Quick Take
The Soquel Union Elementary School District board approved preliminary layoffs equivalent to nearly 17 full-time positions Wednesday night after dozens of parents, staff and students protested the cuts during a packed meeting. District leaders said the reductions are necessary to address declining enrollment and a structural budget deficit, though community members warned the layoffs could harm student services and campus safety.
The Soquel Union Elementary School District board approved eliminating the equivalent of nearly 17 full-time positions during its meeting Wednesday night, as dozens of students, parents and staff stood in protest.
The positions include one counselor, four administrative specialists, a benefits technician, four custodians and a range of other reductions.
Mary Maleta, a parent of four children in the district, told Lookout that after years of seeing teachers leave due to low pay, and now the layoffs, she feels defeated.
“It feels like we’re screaming into a void and no one’s listening,” she said. “We’re at a tipping point. We can’t do this anymore.”
Like many school districts across California and in Santa Cruz County, Soquel Union Elementary has seen significant declining enrollment over the past decade mixed with rising costs. Live Oak and Pajaro Valley Unified school districts also approved layoffs this year. Over the past 10 years, SUESD’s enrollment dropped 25% across the district’s four schools, bringing its revenue down.
About 80 staff, parents and students packed the New Brighton Middle School auditorium to urge the board to reject the layoffs. Board members said they’ll spend the next couple of months searching for ways to avoid the reductions before a state-mandated May deadline when the district has to make a final decision. By approving the reductions Wednesday night, they were able to meet a March deadline to issue preliminary layoffs.
“This is the most difficult professional decision we have been a part of,” said board president Ariel Gray. “It is deeply, deeply frustrating how chronically underfunded public education is at the state and federal level.”
Gray said making staff reductions through attrition (closing vacant positions) isn’t enough to balance the budget at this point. She read a long statement describing the district’s budget and how the board reluctantly came to the conclusion that layoffs were necessary.
Earlier this year, Gray said the district began assessing the long-term health of its finances and started considering how to cut costs. During public comment at meetings, community members shot down several ideas such as closing and consolidating schools, she said. The district tried passing a parcel tax twice, but both times the measures narrowly failed.
Gray said another option Soquel is still actively exploring is whether it should consolidate with another neighboring school district. She said the district is working with the Santa Cruz County Office of Education to understand the financial benefits. She expects to have a report released later this month.
She said these options don’t address the district’s near-term financial challenges. To address its structural deficit, the district continues to spend down its reserves, which were at 12.44% at the end of the 2024-25 school year. Projections show reserves declining to 8.24% this year, then to 6.59% and 6.44% in the subsequent two years. She said this is “low, but not terribly low.”
Gray said the district also estimated its reserves after salary increases and health care contributions. In that scenario, without layoffs, the reserves dropped to 1.37% in 2026-27 and down to negative-2.1% in 2027-28.
“It would be irresponsible for us to submit a multiyear projection of less than 3% in reserves — perhaps even negligent,” she said. “I personally will not sign off on a multiyear projection with negative numbers.”
Gray said 90% of the district’s budget is spent on staffing and there is nowhere else to cut. Still, she said, the school board is trying to decide how much weight to put on the projections for the coming years.
In the end, the board approved the two sets of layoffs: one for its staff with teaching credentials and one for its non-teaching staff.
Layoffs for staff with credentials include one full-time-equivalent counselor, .20 of a full-time district nurse and .50 of a full-time intervention teacher.
The board also approved reductions to 14.8 full-time-equivalent positions among non-teaching, classified staff: four administrative specialists working just under full-time, one full-time benefits technician, one vacant part-time community liaison position, four full-time custodian positions, two part-time instructional aides, one director of fiscal services, one data information specialist, one vacant payroll technician position, one vacant part-time school office assistant and two full-time wellness coaches. The cuts affect about 15% of classified staff.
Main Street Elementary Administrative Specialist Sarah Webber told the board that reducing the office staff from two to one will have devastating impacts on safety at her school. She tracks daily attendance and also provides health assistance for students.
“If there is only one person in the office, and that person either calls in sick or has to leave the office to support someone on campus, that creates a huge safety risk to our schools,” she said, as the crowd cheered in support. “We are the ones who can see who is coming onto the campus. We are the ones who know the restraining orders. We are the ones who check the IDs.”
Enrique Dolmo, president of the classified union and New Brighton Middle School’s athletic directo, said he was devastated by the vote for layoffs.
“We have a lot of district employees here who are worried if they’re going to have a job here in a couple months,” he said. “It’s really sad.”
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.