Judson Independent School District will have 536 fewer positions next school year. The board approved the cost-saving move in a 6-1 vote.
The decision on Tuesday to cut positions comes after the board approved closing four schools in February and as Judson faces a budget deficit over $35 million. Both cost-saving measures fell within the first two months of a new district leader’s tenure.
“We are in a transition period where things aren’t always the same as they used to be, where people aren’t as comfortable as they used to be,” said interim superintendent Robert Jaklich, a retired superintendent picked by the board to lead the district in February.
He stepped into the role after the board fired Superintendent Milton Fields for reasons still kept under wraps and stepped and as Judson has gone without a chief financial officer since October, a crucial role in leading a district’s financial planning.
Jaklich said cutting positions is the only way the district could balance its budget without affecting students too much. Judson ISD could start a school year without a budget deficit for the first time since 2022.
Right now, 91% of the district’s total budget goes toward personnel, though best practices are to allocate 85% of funds for staff. The district plans to reduce staffing costs by 7% across six employee categories: teaching (the largest group), campus administrators, central office administrators, auxiliary staff, professional support and educational aids.
Judson currently has 3,371 full-time employees, and officials say cutting 536 positions would save the district about $35 million, but it doesn’t actually translate to firing 536 people. The district has 307 vacancies and plans to cut 175 of them. Closing four schools also frees up another 281 positions.
Trustee Jose Macias Jr., the lone vote against cutting positions, said the district should fill vacancies instead of cutting them and look into selling vacant property instead.
Jaklich said the number of employees who would be directly affected by the cuts would be closer to 77, and the district would try to place them in the most essential vacancies.
“I just wanted more time to get comfortable,” Macias said. “I think there were some other avenues we could’ve pursued.”
Teachers would have the most positions eliminated as the district increases teacher-student staffing ratios in most grades, especially in middle and high schools where districts have more freedom to increase class sizes when necessary.
But staffing ratios don’t mean class sizes will automatically increase, officials say, and reducing the number of teachers could free the district up to focus on teacher retention and training.
Still, some teachers and families are concerned larger ratios could negatively affect student outcomes.
“The math isn’t mathing right,” said Scott Willis, a math teacher at Veterans Memorial High School. “The high schools are going to carry the brunt of this… you’re cutting too many teachers at the high school.”
The number of teaching positions cut, 258, is less than then number of teachers who usually leave the district on their own every year, which is usually around 300 according to state data. Judson also plans not to rehire uncertified teachers for the upcoming school year.
“We are not going to cut teachers to where they’re not going to be able to provide services to our students,” said Jaklich.
Making staffing cuts district-wide keeps single departments or programs from bearing the weight of rightsizing, said Lacey Gosch, assistant superintendent of support services at Judson ISD.
As part of this new “staffing blueprint,” board members also agreed to rescind previous actions that reduced work days for elementary principals, data clerks, middle school counselors and campus secretaries as a way to save money.
Looking for a way to access more cash, Jaklich is even considering going out for a voter-approval tax rate election (VATRE) that could unlock an extra $11 million every year for the district to use on things like pay raises and student programs.
Judson went out for a VATRE last year, but 60% of voters rejected the proposition. By balancing the budget this year, Jaklich is optimistic that voters would choose differently the next time it’s proposed.
