Is TEA takeover of HISD about kids or politics?
It’s finally happening. The state of Texas appears poised to take over the biggest school district in the state, Houston ISD, in a matter of days.
After three years of court battles, sources are telling Mayor Sylvester Turner, and this editorial board, that the Texas Education Agency could announce the radical change in governance as early as next week.
In the past, we’ve been careful to separate potential political motivations Republicans might have in pursuing such a takeover with the hard, cold fact that it was a Democrat from Houston, state Rep. Harold Dutton, whose legislation years ago opened the door for such severe action.
He meant it as a tool to force accountability in districts with chronically failing schools. And for a while, the childish dysfunction of HISD trustees fueled the idea that the district needed grownups to step in. Now, though, voters have replaced much of the school board and some troubled campuses are now showing signs of improvement.
So, is this imminent state takeover of a large urban district really about accountability?
We’ll find out soon enough. But Gov. Greg Abbott’s well-established contempt for local control, especially in jurisdictions led by Democrats, gives us grave concern. So do his other madefor-Fox News antics: meddling in local elections, censorship in school libraries, misleadingly campaigning for private school vouchers and raising the specter of “critical race theory” to chill classroom conversations about the role of racism in America’s past and present.
“Can the state just take over Harris County?” County Judge Lina Hidalgo asked in a radio interview on KUHF’s “Houston Matters” Wednesday morning when asked about takeover reports.
A few years ago, the comment may have been dismissed as partisan hyperbole. Not today.
We generally regard TEA Commissioner Mike Morath as well meaning, but the man who appointed him, Abbott, has big political ambitions and desperately needs to build name ID to register on the presidential hopeful Richter scale.
How better to get headlines than to take over one of the biggest urban school districts in the nation?
Still, the move is grounded in law. It recently received the go-ahead from the Texas Supreme Court.
The upshot is, despite troubling early rumors of Republican plans for privatization of the district, we don’t really know, as of this writing, what the state’s vision for HISD will be. Here’s what we know and what we’re trying to find out.
Why now?
While academic challenges remain, including helping struggling schools continue to improve post-pandemic and navigating a looming budget shortfall once the bounty of COVID-era funds depletes, the district seems to be heading for firmer ground. Yet, after a backand-forth court battle that delayed state action since 2019, the state has argued that the law requires that it intervene under certain circumstances. As we wrote earlier this year, Wheatley High School’s consistently low performance on state accountability ratings “may make intervention mandatory under the law.”
What would a takeover look like?
It could take different forms. A source familiar with the plan tells us, as Turner suggested Wednesday, that the superintendent would be ousted, and the entire elected school board replaced with an appointed board of managers. TEA could also opt to close Wheatley. There are some options for appeal. Wheatley parents could, for example, petition for an alternative. And the district does have the right to due process hearings but as Chronicle reporter Rebecca Carballo notes, that would be overseen by an officer selected by the state education agency’s commissioner.
Would it help?
The track record on big school takeovers isn’t great. Across the country, they generally “don’t deliver promised results,” according to Domingo Morel, assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University–Newark, who wrote a book on the topic. They do, however, “have significant negative political and economic consequences for communities, which overwhelmingly are communities of color.” Here in Texas, several predominantly Black districts have been subject to state governance, including Kendleton ISD and North Forest ISD. At least part of the negative effects stem from losing political representation.
Abbott’s contempt for local control raises grave concern.
Is it political?
We believe the initial intent behind the law was concern about academic performance and we think in the case of some HISD schools that concern was justified. We can’t just allow schools to fail children for years on end. That serves nobody, least of all the bright young minds squandered.
Recent rankings have shown improvement, but the data there is less clear than we’d like because of some pandemic-era adjustments.
That said, the concern about losing local control and handing the reins over to a state whose leadership seems all too eager to slowly strangle public schools is no less grounded in reality.
How will the state explain its decision? How will it signal that the move is about academics and kids’ futures and not about a political power grab? How will TEA build trust and community buy-in — and will it even try?
We’ll be watching, and hoping, that the new leaders aren’t political cronies or vendors seeking to enrich themselves but people with strong education backgrounds who truly want to improve student performance.
We’ll be listening to see if Republican talking points on the matter are dominated by poll-tested propaganda, such as “CRT,” or by clear goals for measuring success and charting an end game.
Because there must be an end game. This extreme action must be temporary. Schools, in the long run, are better run locally, and governed by elected leaders chosen by stakeholders: parents, teachers, business people, the ordinary people who live here.
We implore the governor, and Morath, to check every decision with the following question: Is it best for the public schoolchildren of Houston?
Anything else is just a political game.