The Enrollment Death Spiral: How Livermore Schools Lost Students and Your Tax Dollars Followed Them Out the Door

While Livermore’s school board plays politics and approves deficit budgets, a more fundamental crisis threatens the district’s survival: students are leaving, and every empty desk costs taxpayers money. The board’s response? Ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

The Numbers Don’t Lie: Students Are Voting With Their Feet

California’s enrollment-based funding formula is brutally simple: fewer students equals less money. For every student who leaves Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD), the district loses approximately $18,918 in state funding—plus additional federal and local dollars.

The statewide trend is devastating. According to the California Department of Education, overall student enrollment declined by 0.54 percent in 2024-25, continuing a five-year pattern that has affected nearly three-quarters of California school districts. But Livermore’s situation may be worse than the state average.

The board commissioned a demographic study from National Demographics Corporation for $51,000—money they claim they don’t have—yet they refuse to publicly discuss the enrollment projections. Why the secrecy? Because the numbers likely reveal a district in demographic free fall.

The $6 Million Question: Declining Revenue or Fiscal Mismanagement?

Here’s the math that should terrify every taxpayer: If LVJUSD lost just 317 students (roughly $6 million in state funding at $18,918 per pupil), it would perfectly explain the district’s current budget deficit. Yet the board approved 18 teacher layoffs while never addressing whether enrollment decline caused their fiscal crisis.

Trustee Deena Kaplanis consistently asked the hard questions about enrollment trends and their budget impact. Her colleagues—Emily Prusso, Steven Drouin, Christiaan VandenHeuvel, and Craig Bueno—preferred to blame “state funding shortfalls” rather than acknowledge their district is losing students to competitors.

The truth is more uncomfortable: Families are choosing other districts, private schools, or homeschooling over LVJUSD. Every departure represents a vote of no confidence in the board’s leadership.

The Boundary Shuffle: Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic

In a telling move, the board approved updated attendance boundaries between Altamont Creek and Croce Elementary Schools—changes that had been “in practical use” for two years without formal approval. This administrative cleanup reveals sloppy governance, but more importantly, it suggests enrollment imbalances that required boundary adjustments.

Why were boundaries adjusted? Because some schools are losing students faster than others. Rather than address why families are leaving, the board simply reshuffled remaining students to balance the books.

Kaplanis questioned the timing and transparency of these boundary changes. Her colleagues voted to formalize them without meaningful public input—a pattern of governance that may explain why families seek alternatives.

The Competition Factor: Charter Schools and School Choice

California’s school choice environment is increasingly competitive. While LVJUSD struggles with budget deficits and layoffs, neighboring districts and charter schools offer alternatives that many families find attractive.

The board’s response? Double down on progressive politics and administrative expansion while cutting classroom teachers. It’s a strategy guaranteed to accelerate enrollment decline.

Consider the board’s recent priorities:

• Approved LGBTQ+ Pride Month resolution risking federal funding
• Created new administrative positions while laying off teachers
• Hired $284,300 in political consultants while cutting classroom resources
• Approved unfunded strategic plans while increasing class sizes

Would you choose this district for your children?

The Demographic Reality: Fewer Kids, Higher Costs

California’s broader demographic trends work against LVJUSD. Declining birth rates, housing costs pushing young families away, and remote work enabling relocation all contribute to enrollment pressure.

But demographic trends affect all districts. The question is whether LVJUSD is losing students faster than comparable districts—and why.

The board’s commissioned demographic study should answer these questions, but they’ve kept the results secret. Transparency might reveal uncomfortable truths about families’ confidence in district leadership.

The Facility Utilization Crisis

Declining enrollment creates a vicious cycle: fewer students mean lower per-pupil efficiency for facilities and programs. The district still must heat, clean, and maintain buildings designed for higher enrollment.

This explains why the board approved $1.5 million in roofing projects and ongoing facility maintenance while cutting teachers. Buildings don’t shrink when enrollment drops, but revenue does.

Smart districts rightsizing their operations to match enrollment. LVJUSD continues operating as if enrollment will magically return while making decisions that drive more families away.

The Teacher Quality Connection

Here’s an inconvenient truth: the best teachers have options. When districts cut positions and create uncertainty, quality educators leave for more stable environments. This accelerates enrollment decline as parents follow good teachers to other districts.

LVJUSD’s decision to eliminate 18 teaching positions while creating administrative roles sends a clear message about priorities. Families notice, and many choose districts that prioritize classroom instruction over bureaucratic expansion.

Kaplanis consistently advocated for protecting teaching positions over administrative growth. Her colleagues ignored this advice, potentially accelerating the enrollment decline they refuse to acknowledge.

The Revenue Death Spiral

Enrollment-based funding creates a death spiral for mismanaged districts:

1. Poor decisions drive families away
2. Lower enrollment reduces revenue
3. Budget cuts further reduce service quality
4. More families leave, accelerating the cycle

LVJUSD appears caught in this spiral. The board’s response—deficit spending and political theater—only accelerates the decline.

What Fiscal Responsibility Looks Like

Trustee Kaplanis represents the kind of leadership needed to reverse enrollment decline:

• Prioritize classroom instruction over administrative expansion
• Maintain fiscal discipline to ensure program stability
• Focus on core educational services rather than political posturing
• Demand transparency about enrollment trends and demographic projections

Her colleagues have consistently chosen the opposite approach, potentially explaining why families seek alternatives.

The November 2025 Choice

Livermore voters face a clear decision: continue supporting board members whose policies drive families away, or elect leaders who understand that enrollment stability requires fiscal responsibility and educational focus.

The enrollment crisis isn’t just about numbers—it’s about confidence. Families need to believe their school district prioritizes education over politics, fiscal responsibility over ideological posturing, and student success over administrative convenience.

The Bottom Line

Every student who leaves LVJUSD costs the district approximately $18,918 in state funding. The board’s recent decisions—deficit spending, political resolutions, teacher layoffs, and administrative expansion—suggest more departures are likely.

Trustee Kaplanis understands this connection. Her colleagues seem determined to ignore it, preferring to blame external factors rather than acknowledge their role in driving families away.

The question for Livermore voters is simple: Do you want leaders who attract families to the district or those whose policies drive them away?

Your enrollment. Your revenue. Your choice.

Tom Wong is an independent investigative reporter and conservative watchdog focused on government accountability and fiscal responsibility in public education.

Sources: Project info and instructions, 25-06.17 LUSD Regular Board Meeting.pdf, California Department of Education, Public Policy Institute of California, EdSource