In the first half of my educational career in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, new schools appeared practically overnight. Rapid growth and expanding suburbs defined my professional world.
When I arrived in Michigan 15 years ago, I quickly learned populations aren’t booming everywhere. Several regions, including the rural area where my 2,000-student district is located, have seen steep population declines, especially among younger families.
This impacts schools as seriously as rapid growth, but with more negative downsides. It’s the problem nobody wants to talk about even though it affects districts nationwide.
4 big impacts of enrollment decline
Declining populations ripple through school systems in four ways: funding, staffing, programming, and facilities.
- Funding. States tie aid to student counts. Fewer students mean less money, but costs for staffing, buildings, and transportation don’t shrink at the same pace.
- Staffing. Enrollment declines eventually require reductions. Attrition and reassignment soften the impact, but layoffs hurt morale and culture.
- Programming. Smaller budgets and fewer staff cut electives, extracurriculars, and support services, narrowing student opportunities.
- Facilities. Underused schools still cost money. Closings or consolidations become inevitable, sparking community resistance and perceptions of decline.
Schools are vital community anchors, so these challenges hit rural schools especially hard. Mishandling them damages identity and fuels negative momentum. For superintendents, addressing enrollment decline demands courage, determination and resilience.
Maximizing building use
When I assumed my superintendent role, the district fund balance hovered around 5%, risking state intervention. The board told me, “Fix the finances. If you need to make hard decisions, we’ll support them.”
Hiring an outside firm was unrealistic. I had to rely on my own analysis, starting with structural issues. At the time, our district operated:
- Three K–3 schools: one under-enrolled, one at half capacity in an outlying area, and one in a family-friendly area that bused students away to fill the outlying one.
- A 4–6 upper elementary and a 7–12 secondary campus.
- Two closed elementary schools: one leased to adult education, another deteriorating and used as storage.
It was costly and inefficient but popular with families. Many feared closures would drive more students away. Still, to stabilize finances, we had to maximize building use, which meant consolidating.
Taking calculated risks
Closing schools to fill others sounds simple, but very little about the superintendency is. Parents invest heavily in neighborhood schools, and proposals to close them feel personal. Resistance is inevitable.
I approached consolidation gradually over three years. We relocated the adult education program and sold one closed elementary to the YMCA for childcare, putting the building back to use.
Our least popular school was also both the newest and centrally located. Closing it made no sense, so I proposed converting it into a kindergarten center with expert staff, a respected principal, and targeted capital upgrades funded from the elementary school sale.
While parents were upset initially, strong leadership and visible improvements won them over. The center runs at full capacity, and families love it.
We enforced boundaries at the two remaining elementary schools. The town campus used 12 of 18 classrooms, while the outlying school used only six of 16.
After studying districtwide capacity, we recommended a reconfiguration, with K at the kindergarten center, grades 1–2 in town, 3–5 at the upper elementary, and 6–12 at the secondary campus. This made closure of the outlying school unavoidable.
For over a year, I presented data at every board meeting, showing how consolidation would save hundreds of thousands annually. I met with staff, held forums, and listened to both anger and thoughtful opposition. Gradually, the inevitability of change sank in.
By my third year, the board approved consolidation. The next day, I sold the outlying school to our regional service agency for a special education program, eliminating any push to reopen it.
We also tore down the deteriorating storage building, replacing it with a new playground.
Alongside facilities, we reexamined staffing and programs. Instead of cutting deeply, we reinvested.
Select positions were reduced through attrition, but we redirected staff to shrink K3 class sizes. We also preserved programs to keep families engaged. It was a calculated risk, but one aligned with our priorities.
An emotional process
Since consolidation, our district has grown stronger. Our fund balance now sits at 15%. Teacher collaboration has flourished, staff retention exceeds 90%, and each school has developed a robust identity and culture. Community support is substantial.
Meanwhile, our region continues to decline. Nearly 30% of the county is over 65, while less than 20% is under 18. Yet despite those demographics, we’ve grown enrollment in three of the past 10 years, a small but meaningful victory.
Declining enrollment is obvious, but solutions are harder to face. Many districts delay, fearing backlash. But postponing only worsens the consequences.
For superintendents considering rightsizing:
- People process change emotionally, so lead with empathy.
- Build your case with evidence.
- Communicate constantly.
- Protect your board by taking the heat when possible.
- Highlight positives, not just losses.
- Act decisively once you’ve been thorough.
- Dispose of closed facilities to avoid unnecessary financial commitments and reopening pushes.
- Deliver on promises to prove the effort worthwhile.
Consolidation is never just about numbers. It is an emotional process that touches students, staff, families, and communities. Success depends on transparency, data, and planning that minimize disruption while maximizing opportunity.
Super Solutions: Superintendent Rosa Diaz is riding the ‘progress train’
Find your next story in our slideshow
