Head Start provider proposes JRG Head Start expansion, says district could save about $678,000 a year
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
A Head Start provider proposed that Edcouch‑Elsa ISD partner to operate an expanded JRG Head Start Academy, offering staff and services at no cost to the district and estimating $678,008.69 in annual district savings; trustees were asked for a letter of commitment and to review the proposal in workshop.
A Head Start provider asked the Edcouch‑Elsa Independent School District board on Oct. 27 to consider a partnership to operate an expanded JRG Head Start Academy that would shift many staffing costs to the provider and leave district TEA funding untouched.
The presenter (ECHA representative) described a model that would provide a campus director, assistant campus director, eight social workers (one per two classrooms), 16 assistant teachers (minimum associate degree in early childhood education), eight disability‑aid floaters, one secretary and three custodians. The presenter said those staff costs would be provided by the Head Start program and that the model could serve approximately 360 children in up to 60 classrooms. The presenter stated, “Your total annual savings is $678,008.69,” and estimated five‑year savings of $3,394,003.45.
Program leaders said the Head Start model would not replace district teachers: the district would continue to employ classroom teachers, librarians, coaches, nurses, security and other school staff. The provider said Head Start eligibility rules mean some children would qualify for Head Start services and noted the provider already partners with multiple local districts.
Trustees asked for more detail: staffing qualifications, how many pre‑K versus life‑skills classrooms would remain with the district, and a timeline. The presenter recommended the district consider a letter of commitment and suggested discussing the proposal in a workshop before any formal agreement.
What’s next: the provider requested a commitment and said implementation would be considered for the 2026–27 school year; trustees did not approve an agreement at this meeting and requested further review and documentation.
