Opinion: Former and current AUSD staff, parents share concerns about Antioch school district
Provide salary information for senior management
Dear Antioch Unified School District Board Members,
Given the severity of the district’s deficit, the community deserves to understand why the Board continues to authorize expensive contractors to perform work that qualified district staff are fully capable of handling. In education, sustainable improvement comes from setting clear expectations, providing support, and building internal capacity. Antioch is a resilient community filled with talented professionals. Our people deserve the opportunity and the trust to meet the standard.
It is also important to acknowledge that many of these same consultants were used in Pacifica and Sequoia, districts where the Superintendent departed in under two years amid controversy. Why would the Board select a leader without a demonstrated record of long-term, successful superintendent leadership.
Board President Dr. Jag Lathan, you are currently running for County Superintendent. If effective oversight and leadership cannot be demonstrated in a mid‑sized district like Antioch, how will you lead an entire county. Voters are watching and waiting for you to do what is right.
The district’s increasing reliance on high‑cost consultants is fiscally irresponsible and deeply concerning especially during a financial crisis. This year alone, consultant contracts are projected to exceed half a million dollars, including external providers for executive coaching, financial consulting, data analysis, and organizational climate assessments. Only a small portion of these contracts appear justified given staffing shortages. The rest raise serious questions about duplication of services, transparency, and fiscal priorities. The district already employs dedicated, effective leaders who have invested their careers and their hearts into serving Antioch’s students. Overlooking this internal capacity wastes resources and damages morale. Replacing qualified internal leaders with consultants occupying long‑term roles is unjust, irresponsible, and demoralizing. At what point will the Board accept accountability for these decisions?
There has also been a mass exodus of leadership and long‑term teachers. This exodus is directly tied to the current district leadership. Why is the Board not interviewing these long-standing, highly respected employees to understand why they are leaving AUSD?
Attorney fees have been repeatedly discussed at board meetings and often dismissed by comparing them to previous years. But this year, the number of law firms brought in under Dr. Williams has significantly increased legal costs. If the highly publicized employee bullying lawsuit from last year were removed from the comparison, would last year’s attorney fees still exceed the current year’s. That is a question the community deserves answered.
According to individuals familiar with the superintendent hiring process, community panelists were puzzled by the Board’s decision. Several candidates reportedly ranked higher among parents, staff, and students including two Latino leaders who panelists felt could more closely relate to and serve the district’s student population. Insiders state that Dr. Williams ranked last among five finalists in some community feedback summaries. Despite these concerns, Dr. Williams assumed leadership of AUSD in July 2025.
It is public knowledge that entering the 2025–26 school year, AUSD faced an approximate $12 million deficit. The CBO in place at the time who had full knowledge of the deficit and a fiscally sound plan to address it without harming student services or requiring staff layoffs was placed on leave almost immediately by Dr. Williams. It has been stated repeatedly at board meetings that the approved raises and continued 100% district‑paid health benefits did not contribute to the now $31 million deficit. That is not accurate. The increased deficit is directly tied to the raises and benefits negotiated by Dr. Williams and her attorney.
Another contributing factor is the Superintendent’s newly created salary schedule. Historically, AUSD superintendents were placed on salary schedule 734 with a 260-day work year. Dr. Williams negotiated a new 737 range with a 225-day work year 35 fewer days than her senior management team. The previous superintendent, at year six, earned $358,340 annually ($1,378 per day). Dr. Williams began at $361,165 annually ($1,605 per day) and will top out at $1,728 per day.
Despite this significantly higher, per‑day rate, district staff report that Dr. Williams is rarely present in the district office, and when she does arrive, it is often afternoon. She is not beginning her day at school sites, and her whereabouts during the workday are frequently unaccounted for. Given these concerns, why was an entirely new salary schedule created without any data demonstrating long‑term success, improved student outcomes, or consistent leadership presence. Her history shows the opposite, with districts left in turmoil.
At what point will the Board seek honest insight from current and former employees rather than relying on soundbites and publicity efforts. The community is asking for transparency, accountability, and the responsible use of AUSD funds. Every dollar spent should reflect a commitment to students, staff, and the long‑term stability of this district—not to unnecessary contracts, unchecked legal fees, or inflated administrative compensation.
Respectfully,
Amy Bettencourt, former Director of Educational Services, Antioch Unified School District and Concerned Staff, Parents and Citizens
In a note included with the emailed letter to the editor Bettencourt wrote, “I know I left Antioch USD at the end of February due to the toxicity and storm the new superintendent brought to the district, but I continue to hear from a large group of employees who are desperately trying to elevate their concerns publicly.”
the attachments to this post:
AUSD AMA Salaries Chart 2025-26
AUSD AMA Salaries Chart 2024-25
Opinion AUSD-Logo
