Parents and teachers press Pflugerville ISD board to reverse Park Crest middle‑school closure; trustees debate next steps

Parents, teachers and community members told the Pflugerville Independent School District board on June 18 that the district’s optimization plan risks harming vulnerable students and community trust. Julie Garza, a Park Crest parent, said the district’s enrollment projections do not justify singling out Park Crest for closure and asked trustees to “please … vote against the closure of Park Crest Middle School.”

Several speakers described the Windermere and Park Crest processes as rushed and lacking transparency. Nicole Shipley urged the board to adopt a parent “bill of rights” for any future closure debates and to hold community meetings on affected campuses. Teacher Josh Cuddle, who works at Park Crest, told trustees the board should exhaust boundary changes, magnet‑program options and other strategies before closing a middle school: “Before eliminating an entire campus, the district needs to show that we have actually tried other solutions.”

Trustees framed the debate around two broad choices staff described to the board: deeper personnel and program reductions at district and campus levels, or further campus consolidations (including the possibility of closing a middle school or an additional elementary campus). Superintendent Dr. Shepherd and CFO Jennifer Land presented the district’s fiscal backdrop — administrative actions plus four approved elementary consolidations already identify roughly $42 million of a targeted $44 million in cumulative three‑year reductions, leaving an estimated $1–2 million gap.

Several trustees said they would not support eliminating counselors or assistant principals because those positions directly affect student outcomes. Trustee Daniel said closing schools can impose costs on students and staff and argued the board’s job is to choose the “path that best serves the students even when it’s difficult.” Trustee Mitchell and others urged independent technical reviews before any further campus‑level decisions, calling for feasibility, structural capacity and special‑populations studies to ensure receiving campuses can safely and equitably absorb students and services.

The board did not take action on consolidation beyond work already approved on May 14; Dr. Olivares, who led the optimization presentation, said the meeting was “discussion only — no vote, no action.” Trustees asked staff to return with more detailed, industry‑standard audit proposals, clearer timelines for community engagement, and cost estimates tied to proposed options. Board leadership asked that materials for the July follow‑up be distributed at least three days in advance so trustees and the public have time to review them.

The next procedural step is a district homework cycle: staff will gather audit proposals and timelines and return with clarified options for trustee direction at an upcoming meeting.