Both plans empty Pillow. Only Oak pushes it to #2 on the district's own consolidation list.
Austin ISD scores every campus on a five-factor rubric to flag schools for consolidation. Pillow sits safely in the middle today. Oak and Elm both under-enroll it to roughly the same degree — but only Oak also moves the rubric's multiplier for Pillow, and on the district's own rubric that single difference moves it from #14 to #2.
Today
#62
of 94 going concerns
score 2.04
safe middle
Under Elm
#14
of 94 going concerns
score 2.80
discount kept
Under Oak
#2
of 94 going concerns
score 3.50
discount removed
Independent re-run of AISD's published Data Rubric (Fall 2025) — same five factors, weights, scoring bands, and SRI multiplier bands; validated by reproducing every current campus score exactly (Pillow today = 2.04). Scored on the boundary-honest reside (zoned) basis. Universe = going-concern campuses only: the 10 schools closed in the Nov. 20 2025 board vote, plus Blackshear (closing 2028), are removed. Enrollment from AISD's Oak and Elm scenario files. Oak rank is #2 on the latest scenario data, #4 on AISD's older published reside snapshot — top-3% either way. Not an official district score.
01
What Oak does to Pillow, factor by factor
Each factor scores 1 (well-aligned, no change needed) to 5 (not aligned, closer review). The building score is their weighted sum; the SRI multiplier then applies a discount based on each school’s Support & Resource Index. Higher total = higher consolidation priority.
Factor · weight
Today
Under Oak
Utilizationweight 0.35 · seats filled
76% full (368 / 488)2Slightly under
▲ +253% full (257 / 488)4Very under-enrolled
Building & operations costweight 0.25 · $ per student
$736 / student22nd-lowest band
▲ +1$1,045 / student3Same plant, fewer kids
Building condition (FCA)weight 0.20 · physical state
▲ 0 to +1$9,724–$13,810 / student4–5Fixed staffing, fewer kids
Building suitability (ESA)weight 0.05 · space & design
Average (61)3
— sameAverage (61)3Building unchanged
Building scoreweighted sum of the five
2.55
3.50–4.00
SRI multiplierSupport & Resource Index discount
×0.80SRI 2.08 · 20% discount
▲ discount drops×1.00SRI ~0.5 · no discount
Total scorebuilding score × multiplier
2.04rank #62 / 94
3.50rank #2 / 94
The transfer cliff. Oak's 257 assumes every zoned student enrolls at Pillow. But Pillow runs a transfer-out rate near 40%, and 257 sits just 3 students above the 52%-utilization line that flips the score from 4 to 5. Any net transfer-out tips Pillow to #1 — the highest consolidation-rubric score of any school the district hasn't already closed.
02
Why Oak pushes Pillow to the top
Three forces, all reading as "consolidate." The first two also happen under Elm. The third — the multiplier change — is Oak's alone.
Utilization · 2 → 4
Oak empties it
Oak drains Pillow to 53% by moving 279 students north of 183 out to Padrón. The under-enrollment isn't Pillow's condition — it's the plan's design.
Building cost · 2 → 3
Cost per kid rises
The building costs the same to run with 257 students as with 365. Spread over fewer kids, per-student cost climbs from $736 to $1,045 — into a worse band.
SRI multiplier · ×0.8 → ×1.0
The discount drops off
The rubric multiplies each school’s score by its Support & Resource Index factor — a discount for some campuses. Pillow’s index changes under Oak, lifting the multiplier from ×0.8 to ×1.0, so the full building score applies rather than a discounted one. Under Elm it holds at ×0.8.
03
Where Pillow lands — among schools still open
AISD's consolidation ranking, highest score first, with the schools already closed removed. The three Pillow markers show the same campus under each plan.
Top of the consolidation list · going concerns only
#1Joslin ES 33% — chronically under-enrolled3.56
#2Pillow ES under Oak · 53%3.50
#3Graham ES3.36
#4Campbell ES3.24
#5Bryker Woods ES proposed for closure, spared3.20
… 8 schools …
#14Pillow ES under Elm · 57%2.80
… 47 schools …Pillow today sits here
#62Pillow ES today · 76%2.04
Precedent — Ridgetop ES. A B-rated school closed for capacity in the board's separate Nov. 2025 vote (6–3, with District 4 trustee Kathryn Whitley Chu opposed). It scored 3.45 on this same rubric. Oak puts Pillow at 3.50 — above the bar that closed a good school in your own trustee's district, over her objection. Elm leaves Pillow at 2.80, well below that bar.
04
Why the ranking matters now
A high rubric score only matters if the district is actually weighing closures. It is — and AISD's own June budget discussions point straight at the next round.
To balance the 2026–27 budget, AISD is counting on roughly $60 million in one-time cash from selling four already-closed campuses. At the June 11 work session, the superintendent spelled out what that does to the year after: the one-time money runs out, so it has to be replaced with a permanent cut.
2026–27 budget
$60M
one-time cash from selling four closed campuses
Temporary
→
one-time money runs out
2027–28 budget
$60M
permanent cut to replace it
Recurring
On the property-sale money, the superintendent described the 2027–28 problem plainly: you "replace a one-time expense with a fixed cost."
Supt. Matias Segura — AISD board meeting, June 11, 2026
Trustee Singh: how much will we have to cut for the 2027–28 budget? · Supt. Segura: "60 million" — adding the district already knows "the direction we would have to go, in some cases."
AISD final budget vote, June 18, 2026
Closures are back on the table — as the preferred lever. At that same meeting, a sitting trustee argued she would rather "reconsider closing more schools" than cut SPED services, librarians, or bus routes, noting the closure pause is temporary, not over. The rubric above is the tool the district uses to decide which campuses. Oak moves Pillow from #62 to #2 on it — in exactly the budget climate where that tool gets used.
Quotations transcribed from the AISD Board of Trustees meetings of June 11, 2026 (budget work session) and June 18, 2026 (final budget adoption); recordings and minutes are posted to AISD's BoardBook portal. The ~$60M in one-time 2026–27 revenue comes from the sale or monetization of four closed campuses and is a separate figure from the ~$60M in recurring cuts the superintendent projected for 2027–28 — the two are linked by the district's own logic (one-time revenue replaced by a permanent cut), not double-counted. Pillow's rubric movement is the independent re-run described above, not an official district closure list.