Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Staffing Allocations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees press Austin ISD staff on staffing weights, ratios and academic baseline
Summary
Trustees probed district staff about the shift from enrollment-based allocations to weighted staffing formulas and asked for clearer academic baselines tying staff allocations to program offerings, citing inequities where some schools have more staff but fewer course options.
At an April 30 work session, Austin ISD staff described how the district moved from enrollment-only staffing allocations to a weighted formula that factors special education, emergent bilingual, and economically disadvantaged populations. Denanisha Presley said the district introduced weights after 2021 and recommended pausing any changes to weights until the board's academic vision and baseline expectations are clarified.
The details: Presley and Mark Gurgle, director of staffing and substitute services, walked trustees through baseline allocations (one principal per campus; assistant-principal minimums: elementary 1, middle 2, high 3; counselor minimums; elementary class ratios such as preK3 1:17 and prek4-4 at 1:22; secondary teacher work loads and a 1:29 baseline ratio) and the mechanics of the weighted formula staff uses to increase allocations for campuses with higher special-education populations.
"Our weights align closely to what we say are our values in Austin ISD," Presley said, urging that weight changes should go forward in tandem with the district's academic vision.
Trustees' concerns: Several trustees described cases where a school could have higher staff allocations but fewer program options (for example, one middle school with no foreign-language offering despite a higher staffing weight). Trustee Kintana said that makes it difficult to approve budget tradeoffs without a clear academic baseline for what every school must offer.
Trustees asked staff to map current allocations to actual campus programming: which positions support mandatory graduation requirements, which are tied to magnet or CTE programs, and which are discretionary. Trustees also pressed to know where instructional coaches, content interventionists and other campus-based supports are funded (staff said many such positions are funded out of Title and local funds and, on TAP campuses, additional allocations exist).
Next steps: Staff agreed to return with program-level connections to staffing allocations and to provide examples of campuses where weighted allocations increased staff but did not expand program offerings. Trustees emphasized they want that data before adopting any policy changes to weights or finalizing staffing-related budget cuts.
Ending note: No policy changes were adopted at the work session; trustees asked staff to pause weight changes until the board can align staffing formulas with an agreed academic baseline.
