Texas justices weighing HISD’s takeover
Houston ISD made its case last week to maintain control of the state’s largest school district, rather than relinquishing control to the Texas Education Agency, during arguments in the case that the Supreme Court of Texas is expected to decide by next year.
State education officials warned HISD in 2017 that it was at risk of being placed under the jurisdiction of state-appointed managers if 13 campuses didn’t show improvement. Two years later, the TEA notified HISD of its plans to take over the board after an investigation into allegations of trustee misconduct and poor academic performance at Wheatley High School.
The main issue argued Thursday centered around whether Mike Morath, commissioner of the TEA, has the authority to appoint the board of managers. The state argues he does under a new bipartisan law, enacted in September 2021, known as Senate Bill 1365.
The law says the TEA commissioner has the authority to
appoint a board of managers based on a conservator appointment that lasts for at least two years. The state appointed Doris Delaney to be a conservator for Kashmere High School due to its low academic performance in 2016.
Kyle Highful, who represents the TEA, told the justices this indicates Morath has the authority to appoint the board of managers, adding that Delaney has been in her post, “well beyond two years.”
David Jay Campbell of O’Hanlon, Demerath & Castillo, who is representing HISD, said it wasn’t so cut and dry. The purpose of a campus conservator is to help make improvement and Kashmere High now has a passing rating.
“Given that she was assigned in 2016 and that Kashmere had an acceptable rating in 2019,” Campbell said, “it’s unclear why she would still be there and what she would still be doing.”
Campbell said the case should go back to trial court and that HISD should receive a modified injunction based on the changed law.
Justice Brett Busby also expressed concerns about whether HISD should be held to a new law.
“I’m concerned about the broader precedent for other types of cases where the law changes and the parties don’t have the opportunity to develop facts about whether the new law applies or not,” Busby said.
In response, Highful, TEA’s lawyer, said they had time before Thursday’s oral arguments to build their case around how the new law applies to them.
It’s also important for the justices to consider that it was a mostly different board and superintendent in charge when talks of a takeover began, said Duncan Klussman, an assistant clinical professor with the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Department at the University of Houston.
“The system has many new board members and completely new leadership is in place,” Klussmann said. “My feeling is that at this stage this is really about whether the commissioner really has the authority to do this.”
The next conference in the case is scheduled for Oct. 18. The justices may not come to a decision until next summer. After the court has oral arguments it will hold a court conference, where the justices will discuss the case. The court has an eight-year history of “clearing the docket,” which means they will issue an opinion anytime before the end of term June 30.