Grosse Pointe Public Schools’ declining enrollment and its ensuing budget pestilence has again taken center stage (as if it ever left). This is not a new trend (reference my 2017 entry “Enrollment Declines Ferocious Appetite”), but a bad trend seems to be getting worse. The 2021 fall enrollment was 407 students below budget estimates which creates an additional $4 million revenue shortfall on top of the $2.2 million operating loss originally projected.
What’s more, the new bargaining unit agreements announced in September had not been factored into the original budget, which could add $3 million in annual salary and benefit cost based on what details have been released. If so, the General Fund Equity projection of $11.6 million for the end of the 2022 school year could be overstated by $9 million.
With the 10% “Formula Clause” frozen by this newly announced agreement, no additional tax increase options, and the school closings likely being off the table the end result will almost certainly be significant employee reductions. The November BOE meetings may begin to show the Board and administration’s response, but tense days are ahead – adding heat to an already politically charged environment. I look forward to sharing my observations. More to come.
Taking a Closer Look at Enrollment Trends
Enrollment is the primary issue – and it really always has been. When enrollment increases, you can almost do no wrong in budget planning. But when it drops, look out. Despite so much attention paid to enrollment loss (at least in these pixels), I wanted to dive in once more to see if the GPPSS is out of step with broader trends.
Below are three views isolating on ten year trends for districts that have enrollment of 3,500+ students, excluding Detroit Public Schools. (DPS is so far on its own planet, we won’t find value in a comparison.) Similarly, comparisons to smaller districts are likely to bring more noise than insight. In the end, this view compares 129 districts, comprising about 800,000 of the state’s 1.46 million students.
Primarily I am asking this: We know the GPPSS is losing enrollment, but is GPPSS’ enrollment pattern different than districts of a similar size and/or geographic location, especially those that the GPPSS would consider “like districts”? The three views below help with the analysis. The top graph in each slide is the overall ten year change, from 2010 to 2020. The bottom graph of each page splits the ten years into two five year periods, enabling a more recent trend view. As you read, recall that the GPPSS is a “Class D” district in Wayne County.
View 1 – Grouped by District Size
View 2 – Grouped by County
Note that I did not graph all counties, rather focusing on those with the highest number of districts and students.
View 3 – GPPSS Benchmark Districts
Observations and theories based on these view
- GPPSS’ 11.5% enrollment loss over the last ten years is close to the 11.8% drop for all Class B through H districts – in aggregate – and almost identical to the 11.5% decrease for all Wayne County districts included in this analysis. However, GPPSS student loss is about double that of similarly sized (Class D) districts.
- “Like districts” comparisons are more alarming, especially over the last five years. Recall these numbers do not account for the enrollment losses of 2021-22. If we broadly see GP’s competition coming more from Troy, Novi, Northville, Birmingham, and Bloomfield, the GPPSS is out of step.
- Some may theorize GP communities are losing more to private schools and/or on account of COVID policy. I am not so convinced. Count me a hard “maybe”. I do not see how the GP communities and district circumstances are substantially different from the “like” districts – except again in relation to geography. The GP communities are literally more “like” Wayne County districts than any other geography. (Northville is an exception as they are so far west in Wayne.)
Now Let’s Talk About the “C Word” – Choice
But let’s talk about a really big issue – Schools of Choice (SoC). I am not advocating for schools of choice in GP, but any analysis or advocacy on any budget or policy matter that does not comprehend the give and take of participating (or not) in SoC is incomplete. In some respects, it is not illogical to conclude that THE main reason why the GPPSS is out of step with other districts is our SoC policy. This is not advocacy for SoC, but a plea for a logical view of the impact of not participating.
Most Michigan districts participate in SoC by opening a limited number of seats per grade. Very few have unlimited enrollment. Take Troy School District. Troy allows for 120 SoC based students per year (50 in kindergarten, 50 in first grade, and 20 in grades 6-8). Assume Troy enrolls 120 per year and averages a retention of 100 per year AND that the policy has been in place for 12 years (as it has been for the vast majority of Michigan districts). Simple math: About 1,200 students per year would attend Troy public schools on an SoC basis.
Now let’s bring this back to the GPPSS. From 2010 to 2020, the GPPSS lost 1,000 students. If the GPPSS had the same program as Troy it would have added $10,000,000 per year in revenue. We’d see fewer torches and pitchforks at school board meetings and in the streets. We may not have had to close schools either.
No Escaping Difficult Decisions
There is no denying that the GP school age population is trending in the same direction as all of Wayne County which is directionally consistent with vaunted Oakland County. No marketing campaign will overcome that. The difference between the GPPSS and most other districts is Schools of Choice participation. Even if – against the longest odds – the GPPSS were to choose to participate in SoC like Troy and most others, it would take a decade for it to have a similar effect, and the wolf ($9 million structural budget shortfall) is already at the door.
The looming problem concerns the (un)attractiveness of the district – either to resident or SoC prospective families alike – to counteract dynamics out of district control (population trends mainly, state school funding) without the tactics used by 98% of districts like us. The hole is getting deeper. Time is not in the GPPSS’ favor. The Board and Administration should be in full sprint to surface the limited options remaining to respond to these dynamics because some awful decisions are on the horizon.
4 responses to “Enrollment Woes and the “C Word””
Your data clearly suggests that you in fact “should” be advocating for SOC.
Not participating in Schools of Choice, is fiscally irresponsible. We should do it, full stop.
Why are we not participating? What is the school board’s reasoning? Why did they think closing schools was a better option?
Hi Pat,
The most stated rationale for NOT participating in Schools of Choice is on account of the Hold Harmless millage that resident taxpayers pay and that non-resident (school choice) families would NOT pay. This itself is an interesting dynamic. As the state increases student funding at a greater pace for non-Hold Harmless districts, the actual incremental cost to the local taxpayer of the GPPSS per pupil investment gets smaller.
We might wonder how seriously would the GPPSS consider School of Choice if we did not levy any Hold Harmless tax? Or if over the course of time it goes away on its own?
School closings, in my view, were an atrocious alternative. Doing so allowed the district to avoid making another $1 million in other cost reductions, but I personally am not a believer in that cost benefit rationale.