From Walkouts to Takeovers: Texas Escalates Its War on Student Voice
by
Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.
March 9, 2026
The recent op-ed by Jasmin Lee, Daniel Dawer, and Cory Brautigam exposes something deeply troubling about the Texas Education Agency’s latest threats against school districts where students have protested immigration enforcement. What is at stake is not merely student discipline or classroom order. What we are witnessing is the attempted expansion of state takeover power into the realm of political speech. I quote: "there are no recorded instances of state education agencies using takeover as a consequence for student activism anywhere in the nation."
Think about that. This is a singular policy agenda unique to Texas.
Historically, state takeovers were justified—however controversially—on grounds such as academic performance or financial mismanagement. But under the new logic advanced by Governor Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton, and the Texas Education Agency, student protest itself may now constitute a trigger for state intervention. If this standard holds, students walking out to protest immigration raids, detention of classmates, or broader questions of justice could effectively place their entire school district at risk of state control.
This is a stunning escalation. It transforms the accountability apparatus of the state into a mechanism for disciplining democratic participation.
The irony, of course, is profound. Texas political leaders frequently invoke “free speech” as justification for dismantling diversity initiatives, regulating curriculum, and policing universities. Yet when students exercise that very freedom—especially in defense of immigrant communities—the response is investigation, intimidation, and the threat of takeover.
None of this should surprise us. For decades, state takeover policies have disproportionately targeted Black and Latino communities. The takeover of Houston ISD already revealed how such interventions often produce cultures of fear, censorship, and top-down control rather than meaningful educational improvement. Extending this logic to student protest simply strips away the last remaining pretense that these policies are primarily about academic outcomes.
At its core, this moment reflects not simply an assertion of state power, but an alarming turn toward extremism in Texas education policy. Threatening to take over entire school districts because students engage in protest is wildly out of step with the democratic purposes of public education. Schools are supposed to cultivate civic participation, not punish it.
Yet Texas leaders are now attempting to police student speech itself—deciding who gets to speak, who gets to organize, and who gets to define the boundaries of democratic participation in our schools. When student protest becomes grounds for state intervention, accountability policy has been transformed—even disfigured—into a tool of political control.
Young people have always been central to movements for justice—from the Chicano walkouts of 1968 to the student protests against gun violence in recent years. To threaten entire school districts because students speak out today is not only historically short-sighted; it is a warning sign about the direction of governance in Texas public education.
If student activism becomes grounds for state takeover, then what we are witnessing is not school accountability—it is the political capture of public education. Public education is recast not as a space for democratic learning, but as a site for enforcing political obedience.
Crockett High School students walk out of school on Jan. 30 as part of a nationwide protest of the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton later ordered investigations into such student protests at Austin Independent School District.
Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman
In response to growing student protests against violence committed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, the Texas Education Agency last week announced sanctions for school districts where students participate in “inappropriate political activism.” At the direction of Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton — who have ordered investigations into student protests at Austin Independent School District — TEA has threatened to revoke teachers’ certifications or take over entire districts if they are deemed to have supported such activism.
This move from TEA represents a dangerous weaponization of state takeover policy.
Rather than using intimidation tactics to silence the speech of perceived political opponents, TEA and state lawmakers should support educators’ and students’ rights to teach and learn without interference.
Historically, when Texas students participated in walkouts to protest gun violence or racial segregation, lawmakers did not threaten to take over their school districts. Instead, takeover remained an extreme measure reserved for cases of persistent academic underperformance or financial mismanagement — criteria specified in the Texas Education Code. Defying state and national precedent, TEA’s recent guidance threatens to deploy takeover policy in new ways by identifying political speech as a justification for intervention.
We have spent the last three years documenting Texas’s 2023 takeover of Houston Independent School District. Through hundreds of interviews with educators, families and students, we’ve learned how the HISD takeover has disrupted teaching and learning, contributed to staff turnover and enrollment declines, and created a culture of pervasive fear and mistrust.
Research on takeovers shows they disproportionately target majority-Black and Latino districts, don’t lead to long-term academic gains, and subject stakeholders to emotional turmoil. Houstonians know this reality all too well.
Hundreds of Crockett High School students participated in the Jan. 30 walkout, which
was among similar student demonstrations held at other Austin-area schools.
Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman
TEA originally justified the HISD takeover by citing chronic academic failure at just one of the district’s 274 schools — a low threshold for intervention, to be sure, but at least one codified in statute. Student protests, on the other hand, are not mentioned in the Texas Education Code’s chapter on school accountability. In fact, there are no recorded instances of state education agencies using takeover as a consequence for student activism anywhere in the nation.
Under TEA’s vague new criteria, standard teaching practices like making connections between current events and a novel like “Animal Farm” — a text included in TEA’s proposed Literary Works list — could put districts at risk of takeover. Did the teacher encourage “inappropriate political activism” or facilitate speech that “disrupts learning”? If students hold an event to raise awareness about a classmate’s detention by ICE, as they did for HISD senior Mauro Yosueth Henriquez, would this constitute grounds for takeover?
Now, imagine a scenario where TEA takes over a district for these reasons. What reforms would an appointed board of managers put in place? Even before TEA’s new guidelines were introduced, HISD’s state-appointed leadership closed school libraries, restricted student access to reading full books, and suspended 45 students for participating in a single protest. How much further would officials go in policing teacher and student speech?
Moreover, takeovers typically specify the metrics that districts must meet to regain local control. What exit criteria would determine whether sufficient “improvement” had been made under these conditions? This could mean silencing or removing individuals whose political beliefs diverge from those held by state leadership.
Takeovers have always been about controlling what communities — especially Black and Latino
TEA must stop caving to political demands from the governor and attorney general and instead focus on its own stated purpose: supporting educators and students in their pursuit of critical thinking and lifelong learning.
Jasmin Lee, Daniel Dawer and Cory Brautigam are doctoral students at Rice University, the University of Texas at Austin and Penn State University, respectively.
