DAVIS, Calif. — A new demographic report prepared for the Davis Joint Unified School District projects a steady decline in student enrollment over the next decade while identifying housing development as a key factor that could alter or even reverse those trends.
The report, prepared by MGT and released April 1, 2026, forecasts that resident student enrollment will decline from approximately 6,944 students in 2025 to about 5,693 by 2035.
The study states its purpose is to “identify and inform the district of the demographic trends occurring within the community, how these trends may affect future student populations, and to assist in illustrating facility adjustments that may be necessary to accommodate the potential student population shifts.”
According to the report, the forecast is based on current data and conditions and is not fixed.
It cautions that “all findings presented in this report are subject to change” due to factors such as “potential population shifts, changes in development plans, fluctuating funding opportunities, and district priorities.”
The report attributes the projected decline to three primary factors. It explains that “there are three primary factors that can directly influence a forecast: birthrates, mobility, and student yield factors,” adding that “if all factors register at a lower level, they suggest a decrease in the district’s population.”
Birth rates are identified as a central driver of long-term enrollment.
The report finds that “increases or decreases in the number of births in the area will translate to increases or decreases in future kindergarten enrollment,” noting that kindergarten classes reflect birth trends from five years prior.
Mobility is also a contributing factor, referring to how students move into and out of the district.
The report explains that “mobility refers to the increases or decreases in the movement of students within and out of the district boundary’s existing housing,” and that it is calculated based on “the movement of students from grade in that geographic area.”
At the same time, the report highlights the importance of housing development in shaping enrollment outcomes.
It notes that “a district can maintain stability or expansion by fostering adequate development to counterbalance the decreasing birth trend.”
The study relies on student yield factors to estimate how many students are generated by new housing.
It states that “the Student Yield Factor (SYF) for Davis Joint Unified School District measures the number of school-aged children residing in housing units built within the last ten years,” and explains that “for every 100 single-family detached homes constructed in the past five years, the district gains approximately 44 school-aged children.”
For other housing types, the report notes lower yields, stating that “for multi-family attached homes, such as townhomes, the district gains about 12 students for every 100 homes built,” and that “in the case of apartments, the SYF indicates a gain of 5 students for every 100 apartments constructed.”
The forecast is based on a residence-driven methodology, which the report says is intended to improve long-term planning.
It explains that “these forecasts are based on where the students reside and where they are assigned to attend school,” adding that “the best way to plan for future student population shifts is to know where the next group of students will be living.”
The report contrasts this with traditional enrollment-based projections, stating that “district-generated forecasts are based on school enrollments” but that this approach “is often inadequate for long-range planning needs” because “the location of the students is not taken into consideration.”
The study also details the role of planned housing in the forecast model.
It finds that “planned residential development data is collected to determine the number of new residential units that will be built over the period of the student population forecasts,” and that this data was gathered from “local municipalities” and “project developers.”
However, the report warns that this information is incomplete and evolving.
It argues that “planned residential development information is subject to changes in the marketplace; therefore, this data should be reevaluated annually.”
The report includes a list of planned and potential developments, including projects such as Village Farms and Willowgrove, which are identified as future developments but are not fully incorporated into the baseline forecast totals .
Because the forecast is based on resident students, the report notes that it excludes certain populations.
It states that “resident students refer to students who reside within the district boundary,” and that the model excludes “non-resident students” and those with incomplete address data.
As of the 2025 school year, the report indicates that the district had 8,241 total students, including 6,946 resident students used in the forecast.
The report notes that its findings are intended to guide long-term planning decisions, noting that “the district-wide summary enables the district to see a broad overview of future population shifts and what effect these shifts may have on existing and future facilities.”
It adds that the forecasts “present the means for identifying the timing of future population shifts and overall facility adjustments needed to accommodate these shifts.”
The study further notes that demographic trends and housing development are closely linked in shaping future enrollment.
It states that “moving forward with the forecast, the Davis Joint Unified School District can anticipate an increase in student enrollment from upcoming residential developments based on the Student Yield Factors (SYF).”
At the same time, the report reiterates that its projections are dependent on current assumptions and available data. It notes that forecasts are based on “data gathered at the time of the study” and are subject to change as conditions evolve .
The report’s findings suggest that future housing production could play a significant role in altering the projected enrollment decline, particularly if development occurs at a scale sufficient to offset declining birth rates and ongoing demographic shifts.
While the baseline forecast incorporates currently identified projects, the report indicates that additional housing beyond what is presently planned could generate more resident students than reflected in the current projections, depending on the type, timing, and location of that development.
The report also underscores that its projections are contingent on existing assumptions and do not fully account for potential policy-driven changes in housing production, including efforts to meet state housing requirements under the RHNA requirements this cycle and next.
If the city advances additional housing consistent with state mandates, particularly projects that produce family-oriented units with higher student yield factors, those developments could further stabilize or increase enrollment beyond the levels currently forecast.
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.
“to assist in illustrating facility adjustments that may be necessary to accommodate the potential student population shifts.”
There’s the solution.
Is it legal for the school district to be seeking and paying for a report on behalf of a self-interested political campaign?
At what point is someone going to prison as a result of this type of thing – especially now that the housing development campaign has officially started?
Just look at the chart – they’re referring to SPECIFIC housing campaigns.
They didn’t. It was just an enrollment projection.
That’s what’s known in the “industry” as b.s., and there’s no way that type of claim would hold up with whatever regulatory agency monitors campaigns.
Someone should be going to prison for this. These are taxpayer dollars being used for a self-interested political campaign.
Who, exactly, is responsible for this? The board? The superintendent?
When was the study launched? Can you provide a link to it?
I’m thinking of complaining myself – my tax dollars are likely being used for this as well.
They are using my money against me.
Did you actually read the report presented to the district last week?
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the report.
The report is a technical planning document whose primary purpose is to forecast where students will live over the next 10 years in order to guide school facility decisions—such as boundary changes, capacity adjustments, or potential school closures—by analyzing demographic trends like birth rates, student mobility, and residential development.
While housing plays a central role as a driver of future student generation within the model, explicit discussion of specific projects like Village Farms is limited, comprising only about 4%–6% of the 49-page report (primarily in the residential development table and alternate forecast scenario), meaning that most of the document focuses on broader demographic methodology and district-wide projections rather than any single development.
From the perspective of this article, I simply amplified that huge policy question
“Someone should be going to prison for this.”
You have made this statement repeatedly. See below.
Board members have a fiduciary responsibility to manage the finances of the district. To that end, they require staff to provide data and guidance about options for dealing with demographic changes.
The suggestion that any of them are committing felonies by doing so is false and borderline defamatory.
“At what point is someone going to prison as a result of this type of thing”
“How is it that the local public school system can engage in self-interested political campaigns, without someone getting thrown into prison?”
“I’d like to know when someone from DJUSD is going to prison”
“I’d like to know when someone from the school district is going to prison”
“Probably just a coincidence that a school board member is married to the guy who owns the Vanguard”
“the “unspoken arrangement” with the Vanguard to advocate on behalf of the district’s “study”, especially given the relationship between the owner of the Vanguard and one of the school board members.”
First of all, what comment are you referring to? I’m not seeing it on here, in regard to some of those quotes.
The suggestion that they’re not using a “study” to engage in a campaign is not believable. They’ve been engaged in a campaign for months, now. This was supposed to end when the “official” development campaign started.
As I recall, one of the board members (using his title) went so far as to list his name as one of the supporters of Village Farms.
You do realize, I assume, that the Vanguard created a problem for itself by “implying” support for candidates.
My opinion is not defamatory. If this isn’t already blatantly illegal, it “should” be.
And I do have a right to complain about it to whatever regulatory agency oversees this, and let them make a decision.
“It notes that “a district can maintain stability or expansion by fostering adequate development to counterbalance the decreasing birth trend.”
Hmmm…?
Also known as “poaching students” from other districts that are also experiencing declining enrollment.
But who cares about them anyway, right?
I am a retired teacher and I am uncomfortable with the District supporting a specific political measure based on projected enrollment. There is no guarantee that the proposed development will bring needed student population but the District is inferring its a fact. the reality of new housing is that price of homes determines who buys them (this is assumed in the District projection that families with children will be buying the new homes). There is no foundation for making this assumption.
Closing schools has always been the District approach to rally voters to support political measures that appear to be the answer. The truth lies deeper with the Developer and that always results in false promises.
Yeah, cause two years after Measure X failed, DJUSD closed Valley Oak Elementary. Now, 20 years after West Davis residents blocked UC access to Russell, where faculty housing was proposed, Patwin Elementary is on the chopping block. If Measure V fails Birch Lane will likely close.
So like it or not attacking the messenger won’t change the reality.
Assuming that MGT did the same schlock job that they did on the first enrollment projection report, this is likely badly done. (Because there’s no link in this article to the report I have to rely on David’s description. A link to a relevant source should always be included in these articles so we don’t have to hunt through poorly designed websites.)
The most important missing aspect is a full exploration of the housing economics of proposed developments. MGT is missing a competent housing economist which is an absolute necessity for this type of report. Demographers have a limited range of expertise.
For example looking at Menlo-Atherton High School in the Sequoia School District, no one would be foolish enough to assert that the same number of students come each household in Atherton, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. We know that the number of students goes down at household wealth increases. A competent study would incorporate this fact. The MGT study fails to do so.
“We know that the number of students goes down at household wealth increases.”
That’s probably the REASON that wealth increases (with the exception of someone like Elon Musk and however many kids he has).
Turns out that even the massive tax breaks/subsidies (in various forms) that those without kids provide to those who do aren’t enough to overcome the discrepancy.
“At the same time, the report highlights the importance of housing development in shaping enrollment outcomes. It notes that “a district can maintain stability or expansion by fostering adequate development to counterbalance the decreasing birth trend.””
Since when should an enrollment projection consultant be advocating for a school district to participate in local housing development decisions? This is malpractice.
The student yield factors are a farce because most of the “multi-family” housing built in the last decade has been in fact “college student” housing. That MGT is so lacking local knowledge that it can’t make this distinction is a travesty of analysis. The school board should fire MGT and find a more competent firm.
“Since when should an enrollment projection consultant be advocating for a school district to participate in local housing development decisions? This is malpractice.”
Since the time that the school district decided to engage in self-interested political campaigns. I’d look at “who” is hiring them in regard to the advocacy you describe, rather than the contractor. The contractor just does what the hiring agency wants them to do.
“The school board should fire MGT and find a more competent firm.”
That seems to be a rather naive suggestion. In fact, it sounds like MGT was extremely competent in regard to the reason that the district hired them.