Whatever the state decides about the Austin school district in coming months may not stop at schoolhouse doors. A takeover could shift control of one of Austin’s largest public institutions away from locally elected leaders, with consequences that could reach into the city’s housing, economy, health care and broader quality of life.

As that decision draws closer, Mayor Kirk Watson is making the case for keeping as much local control as possible.

Watson told Austin Current he wants to meet with Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath as Austin ISD awaits the final outcome of accountability ratings that could require state intervention. Preliminary ratings from the Texas Education Agency gave Dobie and Burnet middle schools a fifth consecutive F. Austin ISD can appeal those ratings, but if either becomes final, state law requires Morath to either close the failing campus or replace the district’s elected trustees with an appointed board of managers.

The decision could directly undermine who governs Austin’s public schools, and experts say its effects could reach much further. School districts and city governments in Texas operate independent of each other, but their interests routinely intersect in housing, taxes, healthcare, social services and overall health of the communities they jointly serve. If the state takes over Austin ISD, replacing locally elected trustees with state appointees could alter that relationship at a moment when Austin leaders are increasingly treating education as part of the city’s broader strategy for families and economic growth.

That gives City Hall a stake in a decision it ultimately does not control.

“Public schools, their main purpose is to support children and their academic and personal growth,” said Rachel White, associate professor of Education Leadership and Policy at the University of Texas at Austin’s College of Education. “But it is undeniable that public schools are often the centers of communities, and they are economic engines. And public schools employ a lot of local residents, and they provide a lot of additional support beyond curriculum and instruction for the students that are enrolled there. So that connection to the broader health of a community is really important.”

School districts in Texas are independent governmental entities with their own elected, independent governing body. They can make decisions, such as calling bond elections, without city approval. However, their independence does not make their interests separate.

School performance is closely connected to policies involving health care, taxes and the environment, White said. Those policies shape the communities students live in, while the success of schools can affect the economic and social health of a city around them.

“To support children and their learning it really is an all-hands-on-deck approach,” White said. “The extent to which schools are successful is in part a function of the other services and opportunities they have outside of the school walls.”

Watson makes the case for local control

Watson said he has been in regular contact with Superintendent Matias Segura since the two took office, but their conversations have become more frequent as the possibility of state intervention has drawn closer.

He argues that what happens at Burnet and Webb should be weighed alongside improvements across the district. Austin ISD recently rose to a B rating overall, its highest in years, and recorded a 30% increase in A- and B-rated schools from last year. Watson described Segura’s approach as a “reform package” and credited the superintendent’s systemwide changes with helping drive those gains.

“You can’t deny the success that this school district is showing,” Watson said. “You are seeing success and, by the way, that success plays out in everything we are attempting to do as part of the city of Austin.”

Watson recently made children and families a more explicit part of his City Hall agenda, launching a campaign aimed at making Austin “the best place in America to be a kid.” He also tied the strength of the school system to Austin’s broader economic development efforts and said state intervention in a district showing wider improvement could send a conflicting message about the city’s progress.

Watson pointed to Segura’s changes at Austin ISD, including the controversial decision to close Paredes Middle School weeks before the start of the school year, as evidence the superintendent is willing to take aggressive steps to improve struggling schools. Parents, community members and district trustees challenged the timing of that decision, and a recent letter from TEA approving the closure also said the agency didn’t view the closure request so close to the beginning of the school year “as an appropriate practice for supporting students, families, or effective district planning.”

Watson acknowledged Burnet and Webb’s ratings could open the door to state action. But he said the district’s broader improvement should also be part of Morath’s calculation. Watson said he wants to meet with the commissioner to discuss what role he can play as mayor in supporting the community, preserving Austin’s independence and helping the district continue to improve.

“I remain optimistic, and part of why I remain optimistic is because I have confidence in the commissioner,” Watson said.

The ultimate decisions belong to the state and the superintendent, Watson said, but options other than replacing Austin ISD’s elected board remain. Among the possibilities could be closing Webb and reconfiguring the newly rebuilt Burnet, which is undergoing a $158 million full modernization under the 2022 Bond Program.

For Watson, the question is whether the state can address the two chronically failing campuses without imposing the kind of districtwide takeover used in Houston.

Austin ISD spokeswoman Cristina Nguyen said the district and the city regularly communicate to keep one another updated on developments in Austin ISD.

The Texas Education Agency did not respond to a request for comment on whether Morath has met with Watson or plans to do so.

Why the city has a stake in the state’s decision

Experts say the importance of who controls the district extends beyond the immediate debate over Burnet and Webb.

A strong, well-regarded school district benefits both city and education leaders, with effects that can shape the community for years, White said.

Strong public schools can help give graduates greater economic stability and encourage families to remain in a community, White said. A school system with a record of success can also attract more people to move there.

School accountability ratings can also affect property values and influence whether people want to move to or remain in a city. A more highly-educated population can reduce demands on the healthcare system, White said, and contribute to greater investments in property.

A state intervention introduces another variable into that relationship. If state-appointed school leaders and locally elected city officials have different priorities, she said, the interests guiding the district may no longer align as closely with those of the community that elected its previous leaders.

“It is a mutual relationship in terms of the benefits and the challenges,” White said. “When you have all locally elected officials, your board of trustees, your superintendent and your mayor, they are all responsive to the local voter base. When you remove part of that with a board of managers and a state appointed superintendent, the priorities or the direction the general government and the school district may be heading are not both rooted in local community interests potentially.”