The Austin Independent School District on Oct. 9 held a special information session on a draft consolidation plan that would reassign students, convert some campuses to non‑zoned program schools and propose up to 13 campus closures — prompting a night of sustained public comment and hours of trustee questions.

Dozens of parents, teachers and neighborhood representatives urged trustees to slow the process, provide more data and protect neighborhood schools and dual‑language programs. Many called on the board to preserve existing boundaries for Pemberton Heights residents zoned to Cassis Elementary and to spare Sanchez, Becker, Maplewood and other neighborhood campuses from reassignment or conversion.

The district presented the draft plan and defended the rationale behind it. Superintendent Miguel Segura said the district is under multiple pressures — a multiyear funding shortfall, loss of state and federal program dollars and an agreed order from the Texas Education Agency that requires turnaround plans for multiple academically unacceptable campuses. Segura apologized for the disruption the draft plan has caused and said administrators will refine the proposal after public feedback.

Why it matters: The plan is intended to align school capacity and attendance boundaries with where students live, stabilize programs such as dual language, and produce annual operating savings the district projects will help close a structural deficit. At the same time, trustees and residents said the proposal risks displacing vulnerable students, reducing access to dual‑language classrooms and disrupting long‑standing community feeder patterns.

What residents said: Thirty‑five speakers addressed the board in person; the district also played 25 recorded messages. Speakers testified one minute each under the public‑comment rules.

- Several residents from Pemberton Heights asked trustees to keep that neighborhood zoned to Cassis Elementary, saying the boundary preserves a short walk for families and long‑standing feeder patterns to middle and high school. “Maintaining the current boundary provides consistency,” said a recorded message from a Pemberton Heights resident. (Public comments, Oct. 9.)

- Multiple Circle C residents said a small pocket known as Wildflower Park should not be rezoned to Bailey Middle School, arguing Gorzycki Middle is closer and preserves community continuity.

- Families from Sanchez, Becker and other East Austin campuses urged trustees not to dismantle dual‑language programming or to reassign students without guaranteed transportation. A Sanchez teacher and parents said converting Sanchez to a school‑wide, non‑zoned dual‑language campus could scatter the existing community and eliminate bus access for families who rely on it.

- Education Austin members, teachers and staff raised concerns about layoffs disguised as savings, the likely loss of non‑contract staff and the effects on classified employees. A Maplewood teacher said most savings in the draft come from eliminating positions and urged the district to prioritize turnaround supports over closures.

District rationale and plan details: Administrators said the proposal emerged from a two‑part review: a rubric that identified misalignments in building utilization, cost per student and facility condition, followed by a contextual analysis of boundaries, feeder patterns and program placement. Highlights administrators presented:

- Program moves: The draft proposes shifting several elementary campuses to school‑wide dual‑language models, introducing a Spanish–Mandarin immersion site and relocating a Montessori program. The district says the changes aim to cluster dual‑language seats where emergent‑bilingual students live and to move toward a 50/50 emergent‑bilingual vs. non‑emergent‑bilingual balance at school‑wide sites.

- Capacity and closures: Administrators said even after proposed moves, the district would still have substantial unused seats but that closing select campuses is the most direct way to reduce recurring operating costs. The draft estimated annual net savings around $25.6 million (administration figure); officials called that estimate conservative and said it excludes potential future revenue offsets.

- Staffing and transitions: The draft includes a staff transition plan the administration said is intended to offer positions to current AISD employees who choose to remain in the district. Timelines proposed in the presentation call for principal selections in December 2025, staffing allocations in January 2026 and internal hiring fairs in February–March 2026.

Trustee discussion and public requests: Trustees pressed administrators for detail on budgets, transportation impacts, special education placements and how the draft would affect enrollment. Several trustees and public speakers asked the administration to publish more granular data — enrollment forecasts, the assumptions behind savings estimates, the expected number of families grandfathered to stay at their current schools and how transportation will be sustained for low‑income families.

What’s next: Administrators noted the draft will be revised after additional community feedback and multiple meetings are scheduled through early November. The board was scheduled to receive a revised deliverable in early November and to vote on final recommendations at a later meeting; administrators said a formal board vote on any closures or boundary changes would come only after further refinement and trustee review.

Community context: Residents repeatedly asked the trustees to slow the timetable and demanded clearer guarantees for dual‑language students, students with disabilities and families that depend on bus transportation. Neighborhood groups and alumni associations offered to help the district refine proposals and urged the board to protect the legacy and identity of neighborhood schools.

Ending: The administration asked for more time to refine the draft and said it will post updated materials and a comment form on the district website; trustees and the superintendent emphasized the district is listening to public input but said the proposed changes respond to both fiscal pressures and regulatory obligations.

(Quotes and specific requests above are drawn from in‑person comments and recorded messages played during the meeting; all quotes are attributed to speakers present in the public record from the Oct. 9 information session.)