As Austin ISD administrators debated which neighborhood schools to close last year, their internal messages portray a far messier process than what was visible to the public.

Despite a public rubric meant to guide the closures, administrators compared campuses, questioned whether decisions aligned with the district’s own criteria and vented frustration about parents pushing to protect their schools. In some threads, participants attempted to delete messages after colleagues reminded them the conversations could become public records.

The exchanges, obtained by Austin Current, offer a rare window into the district’s decision-making during the contentious consolidation process that ultimately led trustees in November to approve closing 11 schools across 10 campuses and relocating dual language programs. The conversations reveal internal tensions over how to balance declining enrollment, financial pressures and the competing priorities of different school communities.

The messages also raise questions about whether decisions followed the district’s publicly stated framework and how much influence community pressure, property considerations and internal debate played in determining which schools would close.

Leaked screenshots of the messages, posted to social media this week by parents who obtained copies separately, drew immediate backlash from Austin ISD families. One mother who testified during Thursday’s Austin ISD board meeting said the records raised concerns about staff behavior and oversight, as well as what appeared to be violations of transparency, abandonment of the district’s own decision-making framework and managed public engagement.

“At this point the situation feels more like the emperor has no clothes,” Delicia McLean told trustees during the meeting. “Everyone inside the system pretends the process is transparent and principled when the public can see clearly that it is not.”

How campuses were weighed

District leaders began planning the consolidation effort last spring as Austin ISD faced declining enrollment and a growing budget deficit. District officials now say the deficit is expected to be about $30 million deeper by the end of the school year. Properties of schools slated for closure could potentially be sold to help offset the district’s deficit.

At the same time, multiple campuses had received repeated failing ratings under the state’s accountability system, increasing pressure on the district to intervene.

District officials said decisions about which campuses to consolidate would follow a rubric for the school closures based on factors such as underenrollment, overcrowding, poor facility conditions and high operational costs. Seven of the 10 schools chosen to close had multiple failing accountability ratings from the state.

“Which building would you rather keep – Barton Hills or Becker?” Raechel French, director of planning services, wrote in an October message to operations officer Christine Steenport in an exchange both attempted to delete.

Steenport said she would consult with the district’s trade managers, who oversee structural systems on buildings.

“Barton hills is better,” Steenport later replied.

Becker Elementary is currently slated for closure. Several community members testified Thursday asking board members not to simply sell the school, which has tentatively been listed as surplus, or “not needed for district use.”

In another thread participants attempted to delete, district leaders discussed the challenges of working around keeping Joslin Elementary open despite the rubric. In a separate exchange, administrators appear to weigh two schools largely based on geographical location and each building’s Facility Condition Assessment score without referencing other factors listed in the district’s framework.

The exchange raised questions among some families about whether potential property value or redevelopment considerations played a role in the district’s deliberations.

District leaders did not respond to requests for comment on why Joslin had to be kept open or whether potential financial considerations or property values played a role in their decisions.

In the end, districtwide rezoning was delayed and Maplewood, Bryker Woods and Palm elementary schools, were removed from the closure list in early November after an abbreviated public process that left many parents and community members questioning how district leaders ultimately decided which schools to save and which to close.

Frustration with community voices

The conversations also reveal frustration among some administrators toward parents advocating for their neighborhood schools, and extended internal debate about how district leaders should respond to families. In some instances, administrators turned to ChatGPT for help drafting responses.

In an October thread, as community members provided input, Statia Paschel, director of strategic planning and organizational effectiveness, wrote she had stopped watching the public chat, “because the ugly was too much.”

Gloria Vera-Bedolla, a family engagement coordinator, then referred to Becker Elementary parent Tanner Van Essen, who had spoken during the meeting, as “poisonous.”

Shortly after the messages were sent, Alison Ghilarducci, chief of communications and community engagement, reminded participants that the discussion was subject to the Texas Public Information Act. The participants then attempted to delete the conversation.

Van Essen said he was shocked to learn administrators had discussed him and other community members in that way.

At Thursday’s board meeting, Van Essen called for a more thorough investigation into the consolidation communications.

“I am sick of people being treated this way in the district,” Van Essen said. “You are never going to grow enrollment if you continue to treat parents in such a disparaging manner. We feel it even if you don’t say it out loud and now we know in the chats what we were feeling was accurate.”

Austin Current sought comment from each employee named in this story, either individually or through Austin ISD. None of the employees responded and the district did not provide comments on their behalf.

Instead, Austin ISD in a statement Friday stood by the integrity of the consolidation process and said the district remains committed to community input.

The district apologized to those who felt hurt by comments “made without the appropriate level of care” and said it would use the moment to “reinforce expectations for internal communication” and better equip staff to uphold the district’s values. The district also said some changes were made to consolidation plans in response to community feedback as part of an effort to balance engagement with difficult decisions.

“We acknowledge that a process resulting in this level of frustration has room for improvement and we are committed to learning from this experience and rebuilding trust with our community,” the Austin ISD statement said. “While we see some of these internal messages as raw, human reactions to that pressure, they do not always reflect the professional standards we expect of our employees.”

The district said it will incorporate new approaches to community engagement as it works to repurpose school buildings slotted for closure.

Debating dual language

Many of the conversations focused on the district’s dual language programs, which were significantly affected by the consolidation plan.

In a message thread, Executive Director of Family Experience and Enrollment Victoria O’Neal said “affluent” families whose first language was English treated the district dual language programs as “their right to have, rather than a privilege.” Popular two-way dual language combines students who primarily speak a language other than English with those whose first language is English so both groups can become fluent in both languages.

O’Neal then went on to suggest that if students in the programs were assigned to attend underenrolled, struggling middle schools, and parents objected, “then we know they don’t actually want an assigned middle, they want guaranteed access to the schools they feel entitled to.”

Other exchanges reveal administrators wrestling with how to maintain the two-way dual language program’s goal of enrolling roughly equal numbers of emergent bilingual students — those learning English while developing their first language — with non-emergent bilingual students.

Four elementary schools with dual language programs were ultimately slated to close. Administrators debated whether students should be grandfathered into existing programs, how changes would affect siblings, whether transportation would be available and whether the plan still aligned with the program’s original goals.

Yvette Cardenas, executive director of academic programs, voiced concerns the district might be making too many concessions during the process.

“I’m getting concerned that we’ll lose sight of who we’re trying to serve,” Cardenas said in a message.

The internal exchanges, now circulating publicly, are prompting new questions about transparency and how decisions affecting thousands of students were ultimately made.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to provide the definition of the district’s trade managers.