Merced City School District told it lost 256 students; trustees press consultants on boundary decisions

Ken Reynolds, a consultant from SchoolWorks, told the Merced City School District Board on Jan. 27 that enrollment projections for 2025–26 show a notable decline, and that the district is “down 256 this year compared to what we projected,” a shortfall trustees said could materially affect funding tied to average daily attendance (ADA).

The SchoolWorks presentation reviewed neighborhood maps, cohort‑based projections and planned housing developments, and projected a net decline of roughly 115 students next year. Reynolds said the model factors births, historic mobility, transfer choices and planned new housing; he cautioned that multiple forces — a soft housing market, parent choice, mobility and shifts in immigration policy — are likely driving the drop, not a single cause.

Why it matters: California school funding depends heavily on attendance and enrollment. A sudden shortfall of several hundred students can reduce general fund revenues and affect the district’s ability to sustain staff and programs. Board members pressed Reynolds and district staff for answers about the recent boundary changes, which were implemented to relieve overcrowding.

Trustee Delgado asked directly whether the enrollment decline was linked to the boundary changes, noting the district recently altered boundaries to address overcrowding. Reynolds responded that while boundary changes can have localized effects, the size of the decline is large and has been seen across other Valley districts; he said it is “more of a coincidence” and likely the product of housing and wider trends rather than solely the boundary vote. The district’s facilities and HR teams said they are working with affected schools to ensure staffing and services remain available.

Trustee McCutcheon asked why the demographic report had not been done before boundaries were adopted; district staff said SchoolWorks had provided projections used in the boundary process, but no one could have predicted the larger decline caused by outside factors. Reynolds said cohort models are typically accurate within about 1%, and this year’s miss was unusually large, comparable only to the disruptions seen during the COVID‑19 period.

Board members requested additional analysis to (a) identify whether specific boundary changes correlated with net losses at particular sites, (b) assess short‑term mitigation steps to protect programs and personnel at affected campuses, and (c) track enrollment trends and housing market indicators closely over the next 12–18 months.

Next steps: SchoolWorks and district staff committed to a deeper analysis of boundary impacts and to returning with more granular campus‑level data and options the board could consider to stabilize ADA and program staffing.