This is a bit disingenuous. Many urban districts do have declining enrollment due to charter proliferation, vouchers, open enrollment and the like. Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, New Orleans, etc.
Oakland is in the most expensive metro in the U.S., so core urban areas are unaffordable to working class families, so the number of children has plummeted. Most of the working class families were Latino immigrants (Latino immigration is much lower than a generation ago) or African Americans (AA birthrates have plummeted). Oakland Schools can't do anything about immigration policy or AA baby counts. And they definitely can't do anything about the fact that the Bay Area is the tech center of the planet, generating enormous wealth, jacking up home prices, forcing the working class to the fringe.
Granted, there are some things the district can do on the margins, but these are trends largely out of their control.
I was not quite screaming this from the rooftops last fall in Austin, but it sure felt like it. The writing was on the wall as early as last spring in Texas after the Republican primaries. Vouchers were going to pass. Meanwhile, enrollment in Austin has been on a 10 year decline with a significant number of barely filled, aging campuses. However, in our case the district only has ~60% of students in the area. 60%! The school board last fall was able to get a massive tax rate increase passed to partially cover a $100 million deficit which they blamed solely on inadequate state funding (a partial truth), instead of the massive bond packages to build new school buildings for campuses with almost no students and hiring that hasn’t reflected enrollment declines. And the number of stories I heard from parents who had a terrible experience with the district just trying to enroll their child was downright shameful - everything ranging from archaic computer systems to hostile school staff to no one answering the dedicated enrollment phone number. There has been zero effort to identify why almost half of students aren’t being enrolled in the district even with Texas’ voucher bill almost to Governor Abbott’s desk. And I haven’t even touched on the deep, decades-long disparities in student outcomes. It feels hopeless.
re: your footnote about other strong city examples... New Schools for New Orleans publishes a School Sustainability Analysis each year that is detailed and rigorous. (https://newschoolsforneworleans.org/our-impact/sustainable-schools/enrollment-landscape/ for Feb 2025 version). Over 5+ years, multiple charter operators responded to the enrollment pattern by voluntarily consolidating schools, merging, etc. This has meaningfully increased the "fill rate" of the average school. Fewer empty seats = more resources for instruction and student support. Also, somewhat expectedly, overall enrollment ticked up slightly in 2024-25.
Thanks for your post - informative and well-done, as always.
This is a bit disingenuous. Many urban districts do have declining enrollment due to charter proliferation, vouchers, open enrollment and the like. Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, New Orleans, etc.
Oakland is in the most expensive metro in the U.S., so core urban areas are unaffordable to working class families, so the number of children has plummeted. Most of the working class families were Latino immigrants (Latino immigration is much lower than a generation ago) or African Americans (AA birthrates have plummeted). Oakland Schools can't do anything about immigration policy or AA baby counts. And they definitely can't do anything about the fact that the Bay Area is the tech center of the planet, generating enormous wealth, jacking up home prices, forcing the working class to the fringe.
Granted, there are some things the district can do on the margins, but these are trends largely out of their control.
So true, here is what I wrote about this for NYC https://nypost.com/2024/12/23/opinion/mayor-adams-face-facts-and-start-closing-failed-schools-now/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=pasteboard_app
I was not quite screaming this from the rooftops last fall in Austin, but it sure felt like it. The writing was on the wall as early as last spring in Texas after the Republican primaries. Vouchers were going to pass. Meanwhile, enrollment in Austin has been on a 10 year decline with a significant number of barely filled, aging campuses. However, in our case the district only has ~60% of students in the area. 60%! The school board last fall was able to get a massive tax rate increase passed to partially cover a $100 million deficit which they blamed solely on inadequate state funding (a partial truth), instead of the massive bond packages to build new school buildings for campuses with almost no students and hiring that hasn’t reflected enrollment declines. And the number of stories I heard from parents who had a terrible experience with the district just trying to enroll their child was downright shameful - everything ranging from archaic computer systems to hostile school staff to no one answering the dedicated enrollment phone number. There has been zero effort to identify why almost half of students aren’t being enrolled in the district even with Texas’ voucher bill almost to Governor Abbott’s desk. And I haven’t even touched on the deep, decades-long disparities in student outcomes. It feels hopeless.
re: your footnote about other strong city examples... New Schools for New Orleans publishes a School Sustainability Analysis each year that is detailed and rigorous. (https://newschoolsforneworleans.org/our-impact/sustainable-schools/enrollment-landscape/ for Feb 2025 version). Over 5+ years, multiple charter operators responded to the enrollment pattern by voluntarily consolidating schools, merging, etc. This has meaningfully increased the "fill rate" of the average school. Fewer empty seats = more resources for instruction and student support. Also, somewhat expectedly, overall enrollment ticked up slightly in 2024-25.
Thanks for your post - informative and well-done, as always.
Straightforward, informative, and scary—thank you.