School districts stay quiet as lawmakers push to limit when they can sue the state
The Texas Senate passed a bill last week taking aim at school district leaders who used lawsuits to halt the release of the state's school performance ratings for two consecutive years.
Senate Bill 1962, which now heads to the Texas House for consideration, would make it more difficult for districts to use the courts in a similar way again, effectively taking away a tool district leaders have leaned on to push back against state changes to the ratings system they believe are unfair.
Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, tried to give district leaders a say at a hearing on the bill earlier this month: Would anyone involved with or in support of prior suits speak up?
'There's got to be someone here,' West said.
But there was no one.
Every witness who testified at the hearing was in support of SB 1962, frustrated that families have gone years without information on how their local schools were performing.
In backdoor conversations with lawmakers, superintendents have conveyed their fears that the bill would limit their ability to defend what they think is best for them and give the head of the state education agency unchecked power to change school performance rules.
'What we believe was a check and balance now doesn't exist,' said Gabriel Zamora, the superintendent of the Fort Stockton Independent School District, which joined both lawsuits. 'They don't want people who are going to come against the grain, even if we're trying to do the right thing. Instead, what they want is yes-men and people who are just going to kick the can down the road."
The Texas Tribune spoke to seven school leaders who criticized the proposed legislation but said they declined to testify against it because of what they described as a growing hostility among Republican lawmakers, particularly in the Senate, toward public education. Many of the school leaders interviewed by the Tribune asked not to be identified out of fear of turning their school districts into a target. It is illustrative of the more muted attitude schools are taking toward advocacy at a time when they worry any misstep could compromise some of the gains they hope to make around school funding this legislative session.
The state's school accountability ratings, calculated by the Texas Education Agency, provide Texans a simplified and critical look at schools' performance. Many parents consult them when making choices about where to enroll their kids, and businesses can use them to assess what communities to invest in.
The TEA grades school districts and individual campuses on an A-F scale based on metrics like students' standardized test scores and their preparedness for life after high school.
But for two years, a pair of lawsuits from districts across the state have blocked the release of ratings. In 2023, more than 120 school districts argued that the TEA did not give them adequate notice before rolling out stricter college and career readiness benchmarks for their A-F ratings. They said the agency had applied the new standards to evaluate students who had already graduated, which meant districts did not get a chance to come up with additional measures to meet the new goalposts.
Last year, about 30 districts sued again to block the ratings, this time saying a third party should have verified the new computer grading system used to calculate STAAR test scores, another big metric that affects ratings.
Superintendents who joined in on the lawsuits say they support a statewide ratings system that holds districts accountable and agreed that the standards for the accountability system should be updated periodically. But they sued, they said, because TEA Commissioner Mike Morath had broken state education rules.
Texas lawmakers have not been impressed. Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, accused the school districts of 'hiding behind lawsuits' to 'shield failure' of their poor ratings. Bettencourt filed SB 1962 to send a message to those districts: The lawsuits must end.
'I'm frustrated and really disappointed in these 100 school districts … or the 30 that did it two years in a row,' Bettencourt said. 'No offense, you jump on the state twice, I consider that lawfare.'
SB 1962 would impose restrictions on how school districts pay their attorneys' fees for suits related to their performance ratings. Those that sue would open the door to increased TEA oversight.
The bill would also change state standardized testing to move away from the long-criticized, end-of-the-year STAAR test and replace it with shorter exams. The House has a nearly identical bill, House Bill 4, but the lower chamber has not advanced it.
Texas' 15th Court of Appeals recently permitted TEA to release the 2023 ratings, ruling that Morath did not overstep his authority when he changed the scoring metrics. Parents will be able to see their districts' 2023 ratings on Thursday.
In a rare move, a top jurist used the ruling to weigh in on the legislation. Chief Justice Scott Brister nodded to HB 4, saying he 'shared' the Legislature's frustrations.
'This bill may or may not pass, but it illustrates a truth that courts too often forget: if current laws are not followed, the Legislature may enact more drastic ones,' Brister wrote in a court opinion. 'I would make it the law in our statewide district that lower courts should not entertain disputes about school performance ratings.'
The seven superintendents the Tribune spoke to represent big and small school districts across rural, suburban and urban regions of the state.
The superintendents said SB 1962 would erect so many barriers for districts wanting to challenge performance ratings that legal action would become largely unviable. For example, districts that sue would risk having TEA appoint a conservator to oversee district operations. In extreme cases, a conservator could replace school board members or superintendents who do not follow their directives.
The superintendents worry that the bill, along with the appeals court ruling, would translate into unrestricted power for the TEA commissioner when creating rules and regulations around the schools' rating system.
One superintendent from a suburban district worried the commissioner's growing authority means anyone in that position could make unchecked, politically motivated decisions.
'There's no protection from it becoming political. It puts a lot of power into a non-elected official role,' said the suburban district superintendent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of putting his district in state officials' crosshairs. 'It basically makes the commissioner king.'
The TEA commissioner is appointed by the governor.
SB 1962 'is an overstep by the legislative process to take away checks and balances,' said a superintendent of a rural school district, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation. 'That is fundamental to our democracy.'
The rural superintendent said the expansion of TEA's authority would come at the expense of local school board officials and school superintendents, who usually enjoy broad independence to make their own regulations. He called it an ironic shift in power in a GOP-led state since limited government has long been a key conservative principle.
Lawmakers and the justices on the 15th Court of Appeals have said school districts should have input on how performance ratings are calculated, but insist that input should be provided through administrative, internal appeals processes.
A TEA spokesperson said districts involved in the lawsuit deliberately chose not to use the agency's appeals process. The spokesperson also said the agency communicated to them as early as January 2023 that changes to the ratings system would be coming.
Bruce Gearing, the superintendent of Leander ISD, said he was not a 'big believer in lawsuits.' Leander and about 200 other districts first raised their concerns in a letter to Morath about the changes to the ratings system standards, but they didn't feel like they got adequate relief from TEA. Individual district leaders also tried and failed to get the commissioner to respond to their concerns informally in closed-door cabinet meetings, he said. Joining the lawsuit was a last resort, Gearing said.
'We met a dead end every time,' he said. 'We had no recourse to any other mechanism, other than challenging the state through a lawsuit. We had no choice.'
The school leaders said they did not testify against the bill because they feel senators have not seriously considered their input for years. They described a hostile climate toward them that reflects a broader, growing skepticism of public schools.
Since the pandemic, public schools have faced criticism from conservative groups and some families over health restrictions and the way children are taught about sex and race. Schools have gone for years without a significant increase to their base funding at a time when inflation has sent some of their costs skyrocketing, leading many districts to adopt deficit budgets.
Last session, Gov. Greg Abbott refused to approve a boost to districts' base funding as school vouchers, his top legislative priority in recent years, failed to advance through the Legislature last session. His office has argued that Texas' public school funding is at an all-time high and accused some school districts of spending it on 'administrative bloat.' A Tribune analysis recently found the state's share of the funds that schools receive per student significantly decreased in the last decade until recently.
Many superintendents said they did not feel like their testimony would affect senators' votes or their willingness to amend the bill's language.
'The political climate does not seem to be welcoming. At some point you kind of see the writing on the wall,' one superintendent said. 'We have districts to run. We're trying to get ready for STAAR. We need to be here for our districts and our students.'
School leaders have focused their efforts elsewhere. They say they have had closed-door conversations with House lawmakers, whom they are now counting on to advocate for changes to SB 1962.
Public school leaders in general have opted to take a less combative approach to their advocacy this year, a shift from previous sessions. Last month, House Democrats criticized school leaders for not being more aggressive about their funding needs.
School leaders say they don't want to risk the gains they hope to make this year or put a target on their backs. On the same day the Senate approved SB 1962 last week, the House passed an $8 billion piece of legislation that would increase teacher pay and make new investments in special education.
If this year's legislative session ends with them securing more funds for schools in exchange for some of their local power, they said that's a concession they have to be willing to make.
Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas' breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State Department shifts $250 million from refugee aid to 'self-deportations'
By Jonathan Landay WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. State Department has moved $250 million to the Department of Homeland Security for voluntary deportations by migrants without legal status, a spokesperson said, an unprecedented repurposing of funds that have been used to aid refugees uprooted by war and natural disasters. The money has been transferred "to provide a free flight home and an exit bonus to encourage and assist illegal aliens to voluntarily depart the United States," the State Department spokesperson told Reuters. Historically, those funds have been used "to provide protection to vulnerable people" overseas and to resettle refugees in the U.S., said Elizabeth Campbell, a former deputy assistant secretary of state. The re-routing of the money comes as President Donald Trump pushes to reshape U.S. government agencies to serve his 'America First' agenda. The State Department's planned reorganization explicitly states that the agency's refugee bureau now largely will focus on efforts to 'return illegal aliens to their country of origin or legal status.' The funds came from Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) overseen by the Bureau of Population, Refugee and Migration. Its website says its mission is to "reduce illegal immigration," aid people "fleeing persecution, crisis or violence and seek durable solutions for forcibly displaced people." Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, citing the law authorizing the funding, said in a May 7 Federal Register notice that underwriting the repatriation of people without legal status will bolster the "foreign policy interests" of the U.S. He did not mention the $250 million transfer to DHS. The DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump's administration is working to speed up deportations in a crackdown that the Republican president vowed during the 2024 campaign would expel millions of people illegally in the U.S. It has encouraged migrants to leave voluntarily by threatening steep fines and deporting migrants to notorious prisons in Guantanamo Bay and El Salvador. But the volume of deportations since he took office in January appears to be less than those overseen by his predecessor Joe Biden in the February-May period of 2024, about 200,000 people versus 257,000. On May 9, Trump announced Project Homecoming, an initiative overseen by DHS that offers $1,000 stipends and travel assistance to migrants who "self-deport." DHS said in a May 19 news release that 64 people had "opted to self deport" to Honduras and Colombia on a charter flight under the program. Some experts said that while legal, sending the money to DHS for deportation operations was an unprecedented use of MRA funds. The main purpose of the funds historically has been "to provide refugee and displacement assistance, refugee processing and resettlement to the U.S., and respond to urgent and emerging humanitarian crises - not to return those very people to the harm or persecution they fled,' said Meredith Owen Edwards, senior director of Policy and Advocacy at the Refugee Council USA.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Top Dems claim 51K people will die annually from the 'big beautiful bill' and its Obamacare freeze
Two top Democrats claimed the Republicans' budget reconciliation bill and its proposal to let enhanced Obamacare credits expire will cause the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., announced findings that an estimated 51,000 Americans could die each year due to Republican-led changes to the federal healthcare system and the broader reconciliation bill. The national debt — which measures what the U.S. owes its creditors — fell to $36,214,400,664,854.53 as of June 3rd, according to the latest numbers published by the Treasury Department. That is down about $1.4 billion from the figure reported the previous day. Wyden called the "stakes" of the 'big, beautiful bill' debate "truly life and death," as a statement from his office read that "a new analysis estimates that more than 51,000 people will die per year as a direct result of the Republican reconciliation bill, and their refusal to extend Affordable Care Act premium tax credits." "Taking away health insurance and benefits like home care and mental healthcare from seniors, people with disabilities, kids, and working families will be deadly," Wyden said. "This analysis shows the dire consequences of moving ahead with this morally bankrupt effort," he said, referring to a study he and Sanders asked the University of Pennsylvania and Yale to conduct. Read On The Fox News App Liberals Blame Big Beautiful Bill's Loss On Dying Dems The Democrats employed the Philadelphia college's Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, as well as the Yale School of Public Health's Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis. "Let's be clear," Sanders said in a statement, "The Republican reconciliation bill which makes massive cuts to Medicaid in order to pay for huge tax breaks for billionaires is not just bad public policy." "It is not just immoral. It is a death sentence for struggling Americans." "[N]ot only will some of the most vulnerable people throughout our country suffer, but tens of thousands will die. We cannot allow that to happen," Sanders added. Winners, Losers And Grab-bags From House Gop's Narrow Passage Of 'Big, Beautiful Bill' In a copy of the study posted on UPenn's website, economics and health-centric academics found 7.7 million people would be estimated to lose Medicaid or Obamacare coverage by 2034, and 1.38 million "dual-eligible beneficiaries" would find themselves "disenroll[ed]." In a statement, Wyden cited figures of 11,300 deaths from the loss of Medicaid or Obamacare coverage, 18,200 deaths from the loss of Medicaid coverage among low-income beneficiaries and 13,000 deaths of Medicaid enrollees in nursing homes due to the rollback of a "nursing home minimum staffing rule" from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Wyden attributed an additional projected 8,811 deaths per year to the "failure to extend the enhanced [Obamacare] premium tax credits," citing the academics' analysis. Fox News Digital reached out to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., -- who spearheaded the "big, beautiful bill" in the House -- for comment. A representative for UPenn told Fox News Digital the university sent the results of their analysis to Wyden and Sanders in response to a request on the matter. "The estimates of mortality that are contained in the letter were based on peer-review research that was done independently and well before their request," the UPenn representative said. "The senators' request was to take the research results and translate into the estimated number of deaths."Original article source: Top Dems claim 51K people will die annually from the 'big beautiful bill' and its Obamacare freeze
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans aren't following Elon Musk's lead anymore
Months ago, Elon Musk helped tank a government funding bill. Now, Republicans are mostly shrugging off his criticism of their "Big Beautiful Bill." "I don't think it's gonna move the needle in any direction," one House Republican told BI. Elon Musk says President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" is a "disgusting abomination." Republicans on Capitol Hill are making clear that they don't really care. "I think he's flat wrong," House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Wednesday. "I think he's way off on this." "We have a difference of opinion," Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters on Tuesday. "He's entitled to that opinion, we're going to proceed full speed ahead." It's a far cry from December, when Musk, then the incoming de facto leader of the White House DOGE Office, helped generate an online pressure campaign that swiftly tanked a government funding bill. That episode was a dramatic sign of the tech titan's burgeoning influence in Washington, suggesting that GOP lawmakers would be taking his cues — perhaps as much as they took Trump's — in the months to come. Now no longer leading DOGE, Musk has returned to being another outside voice. Fiscal hawks who agree with him don't mind getting a little backup. Other Republicans are happy to brush him off. "Elon, of course, is the wealthiest man in the world, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong or he's right. He has an opinion, just like the rest of us," Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee told BI. "I don't think it's gonna move the needle in any direction." Musk did not respond to a request for comment. Trump has continued to pressure Republicans to support the bill, and the White House has said that those who vote against it should face primary challenges. Trump himself has not yet responded to Musk, though Johnson told reporters that the president is "not delighted that Elon did a 180" on the bill. Musk's broadside against the bill, according to him, is about its impact on the debt. Multiple forecasters who have analyzed the bill, including the Congressional Budget Office and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, have estimated that the current version of the bill would add more than $2 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. Musk has argued that this undermines DOGE, which has been trying to significantly reduce federal spending. Republicans were already arguing about this amongst themselves. Fiscal conservatives like Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin say that the version of the bill that passed the House last month adds too much to the debt, and they're now seeking to amend it. Most Republicans, however, have argued that outside projections about the bill's impact on the debt are flawed and don't account for potential economic growth as a result of the bill's eventual passage. Even those who agree with Musk don't seem to believe that his comments will strengthen their hand that much. "Sure, it helps bolster the case," Sen. Ron Johnson told reporters of Musk's tweet. "But again, the President wants to balance the budget as well." Perhaps the biggest reason why Musk's comments are unlikely to tank the bill: It's the centerpiece of Trump's legislative agenda, and it's simply too important to them. The bill includes a permanent extension of tax cuts that Trump and Republicans first enacted in 2017, contains new funding for border security and immigration enforcement, and is chock full of other GOP priorities that they're not going to give up simply because of Musk's concern about the deficit. "All the things that are in this bill are so important for the US economy, it's going to be jet fuel for the US economy," Speaker Johnson told reporters on Wednesday. "The risk of not getting it done is enormous, not just for the Republican Party, but for the country. We've got to do this." The government funding bill that Musk helped tank in December, on the other hand, was a bipartisan piece of legislation that included all kinds of provisions that Republicans don't agree with. Plenty of fiscal conservatives planned to vote against it anyway, and Musk's involvement strengthened their case, eventually making it untenable for Speaker Johnson to move forward with it. Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, the chairman of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, voted "present" when the "Big Beautiful Bill" passed the House last month. He told reporters on Wednesday that he hopes senators keep Musk's criticism "in mind" as they make changes to the bill, but he didn't predict that it would change much. "He doesn't have to change the dynamic," Harris told BI. "I'm glad that he reminded people that the federal deficit is of grave concern." Read the original article on Business Insider