Olympia School District work session focuses on falling enrollment, staffing and proposed cuts

The Olympia School District Board of Directors met in a May 2025 work session to review next year’s budget assumptions, enrollment projections and staffing allocations, and to hear administration proposals for district‑office reductions intended to meet the board’s minimum ending fund balance policy.

District leaders told the board the chief driver of revenue is enrollment and that the district’s annual‑average full‑time‑equivalent (FTE) student count fell from a 2020 high watermark of 9,666 FTE to about 8,967 in 2024, a decline of roughly 699 FTE; the district saw a modest increase of about 40 students last year. Executive Director Davis said the district uses multi‑year “survival ratio” (grade‑to‑grade) models and multiple scenarios—one‑ to five‑year averages—plus local development data when projecting fall enrollment.

Why it matters: Olympia bases staffing and revenues on projected annual‑average FTE. Smaller incoming kindergarten cohorts, uneven grade cohorts and continuing uncertainty about state and federal funding could force staffing reductions, program changes or higher contingency targets that would affect principals, family liaisons, librarians and classroom staffing.

Key figures and assumptions - Annual‑average FTE: high watermark 2020 = 9,666; 2024 = 8,967 (≈699 FTE decline). - Kindergarten and birth‑rate data: 2024–25 kindergarten average = 521.2; five‑year prior births (2019) = 585, implying an approximate 89–90% “capture” rate from births to kindergarten enrollment, per the district’s Department of Health data pull. - Example site impacts: McLean Elementary saw a local multifamily project called “The Landing” (62 units) generate “over 30” students; a Harrison Avenue subdivision under construction (70 single‑family homes) was estimated by district planners to yield about 17.12 elementary‑age children when complete. - District elementary FTE referenced in the presentation: 3,623.4 (used in example staffing calculations).

Staffing formulas and equity supports Superintendent Murphy told the board, “The singular biggest driver to the funding in all school districts is enrollment.” The administration presented a set of staffing ratios (principals, certificated teachers, classified hours, counselors, librarians, family liaisons) the district uses to translate projected FTE into personnel allocations. Some allocations reflect state funding (“prototypical”) thresholds; others reflect local policy, bargaining history and levy‑funded supplements.

Executive Director Davis explained the district frequently rounds allocations and uses a mix of inelastic (one principal regardless of small enrollment) and elastic (teacher counts that scale with students) rules. The administration said it has used levy proceeds historically to fund positions beyond what state allocations cover but that rising compensation costs make that practice harder to sustain.

Board concerns and staff proposals Board members pressed for greater transparency and for an “ideal” staffing model to serve as a north star for future budget and legislative advocacy. Directors asked for clearer documentation of the allocation model (how poverty concentration, special‑education density, multilingual learner counts and other factors affect principals, assistant principals, family liaisons and office support).

Administrators proposed a near‑term package of reductions and realignments the draft budget will reflect: reducing district‑office staffing, reducing an executive director position in teaching and learning, reclassifying a director in student support, shifting some technology responsibilities into teaching and learning, and other cabinet changes that the district estimates could save roughly $500,000. The administration also said aligning elementary administrative and support staffing strictly to state‑funded equivalents (rather than current local supplements) would have reduced district costs by roughly $1.7 million in the prior year’s example, though that is framed as a hypothetical comparison rather than a recommended immediate action.

Contingency, timeline and process Administrators said next steps include bringing a first reading of the 2025–26 budget at the board’s scheduled meeting next week (first reading), final public hearings in June, submission of the budget to OSPI by July 10 (and the formal budget by August 31), and final staffing assignments in May. The administration proposed maintaining two fall contingencies (elementary and secondary reserve for early‑fall enrollment variance) as in prior years and noted those contingencies have been reduced in recent budgets.

Equity and family supports Several directors emphasized preserving family liaisons and other student‑support staff. “Family liaisons are extremely important,” Director Hoffman said during the meeting, adding that reductions in family‑facing staff typically shift burdens to principals and other certificated staff. The administration reminded the board that family‑liaison hours are funded through multiple streams (Title I, state learning assistance, McKinney‑Vento, local levy supplements) and that one family liaison is generated only after several thousand students under the district’s allocation metrics (the presentation cited roughly 4,338 students to fund one full‑time family liaison at the state equated rate; the district has chosen a richer local allocation since COVID).

Revenue considerations Board members discussed levy use and the risk that levies increasingly will be consumed to maintain compensation rather than to add programmatic staff. Administrators noted continued uncertainty from state legislative outcomes and any federal changes (including potential Medicaid changes) that affect district reimbursements. The district said it plans to continue recruiting out‑of‑district students and to pursue modest fee review and other revenue measures, while cautioning that significant new state revenue is not guaranteed.

Board direction No formal votes were held at the work session. The administration will return with the first reading of a budget next week that meets the board’s policy minimum ending fund balance (at least 3%). The board asked for additional materials before final votes: a clear, itemized staffing allocation model that maps state prototypical funding to the district’s current model; a one‑page summary of levy expenditures and trends; an explanation of contingency levels and historical practice; and documentation of assumptions used for enrollment projections (including development permit inputs for sites such as McLean).

What’s next The administration will post the budget documents and allocation tables online ahead of first reading. Directors signaled willingness to pursue a multi‑year plan to raise the ending fund balance and asked administration to develop an “ideal” staffing north star (instructional and support caseload ratios) that could guide future legislative priorities and local decisions.

Ending Board members closed the work session after about two hours of discussion; administrators will use the feedback to finalize materials for next week’s first reading.