Texas school leaders: State takeovers are not sustainable – The Texas Tribune

Report on Texas School District Governance and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: State Intervention and Educational Sustainability

A recent analysis of the Texas educational system reveals significant challenges to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The practice of state takeovers, where democratically elected school boards are replaced by state-appointed managers, is identified by educational leaders as an unsustainable method for improving student learning outcomes. This report examines the implications of this policy and the emerging private school voucher program in the context of these global goals.

2.0 State Takeovers: A Challenge to Sustainable Governance and Quality Education

The Texas Education Agency has intervened in 11 school districts since 2000, including major districts like Houston ISD and Fort Worth ISD. This intervention is typically triggered by five consecutive years of failing ratings at a single campus. The sustainability and efficacy of this model are in question.

2.1 Core Concerns Regarding State Takeovers

• Violation of SDG 16 (Strong Institutions): The ousting of democratically elected local school boards undermines the principle of accountable and inclusive local governance. Superintendents argue this is contrary to the intended structure of public education.
• Negative Impact on SDG 4 (Quality Education): The Houston ISD takeover, despite claims of academic improvement, resulted in a mass exodus of teachers and students. This instability threatens the long-term quality and inclusiveness of the educational environment.
• Unsustainable Improvement Model: School leaders, including Tomball ISD Superintendent Martha Salazar-Zamora, assert that state takeovers are not a sustainable solution for systemic improvement, particularly when districts face pre-existing budget deficits.

3.0 Private School Vouchers: Implications for Equity and Accountability

The introduction of a state voucher program, set to launch in the 2026-27 academic year, presents further challenges to achieving educational equity and sustainability in Texas.

3.1 Key Issues Arising from the Voucher Program

1. Threat to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The program allows state funds to be used for private education. As public school funding is based on attendance, this is projected to divert critical resources from public districts, which serve the vast majority of students, potentially exacerbating inequalities.
2. Disparity in Accountability: A significant concern for SDG 16 is the lack of institutional parity.
   • Public schools face stringent standardized testing, the results of which can trigger a state takeover.
   • Private schools receiving public funds via vouchers are not required to administer the same tests, creating an accountability gap.
3. Risk to Public Education Infrastructure: Stakeholders like Weadé James of the Center for American Progress warn that the voucher program could “decimate the public school system,” undermining the primary institution responsible for delivering on the promise of SDG 4 for the majority of children.

4.0 Conclusion: Aligning Texas Education Policy with Sustainable Development Goals

Current trends in Texas education policy, specifically state takeovers and the implementation of a voucher system, pose direct challenges to the principles of the Sustainable Development Goals. While accountability for academic performance is necessary, the methods employed raise serious concerns about sustainability, equity, and democratic governance.

• SDG 4 (Quality Education): The current interventionist approach creates instability and the voucher system threatens equitable funding, both of which are critical for ensuring inclusive and quality education for all.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The diversion of public funds to a less accountable private system risks creating a two-tiered educational landscape, widening the gap for disadvantaged students.
• SDG 16 (Strong Institutions): The replacement of elected officials with appointed managers erodes trust in local democratic institutions and creates an imbalance in accountability standards across the education sector.

To align with global sustainability targets, a re-evaluation of these policies is necessary to ensure they support, rather than undermine, strong, equitable, and democratically governed public institutions.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education: The entire article revolves around the quality of education in Texas public schools. It discusses methods for improving student learning, such as state takeovers, accountability measures, and the potential impact of private school vouchers. The core debate is about how to best ensure effective academic performance for students.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article touches upon potential inequalities in the education system. The introduction of a voucher program that could “decimate the public school system” raises concerns about equitable access to quality education, as public schools serve the “preponderance of students.” Furthermore, the accountability standards differ between public and private schools receiving state funds, which could create an unequal system.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article highlights a conflict over governance and institutional control in the education sector. The debate between state takeovers and the preservation of “democratically elected school boards” and “local control” is a central theme. This relates directly to the principles of developing effective, accountable, and representative institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 4: Quality Education
  • Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes. The article’s focus on improving “academic performance” and addressing “failing ratings” in schools directly aligns with the goal of achieving effective learning outcomes for all students.
  • Target 4.c: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers. The article mentions a “mass exodus of… teachers” in Houston ISD following the state takeover. This highlights a significant challenge to retaining qualified teachers, which is essential for quality education and is a direct concern related to this target.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
  • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all. The concern that the voucher program could harm the public school system, which serves the majority of students, points to a risk of increasing educational inequality. Ensuring the public system remains robust is key to providing inclusive education for all, regardless of economic status.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
  • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The discussion around “accountability measures,” standardized testing, and the need for “transparency” in measuring the success of the new voucher program directly relates to building accountable educational institutions.
  • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The central conflict described in the article is between state-appointed boards and “democratically elected school boards.” Superintendents advocating for “local control” are arguing for a more participatory and representative form of decision-making in the governance of their school districts.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• School Performance Ratings: The article explicitly mentions that state takeovers are triggered after “five consecutive years of failing ratings.” It also notes that Tomball ISD earned an “A rating.” These ratings serve as a direct indicator of educational quality and performance (relevant to Target 4.1).
• Standardized Test Results: The article states that standardized testing “largely determines whether the state can replace a public school district’s democratically elected school board.” This implies that test scores are a key indicator used to measure academic achievement and hold schools accountable (relevant to Target 4.1).
• Teacher and Student Retention Rates: The mention of a “mass exodus of students and teachers” in Houston ISD implies that retention and turnover rates are important indicators of the health and stability of the learning environment. These metrics can be used to measure the impact of policies like state takeovers (relevant to Target 4.c).
• Governance Model (State vs. Local Control): The number of school districts under state takeover versus those governed by locally elected boards is a clear indicator of the level of participatory and representative decision-making in the education system. The article notes that the Texas Education Agency has “taken over 11 school districts” since 2000 (relevant to Target 16.7).
• Student Enrollment in Public vs. Private Schools: The concern that public districts “would lose money if families move their kids from public to private schools” under the voucher program implies that enrollment figures are a key indicator for measuring the program’s impact on the public education system (relevant to Target 10.2).

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

Source: texastribune.org