Oak Grove trustees approve preliminary layoff notices, remove two positions from classified cuts after protest

Oak Grove School District trustees on March 3 approved resolutions authorizing the district to issue preliminary notices for potential reductions in certificated and classified staff for the 2026–27 school year, citing declining enrollment and the expiration of one‑time pandemic and educator‑effectiveness funds.

Associate Superintendent Boles told the board the certificated list includes positions such as a teacher on special assignment in educational technology, two English learner teacher partner (ELTP) positions, two visual and performing arts (VAPA) teachers and certain certificated administrator codes. Boles said the district has aimed to minimize the number of notices by pursuing attrition and emphasized that state law requires boards to provide written preliminary notice on or before March 15 if a reduction in force is being considered. She also said affected employees have 39‑month rehire rights if positions are reposted.

The board heard more than an hour of public comment from teachers, classified staff, parents and union representatives who urged trustees to protect student‑facing positions. Sarah Nolan, a teacher at Taylor School, said the district should have considered a broader list of positions and pressed the board to explore administrative efficiencies before cutting roles that serve students directly. Nathan Pham of Parkview Elementary said cuts to technology, arts and English‑learner supports would harm students’ instructional access. Chuck Balot, president of the CSCA union, called the special meeting timing inappropriate for bargaining and urged the board to seek alternatives to layoffs.

Trustees questioned staff about funding sources for the positions on the list. Administrators explained that some roles have been partially funded with one‑time or restricted funds and that federal Title III and state Prop 28 funds carry restrictions that limit how and when they may be used to sustain positions. Boles said the district currently has eight ELTPs and that the proposal would reduce two of those positions; she described variability across sites in how much of those staff members’ time is student‑facing.

The board also approved a separate procedural resolution establishing tie‑breaking criteria (Resolution 1543) for cases where certificated employees share the same seniority date. Associate Superintendent Volz outlined seven point categories — credential status, years of service, possession of additional credentials or bilingual authorizations, and others — and said a random seed number would be used only if the points do not resolve a tie. The tie‑breaking resolution passed on a recorded roll call (all recorded members voted “Aye”).

During discussion of classified reductions (Resolution 1544), administrators presented a list of positions the district proposed to discontinue and said the estimated ongoing savings for 2026–27 if all listed classified reductions occur would be about $1,398,556. The list included vacant classified administrator roles, community liaisons, instructional assistants for EL, library clerks at intermediate schools, custodial hours and other coded positions; administrators said some of the positions listed were already vacant or covered by positively assured attrition.

After public testimony emphasizing the role of community liaisons, secretaries and library clerks in student safety, attendance and family engagement, Trustee Yu moved to amend Resolution 1544 to remove the two community liaison positions and the intermediate‑school library clerk positions from the reduction list. Board discussion focused on the fiscal impact of that change and where to find roughly the $275,000 in offsetting savings cited in debate. The amendment passed on roll call (recorded: Member Yolaka — No; Member Torres — Yes; Vice President Yu — Aye; President Hebert — Aye). The board then moved forward with the amended resolution.

The administration said it will meet and negotiate effects with union leaders and continue to pursue attrition and other operational efficiencies; administrators also noted some notices issued on March 15 could be rescinded before the May revise of the state budget if revenues or staffing circumstances change. No final, immediate layoffs were announced at the meeting; the board’s votes authorize the district to issue the required preliminary notices under state law.

The special meeting concluded at 7:50 p.m. The district indicated it will present additional budget advisory updates at upcoming meetings and continue discussions with union representatives and the budget advisory committee.