Long Term Planning FAQs

Our long-term planning work includes three separate but connected efforts: the Strategic Plan Update, Bond Planning, and School Closure & Consolidation. The Strategic Plan Update focuses on the learning experiences and supports we want for students. School closure and consolidation planning examines how enrollment, staffing and the number of schools we operate affect our ability to provide those experiences. Bond planning focuses on the facility investments we may need to support students over the long term. More information about each area is available on our Long-Term Planning webpage.

Our 2025 Long Range Facilities Master Plan reinforces those connections. Its framework prioritizes safe and welcoming schools, flexible and adaptable spaces, efficient and sustainable use of our resources, equitable facilities, program options and expanded access to hands-on, career and technical education, and alternative programs.

We are considering school consolidation and closure because current enrollment forecasts, school utilization data and funding information raise questions about whether we can sustainably operate our current number of schools while providing the programs, staffing and educational opportunities we want for students.

Superintendent Murphy is developing a long-term planning recommendation that is expected to identify specific schools for proposed closure and/or consolidation on September 17, 2026. Those recommendations will be presented to the School Board for consideration and are not, by themselves, final decisions.

BERK Consulting’s September 2025 Long-Term Enrollment Forecast projects districtwide K-12 enrollment declining from 9,470 students in 2025-26 to 8,483 students in 2033-34. Our 2025-26 School Capacity Worksheet shows 9,448 students in the October 2025 headcount and an overall planning utilization of 76% in permanent facilities. At the elementary level, permanent planning utilization was 65%.

Funding is another part of the discussion. Our Comparison of Olympia Costs to State Funding, using 2026-27 factors, demonstrates how state prototypical school funding translates into the staffing we can support after accounting for our actual salary and benefit costs. As enrollment declines, we must consider how to align the number of schools we operate with enrollment while continuing to support strong programs and services for students.

BERK Consulting’s September 2025 Long-Term Enrollment Forecast provides our current long-range enrollment projection. BERK reports that our K-12 enrollment reached 9,975 students in 2019-20 before declining during the pandemic. The report shows 9,555 students in 2024-25, still below the pre-pandemic level.

BERK projected 9,470 students for 2025-26. Our 2025-26 School Capacity Worksheet subsequently recorded an October headcount of 9,448 students, a difference of just 22 students from BERK’s projection. BERK’s longer-term forecast projects K-12 enrollment declining to 8,483 students by 2033-34.

Birth trends are an important part of that forecast. Using Washington Department of Health data, BERK reports that estimated births within our district boundaries declined from 646 in 2012 to 523 in 2024. BERK projects 508 births in 2026 and continued declines through the forecast period. Because the number of births helps inform the size of future kindergarten classes, smaller incoming groups eventually affect enrollment throughout our K-12 system.

Enrollment numbers can look different depending on the source, the date of the count and whether the number represents headcount or Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) enrollment. Understanding that distinction is especially important because FTE enrollment directly affects our state funding.

According to the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), headcount is the number of individual students enrolled. Each student is counted once in headcount regardless of whether the student attends school full time or part time. FTE, or Full-Time Equivalent, measures the amount of a student’s enrollment. A student attending less than a full schedule, for example, may count as one student in headcount but less than 1.0 FTE.

We report both headcount and FTE to OSPI each month through the P-223 Monthly Report of School District Enrollment. State enrollment count dates are the fourth school day in September and the first school day of each subsequent month through June. Our annual average FTE enrollment reported through the P-223 is used in calculating state basic education funding.

This means we can have a higher student headcount than our funded FTE enrollment. It is also why two reports can both be accurate while displaying somewhat different enrollment numbers.

The source of the data can make a difference as well. For example, our school-size comparison documents use OSPI Report Card enrollment, while our School Capacity Worksheet uses an October district headcount. Those numbers should not be expected to match exactly because they are created for different purposes and may include different student populations or points in time.

Additional current and historical enrollment information is available on our Enrollment Data Dashboard.

Our School Enrollment Sizes for Comparable Districts: Elementary, using 2025-26 OSPI Report Card data, shows that our 11 neighborhood elementary schools serve 3,512 K-5 students, an average of 319 students per school. The same document shows average elementary school enrollments of 524 students in North Thurston Public Schools, 447 in Tumwater School District and 420 in Shoreline School District.

Our School Enrollment Sizes for Comparable Districts: Middle Schools shows our four neighborhood middle schools averaging 518 students. The same comparison shows averages of 756 students in North Thurston, 700 in Tumwater and 698 in South Kitsap.

School size and building utilization are related, but they are not the same measurement. Our 2025-26 School Capacity Worksheet shows our elementary schools collectively operating at 65% of permanent planning capacity and our middle schools at 79%. Utilization varies significantly from school to school, which is why districtwide averages alone cannot tell the whole story.

We have taken a number of steps intended to strengthen and stabilize enrollment. Our Long-Term Planning webpage identifies community outreach, expanded early learning opportunities and changes to our transfer process among those efforts. We also currently enroll more students who transfer into our district than we lose through transfers to other school districts.

Our Long Range Facilities Master Plan identifies additional strategies intended to attract and retain students and make better use of our facilities. These include specialty programs, place-based learning opportunities, flexible and adaptable spaces and facilities capable of supporting partnerships and more complex programming. Board members have also raised questions about whether early learning, childcare and partnerships with community organizations or public agencies could make use of available district space.

These strategies are part of our broader long-term planning work. We have not concluded that any one of them, or a combination of them, would eliminate the need to consider school consolidation or closure. We are considering enrollment, facility utilization, educational priorities, staffing and available resources together as Superintendent Murphy develops his recommendation.
 

Bond planning and school consolidation are separate processes, but both depend on a clear understanding of our long-term facility needs. Our Long Range Facilities Master Plan identifies potential investments in safety and security, building systems, flexible instructional spaces, athletic and performance facilities, hands-on learning environments and facilities capable of supporting more complex programs and partnerships.

We have formed a Bond Planning Committee to review our facility needs and help evaluate and prioritize potential capital projects for consideration in future school bond measures. The committee is building on the work of our Long Range Facilities Master Planning process. More information about this work is available on our Long-Term Planning webpage.

The School Board has asked how possible improvements or expansions at elementary schools should be considered alongside school consolidation planning. We have not established a final bond project list. As we gain greater clarity about our long-term school configuration, that information can help inform where major capital investments are most appropriate and whether schools receiving additional students would require improvements or additional capacity.

Our 2023 School Closure/Consolidation Candidate Process summarizes the earlier School Facility Efficiency Study led by Western Demographics. A 31-member Citizens Advisory Committee participated in that process, and every elementary and middle school was evaluated using the same parameters before consolidation scenarios were developed.

The 2023 parameters included school utilization, facility condition, prior investment, socioeconomic factors, school size, the ability to combine attendance areas, future development potential and walkability. School utilization, socioeconomic factors and combinability of boundary areas received the highest relative weighting. The 2023 process did not evaluate high schools or Choice programs, including ORLA and Lincoln.

That work provides important historical context, but the 2023 rankings should not be interpreted as the Superintendent’s 2026 recommendation. Since that process, we have added BERK’s 2025 enrollment forecast, updated capacity and utilization information, current comparisons with other Washington school districts, updated 2026-27 funding information and our Long Range Facilities Master Plan.

If a specific school is proposed for closure, Board Policy 6883 requires a written analysis addressing projected or actual enrollment, effects on other facilities and educational programs, student and staff displacement, transportation costs, renovation potential, financial considerations, possible alternative uses of the facility and potential impacts to other district programs or supports.

Our 2023 School Closure/Consolidation Candidate Process specifically states that the earlier evaluation did not include high schools or Choice programs, including ORLA and Lincoln. Board members have specifically asked how Choice programs should be incorporated into the current process and have emphasized the distinction between evaluating a program and evaluating the facility in which that program is located.

Our Long Range Facilities Master Plan identifies attracting and retaining learners through program options as one of its priorities. It also calls for increased access to hands-on, CTE and alternative programs and for facilities that can support more complex programs and partnerships.

We have not yet finalized or published the methodology for evaluating Choice, alternative and specialized programs in the current consolidation process. As that work develops, we will provide additional information about how these programs are considered and how those considerations factor into the Superintendent’s recommendation.

Superintendent Murphy plans to present his long-term planning recommendation to the School Board on September 17, 2026. That recommendation is expected to identify specific schools for proposed closure and/or consolidation as part of a broader long-term plan. During the August 13 School Board discussion, Superintendent Murphy indicated that the recommendation would be presented as one overall plan, with its individual components identified separately.

The September 17 recommendation is an important step in the process, but the Superintendent’s recommendation is not a final decision to close or consolidate a school. The School Board is responsible for determining what action to take on the recommendation.

If the Superintendent recommends a specific school for closure, Board Policy 6883 establishes an additional public process before a final closure decision can be made. The policy requires us to make a written analysis available to the public and requires the Board to conduct one or more public hearings during the 90 days before a final decision, with a separate hearing for each school proposed for closure. A hearing may not occur sooner than 10 business days after the written analysis is made public. The final determination of whether a school remains open or closes is made by the School Board.

Families, students, staff and community members can continue to follow our Long-Term Planning webpage, which will serve as the central location for the Superintendent’s recommendation, supporting reports, meeting information and future community engagement opportunities.

We have not yet published a school-specific consolidation proposal showing projected class sizes, split classes or staffing at receiving schools. Those impacts cannot be reliably calculated until a recommendation identifies which schools and student populations would be affected.

Our Comparison of Olympia Costs to State Funding helps explain why enrollment matters to staffing. Using an elementary school of 400 students as an example, the document compares the staffing generated through the state prototypical funding model with what that funding supports after accounting for our salary and benefit costs. For example, the state formula generates funding equivalent to 23.5 teacher FTE in the example, while the district-equivalent calculation is 18.3 FTE at our costs. The document is a funding comparison rather than a proposed staffing allocation, but it illustrates the relationship between enrollment, state funding and staffing capacity.

The School Board has also specifically asked how consolidation could affect split classes, fractional staffing and positions that may be duplicated when multiple schools are operated. Any final proposal will need school- and grade-specific enrollment and staffing projections before conclusions can be drawn about those impacts.

We have not yet published a school-specific consolidation proposal showing how individual programs, services or student supports would change. Those impacts will depend on which schools, programs and student populations are included in the Superintendent’s recommendation.

The School Board has specifically asked how our long-term planning can support Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) and provide additional or more consistent resources to schools. Our Comparison of Olympia Costs to State Funding also illustrates how enrollment scale affects the funding generated for positions such as librarians, counselors and health services. In the elementary example, it takes 775 students to generate the state funding equivalent of one librarian FTE at our salary and benefit costs, 517 students for one counselor FTE and 514 students for one nurse/health services FTE.

Those figures do not mean a school must reach those enrollment levels to receive those services. We can and do allocate staffing differently based on student needs and district priorities. They do help explain why smaller schools can result in more fractional assignments or require additional local resources.

If a specific school is proposed for closure, Board Policy 6883 requires our written analysis to consider the effect on educational program offerings and the potential impact on other district programs and supports.

If the School Board ultimately approves a school closure or consolidation, transition planning would be a significant part of the work that follows. Our school consolidation roadmap, informed by Hanover Research, identifies student orientations and school visits, family information sessions and tours, collaborative planning for staff, opportunities to honor school histories and traditions, and preparation of classrooms, technology, transportation and other operational systems as important elements of a successful transition.

The roadmap also calls for continued support after implementation, including monitoring academic, operational and school-climate indicators, collecting feedback from students, families and staff, and making adjustments based on what we learn.

The specific transition plan would depend on which school communities are affected and would need to reflect the needs of those students, families and staff.

We cannot determine transportation impacts until a specific consolidation recommendation identifies receiving schools and the students who would attend them. Current capacity information can identify available space, but it does not by itself determine bus routes, ride times or safe walking and biking routes.

Walkability was explicitly included as a criterion in our 2023 School Closure/Consolidation Candidate Process, with the stated purpose of maintaining opportunities for students to walk when possible. Board Policy 6883 also requires us to consider student displacement and transportation costs in our written analysis of any school proposed for closure.

Once specific schools and attendance areas are identified, we can more precisely evaluate transportation eligibility, potential ride times, walking and biking routes, traffic patterns and other student safety considerations.

It is possible that a change in school assignment could affect an individual family’s enrollment decision, but the information currently available does not establish how many families might leave our district as a result of a future consolidation or closure.

Our Long-Term Planning webpage notes that we currently enroll more students who transfer into our district than we lose through interdistrict transfers. BERK’s Long-Term Enrollment Forecast also explains that its cohort-survival methodology captures enrollment changes associated with students moving into or out of the district and students moving between district and non-district educational options. BERK’s report does not attempt to predict how a future school closure in Olympia would affect those choices.

During the August 13 Board discussion, directors also asked us to learn from the experience of Bellevue and other districts that have closed schools. That analysis is not currently included among the materials posted on our Long-Term Planning webpage, so we should not assume that another district’s experience will predict what would occur in Olympia.

Closing a school would not automatically mean selling the building or property. Board Policy 6883 requires us to consider whether a facility could effectively be used for another purpose and to consider potential revenue from sale or lease as part of the required analysis.

Potential future uses could include other district programs, early learning or childcare, partnerships with community organizations or public agencies, leasing space or other uses that meet district and community needs. Our Long Range Facilities Master Plan similarly emphasizes flexible and adaptable facilities and spaces capable of supporting more complex programs and partnerships.

We have not published estimated sale values for school properties as part of the current Long-Term Planning materials. If district real property were ultimately sold, Washington law generally requires proceeds from the sale to be used for capital or debt-service purposes rather than as an ongoing source of operating revenue. Any potential sale would also involve a separate process from the decision to close or consolidate a school.