Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Early Childhood topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects proposed preschool layoff resolution after parents and teachers testify on impact
Summary
After emotional public testimony and staff financial analyses showing a preschool program deficit, the board voted down Resolution 3560 to issue preliminary layoff notices for preschool staff; board members sought more data and discussed using one-time relief or general-fund supplements to sustain programs.
The Sacramento City Unified School District board voted against a proposal (Resolution 3560) to issue preliminary layoff notices for preschool employees after parents, teachers and board members raised concerns about program stability and funding conditions tied to Head Start.
Two public commenters described the programs’ importance. Kayla Chantenglancy, speaking for parents, described the disruption to very young children if trusted early-childhood teachers are laid off. Preschool teacher Maria Avedisov said her classroom serves children from low-income families and connects families to services, arguing the program provides both child and family supports.
District staff presented financial analyses and options. Staff reported an existing preschool deficit of about $626,000 tied to proposed reductions of six classrooms, and said earlier scenario planning had produced options that would reduce the deficit to as low as $880,000 only by eliminating central office support — a move staff said would risk Head Start funding. Staff said Head Start funders and SETA require minimum central-office staffing ratios to maintain funding and that the district’s funding application due March 6 must reflect required positions.
Staff also presented program-level numbers for fee-based programs: for LDV, annual revenue was $586,000 and costs $668,000, leaving an $82,000 deficit; converting some programs from 12 months to 10 months could reduce deficits (a reported $30,000–$55,000 range for the examples offered). Assistant Superintendent Fisher Hill explained that state and federal preschool funding is enrollment-based and that the district had previously converted some slots to Early Head Start to retain funding.
Several board members said they were not comfortable approving the preschool layoff notices without clearer fiscal detail and alternatives. Member Singh explicitly said she would vote no without detailed numbers showing costs and what would actually be saved. A motion to approve Resolution 3560 was made and seconded; the recorded votes included Member Jean (reluctantly yes), Member Callata (yes), Member Benjamin (no), Member Rhodes (aye) and Member Ibarra (no). The motion failed.
Staff told the board that if no other funding source is identified, the only local source to cover the preschool deficit would be the district’s unrestricted general fund, and asked the board to consider whether they would supplement the program. Board members asked staff to return with more complete fiscal and enrollment data at the March 5 meeting and to use the preliminary-notice window to pursue alternative solutions before any final layoff notices would be issued in May.
