Consultants tell Chandler Unified board enrollment decline driven by aging population, ESA program and long-term birth-rate trends
Loading...
Summary
Applied Economics presented 25 years of enrollment and demographic data showing sustained declines driven primarily by aging household composition, lower birth rates and use of Empowerment Scholarship Accounts; presenters said new infill and multifamily development will moderate but not reverse declines in the next decade.
Consultants from Applied Economics told the Chandler Unified School District Governing Board on Oct. 22 that the district’s recent enrollment declines reflect long-term demographic shifts, not primarily charter-school losses.
Rick Brammer, who led the district presentation, said the firm analyzed 25 years of the district’s 40th-day head‑count enrollment and demographic data and ran both top‑down economic models and neighborhood‑level, quarter‑section “grid” analyses. “The characteristics of the existing population and the aging of that population is really what’s the story behind … what’s happening to enrollment these days,” Brammer said.
Applied Economics’ analysis showed Chandler Unified continued to grow through 2019–20, then peaked at the COVID year and has declined since. Brammer said three main factors explain most of the falloff: the aging of householders and a smaller proportion of under‑18 residents; historically low birth rates in Arizona following the 2008 recession; and the growth of school‑choice options, including the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program, which has driven students into private schooling and homeschooling in recent years.
The consultants presented district totals and noted that, according to the 2020 census, the district’s school‑age population was about 53,673 and that year’s total enrollment was about 43,964, including roughly 5,807 students who lived outside the district. Brammer said that when out‑of‑district students are subtracted, the in‑district service rate was about 65% in 2020. He warned that the district now “starts every year 2,500 in the hole” because district cohorts of seniors far outnumber incoming kindergarten classes (Brammer cited roughly 4,300 graduating seniors versus 1,900–2,000 kindergarteners in recent years).
Don Graves, Applied Economics’ residential development specialist, reviewed permitting and near‑term construction plans inside the district. He said Chandler’s next decade will include substantial multifamily development along freeway and downtown corridors and single‑family projects in the southeast. Graves estimated about 12,000 potential housing units could become active in the next few years, with roughly 40% multifamily among units built since 2015. For new single‑family subdivisions he said the district’s generation rate is about 0.6–0.7 students per new unit; for many multifamily projects that rate can be much lower, sometimes near 0.2 students per unit depending on product type and rents.
Board members pressed the consultants on specifics. Board member Nick Rohrs asked whether enrollment losses were concentrated near the north part of town and whether urban high‑rent multifamily produces few students; Brammer agreed, saying high‑end rentals “just don’t generate many kids.” Rohrs also asked about cross‑district enrollment reporting; Brammer said ADM reports can be used to extract who attends where but noted the data are not always straightforward to parse. Board members asked about the consultants’ “service‑rate” scenarios; Brammer presented three projections: continued decline at recent rates, stabilization with current service rates (about a 290‑student decline next year), and a midpoint that he said was the most likely outcome over a 10‑year horizon.
Brammer and Graves emphasized that Chandler remains a large and resilient district — serving roughly 40,000 students in recent years and still drawing students from outside its boundaries — but that district planning should prepare for continued enrollment declines over the next decade while also accounting for pockets of new housing and infill redevelopment.
The board received the presentation as an information item; no formal board action was taken on the consultants’ report at the meeting.
Ending: Applied Economics provided the board a full set of maps and numbers the district said it will use for staffing and long‑range facility planning; the board and staff said they will continue to bring the consultants back annually for updates.
