Arlington ISD approves staffing-ratio changes after consultant warns of fiscal pressure

Arlington ISD trustees voted unanimously Feb. 20 to approve the district's proposed staffing ratios for the 2025'26 budget after receiving a market-based staffing analysis from Mo Casey that warned of declining enrollment and shifting student needs.

Mo Casey consultant Lloyd Graham told the board the district is "extremely lean" at the executive level but faces demographic change that will tighten finances if state relief does not arrive. The consultant and district staff recommended raising the junior-high staffing ratio and adjusting special-education allocations; the board approved those recommendations, subject to final budget adoption.

The consultant's report, presented by Graham, compared Arlington ISD with peer districts Fort Worth, Garland, Grand Prairie, Irving and Mansfield and found enrollment decreased by about 6,194 students between the 2019 and 2024 benchmark years. District staff and consultants said that decline, together with rising per-student program weights (notably special education), means the district must consider incremental changes now to prepare for possible larger budget impacts in 2026'27.

"There's no cause for alarm," Graham told trustees, but he urged "incremental changes" and said, "everything needs to be on the table." Graham said Arlington has fewer central administrators than peers but a higher student-per-central-admin ratio, a pattern he characterized as "anomaly" and unsustainable if enrollment drops continue.

Human-resources director Melody Lopez reviewed the administration's recommendation to update the district's staffing grid for 2025'26. Arlington's current average student-to-teacher ratio is 13.8 districtwide (compared with a state average near 14.8), but Lopez and the consultant said averages mask programmatic needs and the district's rising share of special-education students. Lopez recommended raising the junior-high staffing ratio from 24:1 to 26:1; staff estimated that change would yield an estimated reduction of about 27 teacher FTEs and an approximate savings of $1,920,402 based on the teacher midpoint cost.

Lopez also proposed targeted special-education changes: reduce the elementary C's teacher ratio from 8:1 to 6:1 (estimated to add about two teachers), adjust C's-enabled classroom-assistant staffing from two TAs per teacher to three TAs once class size reaches five students (estimated ~12 additional TA positions), and add one gap C TA per learning community (four additional TAs). District staff later provided a cost estimate for those special-education TA and teacher additions of about $664,104 total.

Trustees pressed staff on classroom-level impacts and averages. Trustee Wilbanks and others framed the decision as a tradeoff that would free resources for higher-need special-education supports. Trustee McMorrow and Trustee Haynes asked for reassurance about how the change would affect lower-performing campuses; administrators said principals had been consulted and that most junior-high principals favored 26:1 or 27:1 as a practical target. Superintendent Dr. Smith and staff emphasized the ratios are staffing formulas used to assign FTEs by campus and are not identical to final class rosters, which are set when campuses build master schedules.

Several trustees expressed concern about marginal increases in class size for teachers. Trustee Fowler said, "I never wanna hear that class sizes are going to be increased" and warned about discipline and workload impacts at the junior-high level; staff responded with average-class-size data they said come from PEIMS and internal analysis: the district's current junior-high student-to-teacher average is 13.1 and no campus average exceeded 14.1 at the time of the report.

The board approved the staffing ratios motion 7'0'0 unanimously; President Chapa moved to approve the proposed staffing ratios for the 2025'26 budget subject to approval of the final budget, and Trustee McMorrow seconded. The administration said any implementation changes would be addressed primarily through attrition, schedule adjustments and campus-by-campus support plans.

Administrators said next steps include embedding the approved ratios in the 2025'26 staffing grid, working with principals on master schedules to minimize classroom disruption and monitoring state legislative developments that could change projected revenues.

Graham closed his presentation by telling the board he found the district's culture a strength: "Nobody had a negative thing to say about the district ... everybody loved this place," he said.

The board's action on staffing will be reflected in the proposed budget later this spring; trustees scheduled no separate vote tonight beyond the motion approving the ratios.