Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Parents, teachers and students urge Antioch board to spare counselors, BCBAs and bilingual aides

Antioch Unified School District Board of Education · May 14, 2026
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

Dozens of public commenters at the May 14 meeting told the Antioch Unified board that proposed staff reductions will damage special education, wellness rooms and bilingual services; speakers asked trustees to protect the most vulnerable students while staff and county present fiscal options.

A long line of parents, teachers and students told the Antioch Unified School District board May 14 that proposed budget reductions threaten services they said are essential for student safety and learning.

Speakers included Antioch High students, classroom teachers and special‑education advocates who described missed IEP services, reliance on wellness rooms and the consequences of losing paraprofessionals and behavior supports. Farzana Saeed, a senior representing Antioch High students, said roughly 85% of students feel unheard by the board and asked trustees to prioritize programs that support students’ learning and mental health. “Removing programs widens existing academic gaps,” she said.

Several teachers and parents detailed specific program impacts: reduced counseling access, large special‑education class sizes without aides, and less bilingual support for English learners. One parent and former nurse appealed directly, saying the district once assured families it understood students’ needs and pleading, “What are we supposed to do with those kids?”

Board members acknowledged the public testimony and said staff would continue to examine how exemptions and phased actions could protect legally required services while meeting fiscal obligations. Directors and staff explained that some positions listed for elimination were funded with one‑time grants or MOUs that sunset, and that restoring those positions would require identifying sustainable funding.

While public comment did not change the board’s decision to adopt a modified reduction package, it did shape board debate: trustees voted to exempt several student‑facing positions from the immediate reduction list, directing staff to pursue other savings and bring additional analyses back to the board.

The comments underscored community anxiety about staffing and services as the district pursues a plan to regain fiscal stability.