When the DJUSD superintendent met with community members last spring and warned that the city’s housing constraints were beginning to affect school enrollment, many residents seemed to shrug off the concern. Others pushed back more directly, arguing that the needs of the school district should not be used to drive housing policy decisions.
Of course, this has always been just one factor among many shaping the housing debate. Concerns about affordability and the pressure of statewide housing mandates continue to dominate the conversation.
In roughly three months, voters will be asked to weigh in on the Village Farms proposal. Given the track record of housing projects over the past 25 years, it is easy to approach its chances of passage with a degree of skepticism.
However, a development this week suggests we might reconsider the impact of the schools issues.
This week we learned about a petition calling on the district to form a community advisory committee to examine potential school closures that has drawn nearly 1,000 signatures from parents and community members. The sudden mobilization of that many families around the future of local schools could prove significant.
What had long been a largely abstract discussion about enrollment projections may now be evolving into a broader political issue—one that could ultimately reshape the conversation around housing proposals like Village Farms.
For many years, Davis has quietly been undergoing a demographic shift that now appears to be reaching a tipping point. Fewer young families are moving into the city, and the number of children entering the school system has steadily declined.
The reasons are not mysterious. Housing costs have climbed dramatically while new housing construction has remained limited, contributing to a gradual aging of the population.
The district’s projections illustrate the stakes: without new housing development, Davis could lose roughly 1,000 students over the next decade, on top of the approximately 300 students the district has already lost since 2019.
Because California school funding continues to be largely tied to enrollment, the implications are significant, fewer students mean less funding.
Over time, that financial pressure can force difficult choices about programs, staffing and school facilities. District projections suggest that a decline of that magnitude could ultimately require the closure of one to three schools.
As we have previously argued, declining enrollment means cutbacks in programs and diminishing resources for schools. Closing a school may serve as a temporary bandage, but it will not arrest the underlying decline.
For years, those warnings were easy for many residents to shrug off—and some no doubt will continue to do so.
School closures had long been framed as part of a long-term planning exercise, something that might occur years down the road under a “worst-case scenario.” But once an actual school was named as a potential closure candidate, the issue became a wake-up call for many families.
When the possibility of closing neighborhood schools begins to feel real, the conversation changes.
The mobilization of nearly 1,000 parents around that possibility has the potential to reshape the political conversation in ways that abstract enrollment projections never could—and that has the power at least potentially to change the entire narrative of this project.
Nearly one thousand parents may not by itself seem to be a game changer, but potentially it represents a level of engagement that has not previously been present in the district’s enrollment discussions.
It suggests that families are beginning to recognize the seriousness of the challenge—and once that realization takes hold, it could begin to reshape another long-running debate in Davis: housing.
For decades, the city’s housing politics have been defined by a series of contentious ballot measures and development proposals.
Large housing projects have often been evaluated primarily through the lens of growth—questions about traffic, environmental impacts and whether Davis should expand beyond its current footprint.
Village Farms may come down that way as well—that has largely dominated the discussion in the last few months.
Those debates have produced a pattern familiar to many observers of local politics. Development proposals are proposed, argued over intensely and often defeated at the ballot box.
But that might be about to change if those parents get out there and mobilize.and the school enrollment crisis introduces a different frame for thinking about housing.
The district’s projections make clear that declining enrollment is not simply the result of lower birth rates but is also tied to the city’s housing market, where rising prices and limited new construction make it harder for families with children to move into the community.
Over time, that dynamic reshapes the population, as the city grows older and the number of school-age children declines.
From the district’s perspective, declining enrollment is not just a demographic trend but a financial challenge, because public school funding is tied to the number of students, meaning fewer students translate directly into reduced revenue, forcing difficult decisions about programs, staffing and the number of campuses the district can sustain.
In that sense, housing policy and school enrollment are not separate issues. They are deeply connected.
This connection becomes particularly clear when considering large housing proposals such as Village Farms.
Traditionally, these projects have been debated primarily as questions of land use and growth. Supporters argue that Davis needs more housing to address affordability and accommodate regional population pressures. Opponents raise concerns about traffic, environmental impacts and the character of the community.
But viewed through the lens of school enrollment, these projects take on an additional dimension.
Housing developments that include family-sized homes have the potential to bring new families with children into the city. Over time, those families could help stabilize or even increase the number of students attending local schools.
Demographic projections tied to the proposed Village Farms development suggest the project could bring a significant number of new students into DJUSD.
Using the district’s student yield methodology, analysts estimate that the roughly 1,800-unit development could generate about 701 new students, an enrollment increase of more than eight percent compared with the district’s current student population, a level that could help stabilize enrollment and reduce pressure for program cuts or school closures over time.
Indeed, the two projects that voters will face in 2026, Village Farms and Willowgrove, could bring in as many as 1500 new students—more than enough to offset expected declines.
Of course, none of this would happen overnight.
Even if a large housing project were approved tomorrow, it would likely take years before new residents begin moving in, meaning the district will continue to face enrollment pressure in the short term. At the same time, district officials have signaled they would be reluctant to close schools if there is a credible path toward stabilizing enrollment in the years ahead.
Still, the longer-term implications are significant.
If Davis continues along its current path—limited housing growth combined with rising home prices—the demographic trend is likely to continue. Fewer young families will move into the city. Enrollment will continue to decline. Eventually, the district will face difficult decisions about closing schools.
That possibility may now be coming into sharper focus for many families.
It is too early to know whether that shift will occur. Mobilizing around a petition is one thing; reshaping the outcome of a housing ballot measure is another. Local politics rarely change overnight.
But moments of civic engagement often begin with a realization that an issue once seen as abstract has immediate consequences.
The debate now unfolding in Davis may be one of those moments.
For years, Davis has wrestled with the tension between preserving its character and adapting to broader economic and demographic forces. But rising housing costs, an aging population and declining school enrollment may reshape the character of the community every bit as much as building new housing—if not more.
The question facing the community is whether it will confront that reality directly.
The mobilization of nearly 1,000 parents around the issue of school closures suggests that the conversation may be entering a new phase. What began as a technical discussion about enrollment trends is increasingly becoming a broader community debate about the future of the city itself.
And if those parents begin to connect the fate of neighborhood schools to the availability of housing for the next generation of families, the politics of housing in Davis could look very different in the years ahead.
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.
No it won’t. The schools will close.
No committee or housing project will stop it.
“Closing a school may serve as a temporary bandage, but it will not arrest the underlying decline.”
Actually, that does address the underlying decline, quite well. As it has in numerous cities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We are asking the DJUSD Board of Education to form a broadly representative Community Advisory Committee to ensure that decisions regarding school closure are transparent, equitable, and grounded in reliable data and careful analysis.
DJUSD considered – but ultimately did not pursue – a community-based advisory process to identify community priorities and to develop and evaluate options to address declining enrollment. Given the limitations of and the lack of data to support the options presented so far, and consistent with the recommendation of education experts, this Community Advisory Committee should be included in the development of new options in the next phase of this work.
Accordingly, we respectfully urge the DJUSD Board of Education to:
• Establish a Community Advisory Committee to identify community priorities and values and to generate and evaluate district-wide solutions to declining school enrollment. The Committee must comprise diverse and equitable representation from at least parents of students, teachers, and school staff;
• Ensure the committee has the time, data, and resource needed to analyze impacts on students, as well as equity, traffic, environmental, staffing, and community-wide impacts; and
• Commit to transparency and shared responsibility by expanding how data and analysis are generated, discussed, and interpreted, including real-time, two-way engagement with the School Board to ensure community feedback is meaningfully heard and considered.
•
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/803/467/049/a-community-led-path-forward-for-djusd/
1055 signatures as of 03/08/2026
885 supporters in Davis
“As we have previously argued, declining enrollment means cutbacks in programs and diminishing resources for schools.”
DJUSD parcel taxes go FARTHER (per student), when there’s fewer students. The amount collected does not change as enrollment drops. As such, any claim that there would be “cutbacks in programs” is simply not supported by basic facts.
The system is too large for the needs of the community.
As a side note, this effort could actually result in a backlash against purposeful efforts to house more families in the city. In other words, this is an effort to recruit those who would throw farmland “under the bus” simply because they don’t want to be slightly inconvenienced for a brief period in their lives. A cohort, by the way, that’s ALREADY among the most-demanding in terms of costly services demanded, traffic, parking, etc.
You’ve heard of the term “soccer Moms”, I’m sure. Pretty much the SUV-driving crowd.
Who is behind the petition?
“Who is behind the petition?”
Now that’s a great question.
https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/803/467/049/
….
Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/community/yolo/article314912468.html#storylink=cpy
That article is behind a paywall.
I’ve also learned that this effort may be partly related to the school board’s decision to purchase another headquarters building, but that the new building is legally prevented from accommodating their “Independent Study” program (which is currently housed at the building that they’re planning to sell).
In which case, they’d use a closed-down school for their Independent Study program.
“Patwin parent Colleen Zern, a continuing lecturer at UC Davis in the Graduate School of Management, who regularly teaches elementary managerial accounting courses, said these costs raise questions about needing a new district office that doesn’t have space for DSIS.”
She said: “Seems like we’re getting the rough end of a deal when, when the district is giving up a B Street location. You’re giving up prime real estate “that’s big enough to host DSIS and administrative offices and you’re taking a worse location that can only host administrative offices.”
https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/school-district-buys-8-65m-former-ucd-office-of-research-building/article_2d99ae91-8649-4737-93bf-be7e8ebb2efa.html
In any case, it seems like the district is ALREADY PLANNING to shut down a school to accommodate their Independent Study program, regardless.
I copied and pasted the relevant part to answer the question as to who was involved in the petition.
DSIS will need a new home when the district headquarters move. The HQ building is being sold and a new site is being purchased, but it will likely not have capacity for DSIS. With about 150 students enrolled, it’s a pretty flexible program that could, in my opinion, fit onto any of a number of other campus sites. DSIS has students in all grade levels but they don’t need lab or PE facilities, just a cubicle for each teacher. Each student meets with their teacher once a week, sometimes with a second teacher (eg, math) once a week.
An important purpose of the kind of committee being proposed would be considering optimal sites for these special programs as well as for the magnet programs. There will be a need to adjust school boundaries, and there is a general goal of preserving neighborhood schools if possible. I understand and support the goal of getting public input on all of this, but I do remember how controversial it was to close Valley Oak as well as the proposal to modify South Davis attendance boundaries. I wouldn’t envy anyone serving on that committee.
Who, exactly, is “forcing” the school district to sell its current headquarters (which suits its needs better than the replacement – according to the person who created the petition)?
At this point, I’m almost ready to sign the petition myself. (It’s not limited to Davis residents, by the way – so you could sign it as well.)
The district has been wanting out of that building for a long time. It most definitely doesn’t serve their needs at this point
I’m just noting what the petition-creator herself, said.
And obviously – it currently houses their Independent Study program, which will now need to find a new home – probably at Patwin.
The more I know about this, the less I see the petition stating what you and Don would prefer it to actually say. (Which of course is “support sprawl for schools”.)
How much compensation does that superintendent receive, by the way? The guy who will apparently have a new office? :-) (As I recall, that position has a total compensation package somewhere around $300K annually.)
I support and signed the petition because I agree that public input on this topic is important. I wouldn’t “prefer” it to “say” anything other than what it says. It is not related to the housing proposals at all. I suggest you not misrepresent what I’ve said.
And while we’re at it, how much has the Village Farms developer “contributed” (gifted) to DJUSD?
(This information is also in the Enterprise, as I recall.)
How, exactly, do you spell “c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n”? Did I get it right?
Donations over decades are corruption? Seriously????
Yes – especially if they help support “administrator” salaries (or even teacher salaries). Where else do you think the money goes?
Do you actually not understand that?
Donations don’t pay for salaries
There’s only two or three places that they’d go:
Staff salaries
Facilities
Costs associated with the above
All of which are being funded at a level beyond Davis’ actual needs.
For sure, kids and their parents aren’t getting a “piece of the action” (though that might not be a bad idea).
Schools have strict regulations on what money can be spent where
DSF lists what their monies go towards- https://www.davisschoolsfoundation.org/
What makes you think I don’t know that?
You seem to be responding without disagreeing.
Why not just be straightforward?
Took me all of two seconds to confirm what I already knew, in regard to your link.
Salaries of those employed (or perhaps contracted ) by the school district.
There is no other place for the money to legally go. You can’t pay the uncle of the superintendent for doing nothing, for example.
There is no hiding from the truth here, no matter how much you might try.
Just as there’s no hiding from the truth that new, single-family detached housing is not going to be offered at less than around $825K (today – let alone tomorrow).
Why not just be honest? The school district is too large, administrator compensation is too high, and the developer of Village Farms shouldn’t be making contributions.
Support staff not teachers or administrators
You seem to think that your comment detracts from the overwhelmingly-obvious underlying points.
Though I was still editing my comment when I ran out of time. The last one being that the developer of Village Farms shouldn’t be making contributions that go directly into the pockets of those who are advocating for sprawl.
Of course, I’m not suggesting that this is illegal – instead I’m stating that the fact that this is allowed is c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n.
Which also seems to be related to some of the comments of the person who created the petition (new offices for administrative staff – even if it’s not in the best interests of parents).
“It is not related to the housing proposals at all. I suggest you not misrepresent what I’ve said.”
O.K. – though maybe it’s a coincidence that you (and David) support Village Farms, as well (and David, at least has directly tied this to schools).
And that David has been running articles for years, in support of sprawl for schools.
My bad, as they say?
It’s also kind of interesting, though – that after years of denying that closing down a school saves money (per Vanguard articles), the district is now proposing to close down schools to save money.
Am I hallucinating at this point, regarding all of the Vanguard’s articles citing the school district’s claims? Or am I experiencing early-onset Alzheimer’s regarding this?
The site doesn’t actually state “who” is behind this.
But one thing I did notice is that it doesn’t attempt to draw a direct connection between support for sprawl, vs. closure of any particular school. As such, I might even sign a petition like that if I didn’t know any better.
There are also parents and others, no doubt, who support keeping all schools open, but still wouldn’t vote to approve sprawl. In fact, there was a parent who wrote an article for the Vanguard a few months ago, who was making a similar argument (e.g., there’s more than one way to keep schools from closing).
Still, the system itself is too large for the needs of the city. No one is even arguing against that. (This is also the reason that DJUSD has chosen to poach students from other districts.)
The timing is suspect, however.
What a Developer promises and what is actually delivered is often a disappointment. This project has proposed housing costs of $740K to $1.3million. Those are not numbers for young families to consider a home purchase. Those prices reflect a population of older families with incomes capable of buying, My first home purchase in Davis was a Stanley Davis El Dorado built in the new development in West Davis for $37,125.00. With one infant and another on the way, this was an affordable choice for a young family to begin home ownership. Today, affordable housing is not part of this proposed development.
Trying to sustain school enrollment by building more homes is like chasing rainbows. I taught in the Elk Grove Unified School District for 30 years. In that time, the district added 7 new High Schools, 7 middle schools and a commensurate number of elementary campuses. To sustain that growth, a monumental campaign of affordable development was necessary. As one can imagine the “city “ of Elk Grove and its surrounds is now a typical urban sprawl with no centralized core. In my opinion, the faster Davis grows, the sooner we lose our unique core identity. I suppose we are our own worst enemy by being a desired destination, but with housing priced beyond the means of young families. We can try to build our way out of the school enrollment decline, but we’ll need to be ready look more like Elk Grove than we do today.
“Using the district’s student yield methodology, analysts estimate that the roughly 1,800-unit development could generate about 701 new students, an enrollment increase of more than eight percent compared with the district’s current student population, a level that could help stabilize enrollment and reduce pressure for program cuts or school closures over time. ”
Unfortunately, the district’s study was very poorly and should be disregarded. It conflicts with better nationwide studies that show lower student yields per household and lower yields for the large single family houses being proposed for Village Farms. Building smaller attached housing instead will bring a higher yield of young students that will make the district more sustainable. Village Farms is the wrong answer to the right question.
That said, the district likely will face having to close an elementary school. The best choice is to close the Chavez campus and move the Spanish immersion program to Willett. The Willett service area can more easily split between Patwin and North Davis than forcing Stonegate to commute all the way to Willett. Imagine the traffic jams across 113! Chavez is located on one of the busiest north south arterials–it’s a safety nightmare. Sycamore is much safer.
Spanish Immersion has enough students (500+ if I recall) to fill an elementary school on its own. As a magnet program, it doesn’t make much difference where it is. Students will be coming from all over town.
I also suspect that your suggestion would meet with strong, organized resistance from parent stakeholders. That’s why an advisory committee, IMO, would be a helpful step in this process.
Good points Don. Having community input is a wise course of action.
No matter what school is the one designated for closure there will be resistance; however, the alternative to a closure is to raise taxes, and there will (probably) be even more resistance to that.
Even if Village Farms is approved the annual addition of students from Village Farms will be less than the annual enrollment decline projected by DJUSD’s demographics advisors AND none of those additional students will come until after 5 years from now … perhaps closer to 10 years, so the financial realities of DJUSD is that at least one school closing is inevitable unless the voters approve a tax increase.