Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Desegregation Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board reviews language‑acquisition, transportation and CRPI budgets in desegregation study session

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Tucson Unified administrators presented budget proposals tied to desegregation funding, including detailed briefings on language-acquisition programs and two‑way dual-language expansion, transportation costs and proposed staffing reductions, and CRPI staffing and nonpayroll cuts.

The Tucson Unified School District governing board continued a spring series of desegregation budget study sessions on April 15, receiving presentations on the Language Acquisition Department, Transportation and the Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Instruction (CRPI) department and discussing proposed reductions ahead of the June budget decision.

Patricia Sandoval Taylor, director of the Language Acquisition Department, told trustees that language services support more than 12,000 students who speak another language at home, roughly 5,000 of whom currently qualify as English learners. She outlined four state‑approved program models used by the district — structured English immersion, pull‑out services, newcomer programs and two‑way dual language — and said two‑way dual language programs currently serve about 2,400 students across 12 schools.

Sandoval Taylor said roughly 80 percent of the department’s capital and personnel budget is classroom‑facing and that recent capital reductions forced the department to defer some materials purchases. She described a central budget of about $1.5 million for two‑way dual language and related supports and said DSEG funding helps the district earn additional school accountability points tied to English‑learner reclassification.

Martha Zamora, director of Transportation Services, described a complex operation of about 385 FTE encompassing bus drivers, monitors, dispatchers, mechanics and shop staff that maintains the district’s 300‑vehicle fleet. Historically the department has been funded from both desegregation (DSEG) and maintenance & operations (M&O) budgets; Zamora said recent changes to the split and pay increases for drivers pushed the projected DSEG budget higher and that the department proposed reducing roughly 27 vacant FTEs (about $1 million) and trimming other line items to reduce DSEG exposure by about $575,000.

Board members discussed operations and the district’s ability to expand routes. Trustees said they had seen many empty seats on buses and noted an ongoing proposal to reduce the district’s walk zone to increase ridership; staff said a re‑envisioned transportation plan would be presented in May that might expand universal routes and middle‑ and high‑school service.

Lorenzo Lopez, director of CRPI, summarized his department’s reach: CRPI supports teachers across elementary, middle and high school, provides a district summer institute and offers one‑to‑two weekly in‑class visits by master teachers for mentoring and co‑teaching. Lopez said the department’s FY25 payroll and benefits total about $960,000 and that proposed reductions for FY26 would eliminate one vacant master‑teacher position and reduce nonpayroll instructional funds for books, substitutes and summer PD. He said the change would increase remaining mentor teacher caseloads from roughly 18 to 20+ teachers per mentor, above district norms.

Lopez and other presenters emphasized that their teams also provide an array of districtwide training and community events. Trustees asked for clarifications about line‑by‑line cuts and about which positions are centrally funded versus school‑funded. Some trustees asked that departments supply more granular lists showing which schools would lose positions under different cut scenarios.

No final board decisions were made; the board will consider the district’s desegregation‑fund budget for FY26 at a June meeting. Directors said they would return with revised proposals and detailed school‑level allocations as the budget cycle proceeds.