For years, families in the Santa Ana Unified School District have been asked to trust that district leaders are moving the schools in the right direction. Yet the data tell a different story. Student enrollment continues to decline, academic achievement remains stubbornly low, and the district has found itself grappling with budget challenges severe enough to trigger layoffs affecting hundreds of employees.
That reality places an uncomfortable spotlight on the reelection campaigns of incumbent trustees Katelyn Brazer Aceves in Area 4 and Hector Bustos in Area 5. Both have been part of the governing board during a period marked by falling enrollment, lagging academic performance, and mounting fiscal concerns.
The central question facing voters is simple: if the district is moving in the right direction, where is the evidence?
Academic Results Continue to Lag
According to the most recent CAASPP testing results reported by EdSource, just 33.02% of SAUSD students met or exceeded state standards in English language arts, while only 22.06% met or exceeded standards in mathematics. That means more than three-quarters of students are not meeting state math standards.
While district officials point to incremental improvement, parents are entitled to ask whether modest gains are enough after years of promises and billions of dollars in educational spending statewide. The concern is not simply that scores remain low. It is that too many students continue to leave the system without mastering core academic skills.
School board elections should ultimately be about student outcomes. If student achievement is the report card for district leadership, many parents may conclude that a change in direction is warranted.
Enrollment Decline Is a Warning Sign
Perhaps no statistic speaks more loudly than enrollment.
District officials have acknowledged that enrollment has been declining for many years. Reporting in 2025 noted that SAUSD enrollment had fallen by roughly 28% over the previous decade. Earlier district documents also highlighted years of sustained enrollment losses.
Enrollment matters because parents vote with their feet. When families leave a district for charter schools, private schools, neighboring districts, homeschooling, or other alternatives, they are expressing dissatisfaction with the product being offered.
The district today serves approximately 36,134 students, a significant reduction from prior years.
Every departing student takes state funding with them. As enrollment falls, financial pressures increase. That is not speculation. It is basic math.
Fiscal Concerns Cannot Be Ignored
The enrollment decline has collided with another reality: personnel costs continue to consume the overwhelming majority of school district budgets.
SAUSD has already approved significant layoffs tied to declining enrollment and the expiration of federal pandemic funding. District leaders have stated that staffing levels had become unsustainable relative to enrollment and available revenue.
Critics argue that board members have too often prioritized maintaining political alliances with employee unions rather than confronting long-term fiscal realities. Whether one agrees with that criticism or not, it is fair to ask how the district arrived at a point where hundreds of educators faced layoffs despite years of warning signs regarding enrollment.
The experience of Los Angeles Unified School District offers a cautionary tale. Recent reporting has highlighted growing concerns about deficits, insolvency risks, declining enrollment, and escalating personnel costs. State fiscal experts have specifically identified employee compensation growth and enrollment losses as major factors contributing to financial stress.
No one is suggesting SAUSD is LAUSD. But the lessons are obvious. School boards that fail to align spending with enrollment trends eventually run out of options.
Questions About Priorities
The criticism of incumbent trustees is not limited to budgets and test scores.
Opponents argue that too much attention has been devoted to political and ideological issues while core academic concerns have received insufficient focus. In Area 5, Hector Bustos attracted attention beyond education policy because of a controversial drag-themed fundraiser that generated criticism from some parents and community members. The resulting debate became emblematic of broader disagreements over the direction of the district and the role of school board members.
Supporters dismissed the controversy as a distraction. Critics viewed it as evidence that district leadership has become disconnected from the concerns of many families.
Regardless of where one stands, the controversy reinforced an important point: many voters appear increasingly interested in practical questions about academics, transparency, parental involvement, and district finances rather than culture-war debates.
The Case for New Voices
The challengers are attempting to tap into that frustration.
Sylvia Iglesias, a former SAUSD student, parent, educator, and retired Orange County Human Services Program Manager, has built her campaign around academic achievement, accountability, parental engagement, and directing resources toward classrooms instead of bureaucracy.
Alejandra Rodriguez, a Santa Ana parent and former city commissioner, has emphasized academic performance, parental rights, transparency, and fiscal responsibility. Her campaign argues that taxpayers deserve a better explanation for why district spending has increased while academic outcomes remain disappointing.
Neither challenger promises easy solutions. Declining enrollment and academic recovery are challenges facing districts throughout California. Yet challengers naturally benefit from one advantage: they are not responsible for the current state of affairs.
The incumbents are clealry to blame for the ongoing disaster that is the SAUSD.
Voters Must Decide Whether the Current Board Has Earned Another Term
Every election ultimately comes down to a simple question.
Are things improving enough to justify staying the course?
For many Santa Ana families, declining enrollment, persistent academic struggles, budget pressures, and recurring controversies suggest the answer may be no. District leaders have had years to demonstrate meaningful progress. Voters now have an opportunity to determine whether that progress has been sufficient.
As they evaluate the races in Areas 4 and 5, voters should look beyond campaign mailers and endorsements and focus on measurable results. Test scores, enrollment trends, fiscal stability, and classroom outcomes provide a clearer picture than political slogans ever will.
The future of SAUSD depends not on promises, but on performance. And performance is exactly what many voters will be evaluating when they cast their ballots this November.
For us the choice is very clear. Both Iglesias and Rodriguez have our support and endorsement.