Dear Dr. Licata and Members of the Board,

In the absence of established guardrails and goals, as outlined by the board governance framework set by TEA, I urge you to table tonight’s vote!

Your proposed plan outlines broad intentions such as “right-sizing,” “reducing administrative overhead,” and “delivering services differently,” yet it does not provide any concrete explanation of how these outcomes will be achieved. There are no clear action steps, implementation timelines, staffing models, or accountability measures. Additionally, the board has not set guardrails to prevent reckless risks from being taken, nor have you set goals as outlined by the board governance framework set by TEA. Without these details and necessary actions, it is difficult to understand how critical student services will be maintained, much less strengthened.

I respectfully ask the district to:

• Table the voting on the reduction in force proposal until guardrails and goals have been established

• Outline a community response to the questions and concerns outlined below

• Provide a comprehensive implementation plan that includes:

• Specific staffing models and campus-level allocations

• Clear timelines and phases of execution

• Defined accountability measures and success metrics

• Detailed explanations of how service continuity will be ensured for all student groups

As you set goals and guardrails this summer, I would ask that you consider the comments and questions below:

Emergent Bilingual: The assurance that special education, Emergent Bilingual, and newcomer services will continue “without interruption” is not supported by any operational plan. How will campuses absorb these responsibilities? What staffing ratios are being proposed? What training and resources will be provided to ensure continuity and quality of services? These are essential questions that remain unanswered.

How will the elimination of district-level leadership positions responsible for Emergent Bilingual programs impact state and federal compliance standards? To what extent are current state bilingual education allotments and federal funds contingent on having designated program oversight and leadership? What is the cost-benefit comparison between maintaining these leadership roles versus potential losses in funding, compliance penalties, or program degradation? What safeguards will be in place to ensure continued compliance, reporting accuracy, and audit readiness?

Dual Language: Similarly, while the Dual Language Two-Way program is referenced throughout various proposals, it receives no dedicated action plan — no articulated commitment to sustaining its excellence, no conditions identified for continued growth, and no assurance of the resources and leadership structures the program requires to thrive. This is particularly concerning given concurrent proposals to cut administrative positions that may directly support the program's coordination and oversight. It is also worth noting that families who enrolled in the Two-Way program signed a contract committing to its long-term success. That same standard of accountability should now be expected from the administration.

How will the elimination of district-level leadership positions responsible for Dual Language Two-Way program affect the district’s ability to qualify for state funding streams tied to dual language programs? What are the projected short- and long-term fiscal impacts of these changes on program sustainability? How much funding is currently generated specifically through dual language (one-way and two-way)? If program quality or enrollment declines due to reduced leadership, what is the projected loss in weighted funding or allotments? What is the cost-benefit comparison between maintaining these leadership roles versus potential losses in funding or program degradation?

International Newcomers Academy: The proposal to downsize International Newcomers Academy (INA) and disperse newcomer students into neighborhood schools also lacks sufficient detail. What specific language development supports will follow these students? How will newcomer students be supported academically and emotionally? How will campuses be equipped to meet their unique needs? What metrics will be used to evaluate success? INA teachers are trained in second-language acquisition, newcomer instruction, and culturally responsive support. How will these teachers be retained, and will their invaluable expertise follow the students dispersed to various schools? If so, which schools, and will these teachers’ expertise be split across multiple campuses? What staffing and training will be provided for general education teachers who will need to support these students? What is the cost breakdown of such staffing and training?

Special Education Services: The proposed reduction in force includes many personnel who oversee and implement Special Education Services (e.g., Child Find, ARD committee managers, speech therapy assistants and therapists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, diagnosticians, and psychologists). To state that services will “continue without interruption” signals a misunderstanding of how understaffed these programs currently are. For instance, diagnosticians’ caseloads are overflowing, and many are split between multiple campuses.

What specific budget analysis demonstrates that eliminating these roles will not reduce the service delivery minutes required by students’ IEPs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act? What is the projected cost savings from these cuts, and how does that compare to the potential financial liability from due process hearings, compensatory education, or litigation? What are the current and projected caseloads for diagnosticians, therapists, and psychologists after these reductions, and how do those compare to recommended or legally defensible thresholds? How and who within the district will ensure compliance with IEP timelines (evaluations, ARD meetings, re-evaluations) with fewer diagnosticians and ARD facilitators? What contingency plan exists if staffing shortages worsen (e.g., vacancies, burnout, turnover)? How will staff splitting time across multiple campuses maintain compliance with service frequency and fidelity requirements?

Finally, the rationale of reducing administrative overhead is hard to reconcile with recent decisions to add high-level administrative positions at significant cost. This raises valid concerns about priorities and whether the burden of these changes is being disproportionately shifted onto campuses and frontline staff.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/education/article315425171.html

At its core, this plan asks stakeholders to accept major structural changes based on general assurances rather than a transparent, detailed strategy. For a decision of this magnitude, that is not enough. Our students depend on these services every day. Any changes to their delivery must be communicated with clarity, specificity, and a demonstrated path to success.

Thank you,

Concerned FWISD Families