Trustees hear rising budget gap, mass public pleas to protect special-education stipends and grievance access

Trustees at the Austin Independent School District’s April 23 meeting were warned repeatedly by staff and callers that the district faces difficult staffing and program decisions after finance staff flagged a preliminary projection for 2026–27 that could total about $181 million.

Katrina Montgomery, the district’s chief financial officer, told trustees that the FY25–26 adopted budget (initially a $19 million adopted deficit after vacancy savings and other strategies) has a revised projection of a $49 million shortfall for this fiscal year, and that a separate preliminary calculation for next year shows a possible $181 million gap. The projection hinges on conservative assumptions about property values and average daily attendance.

Why it matters: that size of deficit would drive conversations about personnel, stipends and programs. In a sustained public-comment block, dozens of special-education staff — speech-language pathologists, diagnosticians, school psychologists and others — urged trustees to protect special-education and bilingual stipends, arguing that cuts would cause turnover, imperil compliance with TEA corrective orders and hurt students who rely on specialized services.

"Reducing special education stipends is a pay cut that will lead to turnover and put our district at risk of, again, falling under corrective action," said Shannon Donahue, a bilingual speech-language pathologist, paraphrasing a common plea from recorded callers.

Multiple parents also urged trustees to protect specific campuses from closure. Maplewood Elementary drew sustained defense from parents and alumni who said the school operates at high capacity and at lower-than-average cost per student; callers urged officials to cut central-office overhead rather than classrooms.

The administration outlined a menu of program-level options that staff and principals are evaluating line-by-line: changes to elementary “specials” scheduling (e.g., rotating music/art/PE rather than daily specialists), adjustments to secondary allocations that could affect classroom teaching positions, and differentiated changes to stipends (direct instructional stipends for SPED and bilingual teachers versus indirect stipends such as travel or cell-phone allowances). Lakisha Drinks, chief of staff, said some stipend reductions could be scaled rather than eliminated.

Board action and procedure: after public comment, the administration pulled agenda item 13.3 (GF Local grievance-policy edits) from the consent agenda following callers’ objections and trustees’ questions. The consent package otherwise passed by voice vote. Trustees also debated how conservative to be in assumptions (property value declines of 3%–5% were discussed) and asked staff for the math behind enrollment and ADA assumptions.

"The preliminary budget is built on conservative assumptions — negative 5% property values and a 3% ADA drop — but those inputs change quickly and materially," CFO Katrina Montgomery said during the presentation.

What happens next: staff will continue principal and community engagement, return with more detailed line-item impact analysis, and present staffing-allocation status and a baseline academic staffing model at a future meeting. Trustees emphasized they want the district to use an equity lens in prioritizing reductions and to provide clear documentation of impacts before final decisions.

Ending: the board recessed to executive session to consider personnel items; staff will produce follow-up materials on the FY26–27 assumptions, the status-quo staffing allocations and the detailed stipend inventories that were discussed during the meeting.