations to the Board in 2027.
District officials currently expect the Board of Education to make key decisions on school boundaries and potential closures by spring 2027, with any changes likely to take effect in the 2028–29 school year.
DJUSD’s ongoing public outreach reflects the urgency of the situation. The district has already lost 1,200 students since its peak enrollment, and officials warn that continued decline will jeopardize both finances and educational offerings. The district’s challenge is not simply to balance its budget, but to maintain the kind of comprehensive educational experience that Davis families have long expected.
The coming months will mark the start of what DJUSD describes as a “community conversation” about how to respond. Staff say the goal is to ensure transparency and collaboration as the district navigates what could be one of the most consequential planning efforts in its history.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Didn’t the district claim that closing down a school or two won’t reduce costs? If so, then why would they do so in order to reduce costs?
(Obviously, a rhetorical question.)
The district is making a mistake in assuming that most Davis residents/stakeholders are as concerned as those who might lose their jobs. (Some of the latter don’t even live in Davis.)
The Davis households which have children attending DJUSD is likely a minority of households. (Has anyone actually looked into that?)
Threats and gaslighting by a public agency as shills for developers. Despicable behavior on a level I can barely comprehend. Why are parents of school kids going along with this charade?
Those of us who have made education decisions for our children can tell you that having a school district with more course offerings, more school choices, and options for different learning modalities, is likely to lead to better placements and outcomes for our students.
Each course offering requires a minimum number of students. Loss of revenues due to declining enrollment will lead to reduced course offerings. Staffing levels are directly tied to revenues. Put simply: the quality of Davis schools will decline if enrollment declines. As Superintendent Best said, “this is about the structural ability of our district to offer AP courses, music programs, languages, and electives.”
Having compared neighboring district course offerings, I can attest that this is one area where DJUSD really excels. And it is what will be most impacted by reduced enrollment.
Creative restructuring and placement of magnet programs could forestall the closure of schools. But getting more of the kind of housing that young families want to buy or rent would make a big difference in stabilizing the district’s finances and retaining the quality of the Davis schools.
There doesn’t seem to be any support for that claim.
Parcel taxes which support extra programs go farther, when there’s fewer students. Parcel taxes have no relationship to the number of students.
If there was only “one” student, ALL of the parcel taxes would be dedicated to him/her.
The same is likely true in regard to the parcel tax which increased teacher salaries. (It goes farther when there’s fewer teachers. If there was only “one” teacher, he/she would presumably receive a windfall.)
The district has an inherent interest (a motivation) to spread misinformation. It is a conflict of interest to depend on them for objective analysis from a community’s perspective. (This is pretty much Auditing 101, though it’s really just common sense.)
Though I am sure that they are correct that a school or two needs to close down.
Ron O
Don has surveyed course offerings in other districts and found that Davis’ are superior. The large number of out of town transfers, just as the house price premium, shows substantial evidence that the district’s offerings are highly valued. I’ve posted here several times studies that show how school quality is priced into house prices. In the 1990s a UCB professor told us how the difference in Oakland and Piedmont house prices as the net present value of a private school education due to the school quality differences. (I happened live on the cities’ border at the time.)
Don’s assessment seems to not rely much on what the district has said. He’s speaking from his own direct observations and research.
You have no discernable stake in this discussion given that you live in Woodland. If anything, you’re incentive is to denigrate Davis schools so that Woodland home prices rise in comparison making your own property more valuable. You are far from a neutral arbiter here.
You have no idea what my interest in Davis is, and your claims border on libel.
But more importantly (in regard to your comment), aren’t you the same person who advocates for housing prices to be LOWER in Davis? The exact opposite of what you’re arguing for, now?
Also, what makes you think that Woodland housing prices aren’t “positively” impacted by the fact that Woodland residents are allowed to attend Davis schools? And, without paying parcel taxes?
Don’t you claim to be a professional economist on here? Did you skip a couple of classes?
Examples of curriculum differences between school districts. Numbers are from DataQuest, course catalogues are available online.
Davis High School, enrollment 1789
21 foreign language classes: French, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese
Woodland High School, enrollment 1171
12 foreign language classes: French, Spanish
Dixon High School, enrollment 1012
9 foreign language classes: Spanish only
So from your own citation, it appears that all of the districts offer Spanish language classes (surprise, surprise). And that WJUSD and DJUSD both offer French classes (something I never took in school).
And that DJUSD is the only one that offers Chinese and Japanese classes. (Are they threatening to eliminate those, if Davis voters don’t approve sprawl)?
Hey – maybe if they sprawl halfway to Woodland, they can also offer German and Russian languages (just a couple more examples). How many languages are there in the world, anyway?
“Sprawl for languages”.
If they sprawl enough, maybe they can offer all of the languages in the entire world.
One reason DJUSD has more curricular offerings is that secondary grades have 7-period schedules. Woodland high schools also have 7 periods, but their middle schools have only 6. Dixon offers only 6 periods.
DJUSD does not care about the impact that their poaching activities have on surrounding districts. (In other words, those “left behind”).
And the parents of the 1,300 or so non-resident students have less incentive to invest in their own school districts and community, as a result.
But at least they don’t have to pay DJUSD parcel taxes, in regard to the “patsy” that is Davis. (Honestly, I sometimes wonder if Davis residents are as smart and educated as they apparently think they are. They also strike me as the type of people who are way more concerned about what Trump is doing, instead of what Aguiar-Curry, Wiener, Newsom, and Bonta are doing, for example. (Let alone the Davis council, since they appear to be supportive of that.)
The quality of school district has two effects on households without children. First, the quality of education affects the quality of the workforce that provides for those households. Second, the perception of the district’s quality affects the value of the houses owned by those households. Because younger families with children are more likely to move they are the largest component of the housing market and their preferences drive differences in housing prices.
While the district will save some costs by closing schools, its cost per student will rise because so much of its budget goes toward paying of bond debt for the new facilities built in its aging school system. Having more students reduces that per student cost. The state provides a per student-day allocation that reflects community characteristics and the district does not control that revenue source.
In addition to closing a school or two, it sounds like they need to sell off the sites, themselves. (Assuming that your claim is correct, regarding owing money as a result of previous, ill-advised expansion).
As they previously did in Davis – thereby providing more opportunity for housing or other uses.
This is what you call a “win-win” – ESPECIALLY for those who claim there’s a housing shortage.
I support the district in addressing the size of its district to reflect the community’s actual needs.
“I support the district in addressing the size of its district to reflect the community’s actual needs.”
LOL. C’est la vie. This is exactly what DJUSD has been doing for years. They have been trying to keep the ship afloat for the benefit of the community. They are warning that they are reaching the end of their ability to do so without change one way or the other. It’s not that DJUSD is doing the developers bidding it’s that they have common interests. Housing plus schools plus children equals a healthy community.
Have you been to Orange County?
Not recently, but I’ve been to towns where if they called the employees in for a meeting and gave them doughnuts it meant that the mill was closing.
” . . . if they called the employees in for a meeting and gave them doughnuts it meant that the mill was closing.”
Hunts and pipe manufacturer had their doughnut meetings a long time ago. The insane traffic of Orange County and the elimination of agriculture is Orange today. We too can have that!
They (DJUSD) is nowhere near “the end of their ability” to downsize the district to correspond with the actual needs of the community.
I might volunteer personally, to close down a school or two if they can’t handle it. Put me in charge (no pay), and I’ll handle these (edited) who are trying to protect their own jobs. (They’re at least a little less-intimidating than firemen, police, or prison workers in regard to that). Though I’m not sure I’m a match for one of the dwindling numbers of soccer moms who can’t be slightly inconvenienced for a few years.
Wow I think you managed to degrade everyone in town. I’m going to save this one.
Is that right? A lot of prison workers in Davis? (Maybe a few, in regard to the Vacaville Medical Correction Facility).
But didn’t you build your “good guy” reputation (long since passed) regarding the cost of firefighters (and their involvement in Davis politics)?
You’re now on the side of police/firefighters?
But yeah, I’ll even try to take on the dwindling number of soccer moms, in addition to those trying to save their own jobs. (Again, without even paying me.)
(Just in case you haven’t noticed, however, soccer moms and DJUSD employees are in the minority, at this point. They just have inordinately-loud “voices”). I might even refer to them as the “usual suspects” regarding this issue (especially since some of them don’t even live in Davis, and might not even have ANY other connection to it).
As a side note, I was passing out flyers for Sue Greenwald (20 years or so ago). Mostly, I was just leaving them at residences, as I recall. In any case, I ran into a woman a little younger than I was, and handed her a flyer. I recall being semi-shocked at her reaction, regarding what Sue Greenwald was going to “do” for schools (something like that).
My reaction (I didn’t let on) was that I didn’t even see the relevance. (I then suspected that this woman was working for the school district.)
I also wondered about the last time that I “expected” my city representatives to create a local job for me, personally.
At this point, I doubt that I’ll ever forget this interaction. I was essentially fighting to protect farmland (without any personal payoff), while this woman was worried about her career opportunities – perhaps at the expense of farmland/sprawl. (She understood the issue, but didn’t seem to care.)
I never “expected” Davis to provide me with a job (or housing, for that matter).
You seem to forget that our school trustees don’t get paid. So if you want to “rightsize” our district for free you should establish residence in Davis, if you haven’t already, and run for school board. Then you could be involved in the heartbreaking community struggle that is sure to follow when you try to close down schools. Go for it Ron O. Talk is cheap. I would love to see how many votes you would get.
‘You seem to forget that our school trustees don’t get paid.’
Full disclosure, trustees get a monthly stipend that might cover a utility bill. But definitely not luxury pay.
Ron O
Your opinions about Davis politics are unneeded and out of bounds since you don’t live here and are not a stakeholder in what goes on here. You are just mucking around for your own entertainment. And since when have you shown any competence managing an organization? Your opinion about how to manage the city is unwanted and unwarranted.
You can see why Will Arnold didn’t want to put forth a Measure J vote in 2024. These elections are tearing this community apart. The latest was a letter in the Enterprise attacking DJUSD for building facilities as if somehow they shouldn’t have done that in the face of declining enrollment. Never mind the poor physical conditions of our schools. The letter, just as we see in some of the comments here, impugn the motives of people in the community, who serve the community for the benefit of the community and our children, with no more evidence of malfeasance than the fact that they are presenting the options they see the community facing in the near future. Petty low, but, I have no doubt that attacks like these will continue unabated as long as Measure J votes exist in this community.
By the way. members of the current school board are some of the most effective I have observed in my 30+ years in Davis. They made the parcel taxes effectively permanent relieving the community of stressful periodic re-authorizations, implemented full day Kindergarten and are currently trying to take advantage of State policies to build much needed staff housing on surplus district property. Now they are putting us on notice about the consequences of the choices the community will be making in the near future. And what do they get for their commitment and service to the community? Attacked and accused of being somehow corrupt. Its shameful.
In fairness, I think you have to look at who is making those kinds of accusations, as we saw with the most recent parcel tax vote, they are a small minority in the community.
Sure, that’s why I encourage Ron O to run instead of spouting off incessantly. But you forget the target isn’t really DJUSD. Its housing. Something over which the community is much more divided.
Trust me, I did not forget.
Ron G says: “You seem to forget that our school trustees don’t get paid.”
What makes you think that you didn’t know that?
Ron G says: “So if you want to “rightsize” our district for free you should establish residence in Davis, if you haven’t already, and run for school board. Then you could be involved in the heartbreaking community struggle that is sure to follow when you try to close down schools. Go for it Ron O. Talk is cheap. I would love to see how many votes you would get.”
Probably no votes, since the people interested in school board races are already the type who resist right-sizing the district in the first place. Until recently, I never even paid attention to who was running (or on) a school board, or what they actually do. But I have since learned that they can cause a lot of damage to an entire community (and not just in Davis), and seem to have undue influence with councils. (Not necessarily just in Davis.)
In Davis’ case, they’re also causing the cost of housing to increase via permanent and increasing parcel taxes. Those are HOUSING costs.
Those who claim that school districts should have a bigger say than they already do should probably know what percentage of households have school-age children in the first place.
The “problem” for any school district that has increased its size too much is that housing does not turn over fast enough for their liking. That, combined with the fact that people are having fewer kids (1.6 kids nationwide). However, there would be an equilibrium generally reached, for ANY existing city. It’s not a city’s problem if that number/range is lower than a school district would prefer.
Another way to look at this is that I’m actually SUPPORTIVE of the school district itself, in regard to plans to downsize its system. It’s those who would lose their paid jobs (and a handful of soccer moms who can’t be slightly inconvenienced for a few years) who typically create a problem.
As far as running for an elected position, I’d probably be better suited for a council – since they supposedly represent an ENTIRE community (rather than just teachers and soccer moms). But I have seen what happens when candidates (like Sue Greenwald) encounter interests which are determined to ensure that they are not-relected.
As far as “spouting off” – I intend to do more of that in regard to the “usual suspects” who think a city should cater to the desires of a minority in the community (e.g., those vested in the school district at the expense of sprawl).
Forgot to add that some of the teachers and soccer moms don’t even live in Davis in the first place. Some of them wouldn’t even need to travel to Davis at all, if they worked (or attended) their local schools instead of commuting to Davis.
Granted, if I had school age kids, I’d probably (also) take advantage of Davis’ willingness to be a “patsy” for out-of-district families. And frankly, I’d also rather work for Davis’ school district (than my presumed “home” district). But those aren’t valid reasons to accommodate me, from a community’s perspective.
And again, this is having at least somewhat of a destructive result for BOTH communities.
But you are correct in that my main concern is the “schools for sprawl” campaign. (Though there is a local activist who is pretty concerned about what they’re teaching in there, regarding gender. Actually, some of those who oppose that activist got heavily involved in Woodland’s school board race, as well – which resulted in a recall of an existing board member).
“District residency status may be granted to a student if at least one Parent/Guardian is physically employed within district boundaries for a minimum of 10 hours during the school week if there is space available in the requested grade level, school, or program (including Special Education). “
“May”.
And again, some of them won’t even be needed since they ARE district employees who are going to lose their jobs when a school or two is shut down. A self-correcting problem, as it were. Some of them might even get a job “temporarily” just to satisfy that requirement (which seems highly suspect in regard to the district actually verifying any of that. Also, it’s only a requirement to “get one’s foot in the door” – after which they can work in San Francisco if they want to.)
Get a temporary job as a local barista, and Davis will educate your kid without you being subject to parcel taxes.
By the way, have you noticed how the sprawl in Woodland also isn’t expected to save DJUSD from downsizing the long run? The reason for that is because families age-out of ALL existing housing, and it doesn’t turn over fast-enough to satisfy school districts who refuse to downsize. (This is an issue in Woodland as well, in regard to older sections of town.)
And again, DJUSD already knows about the 1,600 housing units planned for the Woodland technology park, the 100 or so houses being built right now at Chiles Ranch, another batch at the property on Pole Line Road (former skilled nursing facility), etc. And yet, this STILL isn’t enough for a hungry district.
Ron O
Again, your opinion has no weight or value here because you don’t live in Davis and have no discernable connection. Why should we care about your largely ignorant (i.e., lacking specific knowledge) opinion on the topic?
I find myself in rare agreement with part of the argument from one of my fellow self-appointed pundits: Trading school enrollment for sprawl is a bad deal for Davis. But that’s another of the false choices being proffered around. All 1,800 units proposed by Village Farms could fit on half the land they plan to use, and the benefits would be many: lower average prices if more apartments and more attached units; less ag land lost; less energy to heat and cool; more opportunity for successful transit; AND younger school children because younger families would have more opportunities to afford to live here. The only downside: lower profits to the landowners but hardly no profit. I agree with the premise that detached single family houses, which start at $700,000 regardless of the developer’s intents, are more likely to be taken up by mid-career families with higher incomes and older children. So they will support Davis High, but their children will age out quickly, whereas our elementary schools are the ones facing closure. In order to support the elementary schools, we should be building housing that the missing middle can afford, and that is not the detached single family houses that Village Farms and WillowGrove are proposing.
Personally, I think making the proposal more dense would change the makeup of the occupants (resulting in more UCD students, single people, and couples without children). The reason being that those with children seek single-family housing with at least two garage spaces, yards, a sufficient number of bedrooms, etc. And they will find it via existing housing in Davis, or in new/existing housing in Woodland. Or at one of the other new developments in Davis.
Then again, UCD (the primary campus) isn’t even hiring more people at this point, to my knowledge. So I have no idea why people are moving to the area, unless they’re just generally moving to the Sacramento valley.
But if the developer permanently preserved the remainder of the site (e.g., nothing beyond the Cannery), that would probably be preferable to what they’re currently proposing.
They still need to pay for a grade-separated crossing, etc.
Repeated studies show that it is HOUSING PRICES not HOUSING TYPE that determines the number of children per household. The way to get to more students in Davis is to reduce the price of housing for families and the way to do that it to increase the density of housing so a developer can make more revenue per acre developed.
U.S. Birth Rates Plummet as Home Prices Surge: Here’s How the Housing Market Is Shaping Family Planning https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/birth-rates-plummet-home-prices-surge-housing-market-family-planning/
House prices and birth rates: The impact of the real estate market on the decision to have a baby https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272713001904
This study shows its not housing density that drives the number of children per household, but rather the number of bedrooms per unit. So if we build higher density with sufficient number of bedrooms we will get on net more children.
More Crowding, Fewer Babies: The Effects of Housing Density on Fertility
https://ifstudies.org/blog/more-crowding-fewer-babies-the-effects-of-housing-density-on-fertility
Half of UCD’s workforce currently lives outside Davis. The 50% house price premium and number of DJUSD student transfers is the quantitative evidence that many of them would prefer to live in Davis. We don’t need to see increased jobs in Davis to justify more housing here–we already have a jobs/housing imbalance that we need to address directly.
Just building more “sprawl for schools” won’t solve either of our problems. We need to build smart to both attract more families and to serve those who are working in Davis but can’t live here. (They are a real stakeholder group that is largely voiceless in our discussions.)