- “It’s devastating,” said Chief Strategy Officer Maria Clayton. “It’s a very difficult conversation that none of us want to have.”
DAVIS, Calif. — The Davis Joint Unified School District Board of Education is bracing for the possible loss of 1,000 students over the next decade — a decline officials warn could force school closures and staff cuts.
“It’s devastating,” said Chief Strategy Officer Maria Clayton. “It’s a very difficult conversation that none of us want to have.”
Superintendent Matt Best said the district has time to respond but must plan carefully. “Davis takes challenges head-on,” he said. “We can find the best solutions.”
Most of the enrollment drop so far has occurred in elementary schools, but district officials expect it to spread to all grade levels. The decline stems from rising housing prices that make it difficult for young families to move to Davis, as well as falling birth rates and changes in UC Davis’s workforce patterns.
The enrollment decline results largely from a drop in resident enrollment as average housing prices increase. Fewer young families and a slowdown in birth rates have also affected the student population.
The decline affects not only families but also district employees. Because DJUSD is among the lowest-funded districts in California, fewer students could mean lower wages and unstable jobs, Clayton said.
Two proposed housing developments — Village Farms and Willow Grove — could play a major role in DJUSD’s future.
If both projects are approved, the district expects to avoid school closures, though some programs may be consolidated. If only one passes, one school could close. If neither does, as many as three may shut down. Votes on the projects are scheduled for June and November 2026, giving the district about three years to prepare.
As of now, the board suspects that if both projects pass, no schools will need to close, though programs will need to shift. If only one project passes, then one school will need to close, along with adjustments to some DJUSD programs. But if neither project passes, up to three schools will have to close, and a major district-wide change will need to occur.
Superintendent Best said the board is prioritizing three main things while planning: ensuring every change is in the best interest of students, considering long-term impacts on DJUSD, and being mindful of fiscal responsibility.
The board currently has two major plans for the district’s future.
Concept A calls for closing Patwin Elementary School in the 2028–29 school year. The Davis School for Independent Study (DSIS) would be relocated to the Patwin campus. Students and staff would be redistributed to nearby elementary schools, and, if needed, a junior high could close in 2034.
Concept B would close Birch Lane and Patwin elementary schools in 2027–28. Sixth grade would move to the junior high schools, and the Montessori program, currently at Birch Lane, would relocate to Montgomery Elementary School. Up to 12 portable classrooms would be added to accommodate the student movement.
This concept would also require redrawing district boundaries and reaching agreements for staff at schools that close if they cannot find another position. No junior highs would close under Concept B.
Clayton explained that, before going public, the board held seven meetings to review data showing declining enrollment trends.
She said UC Davis’s recent expansion into Sacramento may also play a role. Many parents who once commuted to Davis enrolled their children in DJUSD schools, but as more jobs move to Sacramento, families are keeping their kids closer to home.
The board plans to gather community feedback at informational meetings before making any final decisions.
According to Clayton, there’s “a lot of emotion” in the process. “No one wants this,” she said. “But we want to make sure whatever we decide keeps the students at the center.”
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
This must of been an important point since it had to be made twice:
“If both projects are approved, the district expects to avoid school closures, though some programs may be consolidated. If only one passes, one school could close. If neither does, as many as three may shut down. Votes on the projects are scheduled for June and November 2026, giving the district about three years to prepare.
As of now, the board suspects that if both projects pass, no schools will need to close, though programs will need to shift. If only one project passes, then one school will need to close, along with adjustments to some DJUSD programs. But if neither project passes, up to three schools will have to close, and a major district-wide change will need to occur.”
My mind keeps coming back to thinking about when West Davis residents sued UC Davis over West Village and access to Russell was given up by UCD as well as the faculty housing there never got built. Now the community doesn’t have enough kids at the neighborhood school and is facing closure. Are these events related? I can’t say for sure but it does call into question the idea that no growth is sustainable?
UCD failed by misaligning the West Campus. It capitulated to its selfish faculty who wanted to preserve a research project that was already spoiled by 113 and the new development and a farm tractor museum. If UCD had instead aligned it north south along 113 it would have faced much less opposition.
The lack of staff/faculty housing comes from the requirement to use union labor for construction. That’s too expensive for anything other that the very dense multi story housing built on campus now. The north side was platted for more single family housing that was never going to happen. UCD is starting over now.
Here’s another thing to consider when it comes to Davis and children.
Liberal women have less children than moderate to conservative women.
Just saying…
It has to do much more with education level and income than political persuasion.
I’m confused – didn’t the district repeatedly state in the recent past (via the Vanguard) that closing down a school does not save money?
As a side note, I’d label this as a “best case scenario” from the perspective of the city and those who oppose sprawl.
From article: “According to Clayton, there’s “a lot of emotion” in the process. “No one wants this,” she said.”
Put me on record as someone who DOES want this, and is “not emotional” about it. (Since when does being emotional result in good decisions?)
From article: “But we want to make sure whatever we decide keeps the students at the center.”
And that’s the problem – the city should be at the center; not the school district.
“I’m confused – didn’t the district repeatedly state in the recent past (via the Vanguard) that closing down a school does not save money?”
That’s not what the Vanguard has reported. We have consistently reported that the school district can save up to $500,000 or so dollars by closing a school, however, the tricky part of it is that closing a school does not solve declining enrollment, rather it saves money but if enrollment continues to decline, the next year, the district will have to find more cuts. Therefore the district is constantly chasing savings which requires ongoing cuts and generally speaking the district only saves about 60 cents on the dollar.
Here’s my most recent article explaining all of this: https://davisvanguard.org/2025/04/sunday-commentary-why-declining-enrollment-is-so-bad/
Glad to see that you’re at least posting my comment, this time.
In any case, I’d like to go over the math that you present. You state that DJUSD only saves 60 cents on the dollar, for each student that does not attend DJUSD.
So apparently, you’re referring to each dollar coming from the state (which doesn’t “belong” to DJUSD in the first place), since the purpose of that dollar is to fund districts across the state. As such, a dollar that doesn’t go to DJUSD then goes to a different school district, right? (Is that a “bad” thing?) And in some cases, it actually results in “more than a dollar” going to a different school district, since some receive more funds per students, right? (So again I’ll ask if that’s a “bad” thing?)
In any case, does the “60 cents on a dollar” account for the money saved by school closures? And if there were no students at all, would DJUSD somehow “owe” 40 cents on a dollar for each student that doesn’t attend DJUSD?
And don’t DJUSD parcel taxes actually go farther (for each student), when there’s fewer students?
Ron O
Why are you commenting on DJUSD policies and choices? You live in Woodland with no discernable connections to Davis and have no direct stake in the outcome. Your opinion is meaningless to anyone who making decisions and choices here.
And yes, DJUSD still owes fixed costs of paying off bond debt and paying for maintenance of facilities it continues to own. Selling school properties is not an easy process.
“ Selling school properties is not an easy process.”
And can’t be used for instructional purposes
Richard: For the sake of argument, let’s assume your opinion about me is correct.
How does that change the substance of what I write? (I’m going to ask you that same question each and every time you make a similar comment from this point forward, so please do keep at it.)
Also, I understand that DJUSD has ALREADY SOLD one school site (Grande).
I have witnessed other school districts selling sites as well. As with Grande, they ended up as HOUSING – the very thing that the housing shortage monkeys claim is in short supply. (The housing shortage monkeys are often the same people who are “emotional” about closing down a school or two).
It is true that actual monkeys can react in an emotional manner, though less-often than people from what I’ve seen.
Both my elementary schools are now housing.
I do, however, suggest that those reacting in an emotional manner in regard to inevitable school closures (or who think my comments are irrelevant – but consistently respond to them anyway) might benefit from psychological counseling.
Or at least, some math lessons – which (based upon the position put forth by DJUSD itself) is apparently in short supply at DJUSD.
Hate to break it to you (again) folks, but DJUSD doesn’t “own” the dollars they receive from the state. Those dollars will follow the students WHEREVER they attend. DJUSD is essentially “cheating” – or at least competing with other districts regarding those dollars, by poaching students. (Whether that occurs via out-of-district transfers, or by encouraging families to move to Davis).
My first effort at commenting disappeared. Odd. My impression is that the school district is advocating both development plans to pass to bring in more students. To my knowledge, and I have talked to some administrators including Matt Best, the school district is NOT advocating or pressuring the developers to add appropriate housing to allow young families to move in. As Village Farms is proposed (especially with half the regular amount of land for ‘affordable housing”) I sincerely doubt that it will bring many students – at least for the elementary grades. These are hardly starter homes affordable to young families. I believe that if the developer could put aside the goal of maximizing profits, more condos, duplexes and other starter homes could be built. After all, he did get the land at a rock bottom bankruptcy sale. Davis needs a better plan.
Note to Vanguard commenters: when you register, you must provide your full first and last name. If you fail to do so, your comments won’t post, they will remain in the queue and will eventually be removed.