The Austin school district is entering a pivotal stretch that could determine whether the district remains under local control or becomes the next Texas school system taken over by the state.
Three middle schools — Burnet, Webb and Dobie — are awaiting accountability results that could trigger a state-mandated intervention and set in motion a process that has already played out in Houston, Fort Worth and other districts across Texas.
Without the protections district leaders sought through the state’s SB 1882 program, which provides a two-year reprieve from state accountability ratings, the three campuses now face a series of milestones that could shape Austin ISD’s future. Results to state mandated exams that are expected June 16 will provide an early indication of whether the campuses improved enough to avoid another failing rating, while final accountability ratings later this summer could determine whether the district crosses the threshold for state intervention.
State takeovers of public school districts are more popular than ever across Texas. Critics argue the motivations for interventions in large, Democratic-leaning cities have political undertones. Proponents say the takeovers lead to improved academic outcomes.
In Austin, where the three failing middle schools could open the door to a district takeover, it remains unclear how a school takeover would play out. But the eight districts currently or imminently under state control do offer a glimpse into the uncertain future of Austin ISD.
How Austin ISD got here
The current threat did not emerge overnight.
For years, Austin ISD has faced increasing scrutiny from state officials over academic performance and complying with state requirements. Earlier this year, the district emerged from nearly three years of state oversight of its special education program after completing a corrective plan required by the Texas Education Agency and overhauling their special education services. The oversight followed findings that the district had failed to properly evaluate and serve some students with disabilities.
At the same time, the district has repeatedly found itself in the crosshairs of other state leaders. This spring, Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office launched a flurry of investigations into the district over compliance with state law governing student bathroom access; over compliance with a new law that requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom if privately donated; and over claims that teachers aided students in leaving campuses during the school day to protest increased immigration enforcement.
Meanwhile, the district has spent years trying to improve academic outcomes at campuses identified by the state as chronically underperforming. Last month’s rejection of Austin ISD’s SB 1882 marked the latest chapter in years of mounting pressure from state leaders, who have scrutinized the district over special education services and academic performance. Now, as Burnet, Webb and Dobie middle schools await accountability ratings that could trigger a state takeover, Austin ISD finds itself approaching a moment that could reshape who governs the district and how decisions are made for years to come.
What happens if the state intervenes?
Austin ISD would not be entering uncharted territory.
State takeovers of public school districts have become increasingly common in Texas in recent years. Houston ISD came under state control in 2023 and remains governed by a board of managers appointed by Education Commissioner Mike Morath. Last year, Fort Worth, Beaumont, Connally and Lake Worth ISDs joined the growing list of districts facing state intervention. Those districts provide the clearest roadmap for what Austin ISD could face next.
Toni Templeton, senior research scientist at the University of Houston Education Research Center, said a takeover could come as early as this year if one of the three middle schools receive a fifth failing accountability rating.
Templeton said the districts have an opportunity to appeal accountability ratings before they become final. If those appeals are unsuccessful, TEA notifies district leaders that they’ve met the conditions for intervention and provides a timeline for next steps.
Last year, Fort Worth received that notification in October, while Beaumont, Connally and Lake Worth received letters in December. Templeton said the agency rarely makes governance changes in the middle of a school year and would likely follow a timeline similar to Fort Worth’s, where state officials announced a board of managers months after first notifying district leaders.
The appointed board assumes the responsibilities of the elected school board and works with a superintendent to carry out goals established by the state. The district remains under state governance until officials determine those goals have been met.
Legal challenges delayed Houston ISD’s takeover, Templeton said, but Austin ISD would likely face a shorter path because courts already have upheld the state’s authority to intervene.
In Houston, one of the most tangible changes was a broad academic overhaul.
“What happened in Houston does not have to happen in Austin and Fort Worth, but it certainly can,” Templeton said. “The commissioner has very openly praised what is happening in Houston, so it would not be a surprise to me if some of the things put in place in Houston show up in Fort Worth.”
Templeton said Houston’s appointed Superintendent Mike Miles implemented sweeping changes to curriculum, hiring, classroom experience, course offerings and testing schedules. State officials have pointed to improvements in some student performance measures, while critics have raised concerns about the pace and scope of the reforms.
Since then, Houston suffered an enrollment decline of over 13,000 students. With such a loss, “performance takes a different shape,” Templeton said “It is hard to compare one year to the next.”
New York University Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Service Domingo Morel, author of “Takeover: Race, Education, and American Democracy,” said takeovers often centralize decision-making and reduce the authority of locally elected trustees. Immediate changes typically include staffing reductions, program cuts, such as arts, and a greater emphasis on academic performance, such as standardized testing.
“It might seem small, but over an extended period of time, it starts to change the relationship between the community and the schools,” Morel said.
Key dates to watch
Several milestones over the next few months could determine whether Austin ISD remains under local governance.
June 16: STAAR results for middle schools are expected to be released, offering an early indication of whether Burnet, Webb and Dobie improved enough to avoid another failing accountability rating.
August/late summer: The Texas Education Agency is expected to release accountability ratings for campuses statewide. Those ratings will determine whether any of the three campuses receive a fifth consecutive F.
Fall: Austin ISD would have an opportunity to appeal any ratings. If those appeals are unsuccessful and a campus receives a fifth consecutive failing grade, TEA could formally notify the district that it has met the threshold for state intervention.
Late 2026 or early 2027: Based on timelines in other districts, state officials could begin appointing a board of managers and implementing changes.
Austin ISD leaders have also said they plan to submit additional information to TEA in an effort to reverse the state’s rejection of the SB 1882 partnership application.
The coming months will determine whether Austin ISD’s years of state scrutiny culminate in a full governance intervention or whether the district avoids a takeover.
