This post concludes the week focused on Stabilizing Enrollment and builds off of two previous entries:

• Who Do We Hold Accountable and For What?
• Why Enrollment Must Be Stabilized

Currently, our graduating senior classes are significantly larger than the incoming kindergarten cohorts. In Michigan’s school funding model, nearly $11,000 follows every student. Consequently, this trend isn’t just a demographic quirk; rather, it is a fundamental threat to the Troy School District (TSD)’s fiscal stability.

My strategy for stabilizing enrollment breaks down into three distinct areas: the Sphere of Control, the Sphere of Influence, and the Sphere of Concern.

Sphere of Control: Section 105 Policy

The most immediate lever the Board pulls is our policy regarding Section 105, or “Schools of Choice.” This is our primary Sphere of Control. Each year, the Board decides exactly how many out-of-district students to accept into specific grades. Historically, TSD has only admitted Oakland County students for Kindergarten and First Grade.

Strategic use of Section 105 is not about “filling seats” at random; it is about surgical precision. By opening seats in specific buildings where resident enrollment has dipped, we can keep those schools efficient. This allows us to maintain a full slate of specialized programs and prevents the “fixed cost penalty”—where we pay to heat, light, and staff a building that is only at 75% capacity. As your Board member, I will advocate for using this tool to balance our cohorts and ensure that every school in the district remains a vibrant, well-funded learning environment.

I would note that about ten years ago, TSD intentionally sought to phase out Section 105 before restarting the program this school year. Therefore, some of the enrollment challenges that the district is currently confronting are the direct result of policy choices made by past and current board members, including the incumbent running for re-election in November 2026. Approximately 58% of the FTE loss between 2016-17 and 2025-26 is due to the change in Section 105 policy (434 students). Had we maintained out-of-district enrollment at 2016-17 levels, TSD would have earned approximately $4.6 million more in base foundation allowance revenue in this school year.

Sphere of Influence: TSD Resident Market Share

There are two ways to increase the number of TSD resident students:

• Convince more young families to move to Troy; and
• Recruit and retain more TSD resident students.

This represents our Sphere of Influence. TSD exists in a competitive environment where other traditional public school districts, charter schools, and private schools are always vying for our students.

To stabilize enrollment, we must maximize our resident market share (the percentage of K-12 students living within TSD who attend TSD). This means doubling down on the great programs the district has to offer: highlighting our world-class STEM programs, our success in the arts, and our inclusive environment, among other virtues. We need to actively recruit and retain our own resident students by engaging with families long before their children reach kindergarten. If we increase the percentage of Troy residents who choose their local public school, we can significantly offset broader demographic declines.

The TSD FTE market share has been in steady decline over the past decade, dropping from a high of 90.4% in 2016-17 to 88.4% a decade later. If TSD had maintained an 90.4% market share, then we would have retained over 252 more TSD resident students in 2025-26, which would have partially offset the loss of 434 out-of-district students. Given that each student brought in $10,836 in per pupil foundation allowance in 2025-26, the decrease of 252 TSD resident students represents lost revenue of $2.7 million.

Sphere of Concern: Regional Demographics

Finally, we must acknowledge our Sphere of Concern: the countywide trend of aging populations and fewer young families moving into the region. These are external forces we cannot control, but we must account for them in our long-range planning.

Troy is becoming an “aging city.” As neighborhoods transition from young families to empty-nesters, the district must be proactive rather than reactive. We cannot wait for a budget crisis to realize our infrastructure no longer matches our student population. We must use data-driven projections to align our long-term facilities planning with these demographic shifts.

On several occasions, the district has publicly attributed the enrollment decline entirely to the broader population trend of a declining domestic birthrate. While that is one factor, the fact is that the number of TSD resident students in Fall 2025 was only 67 FTE lower than it was in Fall 2016.

The Path Forward

To summarize, between 2016-17 and 2025-26, the FTE decline in TSD enrollment from 12,782 to 12,040 (-742) was the combination of three factors:

• Sphere of Control: a choice by the Board to reduce the number of out-of-district students by 434 students (58% of the total FTE loss);
• Sphere of Influence: a decline in the District’s FTE TSD resident market share from 90.4% to 88.4%, which works out to about 252 fewer students (34% of the total FTE loss); and
• Sphere of Concern: a decline in the number of TSD resident students by 67 (9% of the total FTE loss).

In other words, only a small portion of the enrollment decline is due to population loss. Instead, the decline in enrollment is a direct result of Board policy and a decline in TSD resident market share over the past decade. Fortunately, both of those trends are fixable.

Stabilizing enrollment is the first pillar of my S.M.A.R.T. plan because it provides the foundation for everything else. By managing our Control over enrollment policies, expanding our Influence in the local market, and respecting the realities within our Concern, we can ensure that Troy School District remains a destination for excellence for generations to come.

At the regular board meeting on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, the the Troy School District (TSD) will present its five-year enrollment projections. These forecasts are more than just numbers; they are the fundamental blueprint for the district’s financial health, which is why I included Stabilize Enrollment as the first pillar of my S.M.A.R.T. strategic plan.

The Power of The Count: Per Pupil Funding

In Michigan, student enrollment is the primary driver of school funding. For the 2025-26 school year, TSD receives a foundation allowance of $10,836 per student. This is composed of the $10,050 state base plus $786 generated by TSD’s local hold-harmless millage.

A significant portion of TSD’s operating revenues come from the multiplication of this $10,836 allowance by the “state aid membership,” which is a weighted average of the Fall 2025 (90%) and Spring 2025 (10%) student counts. For 2025-26, this membership is approximately 12,079 students, according to TSD’s 2025-2026 State Aid Financial Status Report.

Beyond the foundation allowance, the district receives categorical grants. These are additional funds awarded based on the number of students meeting specific criteria, such as those qualifying for Special Education or At-Risk services. Unlike the foundation allowance, which provides unrestricted revenue for general operations, categorical grants are restricted, meaning they can only be used for state-mandated purposes and specific allowable expenses. Ultimately, declining enrollment reduces these other forms of revenue.

The “Aging City” Effect: From District to Neighborhoods

While the city of Troy’s total population is projected to grow slightly through 2030, the “student population centers” are shifting as different neighborhoods age at different rates.

• Shifting Demographics: Since 2010, the share of Troy’s population aged 65 and over has increased significantly, while the population under age 18 has shrunk.
• School-Level Variation: As neighborhoods transition from young families to empty-nesters, the district must continue to maintain buildings in older areas. This creates a “fixed cost penalty” where the district pays to maintain infrastructure that no longer aligns geographically with where students live.

The Replacement Gap

TSD is currently facing a “funding cliff” known as the Replacement Gap. This year’s Kindergarten class is approximately 30% smaller than last year’s 12th-grade class. Because these smaller classes are spread across 12 different elementary schools, the district cannot easily consolidate costs. Over time, these smaller cohorts will continue to accumulate and drive the projected decline in districtwide enrollment. TSD can continue to leverage incoming school-of-choice students to strategically mitigate enrollment challenges at each school. However, this strategy does not address the root causes of the problem (e.g., recruitment of young families to TSD).

The Math of Scale: Fixed vs. Variable Costs

Enrollment levels drive both revenue and expenses, but a decline in enrollment poses a unique challenge: costs do not decrease as quickly as revenue. This is the nature of the types of costs that make up a majority of TSD’s expenses:

• Variable Costs: A small portion of expenses, such as classroom materials, are linearly scalable (i.e., they can be easily adjusted based on the exact number of students).
• Quasi-Variable Costs: Most costs scale in “steps” rather than lines. For example, if a 3rd-grade classroom is at the capacity set by the TEA contract, the district cannot hire “1/29th” of a teacher to accommodate one extra student. Conversely, losing one student does not allow the district to reduce teacher salary costs.
• Fixed Costs: Many expenses remain constant regardless of enrollment. Building maintenance, utilities, and insurance costs remain the same whether a school is at 100% or 80% capacity.

The Budgetary Challenge of Non-Variable Costs

A balanced budget requires that total costs equal total revenues. While a decline in enrollment results in an immediate, linear reduction in revenues, costs cannot be easily reduced at the same rate. Furthermore, most of TSD’s budget is personnel-related (salaries, benefits, and retirement). Because most building-level staff (e.g., teachers) are quasi-variable and many others (e.g., principals and central office staff) represent fixed costs, the district cannot simply “scale down” its workforce in direct proportion to a student count decline. Managing this gap between linear revenue loss and non-linear costs is the central challenge of the upcoming budgets.

Summary

Ultimately, these enrollment projections serve as a vital early warning system for the district’s long-term fiscal health. Because school funding in Michigan is a game of “linear revenue versus non-linear costs,” a shrinking student body creates structural pressures that cannot be solved by small, incremental adjustments. As the “Replacement Gap” persists and the city’s demographics continue to shift, the district must proactively align its fixed infrastructure and quasi-variable staffing levels with this new reality. Understanding these trends now allows the Board and the community to make informed, strategic decisions that protect the quality of a Troy education while ensuring the district remains on a sustainable and balanced financial path.

In education, the word “accountability” is used often and immediately prompts two deeper questions: Who is held accountable, and for what? To answer that, we must distinguish between three areas:

• The Sphere of Control: Outcomes TSD can changes through its own actions.
• The Sphere of Influence: Outcomes TSD can change through collaboration.
• The Sphere of Concern: Outcomes TSD cannot normally control or even influence.

In the Sphere of Control, we can focus on academic benchmarks such as 3rd-grade reading, 8th-grade math, and 11th-grade college readiness. While external factors like socioeconomic status impact achievement, they can be controlled for statistically. The district can—and should—be held accountable for analyzing these trends and improving our instructional outcomes.

The Sphere of Influence is more complex. These are outcomes TSD policies can shift, but they require partnership with families and students. These remain fair game for accountability, with an understanding that they require leveraging relationships to drive changes in outcomes, not just improving policies. For example:

• Chronic Absenteeism has more than doubled since 2019, rising to over 13% last year.
• Resident Market Share has dipped by 260 students, resulting in $2.8 million in lost revenue.

Finally, we must consider the Sphere of Concern. These are systemic failures nearly entirely outside local control, yet they dictate our reality:

• Demographics: Aging populations and lower fertility rates.
• Inadequate funding: TSD receives only 87% of the base funding recommended by the School Finance Research Collaborative
• The Pension Burden: 24% of our general fund operating budget is consumed by retirement contributions. To put that in perspective: For every $1 we pay in teacher salaries, TSD must contribute 50 cents toward FICA and the state retirement system, when Section 147c reimbursements are considered.

While absenteeism and market share are within our influence, none of these systemic challenges is within the district’s direct control. So, what do we do?

We must move beyond “either/or” thinking. It has to be “both/and.” The School Board must improve internal policies while simultaneously advocating for the systemic changes needed to support students across Michigan.

We cannot wait for Lansing to solve every challenge. While we fight for state-level reform, we must take ownership of what is within our reach. This August, we will have a rare opportunity to address inadequate funding and move these challenges from our Sphere of Concern into our Sphere of Control. We must ensure that, despite statewide headwinds, Troy remains a leader in excellence.

Accountability isn’t just a word for a board election: it’s a shared commitment we make as a community. I am asking for your partnership, your advocacy, and your vote this August for the enhancement millage and then for your vote in November for the Troy School District board election.

My name is Walt Cook and I will be running for a seat on the Troy School Board in November 2026!

If you are interested in education policy within Troy, please consider following this blog for my thoughts on events as they happen as well as my priorities for helping the District improve if I am elected. Professionally, I try to objectively analyze data and make data-informed policy recommendations and that is exactly what I intend to do in this space.

Out the outset, I want to say that I love the Troy School District. Our 7-year old is a 1st grader at Hamilton and two years prior they were in the Troy School District’s Pre-K program (aka, Early 5’s, Transitional Kindergarten, etc.). Everyone with whom I have interacted–from my child’s teachers to Dr. Machesky and other senior district leaders–could not have been kinder to our family and supportive of our child. I am incredibly grateful for the privilege for our child to be educated in Troy.

Why am I running for Troy School Board?

I have a unique combination of education and experience that I think would be helpful to have on the Board of Education. Please read the About Walt page to get to better know my educational and professional backgrounds. Suffice to say, I am an education policy nerd at heart and want to apply my knowledge and analytical skills to make a positive impact in our community.

As great as the Troy School District is today, I honestly think that we can do a bit better. Why do I say that? Because not too long ago we were. Then the COVID-19 pandemic happened and, simply put, Troy has not fully recovered. That is not meant as personal criticism of the current board or staff; rather, I just think we can do better and want to contribute what I can to fully realize our potential.

Here is some data from MISchoolData.org, a state of Michigan website: back in 2018-19, Troy ranked 7th in the state on 3rd grade ELA, 4th on 8th grade Math, and 5th on 11th grade College Readiness among traditional public school districts in the state with 50 or more assessed students. As of 2024-25, Troy is now ranked 13th, 11th, and 9th, respectively. Educational research has identified 3rd grade ELA, 8th grade Math, and 11th grade College Readiness as key milestones for student success and these measures have been selected by the Michigan Department of Education to measure the progress of “at-risk” students. See Tables 1, 2, and 3 for a quick comparison of Troy to other peer districts in Oakland County.

Table 1: 3rd Grade ELA, 2018-19 vs 2024-25

	2018-19		2024-25		Change
District	3rd Grade ELA Proficiency	3rd Grade ELA Rank	3rd Grade ELA Proficiency	3rd Grade ELA Rank	Change Proficiency	Change Rank
Troy	74.0%	7	67.9%	12	-6.1	-5
Birmingham	70.3%	19	66.6%	15	-3.7	+4
Bloomfield Hills	68.9%	33	65.6%	17	-3.3	+16
Novi	70.1%	20	63.1%	23	-7.0	-3
Rochester	66.6%	44	61.6%	27	-5.0	+17

This table compares Troy to peer districts on 3rd grade ELA proficiency in 2018-19 versus 2024-25, including both the proficiency rates and the state rankings among traditional public schools with at least 50 assessed students.

Source: MISchoolData.org

Table 2: 8th Grade Math, 2018-19 vs 2024-25

	2018-19		2024-25		Change
District	8th Grade Math Proficiency	8th Grade Math Rank	8th Grade Math Proficiency	8th Grade Math Rank	Change Proficiency	Change Rank
Troy	75.1%	4	64.3%	11	-10.8	-7
Birmingham	67.7%	19	64.3%	10	-3.4	+9
Bloomfield Hills	68.1%	17	69.8%	5	+1.7	+12
Novi	75.9%	3	63.3%	14	-12.6	-11
Rochester	68.9%	15	60.4%	18	-8.5	-3

This table compares Troy to peer districts on 8th grade Math proficiency in 2018-19 versus 2024-25, including both the proficiency rates and the state rankings among traditional public schools with at least 50 assessed students.

Source: MISchoolData.org

Table 3: 11th Grade College Readiness, 2018-19 vs 2024-25

	2018-19		2024-25		Change
District	11th Grade Readiness Rate	11th Grade Readiness Rank	11th Grade Readiness Rate	11th Grade Readiness Rank	Change Readiness Rate	Change Rank
Troy	69.8%	4	59.3%	9	-10.5	-5
Birmingham	66.7%	7	57.9%	10	-8.8	-3
Bloomfield Hills	58.7%	24	55.7%	13	-3.0	+11
Novi	73.2%	1	62.7%	4	-10.5	-3
Rochester	64.7%	11	55.6%	14	-9.1	-3

This table compares Troy to peer districts on 11th grade College Readiness in 2018-19 versus 2024-25, including both the readiness rates and the state rankings among traditional public schools with at least 50 assessed students. College Readiness is defined by the state of Michigan as scoring a 480 or higher on the Evidence-Based Reading and Writing (EBRW) and a 530 or higher on the Mathematics sections of the SAT exam.

Source: MISchoolData.org

To be clear, I still consider Troy to be an elite school district and have no regrets about moving here. But Troy’s performance metrics have declined since the pandemic to a greater extent than our peer districts. While it is certainly true that learning was disrupted because of COVID during the 2019-20 and 2020-21 schools year, most of our peer districts have recovered or are well on the road to recovery. Troy continues to struggle to return to its pre-COVID levels of excellence. I will do what I can to help get us back on track–because that’s what our children deserve.

What can be done to address these achievement declines in Troy?

I have some ideas about what I think is behind these declines and what can be done to address them. So please stay tuned to this blog for that analysis for analyses on these and other issues.

In addition to blog posts, I will occasionally share “Research Briefs” that I have prepared for the board and other key stakeholders. These are original, independent deeper dives into issues than can fit in a blog post. Utilizing econometrics and other statistics as well as my domain knowledge to analyze educational data to inform the community and local leaders is what I do for a living, so I actually have some fun putting them together to inform my own thinking and support the board and district leadership’s decision-making.

Why am I launching this site now, so many months before the November 2026 election?

School board elections can be incredibly expensive. I frankly do not have $10,000 or more of my own money to spend on mailers, social media ads, yard signs, etc. So I am trying to generate name recognition for myself through expressing my thoughts on this site so that readers can get a chance to know me.

One of the challenges with electing people to office is that you never quite know what to expect if they do not have a track record as an elected official. I am trying to remove some of that uncertainty by providing my candid, real-time reactions to the events from now until the election as they happen in real-time. If you choose to read these posts, then you can get better acquainted with my approach to problems of practice and thought process for developing solutions.

What can you do to help?

At this point, if you are interested in supporting my campaign, please Like and Follow my campaign’s Facebook Page and follow me on Twitter (@walt4tsd). Or share word of this blog with your family and friends. And if you feel like I could be an asset to the Troy School Board, please consider a donation to help later this year with campaign literature, mailers, newspaper ads, social media ads, and yard signs. And if you do not want to think about a November 2026 race until later this year, I totally get it. This site and all its content will still be here when you are ready to do some research on the Troy School Board race.

If you would like to connect for any reason, I can be reached at walt4tsd@gmail.com. Please reach out if there is anyway I can help with educational data analysis, particularly when it comes to navigating MISchoolData.org or acquiring other public use educational data sets.

Thanks for your time,

Walt