Long Term Planning FAQs

Categorical resources such as Title 1 and LAP follow students to the new school configurations. The district’s overall allocation of categorical funds does not depend on the number of schools. For example, OSD does not receive more Title 1 funding because we have five schools designated as Title 1 rather than only four. The district receives its full Title 1 allocation, and we work with the schools we have determined locally are the best match for Title 1 support and disburse the funds to those buildings.

The district will continue to calculate its ranking and allocation of Title 1 resources based on revised school configurations and student populations and will work to balance Title 1 and LAP resources so schools do not experience large year-to-year changes in their ability to provide direct support to students.

A school with more than 40 percent FRPL is eligible to operate a Title 1 schoolwide program. OSD must serve a school with Title 1 funding only when its FRPL exceeds 75%. Following consolidation, all impacted schools are expected to receive either Title 1 or LAP intervention support.

There are specific implications for Hansen and Garfield. LP Brown and Garfield currently qualify for LAP High-Poverty funding because they serve more than 50 percent FRPL students, while Hansen is currently at 44 percent. Following the proposed transition, Hansen is projected at 52.7 percent and Garfield at 53.1 percent.

Hansen would not qualify for LAP High-Poverty funding in 2027-28 because OSPI uses prior-year data to determine eligibility. However, OSPI has confirmed that LAP High-Poverty funding generated by former LP Brown students may be used at the receiving schools where those students are served. For 2028-29, Hansen will be evaluated based on October 1, 2027 FRPL enrollment along with the prior two years’ counts, and is anticipated to qualify for funding. Garfield is expected to retain its High-Poverty funding in 2027-28 and moving forward.

The Policy 6883 Analysis identifies approximately $3.14 million in projected savings associated with the proposed consolidation. Section 5 includes the detailed assumptions underlying that estimate.

A separate cost illustration FAQ (How does school consolidation create financial savings?) helps demonstrate the types of efficiencies that can result from consolidation. That example looks at two hypothetical 240-student schools combining into one 480-student school. In that illustration, total annual costs decline by approximately $1.13 million, or $2,355 per student, through reductions in duplicated staffing, building operations, utilities and other costs.

Financial Health Indicators

The district is considering these savings in the context of the OSPI Financial Health Indicators. The Financial Health Indicators essentially ask four key questions:

• Does the district have enough savings (fund balance)?
• Is the district spending more money than it has coming in (expenditure-to-revenue ratio)?
• Can the district pay the bills on time (Days cash on hand)?
• Long-term, what’s the outlook (4-year budget summary)?

During the 2026-27 budget development process, the Board looked to the Financial Health Indicators as they set the Budget process and parameters, and included the following parameter:

• Ensure long term financial stability as evidenced by a rating of over 1.75 on the composite score for the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Financial Health Indicators.

In 2024-25, the district achieved a fiscal health score of 2.15. However, projections indicated that without budget adjustments, the score would drop to 1.55 by 2028-29. To illustrate how different reserve levels affect financial health and required budget reductions, the district modeled several three-year financial scenarios:

The ending fund balance is a primary driver in the OSPI financial health model, directly influencing key indicators such as cash flow, operating margins and long-term financial sustainability. Operating near the 3.0% policy minimum increases financial vulnerability, affects the district's bond rating, and increases the risk of non-compliance with other Board budget parameters, such as complying with all relevant laws, regulations, contracts, and labor agreements.

The OSPI Report Card relies on October headcount data from Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS). This data is non-audited and does not adhere to the enrollment reporting rules required for state funding. Additionally, the report card includes students enrolled in specialized programs, such as developmental pre-K, intensive pre-K, Transition to Kindergarten, Running Start, or Open Doors/dropout retrieval. Special programs are not typically reflected in district enrollment projections for a number of reasons. Running Start and Open Doors are excluded because the funding is passed through to another agency to provide the educational services. Early learning programs are considered district programs and may be relocated as space and need is determined.

There are two types of enrollment: Headcount and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) enrollment. Headcount counts individual students, regardless of whether they are full-time or part-time. FTE reflects how fully enrolled a student is and is used to calculate state education funding. Other factors can alter state funding, such as students' grade levels and whether they receive special education or supplementary services.

Sources: OSPI Enrollment Reporting; 2025-26 S-275 Personnel Reporting Handbook; OSPI's K-3 Compliance FAQ

We are serving fewer students while continuing to operate the same number of schools. OSD’s October K-12 headcount declined from 10,014 (9,716 FTE) students in 2019-20 to 9,448 (8,920 FTE) in 2025-26. BERK Consulting projects student enrollment headcount declining to 8,483 by 2033-34. State funding is directly tied to the number of students served rather than the number of buildings operated. As enrollment declines, maintaining the same number of schools spreads building, staffing and operating costs across fewer students, making it more difficult to sustain programs and services over time.

Sources: OSD Enrollment Data Dashboard; BERK Long-Term Enrollment Forecast; Long-Term Planning; Comparison of OSD Costs to State Funding

School staffing positions are allocated through three distinct models. First, school-based positions, such as behavior technicians, custodial staff, and nursing staff, are required regardless of enrollment size and remain fixed.

Second, strictly enrollment-based positions, such as paraeducators, scale directly with student count. Third, hybrid positions use enrollment ratios alongside adjustments for rounding, minimums, and maximums, providing staffing flexibility; examples include classroom teachers, administrative staff, and office personnel.

The table below identifies common school staffing positions and their allocation model.

Specific allocation ratios can be found on our website:

• OSD Certificated Instructional Staff Allocations (2026-27)
• OSD Classified Staffing Allocations (2026-27)
• OSD Staffing Allocations: Administration (2026-27)

Financial Impact of School Consolidation and Closure

To illustrate the financial impact of these allocation methods, consider a hypothetical consolidation of two schools, each serving 240 students (40 students per grade level). Consolidating both facilities into a single school serving 480 students does not simply double or fix staff across all categories.

Table 1 outlines where staffing reductions occur and where staffing levels remain fixed. Under this baseline scenario, consolidating the two schools reduces overall operating costs by approximately $1.13 million ($2,355 per student) while maintaining total enrollment.
 

Table 1: Consolidate and Maintain Enrollment Levels

Enrollment Fluctuations During Consolidation

If student enrollment fluctuates during consolidation, revenue changes partially offset projected savings. For instance, if total enrollment of 480 students declines by 5% (a decrease of 24 students) during the transition, the financial outcomes shift as follows:

• Staffing Cost Savings: Reducing 1 to 2 teaching positions and paraeducator hours generates up to $360,000 in operational savings.
• Revenue Loss: Decreased enrollment reduces state apportionment and local levy funding, resulting in an estimated revenue loss of $428,000.

Table 2 outlines where staffing reductions occur and where staffing levels remain fixed under this alternate scenario. Consolidating the two schools while losing enrollment reduces overall operating costs by approximately $1.06 million, roughly $68,000 less than the baseline scenario.

Table 2: Consolidate and Reduce Enrollment Levels by 5%

Summary

In summary, staffing categories do not scale uniformly with enrollment. Consolidation generates financial savings primarily by eliminating facility-bound operational and leadership costs, while student-driven staffing adjusts in proportion to total enrollment and student needs.

Notes: These examples were originally presented at Board Meetings on August 27, 2026, and September 10, 2026.

Olympia School District has experienced a sustained decline in enrollment, and current projections indicate that trend will continue. Enrollment peaked in 2019-20 at an annual average of 9,672 student FTE. Since then, we have declined by about 799 students and project to continue declining by an annual average of -66 FTE over the next four years. The most significant declines are in grades K-5, at -16.5%; secondary grades saw declines between 1% and 2%.

Birth rates and the number of school-age children in the community have declined, making a significant near-term rebound unlikely. At the same time, the district has successfully worked to attract and retain students through expanded early learning opportunities, marketing, changes to the transfer process and other enrollment initiatives. While the District’s efforts to recruit out-of-district students have been successful and have helped offset some enrollment loss, those gains are insufficient to overcome the larger demographic decline already underway and projected to continue.

Sources: OSD Enrollment Trends & Forecast informational packet; OSD Enrollment Data Dashboard; BERK Long-Term Enrollment Forecast

Compared with similarly sized districts—and with our closest neighbors—Olympia operates more schools with fewer students in each building. In 2025-26, OSD’s 11 elementary schools average about 319 students, compared with approximately 447 in Tumwater, 524 in North Thurston, and 449 across comparable Washington State school districts.

Sources: Elementary school enrollment comparison; Middle school enrollment comparison; OSD School Capacity Worksheet; Comparison of Olympia Costs to State Funding

POLICY 6883 TIMELINE: Reminder

There is not a 90-day clock that begins when the Superintendent announces or brings forward a potential closure proposal. Both Policy 6883 and RCW 28A.335.020 provide that the required public hearings must occur during the 90 days before the Board makes its final decision. The 90-day period therefore works backward from the date of the Board's final action; it is not triggered by an earlier announcement or recommendation.

The other applicable timelines remain in place, including making the written analysis public, waiting at least 10 business days before conducting the hearings, providing the required notice, and holding a separate hearing for each school proposed for closure. 

Schools were considered for closure or consolidation based on multiple factors. The district built on the methodology developed during the 2023 School Facility Efficiency Study and Citizens Advisory Committee process, which evaluated every elementary and middle school using the same weighted criteria, including school utilization, school size, socioeconomic factors, the ability to combine attendance areas, facility condition, prior capital investment, future development potential and walkability. That analysis identified a group of schools facing the greatest long-term efficiency challenges, and the District revisited that work using three additional years of enrollment, capacity, staffing, and facilities data.

The final decision about which three schools to recommend for closure and consolidation is based on the criteria established through the Western Demographics process, as well as the recognition that declining elementary enrollment is not limited to the east side of the district. Consolidation is needed on both sides of the district. Based on the Western Demographics criteria, McKenny and Madison were the lowest-scoring leading elementary candidates on the east side, while LP Brown was the lowest-scoring candidate on the west side. Those factors ultimately led to the recommendation of these three schools.

The final recommendation considers the requirements of Board Policy 6883, including impacts on students and staff, transportation, educational programs, financial considerations, facility condition and potential renovation and possible future uses of a school property.

Sources: OSD - School Facility Efficiency Report and CAC Findings; 2023 School Closure-Consolidation Candidate Process; OSD School Capacity Worksheet; BERK Long-Term Enrollment Forecast; Long Range Facilities Master Plan; Board Policy 6883

As part of the district’s broader long-term planning work, Superintendent Murphy plans to present a recommendation to the School Board on September 17, 2026, which is expected to identify specific schools recommended for closure and consolidation. The School Board is scheduled to vote on that recommendation on November 12, 2026.

For any school proposed for closure, Board Policy 6883 requires a public written analysis and public hearings (tentatively scheduled for October 2026) during the 90 days before a final decision, including a separate hearing for each school proposed for closure. A hearing cannot occur until at least 10 business days after the written analysis is made public.

In addition to the hearings, families, students, staff and community members may also provide public comment at Board meetings, email district leaders and follow the Long-Term Planning webpage for updates on this process and the district’s broader long-term planning work.

Sources: OSD School Consolidation Timeline; August 13, 2026 School Board discussion; Board Policy 6883; Long-Term Planning

We have used multiple strategies. Since 2023, we have made approximately $7 million, $1.3 million, $364,000 and, most recently, $3.5 million in successive annual budget reductions. The 2026-27 budget included a reduction of 29.5 FTE. Many of these reductions have been weighted toward the district office and central services. In 2024-25, central administration represented 4.88% of OSD expenditures, compared with a statewide average of 6.31%.

Central administration as a share of expenditures
Olympia School District actuals and budgets, 2017-18 through 2026-27.

Olympia also compares favorably with surrounding districts. Using the same state-reported financial data for 2024-25:

Please Note: Our school year 2025-26 financials will not be available until December 2026.

We have also expanded early learning, updated our transfer process, advocated for additional state funding and examined attendance boundaries. BERK’s May 2026 Boundary Study found that targeted boundary changes could improve student proximity but would not significantly improve enrollment balance or staffing and operational efficiency, as enrollment is declining across the district.

Sources: OSD Budget; OSD Boundary Study Report (May 2026)

Details of transportation impacts are in the Policy 6883 Analysis (see page 22). Consolidation will change transportation patterns for some students and families. The district anticipates increased vehicle traffic at receiving schools and is prepared to use capital funds for traffic studies to identify ways to reduce impacts associated with drop-off, pickup and surrounding neighborhoods. The current analysis states that walking and ADA accessibility would remain unchanged for students using those options. The projected enrollments remain near or below each school’s historical peak. Enrollment is projected to continue declining in the years following consolidation.

State transportation funding is based on ridership, so the underlying funding formula would not change because of consolidation. More students riding district buses would increase transportation funding, while fewer riders would reduce it. The district currently anticipates increased ridership in part because some students currently walk to Madison and McKenny.

The September 2026 data (displayed above) show approximately 1,346 estimated riders among 3,247 neighborhood elementary students, or about 41% overall, with substantial variation among individual schools. Of those, 533 neighborhood elementary students are walkers. As a result, approximately half (1,368) of our eligible riders do not ride the bus.

Consolidation does not cause an increase in class size. The district’s staffing allocations are based on projected enrollment and established staffing ratios. When enrollment increases, the district adds classroom sections when enrollment reaches the threshold for another teacher allocation. The district monitors actual enrollment after school begins and may adjust staffing when enrollment differs materially from projections.

For elementary schools, the current classroom teacher allocation ratios are:

Rounding directly affects the number of teachers allocated to each school and, consequently, class organization. Larger grade-level cohorts can also reduce the need for split-grade or combination classrooms.

Below is the 2026-27 K-5 classroom teacher allocation and the impact of rounding.

Please Note: These allocations are before adjustments for equity support, spring mitigation, and building capacity and do not include early learning allocations.

Specialist time (Music, Physical Education and Library)

Consolidation could also affect how specialist and student-support resources are distributed. Rather than spreading resources across multiple smaller schools, consolidating schools may allow positions like Music, PE, and Library to be assigned full-time within a school. The same consideration applies to counseling, special education, intervention and other student supports. The district would continue to determine actual staffing and program allocations through its annual staffing and budget processes, based on enrollment, student needs, and available resources.

As stated on page 27 of the Policy 6883 Analysis, the district allocates staff using staffing formulas and ratios that it consistently monitors and adjusts, most recently set in the 2024-25 school year. Depending on the position, these formulas include minimums, maximums, rounding provisions, or other factors that affect the resulting allocation as enrollment changes. The district's staffing allocation ratios are available on the district website (linked below):

• OSD Certificated Instructional Staff Allocations (2026-27)
• OSD Classified Staffing Allocations (2026-27)
• OSD Staffing Allocations: Administration (2026-27)

After enrollment projections are solidified in late winter, the district will finalize its evaluation of receiving-school capacity beyond general classrooms. The analysis will account for specialized programs, specialist instruction, student services, common areas and operational needs.

If space concerns arise, the district will consider relocating programs, such as preschools, to other available district space.

Long term facility improvements are part of the bond planning process. The district will explore feasible, shorter-term facility enhancements after finalizing enrollment projections.

The district has already begun transition planning. If consolidation is approved, Student Support will provide initial communication, followed by a coordinated transition process between sending and receiving schools.

To the extent possible, the district will hold joint IEP and 504 reviews for plans coming due in spring 2027. Sending-school teams, as the students’ current IEP or 504 teams, will contact families first and schedule individual meetings. Collaboration meetings will be scheduled between sending- and receiving-school psychologists and service teams. The district will work with OSSEC to gather input on providing sensory-friendly opportunities for students to tour and visit their new schools.

More broadly, a districtwide transition planning committee made up of principals from impacted schools and district staff is developing a consistent framework, timeline and resources to guide the transition. School-based transition teams will include staff, families, students and district support personnel and help plan welcoming and orientation activities, student visits, opportunities for families and staff to connect, the transfer of traditions and school history, and ongoing social-emotional support.

Receiving schools will also participate in developing and implementing transition plans. The district plans to gather questions and concerns from receiving-school families and provide opportunities for those communities to engage in the process.

All five receiving schools’ projected enrollments fall below their planning capacities without using portables. Portables may be used as needed for different purposes. Centennial would serve fewer students than its previous high, and Hansen would be within seven students of its previous high. Garfield, Pioneer, and Roosevelt would exceed their previous highs but remain within planning capacity.

Planning capacity accounts for smaller special education classes.

Projected enrollment would use 74% to 89% of planning capacity. 

The district considered several key equity questions: Who will the proposal affect? What may the impacts be? Are some student groups likely to be affected disproportionately? How will implementation and outcomes be evaluated?

The analysis also incorporated best practices from the California Department of Education and criteria similar to those Western Demographics used in 2023-24. These included facility condition, operating costs and savings, receiving-school capacity, special programs, environmental safety, transportation, neighborhood impacts, feeder-school attendance patterns, and student demographics and disproportionality. Particular attention was given to the demographic and disproportionality analysis beginning on page 15 of Section 1 of the Policy 6883 report.

If the Board approves the proposal, the district will continue evaluating its impact through academic achievement and social-emotional learning data, along with feedback from students, families, staff, and the broader community.

School consolidation should allow the district to use its existing staffing more effectively. With larger and more balanced grade-level cohorts, receiving schools would likely have fewer split-grade or combination classrooms and greater flexibility in creating balanced class sections.

Just as importantly, the operational and staffing savings generated by operating fewer buildings could allow the district to maintain stable class sizes rather than relying on class-size increases as a future budget-reduction strategy.

Consolidation can also strengthen programs and student supports by concentrating resources that are currently spread across multiple smaller schools. For example, specialist positions that may currently be divided among buildings could be assigned full-time to a school, providing students and staff with greater consistency and access. The same principle applies to counseling, special education, intervention, library, and other student supports: aligning the number of schools we operate with our enrollment gives the district a better opportunity to preserve and strengthen these services rather than continuing to spread limited staffing and resources across more buildings than enrollment supports.

A cost illustration planned for discussion with the School Board on August 27, looks at an example of two 240-student schools combining into one 480-student school. In that example, total annual costs decline by approximately $1.13 million, or $2,355 per student, through reductions in duplicated staffing, building operations, utilities and other costs.

This example is intended to illustrate the types of efficiencies that may result from consolidation. It is not a proposal for any specific OSD schools.

Source: August 27, 2026 School Board Long-Term Planning Agenda Item

Staffing assignments and allocations, including school administrators, would be determined through established district processes and consistent with applicable collective bargaining agreements and employee group agreements.

If consolidation is approved, some positions may change, be reduced, or be reassigned, and new or different positions may be created based on the staffing needs of the consolidated schools and programs. Human Resources would work with affected employees and employee group leadership throughout that process.

The district is also working with union and employee group leadership to plan for potential staffing impacts. Where existing agreements clearly address placement or assignment processes, the district will follow those provisions. Where additional clarity is needed, the district will work with the appropriate employee groups to establish and communicate the process before finalizing staffing decisions.

Source: OSD Budget - current staffing allocation documents; Contracts by Bargaining Groups

Supporting students and families through the transition is a major focus of the district’s work. Families will receive clear and regular communication about timelines, attendance boundaries, transportation, staffing and what to expect at their new school. Transition teams will help determine the most effective ways to create ongoing feedback loops with families, ensuring they have meaningful opportunities to ask questions, share concerns, provide input and help shape the transition process.

Receiving schools will hold family nights, student orientations, tours or other activities designed to help students and families become familiar with their new school community before the first day of school. Particular attention will be given to students who may need additional support during a transition, including students receiving special education, multilingual, counseling, behavioral health or other services. The goal is to bring school communities together, not simply move students from one building to another, while providing families as much information, preparation and continuity as possible throughout the process.

Source: Olympia School District School Consolidations Timeline

If a school facility is closed, the district would have several options for its future, including selling the property, leasing it to another organization or retaining it for another district or community-serving use. The district has begun exploring potential opportunities and partnerships. In considering these options, the district weighs financial and operational impacts, opportunities to continue serving children, families, and the community, and the value of maintaining long-term flexibility. Retaining ownership through a lease or alternative district use could reduce ongoing operating costs, potentially generate revenue, and preserve the ability to use the property again for educational purposes should enrollment and demographic conditions change significantly in the future.

Bond planning is separate from consolidation, but knowing our long-term school configuration helps determine where major facility investments are most appropriate. Our Long Range Facilities Master Plan identifies needs and opportunities across district facilities, while the Bond Planning Committee is evaluating potential projects for a future bond measure.

Sources: Board Policy 6883; Long Range Facilities Master Plan; RCW 28A.335.060; RCW 28A.335.130