Austin ISD trustees voted Tuesday to narrow the district scorecard to three student‑outcome goals and to retain three monitoring constraints aimed at underserved students, dual‑language program fidelity and district accountability.
The board approved removing two goals and two constraints in a pair of votes that followed an extended discussion among trustees about reporting burdens, community priorities and how the scorecard drives budget and program decisions. Vice President Willie Chu moved the first measure to cut the goals; the motion passed 6–2. The board later voted 6–2 to reduce the constraints to three, keeping constraint 1 (underserved students), constraint 3 (dual‑language fidelity) and constraint 5 (accountability tied to unacceptable campus ratings).
The measures change what the board will monitor formally under the Lone Star Governance reporting structure. Trustee Josh Kaufman, who spoke several times during deliberations, said he appreciated narrowing the list but urged the board to preserve attention to middle‑school algebra and other instructional priorities: “I would like to maintain goal number 4 related to middle school algebra because of the importance of our students continuing into, or I'd like to have that discussion at least,” Kaufman said during the debate.
Other trustees pressed two related themes: that the district is already stretched by turnaround plans, consolidations and a tight budget, and that the scorecard must still reflect community values such as caregiver engagement and developmentally appropriate early learning. Trustee Catherine Singh asked the board to keep the dual‑language constraint and the new accountability constraint and to retain the algebra goal; Singh said monitoring dual language remains important because the board policy requires yearly briefings on implementation.
Superintendent Segura told trustees the administration will comply with whichever scorecard the board adopts and reiterated that reporting requirements under Lone Star Governance impose specific content and format rules. “We will do all of this,” Segura said during discussion about constraints and monitoring. He emphasized that the work behind the scorecard will continue regardless of the formal items the board chooses to list.
The board then adopted the amended scorecard and directed staff to include the approved goals and constraints in the Board Handbook and monitoring calendar. Supporters of the narrowed scorecard said trimming formal monitoring items reduces reporting burden on staff and allows the district to focus resources on implementation. Opponents expressed concern that removing items could be read by the public as deprioritizing caregiver engagement and early learning.
Board members also approved updated board guardrails and the board monitoring calendar in related votes later in the meeting. The board's discussion repeatedly referenced the district’s agreed‑order work with the Texas Education Agency and the constraints of Lone Star Governance during the deliberations.
The board's decisions set the district's formal monitoring priorities for the coming year and shape the content of future briefings and budget trade‑offs.