Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and staff urge Antioch Unified to spare behavior supports and special‑education staff amid proposed cuts
Summary
During public comment at the May 6 board meeting, teachers, behavior specialists, parents and union representatives warned that proposed reductions would increase caseloads, diminish crisis response and harm vulnerable students; speakers urged trustees to delay action and seek alternatives.
Dozens of Antioch Unified staff, parents and service providers spoke at the May 6 board meeting to oppose proposed budget reductions and to describe the human consequences of staff cuts.
Bridal Atkinson, CSEA president and custodian at Bidwell High School, asked the board to delay votes and highlighted that about 105 classified employees face potential layoff, saying those families will face uncertainty. Members of the district’s behavior team told the board that their team currently supports 24 school sites with roughly three BCBAs and five behavior‑support specialists and that eliminating positions would dramatically increase caseloads and response times.
A behavior‑team representative testified that roughly 360 active behavioral cases would, under the proposed staffing model, be divided among far fewer specialists — from an average of about 70 students per specialist to approximately 180 per specialist — a 150% caseload increase the speaker described as "not sustainable." Teachers and classroom staff recounted crisis‑response work the behaviorists provide, from de‑escalation to intervention planning and legal compliance for IEPs.
Parents and resource teachers also urged the board to preserve reading intervention staff and wellness rooms, describing how those supports keep students regulated and in class. Several speakers raised concerns about reliance on contractors for special‑education services, data privacy and the district’s heavy use of an instructional technology product (i‑Ready), and asked for a clear special‑education impact analysis showing how IEPs and safety will be maintained if positions are cut.
The public comment period preceded three board roll‑call votes on related budget and layoff resolutions; the board did not adopt the reductions or the two layoff resolutions that evening. Speakers asked the trustees to use any additional time to provide detailed fall staffing models and impact analyses before taking final action.
What comes next: Staff said it will continue to identify additional reductions and provide updates to the community; citizens and union leaders said they will press the board for alternatives and additional transparency.
