Yuyun Lusiyani
Texas has distinguished itself among U.S. states for its aggressive and expanding strategy of taking over local public school districts, a trend that has seen a significant acceleration since 2020. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has installed its own leadership in eight districts in the past four years alone, with four of these interventions occurring just this spring. Currently, at least ten more districts, including the state capital’s Austin Independent School District, face the imminent threat of state intervention. A critical and increasingly contentious aspect of this strategy is the state’s reliance on a select group of officials with close ties to Mike Miles, the superintendent appointed by the TEA in 2023 to oversee the Houston Independent School District (HISD), the largest school system in Texas. Miles, a staunch ally of Texas’s powerful Education Commissioner Mike Morath, has implemented a series of reforms in Houston that are now being replicated in other state-controlled districts, sparking both claims of academic improvement and widespread protest over their rigid, centralized approach.
The Escalating Pace of State Interventions
Texas’s proactive stance on school district takeovers is unparalleled nationally. Historically, state interventions in local education systems have been rare and typically reserved for extreme cases of financial mismanagement or chronic academic failure. However, Texas has developed a robust legal framework that allows the TEA to seize control of districts exhibiting persistent low academic ratings or significant governance issues. This power enables the state to replace elected school boards and superintendents with state-appointed managers and leaders, effectively sidelining local democratic processes.
Since 2020, the TEA has orchestrated a wave of these takeovers. In the spring of the current year alone, four districts—Beaumont, Lake Worth, and Connally Independent School Districts being notable examples—came under state control. The prospect of further interventions looms large, with districts like Austin ISD recently added to the list of those at risk. This aggressive expansion of state authority has reshaped the landscape of public education governance in Texas, raising profound questions about local autonomy, community representation, and the efficacy of standardized reform models.
Mike Miles: The Architect of Controversial Reforms
At the heart of Texas’s current takeover strategy is Mike Miles, whose appointment to lead Houston ISD in 2023 marked a significant turning point. Miles’s career in education has been characterized by a commitment to data-driven, highly structured instructional models. Before his tenure in Houston, he served as superintendent of Dallas ISD, where he also implemented a performance-based compensation system and other reforms. Following his time in Dallas, Miles led Third Future Schools, a Colorado-based charter network known for its distinct educational model. His close alliance with Commissioner Mike Morath, who has overseen the increase in state takeovers, positions Miles as a key figure in the state’s educational reform efforts.
Miles’s approach, often dubbed the "Miles Model" or the "New Education System" (NES) after the program he introduced in Houston, is characterized by several core tenets: a rigid adherence to scripted lessons, frequent and repetitive testing, a centralized curriculum, and a strong emphasis on improving standardized test scores. Proponents, including Miles himself and HISD officials, cite improved academic performance as evidence of the model’s success. In the latest state ratings, Houston ISD reported no F-rated campuses and fewer D-rated campuses compared to previous years, with the majority now achieving A or B ratings. HISD, in a statement to the Texas Observer, acknowledged "difficult decisions" were made but asserted these were necessary to achieve academic gains, moving away from "maintaining the status quo."
However, these reforms have not been without significant opposition. In Houston, Miles’s tenure has been met with widespread protests from parents, teachers, and community members. Criticisms range from the perceived dehumanizing nature of scripted lessons and constant testing to the more drastic measures of mass school closures, the firing of principals and teachers, and the conversion of some public schools into charters. The elimination of librarian positions, with some libraries repurposed into what an elected Houston school board member, Maria Benzon, called "detention centers" for students with behavioral issues, has further fueled public outcry. Commissioner Morath has countered this, stating the centers are "used for more than just punishment."
The Spread of the "Miles Model"
A particularly striking development in the ongoing state interventions is the appointment of officials with direct professional ties to Mike Miles to lead other newly taken-over districts. This suggests a deliberate strategy to replicate the Houston blueprint across Texas. For instance, new superintendents in Beaumont, Lake Worth, and Connally Independent School Districts previously worked under Miles in Dallas ISD, with two also having served with him in Houston. In Fort Worth ISD, one of the state’s largest districts with 68,000 students, the state-appointed superintendent brought in Daniel Soliz, another former Miles associate from Houston ISD, as his second-in-command.
Evidence of the "Miles Model" spreading is already manifesting in these districts. Sandi Massey, the new superintendent for Beaumont ISD in southeast Texas, explicitly stated her intention to follow the Houston model. At a May 21 board meeting, Massey, who Miles selected as chief of schools in Houston, remarked, "The model that we are implementing here is a very similar model to Houston. And why? Because of the success that Houston has had." Under Massey’s new board of managers, key governance and hiring policies have been temporarily suspended, including employees’ rights to present grievances to the board and principals’ autonomy in approving new hires. Further mirroring Houston’s experience, Beaumont ISD announced cuts to 34 student mental health support positions and the closure of a high school shortly after the takeover.
Similarly, in Lake Worth ISD, the new state appointee, Ena Meyers, also has ties to Miles, having worked for his Colorado-based charter network, Third Future Schools, and later as Houston ISD’s deputy chief of strategic initiatives. Meyers, too, has overseen the temporary suspension of board policies related to governance, hiring, and employee assignments, actions consistent with those taken in Beaumont. While Meyers stated that Lake Worth ISD’s approach "must reflect the unique needs of our students, staff, and families" due to its smaller size, she also affirmed her belief that "educators should learn from successful practices wherever they exist."
In Fort Worth ISD, parents and community organizers, like Zach Leonard, contend that the district’s new "Elevate" instructional model, being rolled out in 19 schools, is essentially a carbon copy of Miles’s New Education System. Leonard describes "scripted slide-by-slide lessons, rigid timed instruction, and ‘demonstrations of learning’ reduced to data points," echoing the criticisms leveled against the NES in Houston. He vehemently asserts, "This isn’t education reform. It’s a franchise being handed to our children without a vote." The district, however, refutes these claims of direct replication.
The Legislative Framework Empowering State Control
The increasing frequency of these takeovers is underpinned by Texas legislation that has progressively lowered the threshold for state intervention and restricted local districts’ ability to resist. Since 2015, just five consecutive failing state ratings at a single school can trigger a full district takeover, a condition that led to the HISD intervention despite the district comprising 273 campuses.
Compounding this, the Texas Legislature has enacted laws that significantly curb local control and accountability. In 2021, a law was passed that prohibited districts from using public funds to challenge the education commissioner’s "final and unappealable" decision to take them over. This effectively removed a crucial avenue for local communities to contest state interventions in court. The definition of a "failing school" was also broadened, making more schools susceptible to the designation. Further cementing the state’s power, another law passed in 2025 restricted districts from using public funds to sue the state when challenging its accountability ratings.
These legislative maneuvers have drawn sharp criticism from education policy experts. Domingo Morel, an associate professor of political science and public service at New York University, who has studied district takeovers nationwide, notes that Texas stands out for the sheer number of interventions since 1989. He highlights that the state’s uniquely low bar for intervention is a primary driver. Steven Nelson, an associate professor of education policy and leadership at the University of Nevada, describes Texas as "the player, the referee, the coach, the scorekeeper" when it comes to evaluating and seizing control of school districts. He anticipates that the TEA-appointed leaders, particularly those connected to Miles, will prioritize standardized testing, leading to a "narrow curriculum when all is said and done."
Intersection with School Voucher Programs
The intensified pace of state takeovers and the increasingly stringent state rating system coincide with Texas’s rollout of a new school voucher program. This program will award eligible parents up to $10,000 in state funds to send their children to private schools. Critics point out a significant disparity: while public schools under state control are subjected to rigorous accountability standards and high-stakes standardized tests, private schools accepting voucher students are exempt from these same state requirements. This juxtaposition raises concerns about a systemic effort to reshape the public education landscape, potentially driving students towards private options while public schools face increasing pressure and diminished local control.
Community Impact and Democratic Disenfranchisement
The takeovers have profound implications for the communities they affect, particularly given that the districts now led by Miles’s associates largely serve majority Black and Hispanic student populations. Experts like Morel argue that a fundamental objective of such takeovers is to "completely disempower the community" by sidelining elected school boards and local voices.
In Houston, Maria Benzon, an elected HISD board member who is currently barred from serving due to the takeover, attests to the sidelining of parent and teacher voices, leading to a mass exodus. "They are trying to escape the New Education System and Miles’ bad policies," Benzon stated, referring to reports by the Houston Chronicle that HISD is "losing students at an accelerated pace" under the takeover, leading to the planned closure of 12 schools. While Houston ISD cites a survey indicating "favorable perception" among families and strong teacher retention, the narrative from affected community members paints a different picture.
The experience of a veteran teacher and president of the Houston Education Association teachers union further illustrates the rigid environment. She faced termination proceedings after protesting requirements to comply with Miles’s New Education System. Ena Meyers, then a deputy chief in HISD and now Lake Worth’s superintendent, testified in favor of the teacher’s termination, stating, "We do not allow our staff to make decisions about curriculum in a New Education System school or in Houston ISD. If they are not following expectations, we would not allow them to stay in HISD as an employee." This stance underscores a centralized, top-down approach that limits professional autonomy and grassroots input.
Official Responses and Contradictions
Despite the clear pattern emerging from the actions of Miles’s associates, TEA spokesperson Jake Kobersky stated that the agency "does not expect the four school districts that have recently been taken over to adopt the same reforms that Miles implemented in Houston." Kobersky emphasized that "During an intervention, state law requires the agency to appoint a new superintendent and a board of managers. All other staffing and operational decisions are made locally by the district."
However, this official stance appears to contradict Commissioner Morath’s own remarks. Last August, Morath publicly advised lawmakers that other districts "should be copying the changes that we see in Houston." Furthermore, the explicit statements by newly appointed superintendents like Sandi Massey in Beaumont and the observable implementation of policies mirroring the NES model in Beaumont, Lake Worth, and Fort Worth, suggest a deliberate strategy of replication, regardless of formal TEA disclaimers. Jackie Simien, a spokesperson for Beaumont ISD, defended Massey’s approach, stating that she "has worked alongside successful educational leaders with demonstrated results in improving systems, instruction, and student performance."
Conclusion: A Shifting Educational Landscape
Texas’s aggressive intervention strategy, marked by an increasing number of state takeovers and the proliferation of the "Miles Model," is fundamentally altering the landscape of public education in the state. While proponents champion improved test scores and a more streamlined educational approach, critics raise serious concerns about the erosion of local democratic control, the narrowing of curriculum, and the potential disenfranchisement of communities, particularly those serving minority populations. The intertwining of these takeovers with new school voucher programs adds another layer of complexity, suggesting a broader, concerted effort to reshape public education in Texas. As more districts face the threat of state control, the debate over who ultimately holds the reins of public education—local communities or state authorities—is set to intensify, with far-reaching consequences for students, educators, and the democratic principles of local governance.
Eva Lovia
admin
Lina Irawan