Davis Faces a School Enrollment Crisis Rooted in Housing, Demographics and Hard Fiscal Math
DAVIS, Calif. — Davis Joint Unified School District faces a long-term enrollment decline that is no longer hypothetical, and the implications now extend beyond spreadsheets and projections to the likely closure of schools, reductions in programming and a broader reckoning over whether the city has built enough housing for families.
The district’s latest demographic report, prepared by MGT and released April 1, 2026, projects resident student enrollment will fall from about 6,944 students in 2025 to about 5,693 by 2035.
The report says the forecast is shaped by three major factors: birth rates, mobility and student yield factors. It also warns that the findings are subject to change based on population shifts, development plans, funding opportunities and district priorities.
That projection follows years of concern inside the district and across the community. Superintendent Matt Best has described the problem as both immediate and structural, saying the connection between schools and housing is no longer abstract.
“This is a matter of will,” Best told the Vanguard in a 2025 interview. “We’re not here to advocate for a particular project or type of housing, but we are here to make the consequences of inaction clear. The connection between housing and schools isn’t just abstract—it’s immediate, it’s financial, and it’s human.”
The core problem is that Davis has fewer children entering the system and too few families moving into the community to offset that decline. Birth rates in Davis have fallen sharply, from more than 600 in 2003 to 346 in 2023, while kindergarten classes have thinned and enrollment losses are expected to echo upward through the grades over the next decade.
“The pipeline has slowed,” Best said. “And without new housing to attract young families, we’re heading into a prolonged decline.”
The district has already relied heavily on students who do not live within district boundaries. More than 1,200 students, nearly 15 percent of DJUSD enrollment, come from outside the district, many of them children of UC Davis staff and other local employees who work in Davis but cannot afford to live in the city.
That workaround has limits. A school district cannot indefinitely stabilize itself by importing students from workers who have been priced out of the community. Nor can it assume that interdistrict transfers will permanently offset the demographic consequences of a city that has not produced enough housing for families.
The MGT report says housing development directly affects enrollment outcomes, noting that “a district can maintain stability or expansion by fostering adequate development to counterbalance the decreasing birth trend.”
The report also says that for every 100 single-family detached homes built in the past five years, DJUSD gains about 44 school-aged children.
For every 100 multifamily attached homes, such as townhomes, the district gains about 12 students, while apartments generate about five students per 100 units.
Not every housing unit produces students equally; outcomes depend on the type, location, affordability and timing of the development.
Detached homes, townhomes and ownership-oriented family housing tend to produce more students than student apartments or age-restricted housing, while affordable family housing may produce higher yields.
Davis has failed to keep pace with that need.
Since 2005, the city has added only about 805 single-family homes, while much of the multifamily housing built during that period was designed for UC Davis students rather than families. Those projects helped relieve pressure in the student rental market, but they did not substantially replenish the family base that supports the public school system.
The result is a city that appears young due to its large university population, while lacking sufficient households in the family-forming years.
Vanguard analysis has previously described this as a hollowing out of the middle of the community: students cycle through, older homeowners remain, and the households most likely to have children in local schools are squeezed out by price and scarcity.
There are serious fiscal consequences—and despite popular belief, they will not be solved through closing a school or two.
The problem lies in how districts obtain revenue from the state.
DJUSD is funded through average daily attendance, meaning every lost student reduces revenue. Best said each lost student represents roughly $12,000 in annual revenue, and the district has already cut $7.5 million over four years in response to enrollment losses. With the district expecting to lose about 100 students a year, those losses could double in the years ahead.
School closures are now part of the discussion. District officials have warned that if neither Village Farms nor Willowgrove moves forward, at least two schools could close by 2027-28. If one project moves forward, that number could be reduced to one.
But closing schools is not a solution to declining enrollment, rather it is a fiscal response to a smaller system, not a strategy for rebuilding the student base, as Best made clear.
“You don’t save a dollar for every dollar of enrollment loss,” he said. “You might save 60 cents—and only after years of contraction.”
That gap exists in part because school districts have fixed costs. They still need administrators, maintenance, utilities, transportation, safety staff, nurses and other basic operations even as enrollment drops.
When students disappear gradually across campuses, grades and programs, districts cannot neatly eliminate costs in the same proportion.
“Chasing enrollment loss year after year just puts us in a perpetual cutting cycle,” Best said. “You don’t stabilize—you bleed.”
That is why school closures, while possibly unavoidable, function as a band-aid.
Closing a campus may reduce operating costs, but it does not produce new students. It may also create boundary conflicts, disrupt families, force program consolidation and damage neighborhood identity.
The district may save money while still losing revenue year after year if the underlying enrollment decline continues.
Best has also warned against acting too quickly if housing decisions remain unresolved.
“That’s the last thing we want to do,” Best said. “Especially if we close a school and then 18 months later a housing project is approved and we have to reopen it again.”
The consequences of declining enrollment go beyond facilities.
When districts shrink, they often cut the programs that make schools attractive in the first place: arts, athletics, electives, counseling and enrichment. T
hose reductions can make the district less attractive to families, creating a feedback loop in which fewer students lead to fewer offerings, which then makes it harder to attract or retain families.
That is why the question facing Davis is larger than whether to close a school.
The real question is whether the community is willing to align its housing decisions with the future it says it wants for its schools.
Village Farms and Willowgrove are central to that debate.
Prior analyses using district yield assumptions estimated Village Farms could generate roughly 700 students when fully built out, while Willowgrove could also add several hundred students depending on final unit mix, pricing, occupancy and phasing. Together, the projects have been described as potentially adding up to 1,000 students over time.
Those students wouldn’t show up all at once—housing builds out over time, families move in gradually and the demographic impact takes years, but the numbers are large enough to shape the long-term trend, especially compared to relying on declining birth rates, transfers and ongoing cuts.
Should Davis build housing to save the schools?
That question is ultimately in the hands of voters, particularly because Davis voters retain decisive control over peripheral growth decisions.
The argument for housing should not be reduced solely to saving DJUSD, but schools are a major public good. Strong schools support neighborhoods, property values, civic life, youth programs and the broader identity of Davis.
At the same time, there are reasons beyond schools to build housing.
Davis faces state housing demands, including RHNA obligations.
The city must plan for housing not only for students but for teachers, nurses, public employees, young professionals, working families and adult children who grew up in Davis and want to return.
If Davis rejects major family-oriented housing, it should do so with the understanding that school enrollment and district finances will likely remain under pressure. If the community wants strong schools, generational continuity and a more balanced population, it must also answer where future families are supposed to live.
Best framed the issue as one of public notice and accountability.
“What we hear over and over again is, ‘We didn’t know. No one told us that voting down a housing project would impact schools,’” Best said. “Well, now we’re telling you. Loudly.”
The district cannot build housing. It can adjust boundaries, consolidate campuses, reduce programs, pursue workforce housing and plan for declining enrollment. But it cannot, on its own, reverse the demographic conditions that are shrinking its student base.
“You can’t program your way out of a housing shortage,” Best said.
Summary: Davis faces declining enrollment; the decline is tied to the city’s failure to produce enough family-oriented housing; school closures are increasingly likely; closures may reduce costs but will not stop the demographic bleeding; declining enrollment weakens schools by reducing revenue, programs and stability; and the broader community must decide whether housing growth is part of preserving the institutions that have long defined Davis.
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.
“We’re not here to advocate for a particular project or type of housing, . . .
Followed by this:
“No one told us that voting down a housing project would impact schools,’” Best said. “Well, now we’re telling you. Loudly.”
Seems to me that this is a de facto illegal campaign, on behalf of a developer that has gifted some $500K to the district over the years.
“But closing schools is not a solution to declining enrollment, rather it is a fiscal response to a smaller system, not a strategy for rebuilding the student base, as Best made clear.”
Why is the assumption that “rebuilding the student base” SHOULD be a strategy?
Housing doesn’t “create” students. Those students would simply be siphoned-away from other districts.
“You can’t program your way out of a housing shortage,” Best said.”
Was he smiling when he said that?
“Housing doesn’t “create” students. Those students would simply be siphoned-away from other districts.”
Exactly, with the low birth rate and loss of immigrants any incoming students to Davis will hurt other school district’s student enrollment. So even if Davis can somehow increase its student enrollment it’s just passing the problem to somewhere else. Face the facts, the DJUSD needs to downsize.
The claim that housing “doesn’t create students” might be true in a very technical sense but actually sidesteps the more important issue.
No one would argue that building homes somehow produces children out of thin air.
The real issue is whether housing affects who can afford to live in a place and raise a family there. Perhaps more importantly, there’s a growing body of research showing that high housing costs delay family formation, reduce birth rates and push younger households out. So while housing doesn’t directly create students, it absolutely shapes whether future students show up locally at all.
Second, the idea that any new students in Davis would simply be “siphoned” from other districts also doesn’t hold up. That assumes a fixed pool of families being evenly redistributed, but that’s not what’s happening in California right now. Birth rates are down, costs are up and families are being pushed out of high-cost areas altogether and sometimes even out of state.
When housing is limited in a place like Davis, families don’t just neatly relocate from one district to another—they often end up farther out or leave the region entirely. It also ignores the fact that many people are working at UC Davis or DJUSD, sending their kids to DJUSD, and living elsewhere due to lack of housing or high costs of existing housing.
There’s also a bigger policy issue with the “siphoning” argument.
Under state law, every city is required to plan for more housing. This isn’t a situation where Davis builds and everyone else stands still. If every community refused to build on the grounds that it might pull residents from somewhere else, you’d end up with even less housing statewide—which is exactly the problem California is trying to fix.
The issue isn’t competition over a fixed number of families, it’s a shortage across the board.
Finally, saying the district should just downsize treats the symptom, not the cause. I address this problem directly in the article and several here refuse to acknowledge the problem.
Downsizing might help balance a budget in the short term, but it doesn’t address why enrollment is declining in the first place. It also ignores the fact that downsized doesn’t stop the problem – it just kicks the problem down the road.
Housing plays a big role in shaping who lives in a community over time. The better way to look at this isn’t whether housing “creates” students, but whether the lack of housing is contributing to the long-term erosion of the student population.
I argue that it is and that we should be having a community discussion to determine the best way to address this. Part of that discussion will be the upcoming vote but we also need to understand that some of this is out of the hands of the local community.
“Second, the idea that any new students in Davis would simply be “siphoned” from other districts also doesn’t hold up. That assumes a fixed pool of families being evenly redistributed, but that’s not what’s happening in California right now. Birth rates are down, costs are up and families are being pushed out of high-cost areas altogether and sometimes even out of state.”
So again, the fact that you already acknowledged (that housing doesn’t create people) shows that your statement above is not correct. Those students are simply siphoned-away from somewhere else.
1.6 kids per couple NATIONWIDE.
“It also ignores the fact that downsized doesn’t stop the problem – it just kicks the problem down the road.”
There isn’t a problem. Or more accurately, there isn’t a problem that has any impact whatsoever on the vast majority of residents. Unlike a sprawling development or two, which WOULD create problems for EVERY resident (regarding traffic, loss of scenic farmland, etc.).
There’s also another issue that you’re not addressing, here. The superintendent himself previously noted that even if both proposals are approved (which seems exceedingly unlikely), there may be some “redistricting” needed to shuffle-around the population of the existing student body. Meaning that “Johnny” may not be attending the school down the street, anyway.
For the most part I agree with David’s 8:14am comment. But I do feel his comment lacks nuance. It treats housing as a monolith … one flavor fits all.
What is needed is a targeted approach because Davis needs housing, but not every form of housing. The reasons for that are:
(A) — Davis has a substantial shortage of workforce housing designed and built to be affordable for members of the Davis workforce of modest financial means and modest annual salary and benefits … workers like DTA members, whose starting salary at DJUSD ranges from $49,930 to $61,570 per year (see https://www.teacher.org/school-district/davis-joint-unified-school-district/)
(B) — Davis has systematically excluded the members of the local workforce from ownership and owner occupancy by only building expensive homes … building no market-priced single-family homes small enough to be affordably priced. In our opinion, the exclusion borders on discrimination.
(C) — the exclusion described in (B) also applies to young families with children, most notably when those small families have modest financial resources.
(D) — Davis has a surplus of housing only affordable by wealthy folks who are more often than not empty nesters, without children who will be going to DJUSD schools.
(E) — Annual Housing Costs in Davis are very high. According to HUD, annual housing costs should be no more than 30% of total annual household income. In Village Farms a $740,000 home with a 20% cash down payment and a 6.0% mortgage has a total of over $6,000 of housing costs per month … over $75,000 per year … requiring an annual household income greater than $250,000. Ask your members how many of them have a household anywhere close to $250,000.
In conclusion:
Looking at the problem with a bit more nuance results in the formulation of a targeted approach rather than a shotgun approach, with housing designed with the modest size and modest pricing that matches the modest financial resources of young families with children and the members of the Davis workforce.
Matt: The problem with your argument (which is similar to those put forth by Tim Keller and Richard McCann) is that families aren’t going to spend $500,000 to live in an attached “condo” in Davis, when they can buy an entire house for that amount in Woodland – while still sending their kids to Davis schools. (And without paying DJUSD parcel taxes.)
And if they buy a “pre-owned” housing in EITHER city, there’s a pretty good chance it won’t have any (or very little) Mello Roos. While paying a lot less for it in the first place.
But the bigger problem here is the assumption that a school district should be attempting to dictate planning for the city, especially when it comes to highly-irresponsible advocacy (continued sprawl).
If what you and those other two guys advocate is actually built, it’s not going to be occupied by “families”. (My guess is that it would primarily be occupied by UCD students, one way or another.)
Then again, I also don’t know why some people are purposefully “seeking out” poor people, to live in Davis. Perhaps it’s some kind of skewed “social justice” goal. But doing so doesn’t bode well for city finances (and I understood that to be an ACTUAL concern these days). I’m not sure that Affordable housing, for example, is even subject to property taxes, Mello Roos, DJUSD or other parcel taxes, etc.).
Ron, you are treating all individuals as a monolith. As you know, just from the differences between thee and me, that is not the case.
Numerically, we have at least 16,000 folks who commute to jobs either within the City Limits or on the UCD Davis campus. If your premise is 90% true, which makes it a powerful premise indeed, that still leaves 1,600 individual employees for whom it is not true.
I’m not sure we’re talking about the same premise.
I’m talking about people moving TO Davis that aren’t already living nearby. In other words, coming from somewhere else entirely. (I’m not sure why anyone would do so these days, since I’ve heard that UCD is actually planning to decrease the number of its staff members on the main campus.)
The people living in (for example) Spring Lake aren’t going to sell their houses to move to Davis. If they wanted to do so, there’s nothing stopping them from doing so right now. And there was nothing stopping them from doing so even before they bought a place in Spring Lake.
The price differential will remain, regardless. They will still get more for their money (by far) in places like Spring Lake.
If housing prices actually dropped in Davis as a result of new development, they would also drop in Woodland since they’re competing for the same “customers”.
As you know, there’s also a significant number of people from Davis commuting to places like Sacramento, as well. And many households have more than one worker – who often don’t work at the same locale.
I maintain that there’s no problem to be solved, much less a solution to a non-existent problem. Now, if Davis could control what occurs in Woodland and other nearby locales, maybe things would be different. But they can’t.
My fifth comment.
Ron, again you are trying to make monolithic/universal something that is not.
It really doesn’t matter at all where the potential Davis “modest home” buyer is coming from in order to be one of the current 16,000 (already employed here) daily inbound commuters, or one of the many future inbound commuters, there not going to be 100 percent of those thousands who are going to opt for your model. Some will opt for the added value of having their child(ren) go to school each day with fellow neighbor children, etc.
With that said, the cohort you are talking about may indeed have a larger percentage that opt for your logic, but that larger percentage will still fall shy of 100%.
Further, in positing your SpringLake example, you make two assumptions that I don’t believe are correct. (1) you appear to be assuming that all the 16,000 live in SpringLake, and (2) you appear to be assuming that none of the 16,000 are renters.
David Greenwald said … That projection follows years of concern inside the district and across the community. Superintendent Matt Best has described the problem as both immediate and structural, saying the connection between schools and housing is no longer abstract.
Back in 2007 the School Board asked me to serve on the Nugget Fields 7-11 Planning Committee they were forming to decide what to do with the DJUSD-owned Nugget Fields … essentially weighing whether to sell it to a housing developer or continue having it as a sports field.
I still have the educational materials they provided us with to inform our decision. In those materials was a just completed 2007 report from DJUSD’s demographer that clearly … in terms and graphics that were anything but abstract … showed the very same enrollment decline/deterioration that we are facing now.
What did the School Board do with that non-abstract information in the 19 years between 2007 and 2026?
There is another issue that some seem to want to avoid (or mislead).
Anyone working at UCD does NOT have an “automatic right” to attend DJUSD. They have to apply as an “Interdistrict Transfer” student, and gain approval from BOTH school districts (their actual home district, and DJUSD).
Part of that approval process also includes a determination regarding whether or not DJUSD has available space for these interdistrict transfers. (And as soon as DJUSD closes down a school or two, they will, in fact, have “less space”.)
https://www.djusd.net/DJUSD_Enrollment/interdistrict_transfers
This fact does not bode well for those who claim that parents of Interdistrict transfer students are “driving their kids across town” to school, on their way to or back from UCD.
Shut down a school or two, and this is yet another imaginary problem/claim that would be solved.
Needless to say, there would also be fewer non-resident DJUSD employees commuting to the actual city of Davis in this scenario.
While I like Matt Best and I know him personally, he’s a school superintendent and not a housing policy and community development director. Voting down Village Farms and Willowgrove now and forcing them to go back to redesign in compliance with the upcoming General Plan Update is not going to be the end of the road for maintaining school enrollment. We can defer these projects by two years (or even less with higher density) and still meet targets. We’ll also get a higher and longer enrollment burst by building houses that are more affordable to younger families than what these two developments are proposing.