Austin school district officials are committed to revitalizing the two middle schools that have triggered a mandatory intervention from the state. However, their ability to implement changes is now uncertain.
Burnet and Webb middle schools have received their fifth consecutive F ratings from the Texas Education Agency (TEA), activating a state law that necessitates intervention. The specifics of this intervention remain ambiguous.
In the most recent statewide ratings released on Friday, Austin is the only district in Texas facing the possibility of a state takeover. Nevertheless, the district can argue that it is making strides, as it improved its overall rating from a C to a B, according to Superintendent Matias Segura. Additionally, Dobie Middle School, which was on the verge of a fifth failing score, has earned a D this year.
The district has the option to appeal any school ratings this year, and Segura indicated that an appeal is likely, although he refrained from detailing specific actions or the schools involved. The TEA will finalize the accountability ratings in December.
Segura has not speculated on TEA’s future actions and stated that he has not yet discussed the pending state intervention with the agency. Instead, he emphasized that educators are focused on enhancing performance across all schools, including Webb, Burnet, and Dobie.
“I’ve spent time at those three schools last week, even prior to that,” Segura said. “We have two new leaders at those schools. The system is now better positioned to improve outcomes based on our experiences last year.”
Future Uncertainties
The ratings have clarified one issue while raising another: how much authority Austin ISD may lose. State intervention can vary significantly, from targeted oversight to the complete replacement of the local school board and superintendent.
One scenario could involve the TEA ordering the closure of Webb and Burnet while allowing local leadership to remain intact. Conversely, a full state takeover could see the superintendent removed and a new board of managers appointed by the state, a model currently in use by several other school districts.
Alternatively, TEA might adopt a middle-ground approach, similar to the situation in Wichita Falls ISD, where a failing school closure was executed, but the local superintendent and board retained their positions, with a state-appointed conservator overseeing the district’s progress.
Educators in Austin are concerned about how potential changes will impact students, classrooms, and the community, yet they recognize the necessity for significant improvements in schools that have struggled for years. “Part of ourselves is preparing for a takeover,” said Ken Zarifis, president of Education Austin, the district’s labor union. “Regardless of what happens, we have to take action.”
The Houston ISD Example
The greatest apprehension among educators is not merely the possibility of state intervention; it is the fear that Austin could mirror the challenges faced by Houston ISD.
Houston ISD serves as a cautionary tale regarding the ramifications of comprehensive state intervention. In 2023, following years of legal disputes, the TEA took control of HISD, sparked by one failing school but justified by broader issues, including violations of the Open Meetings Act and Texas procurement law.
TEA appointed Mike Miles as superintendent and established a nine-member board of managers to oversee the district. Miles has since implemented a New Education System model that standardized lesson plans, reduced school autonomy, eliminated librarian positions, restructured high school career programs, and introduced travel programs.
While the district has shown academic improvement in several areas, including STAAR test scores, some families and educators are skeptical. They argue that these gains may be superficial, resulting from demographic shifts or an excessive focus on standardized testing at the expense of critical thinking skills.
Research conducted by the University of Houston Education Research Center indicates that the HISD experienced a significant enrollment decline following the takeover, with approximately 13,000 students leaving in the first two years. Before the state intervention, the district faced annual enrollment declines of 1% to 2%, which escalated to 3% to 4% afterward.
“What we saw was really a mass exodus,” said research scientist Toni Templeton, noting that students primarily transferred to nearby districts and charter schools. The changes also impacted the district’s workforce, leading to a decline in teacher retention and an increase in the number of less experienced teachers.
The proportion of uncertified teachers surged from 0.3% in the 2016-17 school year to 19.8% by 2024-25. Additionally, the first-year ninth-grade enrollment fell by 15% over two years, a departure from the usual trend of growth at that grade level.
“These changes signal that parents are making choices they wouldn’t typically make due to the takeover,” Templeton remarked.
A Different Outcome in Wichita Falls
In contrast to the situation in Houston, the TEA’s intervention in Wichita Falls ISD has been less drastic. Earlier this year, the agency opted against a complete takeover, instead appointing a conservator to oversee the district’s progress while allowing local leadership to remain intact.
This decision followed improvements at the school that had triggered state action, which rose from an F to a C grade. Superintendent Donny Lee attributed these gains to years of efforts to address the issues at Kirby Middle School, which was ultimately closed and its students relocated to Hirschi Middle School.
After the closure, the TEA intervened in March, permitting Wichita Falls ISD to maintain its operational autonomy with oversight from the conservator. “When we first partnered with Third Future, there was a lot of pushback because of the uncertainty,” Lee noted. “But as academic performance improved, the community became more supportive.”
The district has since entrusted additional struggling schools to Third Future and hopes to replicate this success. Acknowledging ongoing challenges, Lee stated, “We are going to celebrate the fact that we are improving, but we still have some work to do, and we know that. So we’re going to keep putting our nose to the grindstone and work hard.”
The path Austin ISD will take—whether it resembles Houston’s extensive intervention or Wichita Falls’ more limited oversight—will ultimately be determined by the TEA in the coming months. Until then, district leaders, educators, and families remain in a state of uncertainty, awaiting clarity on the future governance of their schools.
