Buddy Falcon

🪶 THE DEMOGRAPHIC SCORECARD: PFISD CELEBRATED THE HIRES. NOW SHOW THE RESULTS—AND THE RULES. 🪶

Earlier I posted PfISD’s own Campus Improvement Plan language showing campuses counting “non-white” hires, calling White staff “overrepresented,” and describing demographic alignment as a staffing accomplishment.

That raises the next question:

If race-linked staffing goals are important enough to celebrate in an official campus plan, what did they actually produce for students?

PfISD’s plans are not shy about taking a victory lap.

Westview Middle School said it had:

> “added staff and faculty that are representative of our student population and successfully retained diverse staff.”

Carpenter Elementary called its recruitment efforts “strong and successful” after reporting:

> “During the 2024-25 hiring season, 8 of the 12 teachers hired were diverse candidates that helped us better match the representation of our students.”

Brookhollow Elementary listed this as a campus strength:

> “We have increased the number of minority and male staff to align with our student demographics.”

Timmerman Elementary said:

> “Staffing this summer has been intentional in hiring staff members who better represent the demographics of the campus.”

Windermere Elementary reported that 8 of 17 newly hired staff identified as people of color.

Dessau Middle School reported that it had:

> “strategically attended recruiting opportunities to recruit a diverse staff.”

Those are not casual phrases. They are the district’s own descriptions of what it values and what it considers progress.

But a demographic tally is not an academic intervention.

It is not a bilingual certification.

It is not a reading strategy.

It is not a math intervention.

It is not a stable faculty, a strong principal, a safe classroom, or a reason families should have to wait another year for improvement.

And the record is mixed.

Westview celebrated a “representative” staff while receiving overall F ratings in 2023, 2024, and 2025 before entering a state-required turnaround process.

Timmerman described intentional demographic hiring while receiving overall F ratings in 2024 and 2025 and moving into turnaround planning.

Connally focused on White-teacher “overrepresentation” and increasing diversity in hiring while remaining under a state improvement plan centered on academic performance, coaching, classroom rigor, and instructional systems.

But not every campus using demographic language struggled. Brookhollow earned a C rating and a science distinction. Windermere earned a B rating and multiple distinctions.

That is the point.

The public records do not show that changing staff demographics is a reliable shortcut to better academics, stronger attendance, improved discipline, or a stable workforce.

A hiring tally can tell us who was hired.

It cannot tell us whether students are learning more, whether teachers are staying, whether classrooms are properly staffed, or whether families are being served better.

🪶 THE HBCU QUESTION

PfISD has also pointed to recruitment through Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Black educator organizations.

Let’s be clear: there is nothing wrong with recruiting at HBCUs.

HBCUs produce outstanding teachers. They should be part of any serious district’s recruitment strategy—along with Hispanic-serving institutions, Asian-serving institutions, state universities, private colleges, military-transition programs, residency programs, and alternative-certification pipelines.

Recruitment opens the door.

Hiring decides who walks through it.

Those are not the same thing.

And here is the part PfISD should pay attention to.

A recent North Carolina study found that Black students performed better in math with HBCU-trained teachers. The effect was not limited to Black teachers.

White teachers trained at HBCUs also outperformed White teachers trained elsewhere when teaching Black students. The study also found lower suspension rates for Black students taught by White HBCU-trained teachers.

That does not mean race is irrelevant. It means training matters.

It means relationship-building, cultural fluency, expectations, discipline practices, and classroom skill are professional competencies.

They can be learned.

That is a very different message from telling students—or teachers—that “non-minority instructors” have difficulty forming authentic relationships with minority students.

The evidence points to a better question:

What are strong teacher-preparation programs teaching that PfISD could offer every educator—White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, multiracial, new, veteran, and future?

The goal should not be to replace one race with another.

The goal should be to build teachers who are prepared to teach every child well.

🪶 NOW SHOW THE PUBLIC THE REAL SCORECARD

If PfISD wants to celebrate demographic hiring results, then put the outcomes beside the celebration.

Show us:

• Teacher certification rates
• Out-of-field assignments
• Uncertified and certification-deficient positions
• Teacher experience levels
• Vacancies
• Turnover
• Bilingual and ESL capacity
• Discipline patterns
• Attendance
• Academic growth
• State accountability ratings

Those are the measures that tell families whether a staffing strategy is working.

Not whether a hiring-season spreadsheet produces the preferred demographic headline.

And there is a legal line the district needs to explain.

PfISD may recruit broadly. It may work to ensure qualified candidates from every background know about open positions.

But individual applicants and employees should not be selected, rejected, transferred, assigned, evaluated, promoted, or disciplined because of race.

That is why the district’s own wording matters:

“Considered when new hires are being made.”

“Intentional in hiring.”

“4 non-white staff members out of 7 hired.”

“8 of 12 teachers hired were diverse candidates.”

Those statements do not prove discrimination.

They do raise legitimate questions about what criteria are being used—and what safeguards protect individual applicants.

🪶 QUESTIONS FOR BOARD PRESIDENT CHEVONNE LORIGO-JOHST AND TRUSTEE JEAN MAYER

1. What evidence did you review showing that demographic staffing goals improved academics, attendance, discipline, retention, or campus climate?

2. Will you require campuses that celebrate demographic hiring results to publish the academic, attendance, discipline, certification, and retention data beside those claims?

3. Will you confirm that recruitment through HBCUs and specialized professional organizations expands the applicant pool—but does not permit race to influence individual employment decisions?

4. What written, race-neutral criteria govern recruitment, interviews, recommendations, hiring, transfers, assignments, evaluations, and promotions?

5. Are principals instructed to track the race or ethnicity of applicants, interviewees, recommended hires, or new employees? If so, for what purpose and under what safeguards?

6. What protects a qualified applicant from being disadvantaged because a campus believes too many people of that applicant’s race already work there?

This is not a request for another slogan.

It is a request for measurable results, written rules, and a public answer.

Every qualified teacher deserves to be evaluated as an individual professional—not reduced to a number on a demographic chart.

Buddy Falcon Media, LLC
Keeping Watch. Always. 🪶

Pflugerville ISD Ken PaxtonGreg Abbott Texas Education Agency Texas Education 911 Erin Anderson

🪶 HE LOST THE BADGE BUT WAS HE STILL ANSWERING THE CALLS?🪶

Questions Remain About Role Clarity, Security Access, Pay Credit, and the Review of Staff Concerns

By Buddy Falcon Media, LLC

At Weiss High, Springfield’s title changed. But the radio—and the authority it implied—never quite left the building.

When Jason Springfield moved from campus security to an Educational Associate role, the district changed his title. But in the hallways, the daily rhythm of his work appeared not to skip a beat. The radio was still on his hip. The earpiece was still in his ear. And eventually, an actual security officer reported asking why an Educational Associate was calling the shots.

So, what actually changed? The job, or just the paperwork?

🪶 THE FIRST COMPLAINT

In April 2025, a front-office employee filed a Level I grievance. She described a volatile student incident that left her feeling unsafe enough to retreat behind a locked door.

The grievance painted a jarring picture. It alleged that while she sought safety, Springfield did not intervene. Afterward, the employee reported seeing Assistant Principal Uyen Tran and Springfield laughing and joking during a passing period.

Security Lead Jeffery Goodman reviewed the incident and issued a Level 1 Written Warning to Springfield. But Goodman drew a hard line regarding the other half of the complaint. He stated he could not investigate Tran because she was outside his chain of command.

That is where the record stops: the review addressed Springfield, but the records reviewed do not show a separate determination regarding the concerns about Tran.

🪶 THE THREE-YEAR PAY MYSTERY

By the summer of 2025, Springfield had transitioned to an Educational Associate II role.

His transfer application reported 13 years of experience. But just 11 days later, the district’s internal salary calculation credited him with 16.

That three-year difference matches the length of his Security Officer service from 2022 to 2025. His pay was set at $23.81 per hour, with the notation “peer equity.”

This post does not claim that PfISD acted improperly by counting security service as Educational Associate experience. But the record raises basic transparency questions.

Which three years were added?

What specific policy allowed those years to be credited?

Was Security Officer service treated as comparable Educational Associate experience?

And was that same “peer equity” standard applied to every other EA in the district, or was this a singular calculation?

🪶 THE TITLE CHANGED. THE QUESTIONS DID NOT.

By October 2025, the district’s own Safety and Security Coordinator flagged the situation. In a memo, the coordinator identified Springfield as an Educational Associate while documenting conduct that could lead staff, parents, and students to believe he was still serving as security.

The list of observations is long: security-style clothing, a radio, an earpiece, hallway activity, student escorts, and restroom checks.

Other security staff echoed the confusion. One officer reported that Springfield entered a male restroom to check on a student who was not in his assigned behavior program.

Internal notes placed his work under Functional Academics and behavior support.

So what authority did he have after the title changed?

🪶 WHO INVESTIGATED?

Assistant Principal Uyen Tran.

That choice is the centerpiece of the confusion.

Tran had been named alongside Springfield in the earlier front-office grievance. When new complaints surfaced about Springfield appearing to operate as security, Tran was the one tasked with determining whether he had done anything wrong.

Her October 30 report cleared him.

The report listed only two witnesses: Samantha Welch and Ramon Nazario.

Nazario is a significant inclusion. He was the behavior staff member previously involved in a different student-boundary outcry that Tran had also handled. That student alleged Tran required her to demonstrate an unwanted hug on Tran, discouraged her from talking to a trusted teacher, and had her sign paperwork without a parent present.

Those allegations are separate from Springfield’s case. They are not findings of wrongdoing.

But Nazario’s inclusion as one of only two witnesses in a report clearing Springfield raises questions about the thoroughness of the process.

And the report itself is remarkably thin. There is no narrative summary, no witness-statement summary, and no completed recommendations or HR-designee response.

The released report does not identify the Safety and Security Coordinator or the security officers who raised the initial alarms as witnesses.

🪶 THE DECEMBER REPORT

By December, the questions had not gone away.

Weiss Security Officer Asia Bevis reported that Springfield was responding to security calls and directing her where to go “as if he’s a security officer or my boss.”

Her email was forwarded to Central HR.

The records reviewed show the forwarding, but they do not show a reopened investigation, a corrective-action plan, or a documented resolution.

🪶 THE LATER TEA CONTEXT

For context, a later PfISD release listing educators with open TEA matters included both Tran and Nazario.

Those TEA matters began in 2026, after Tran’s October 2025 review of Springfield. They are not findings of wrongdoing, and they cannot be retroactively treated as an October 2025 conflict.

But later developments do not erase the earlier paper trail.

The district changed Springfield’s title. But the question remains whether it ever changed the job.

When an Educational Associate carries a radio, monitors hallways, and directs security personnel, the district owes the public an answer:

Who authorized it?

Who supervised it?

What written steps, if any, were taken after security staff raised these concerns?

— Buddy Falcon Media, LLC
Keeping Watch. Always.🪶

Pflugerville ISD Texas Education Agency Greg Abbott Ken Paxton

🪶 PFISD’S “OTHER PAY” PROBLEM: WHO GETS EXTRA, WHO GETS ZERO, AND WHY? 🪶

Before Pflugerville ISD asks families to accept school closures, campus consolidations, and “optimization” as an unavoidable financial reality, taxpayers—and district staff—deserve a clear explanation of how administrative money is being distributed through supplemental pay categories.

To be clear: this is not an allegation of wrongdoing by any employee. Public employees do not control how a district codes, authorizes, or reports compensation. The issue is whether PfISD can clearly explain the written rule, payroll code, funding source, and authorization used to award supplemental pay — including why some campus leaders show thousands of dollars in “Other Pay” while others show $0 in that same column.

Recently, a tip led us to review public salary records, TEA employment data, and district directories. Additional records remain have been requested from PFISD and any updates will be based on verified documents. The records reviewed so far raise more questions than they answer.

We recognize that base pay varies by campus level; a high school principal may make more than an elementary principal based on standard contract days, campus size, and assignment responsibilities.

The issue is not base pay. The issue is the money recorded in the column labeled “Other Pay.”

According to published public employee compensation data—cross-referenced with Texas Education Agency employment records and district directories—PfISD campus and administrative leaders show significant differences in supplemental compensation in the records reviewed.

The public records reviewed show some administrators receiving thousands of dollars in “Other Pay,” while others show $0 in that same column.

In the 2023 itemized public payroll records reviewed, the “Other Pay” column highlights clear differences for those receiving additional supplemental compensation:

* Lacey Ajibola — $104,371 base pay + $15,000 Other Pay
* Emily Rachel Delgado — $101,304 base pay + $10,000 Other Pay
* A high school campus principal — $111,703 base pay + $14,000 Other Pay
* Paula Gamble — $127,078 base pay + $6,938 Other Pay
* Barry Miller — $98,058 base pay + $14,000 Other Pay
* Dora Molina — $96,897 base pay + $14,000 Other Pay

Public records reviewed for the following campus leaders show $0 in that same supplemental column:

* Zachary Kleypas, Principal (former) of Pflugerville High School: $0
* Michael Grebb, Principal of Hendrickson High School: $0
* Reese Weirich, Principal of Timmerman Elementary: $0
* Philip Hogan Clayton, Principal of Pflugerville Middle School: $0
* Genia Antoine, Principal (former) of Pflugerville Elementary School: $0

The records reviewed also raise questions beyond a single reporting year. Not every difference is improper, and this is not offered as a one-to-one comparison of job difficulty. It is offered to show why itemized payroll coding matters.

One high school campus principal was listed at $125,703 in 2023, including a $14,000 “Other Pay” entry. By 2025, public salary data lists the same administrator at $147,955 — a more than $22,000 increase over two years. Without itemized payroll detail, the public cannot determine whether that increase came from base salary movement, contract days, reclassification, assignment pay, supplemental pay, or another authorized category.

Meanwhile, Genia Antoine, an elementary principal with $0 in the reviewed supplemental column, was listed at $101,958 in 2023, $104,988 in 2024, and $110,180 in 2025. Reese Weirich, listed by PfISD as Principal of Timmerman Elementary, also shows $0 in that supplemental column in the reviewed records. Their listed wages show a different compensation trajectory. This comparison is not offered to claim any employee was paid improperly; it is offered to show why itemized payroll detail matters. If there is a written formula distinguishing these assignments, PfISD should release it.

Campus level and contract days may explain part of the baseline difference between leaders. But they do not explain why one public payroll record shows $14,000 in “Other Pay,” while other records — including records for veteran principals, high school principals, and a principal tied to opening a new campus — show $0 without a visible written explanation.

Because the 2025 public salary summary rolls compensation into one annual wage figure, the public cannot determine the breakdown. The public cannot tell whether the difference is contract-based, stipend-based, assignment-based, policy-based, or otherwise authorized.

Texas school districts operate under adopted compensation plans and board-approved budgets. When some administrators receive five-figure supplemental payments while others show $0 — including some principals at large high school campuses — it raises reasonable questions. If these payments were issued under different supplemental compensation rules, what written rule controls who receives them and who does not?

Formal Public Information Act requests have been filed for the written payroll codes, funding sources, and board authorizations for each identified payment. We will update the public as information is received. However, given prior issues with delays, cost estimates, redactions, and Attorney General referrals in public records matters, the public should not have to wait months, if ever, for a basic explanation.

If any figure is incomplete, miscoded, or missing context, PfISD can correct the record by producing the payroll code, funding source, written purpose, and authorizing policy. If the explanation is legitimate, PfISD can resolve this with one table showing each payment, each $0 entry, payroll code, funding source, written purpose, and authorizing policy.

If these payments are routine, the documentation should be routine too. A basic explanation should not require a protracted process.

It may be longevity pay. If so, that should mean the payment was based on a consistent service calculation — not a selective, unexplained decision. Who had uninterrupted PfISD service? Who left and returned? Were prior years counted anyway? Were all employees with the same credited years treated equally? If PfISD claims this was longevity pay, the district should be able to show the service dates, eligibility basis, and calculation used for every person who received it — and every comparable person who did not.

The records reviewed so far are enough to justify one basic request: show the payroll math.

PfISD wants the community to trust its school-closure math.

Then start by showing the payroll math.

Source Note: Figures cited above are drawn from public compensation records, including OpenPayrolls, GovSalaries, TEA employment data, and district directory information reviewed to date. Public payroll databases may contain coding or context limitations; PfISD is invited to correct or clarify any figure by producing the underlying payroll code, funding source, written purpose, and authorizing policy. Additionally, principals mentioned are invited to clarify any additional pay they receive. Email [email protected].

— Buddy Falcon Media, LLC
Keeping Watch. Always. 🪶