Dear Neighbor,
We are Davis teachers, and we are lucky to teach in this wonderful community. But our schools are in trouble. Every year, we have fewer and fewer new students. It’s gotten to the point that unless something changes, we will struggle to sustain the quality schools that Davis expects and deserves.
Because of declining enrollment, the Davis Joint Unified School District announced potential plans to close two elementary schools and possibly a junior high school.
Make no mistake — the ripple effects of school closures would be felt across our town, and not just by families with students. Deep-rooted school communities would be dissolved, surrounding neighborhoods would become less desirable, biking to school would become harder, car traffic would increase, teachers would be let go, and the list goes on.
Those of us who teach at these threatened schools face a simple question from our students: why is this happening? The answer is clear — Davis has not done enough in recent years to make it possible for young families to move here.
This is why we are supporting Measure V on the June ballot.
Many of our fellow teachers drive to work in Davis from other communities with more affordable homes. It’s not just teachers though — a huge portion of our school district staff and the UC Davis community live outside of Davis and drive here to do their jobs. That’s not right. People should be able to live in the community they serve.
We’ve heard people say that we shouldn’t build houses just to keep our schools open. We agree. But declining school enrollment is just one symptom of a much larger problem in Davis.
It’s not just our schools that are hurting. Small businesses across town could use a boost, and we struggle to adequately maintain our roads and parks. It all points to one thing — the future of Davis will be brighter if we can help a new generation join our community.
Now we have a chance to take a simple step in the right direction. Please join us teachers and vote Yes on Measure V to support our schools and ensure a vibrant future for Davis.
Sincerely,
Brooke Agee
5th Grade Teacher
Patwin Elementary
Juli Chang
2nd Grade Teacher
Pioneer Elementary
Rachel McLemore
Kindergarten Teacher
Cesar Chavez Elementary
Lill Beechinor
2nd/3rd Grade Teacher
Fairfield Elementary
Joshua Crowell
4th Grade Teacher
Birch Lane Elementary
Jed Miille
3rd Grade Teacher
Willett Elementary
Julie Stephens Bistolfo
Music Teacher
Marguerite Montgomery Elementary
Cate Dayan
Kindergarten/First grade teacher
Fairfield Elementary School
Beth Ochsner
4th Grade Teacher
Pioneer Elementary
Elise Brewin
6th Grade Teacher
North Davis Elementary
Hayley Kercher
Special Education Preschool Teacher
Early Learning Center at Korematsu
Darren Wong
Teacher
Davis School for Independent Study
P.S. We have included a recent news clip on the issues facing our Davis schools.
November 12, 2025
Davis schools weigh closures as enrollment drops, district says
Falling birth rates and high housing costs are driving steep enrollment declines in Davis, pushing district leaders to consider school closures and broader redesign.
DAVIS, Calif — The Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) is facing tough choices as declining enrollment forces leaders to consider closing schools or restructuring the district.
District data show kindergarten enrollment has dropped sharply, with officials reporting an unexpected loss of about 88 students last year. They attribute the decline in part due to falling birth rates and Davis’ high housing costs.
“Housing affordability and availability are real challenges,” said Davis Joint Unified School District Chief Strategy Officer Maria Clayton. “If there were more houses, we know that there would be more kids.”
According to district projections, DJUSD could lose about 1,000 students over the next decade, in addition to a 300-student decline since 2019.
Because state funding is tied to enrollment, fewer students will mean less revenue and the need to explore consolidating campuses…
Disclaimer: Opinions are those of the writer and do not reflect those of The Vanguard or its Editorial Staff. The Vanguard does not endorse political candidates and is committed to publishing all public opinions and maintaining an open forum subject to guidelines related to decency and tone, not content.
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 is not just a Davis thing, California is seeing a loss of nearly 75,000 students in 2025-2026. In the last decade CA has lost 500,000 K-12 students. The recent drop was more than seven times higher than initial Department of Finance projections. Another problem for public schools is families are increasingly exploring charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling in part because of CA public school policies regarding social issues. Davis is not an island, it needs to face the facts and downsize its school system.
You’re ignoring the fact that while Davis is not an island, housing and schools are addressed at the local. The state is requiring Davis to build 2100 units of housing in this cycle including 930 units of low income housing. If Davis meets those requirements it will greatly ameliorate the local enrollment problem
The state does not require cities to “build” anything.
They do require fake plans which are failing statewide, and which have absolutely nothing to do with schools.
We’ve been over this somewhere between 30-50 times by now, I suspect.
And you still don’t know the law. If Davis builds to its RHNA numbers, the enrollment decline will abate. If the state builds to its RHNA numbers, the statewide decline will abate as well.
Both of us know the law. You’re making false claims regarding the law, and you know it.
The state is NOT “building to its RHNA numbers”, as noted by California YIMBY themselves.
But regardless of the actual situation, you’re claiming that building more housing will either result in young people having more unprotected sex, OR the state will start poaching students from other states in order to “fill” the housing.
Both of those claims are delusional – and are an environmentally, socially, and fiscally irresponsible “goal” in the first place – especially in a country with a 1.6 kid birthrate.
You already know what “off target” (and/or “out of compliance” means.)
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
“If the state builds to its RHNA numbers, the statewide decline will abate as well.”
Where are all these people going to come from?
“Where are all these people going to come from?”
Davis, being a university community, attracts lots of younger adults who would appreciate the opportunity to live here, if possible. It is a very common story among Davisites that they came to go to the university and stuck around to live here afterward.
Can they can afford $700,000+ homes?
“Can they can afford $700,000+ homes?”
They can get those now (e.g., a Stanley Davis house). At that price – in reasonable condition, in a better location, with better construction/materials, garages, yards, mature landscaping, streets that are wide-enough to actually accommodate traffic, etc. In other words, everything that families seek.
But the price difference (a couple hundred thousand or so) is the reason that young families in particular (who move to the area) generally seek out DJUSD’s “other” home district – Spring Lake (if they want a new house).
I suspect that part of the reason that those without much equity seek out new housing is because it might be easier to get a loan, through a builder’s connection.
But DJUSD also knows that WJUSD’s “normal” boundaries are expected to experience a decline in enrollment as well, since families don’t immediately move out of their houses when their kids age-out of the system.
So despite the ongoing construction in Spring Lake (and the 1,600 housing units to come at the technology park), the bottom line is that DJUSD is running out of poaching opportunities from other districts.
One thing I don’t understand is why anyone is moving to this immediate area in the first place, since UCD is not increasing the total number of employees at its main campus. And from what I’ve seen from other commenters (who apparently know what’s occurring at UCD), they may even have plans to reduce the total number of their employees at the main campus.
But as far as Hiram’s comment is concerned, good luck to anyone fresh out of college (loaded with student debt to boot) in regard to immediately purchasing a house ANYWHERE upon graduation – unless perhaps Mom and Dad help them do so.
All Davis needs to do is build to RHNA
Tell that to the entire state (see link below, again). But again, school enrollment is unrelated to the state’s goal in the first place. You and some of those associated with the school district are the ones trying to “connect” those issues.
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
Think about it – even places like Bakersfield and Barstow are “out of compliance”. Do you suppose the school districts in places like that there are engaging in a “sprawl for schools” campaign, as well? While complaining about affordability, regulations, NIMBYs, etc., in Bakersfield and Barstow? Trying to keep others out of “paradise”, there?
I’ve heard that you can get a particularly good deal around the Salton Sea (not far from Barstow). Plus, it’s an easy drive to that other vacation paradise – Mexico, from there.
I don’t need to. Davis can alleviate its problems by building to RHNA.
You mean that DJUSD can alleviate its problems – not Davis itself. Davis doesn’t have one, other than the YIMBY Vanguard and the self-interested school district. (Or at least, Davis doesn’t have a problem that every other city in the state also has. Which ultimately means that it’s the STATE which has the problem, when no one is following their “requirements”.)
Most cities (including Davis) already have an approved, fake housing element. Davis’ fake housing element doesn’t even include Village Farms or Willowgrove, as you already know.
If you or others have a problem with Davis’ fake housing element (in particular – compared to all of the other cities which also have a fake housing element), tell the state to decertify it. Or go ahead and threaten Measure J some more (your related, favorite pastime). “The boy who repeatedly/endlessly cried Measure J”, as it were.
But as others have noted on here, it’s not likely that Village Farms, for example, will make a difference regarding DJUSD’s problems (due to the timeframe required to actually build something like that out).
“You mean that DJUSD can alleviate its problems – not Davis itself.”
I do not
Mountain House, California’s newest city, has built 7000 new homes and five new schools in recent years. If you build homes the children will come. If you don’t build homes the children won’t come. That is why Davis schools are in decline because we haven’t built much housing for families since Measure J passed in 2000.
Hmm. Last time I checked, Davis has quite a few houses, with quite a few for sale at any given time -at a price point less than any comparable new house. Did they pass some kind of law outlawing kids in existing housing?
I have an idea, though: The school/housing lunatics should get the state to pass some kind of law “requiring” everyone to move every 12 years, to ensure that there’s sufficient turnover for school districts. (Needless to say, this would also necessitate a related law, stating that you have to leave the state entirely at the end of “your” 12 years, if you’ve aged-out of having kids.)
As a retired teacher, I supported multiple bond measures to improve our schools. I do not believe that Measure V is a ballot measure I could support because it does not give DJUSD immediate needed funding. The prospective date of completion is 2030 and by then DJUSD may have closed schools due to lack of enrollment. Bond measures support schools immediately and if Davis teachers wanted to support an issue, they should push for a bond measure now.
Bond measure is for facilities, this would need to be a parcel tax.
We would need both bonds and parcel taxes, schools need upkeep to remain open and funding for classified and certificated employees.
They passed a bond measure a few years ago
Or DJUSD can downsize or “rightsize” as the case may be in order to serve the actual student demographics of Davis.
Right sizing usually hits classified first and site maintenance (some Davis Schools did not even have A/C), admin positions almost never. Closing school sites becomes a parent issue about neighborhood schools, need to address that issue first. Real Estate sales adds often boast close to schools as a selling point. Many Davis Schools were built as neighborhood ones but student populations there have diminished. The logical solution is to close underpopulated schools but parent pressure makes that very difficult. It also requires letting teachers go. Who complains the loudest usually is the determining factor on school closures.
I agree with what you said here but at some point someone has to be the adult in the room and do what’s called for, rightsizing the school system to fit the city.
You keep saying that while ignoring all the problems with that approach. You really think the city is going to reject two Measure J projects this year, be able to ignore the RHNA numbers this cycle and next? The most likely Governor folks – Becerra, Steyer and Hilton are not going to drastically change course on housing – if anything they might go harder. So where are you coming up with this idea?
“You really think the city is going to reject two Measure J projects this year, be able to ignore the RHNA numbers this cycle and next?”
Yes regarding your first question, though I haven’t seen anyone step up to dispatch Willowgrove so far. So I’m actually more worried about that one (which by every reasonable definition, comprises “sprawl”).
No – cities (including Davis) aren’t going to be able to “ignore” them, but they will continue to put forth fake plans. At some point, the state is going to have to publicly acknowledge that they’ve failed since their “requirements” aren’t realistic (though it’s already pretty obvious).
There is no housing “shortage”. There is a lack of “cheap” housing in some places (such as within 50 miles of Silicon valley/San Francisco). Though I’ve read that Oakland housing prices in particular are essentially crashing. (Gee, I wonder why that is. :-)