Parents and advocates urge Santa Ana Unified not to cut Early Start infant‑toddler services

Good evening. Dozens of parents, teachers and advocates urged the Santa Ana Unified School District board on June 9 to preserve staffing in the Early Start infant–toddler special education program, warning that cutting one teacher would increase caseloads, lengthen waits for services and risk noncompliance with state requirements.

The most immediate concerns were raised during the public comment period by parents and program employees who said the Early Start program — which serves infants and toddlers with identified disabilities and developmental delays — already handles intensive, home‑ and community‑based services and that relationships between families and teachers are critical to early intervention. "Early intervention is one of the most effective investments we can make," Jose Tapia told the board, adding that reducing teaching staff "has the potential to create significant challenges for the families we serve."

Why parents spoke up

Speakers described the program as family‑centered and said it provides individualized family service plans (IFSPs), developmental assessments and home‑based coaching. Multiple parents said the district’s program had been state‑recognized and had required work to return to compliance in the past; they warned that changing staffing quickly could prompt another audit and endanger services that many families rely on. "This program already serves many children with a wide range of needs," Jessica Hernandez said. "Removing one teacher will place an overwhelming burden on the remaining staff."

Teachers, former and current program staff, and parents also asked for clear financial accounting and program data: how many children the program serves (by birth–3 and by diagnosis), the funding sources for those slots (federal Part C funds, "infant entitlement" allocations and other block grants), and a full line‑item budget for Deaf/Hard of Hearing (DHH) and Early Start services. Speakers repeatedly requested caseload numbers, current utilization and a program‑by‑program account of past and planned staffing changes.

District response and next steps

District staff and the superintendent said the agenda items the board was voting on that evening did not change program services; rather, they addressed compliance with state reporting (STIRs) and formalized a job description and reporting days so the district's payroll and reporting matched State requirements. Jennifer Cisnos, the district finance director, and other staff told the board the Early Start MOU and the new job description align the teacher position to a 202‑day reporting schedule and provide the job description required for state accounting. The district reported that the program will serve roughly 16 children per program strand in the coming school year and that the combined cost of services currently exceeds program revenue by about $200,000 annually.

Parents told the board they were not satisfied with the timing of some notices and asked for additional meetings. The superintendent’s office said it had invited families to meet (including one‑on‑one appointments), will continue outreach, and will supply the requested program and budget detail to parents and to the board. The board voted to approve the MOU and the job description; one or more trustees abstained on those votes while underscoring the need for continued family consultation and clarity on caseloads.

What remains unresolved

Speakers pressed the board for three specific items: a) a clear, itemized Early Start/DHH budget showing federal, state and local sources; b) a current caseload and utilization report for both the DHH and the dually served Early Start streams; and c) a parent‑accessible timeline and plan for staffing and service continuity (including how displaced staff will be reassigned if caseloads rise). District staff committed to follow‑up meetings and to sharing additional documentation requested by parents and board members.

The board did not change program service levels in its vote that night; however, the public record of speakers and the staff commitments to provide additional detail make this an item likely to reappear on a future agenda if families or board members request further action.