Translate

Showing posts with label Josephine Lee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Josephine Lee. Show all posts

Friday, January 16, 2026

Texas Taxpayers Will Fund Dozens of Private Schools that Openly Discriminate, by Josephine Lee, Texas Monthly, Jan. 13, 2026

Friends:

In a deeply reported investigation for the Texas Observer, staff writer Josephine Lee reveals that Texas’ newly enacted school voucher program—branded by Governor Greg Abbott as “education freedom”—will instead funnel public dollars to private schools that openly discriminate on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability status. 

Drawing on an analysis of 291 state-approved private schools serving students beyond kindergarten, Lee finds that more than 90 percent are religiously affiliated, over 100 prioritize or require students of a particular faith, and at least 60 maintain written policies excluding or disciplining LGBTQ+ students. 

Despite taxpayer funding of $10,474 per student (and up to $30,000 for students with disabilities), these schools are not required to accept all students, comply with Title IX, or provide meaningful special education services.

As Lee makes clear, the program’s structure all but guarantees exclusion rather than access. Many participating schools charge tuition above the voucher amount, offer little to no special education services, and retain broad discretion to reject applicants. Nik Nartowicz of Americans United for Separation of Church and State captures the core constitutional and moral concern succinctly: 

“Taxpayers should not be forced to fund someone else’s religion or discrimination; it’s a violation of taxpayers’ religious freedom.” 

Far from expanding educational opportunity, Lee’s reporting shows that Texas’ voucher scheme primarily subsidizes families already in private schools, drains resources from public education, and entrenches a two-tier system in which discrimination is not a side effect but a legally protected feature—one poised to grow into a multi-billion-dollar public entitlement. 

If this concerns you—as I believe it should—now is the time to act. I urge you to join Our Schools Our Democracy for its Week of Action, February 2–6, to demand transparency, defend taxpayer dollars, and insist on fairness for Texas public school students. Participants will be equipped with ready-to-use tools—including sample social media posts, an op-ed template, and a draft email to lawmakers—so you can take immediate, effective action.

-Angela Valenzuela

Texas Taxpayers Will Fund Dozens of Private Schools that Openly Discriminate
The state has signed off on voucher funds for schools that exclude non-Christian and LGBTQ+ kids.












by Josephine Lee | Texas Monthly | Jan. 13, 2026

Upon signing school vouchers into law last May, Governor Greg Abbott pronounced that he had delivered “education freedom to every Texas family.” But the billion-dollar program, which opens to parents on February 4, has enrolled dozens of private schools that openly discriminate against Texas families on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity, according to a Texas Observer analysis of information gathered from the schools’ websites and handbooks, and survey responses and phone calls with school leaders.

The Observer gathered information about all 291 schools selected by the state that offer education beyond the kindergarten level. More than 90 percent are affiliated with or owned by a religious or faith-based group, the analysis found. More than 100 of those schools require or prioritize for admission students of the same faith, and more than 60 have a written policy that discriminates against LGBTQ+ students, the schools’ own data shows.

The Texas Comptroller’s office announced December 22 that nearly 600 private K-12 and early pre-K schools had already been enrolled in the Texas Education Freedom Account (TEFA) program, as the state vouchers have been dubbed. But only about half that were listed on its website as of January 1 serve students beyond kindergarten. The comptroller’s office, which administers the voucher program, has not provided comment for this story.

About 70 percent of these schools are concentrated in the greater metropolitan areas of Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin. Many rural Texas families will have no options; more than 180 of Texas’ 254 counties have no elementary, junior, or senior high schools enrolled so far.

Participating students in approved private schools will receive $10,474 for the 2026-27 school year—though students with special needs may receive up to $30,000 and homeschool students will receive $2,000. If applications for the voucher program exceed available funding, program rules state that the comptroller must prioritize applications of students with disabilities and lower incomes.

But these rules don’t guarantee student access to enrolled private schools.

The Observer’s analysis found that around a third of the schools enrolled in the program have a 2025-26 tuition that exceeds $10,474 and few offer special education services. Private schools generally increase rates every year, and the tuition excludes other fees and costs, such as registration, testing, sports, supplies, field trips, or uniforms.

Governor Greg Abbott in 2023 (Logan Hannigan-Downs/College Station Eagle via AP)

Unlike public schools, private schools are not required to accept all students and can weed out students through a lengthy admission process that requires recommendations, testing, and interviews. Chinquapin Preparatory School, a secular school in the Greater Houston area, only invites students to take an admissions test if they first pass a review of prior standardized test scores, report cards, and recommendations. Even after passing the exam, they still have to clear interviews and classroom observations.

In addition, around 40 percent of the religious schools have policies that favor students of their own faith and around 25 percent have policies that discriminate against LGBTQ+ students.

Nik Nartowicz, lead policy counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the organization has opposed private school vouchers for many years because of such inherent biases. “Taxpayers should not be forced to fund someone else’s religion or discrimination; it’s a violation of taxpayers’ religious freedom,” he told the Observer.

Of the participating schools included in the Observer’s analysis, 268 are religious—with 176 Catholic, 91 Protestant, and one Jewish. Only 23 are secular.

Of the 176 Catholic parochial schools, at least 40 percent prioritize admission of students from their own parish or other Catholic students, based on a review of policies posted on school websites and handbooks. For many of these schools, non-Catholic students are at the bottom of the priority enrollment list. For example, St. Theresa Catholic School in Austin prioritizes in order: children of faculty, siblings of current students, children of parishioners, children of alumni, and children of other Catholic parishes, before enrolling all other applicants, based on “alignment with the school’s mission and values” and assessment results.

“Parochial schools maintain admission requirements so we can faithfully live out our educational and spiritual mission,” Camille Garcia, Secretariat Director of the Diocese of Austin, wrote in response to the Observer’s inquiry on St. Theresa Catholic School’s admission policies. “These requirements are not meant to exclude, but to ensure alignment with the mission and with the parent’s vision for their children.”

About a third of the other participating 91 Christian schools bar from enrollment students who are not from Christian families, based on admission policies posted on websites and handbooks and some responses via phone calls. Some identify themselves as “covenant schools” that aim to only partner with Christian families in the education of their children, as opposed to “mission schools” with an evangelical objective. Many of these covenant schools require an applicant’s family to be professing Christians, to be active members of a Christian church, or provide a character reference from a pastor. That includes Conroe’s Lifestyle Christian School, whose website states: “For a student to be eligible for admission or re-enrollment, the family must be Christians, a member of an evangelical, Bible-believing church, and REGULAR in attendance at the church.” Even if families fit this criteria, its handbook states, “LCS reserves the right to decline admission or re-enrollment of any student at the sole discretion of the school’s administration.”

Lifestyle Christian School’s head of school Chris Brown did not respond to the Observer’s multiple requests for comment on the school’s admission policies.

Students enrolled in Christian schools generally have to attend chapel services and are taught scripture. But some of the approved schools also practice “Kingdom Education,” a religious education model that integrates the Bible into all subject-area instruction. For example, the the McAllen-based Covenant Christian Academy’s curriculum map for 8th Grade American History states that for all units from European settlement to the Civil War to the Industrial Revolution students will learn the guiding Biblical principle that begins with, “God is creator. All things, including time, were made by and for Himself” and ends with, “God’s plans for history are beyond my full comprehension.” Its curriculum map for a unit on “Prokaryotes and Viruses” for 9th Grade Biology states students will learn about creationism, the “success of pathogenic organisms as a result of the Fall and Curse,” and “disease as a result of sin.” Learning addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, according to its 3rd Grade Math curriculum map, means learning about the “absoluteness-immutability” of God.

Milton Gonzalez, executive director of Covenant Christian Academy declined to comment on the school’s curriculum for this story.

Covenant Christian Academy and other approved schools, like the First Baptist Academy in the San Antonio area, use textbooks from Abeka or Bob Jones University Press which have included inflammatory and controversial racist statements that describe slavery as “black immigration” and characterize slaves as “better investments than indentured servants.”

Christine Povolich, head administrator of the First Baptist Academy did not respond to the Observer’s multiple requests for comments on the school’s curriculum.

In 2005, the Association of Christian Schools International sued the University of California for religious discrimination because the university system had rejected credits from high school courses based on Abeka and Bob Jones textbooks. The attempt was quashed by a 2008 United States District Court for the Central District of California decision in favor of the University of California and a year later upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But Texas’ approval of schools that use these texts could raise more questions about whether these schools are appropriately preparing students for colleges.

For at least 25 percent of the 268 participating religious schools, behavioral expectations include adherence to strict sexuality and gender policies. Some of these schools forbid enrollment of or allow schools to kick out LGBTQ+ students, according to the Observer’s review of school handbooks.

Many Christian schools use the Association of Christian Schools International’s template “Statement on Marriage, Gender, and Sexuality,” which states that “rejection of one’s biological sex is a rejection of the image of God within that person,” that “‘marriage’ only has one meaning: the uniting of one man and one woman,” and that “any form of sexual immorality (including adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, bisexual conduct, bestiality, incest, and use of pornography) is sinful and offensive to God.” The Bay Area Christian School in the Greater Houston area states in its handbook under a section called “Bay Area Christian School Lifestyle Stance” that “The school reserves the right to refuse enrollment or discontinue partnership when the atmosphere or conduct within a family or actions or stances of a student oppose the scriptural posture” of the school, including “immoral heterosexual activity, homosexual activity, bisexual activity, transgender activity, or sexual deviancy.”

Many Catholic schools included similar statements in their policies. For example, Catholic schools in the Diocese of Corpus Christi use “Human Sexuality: Guiding Principles for Catholic School Leaders,” which states that students will use names, pronouns, and facilities corresponding to their biological sex and that “expressions of a student’s sexual identity” and “expressions of a student’s disordered inclination for same‐sex attraction” are prohibited as they may cause “disruption or confusion regarding the Church’s teaching on human sexuality.” The Diocese also suggests conversion therapy should be used when school leaders identify gay and transgender students. The document states that school leaders should “encourage the family to seek the guidance of their pediatrician and counseling by a trained licensed professional who may be able to assist with this issue in accord with Catholic teaching and natural law.”

Katia Uriarte, director of communications for the Diocese of Corpus Christi, declined to comment for this story.

Bay Area Christian School’s Head of School Les Rainey did not respond to the Observer’s multiple requests for comment on the school’s admission policies.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 mandates that public schools prevent and redress sex-based and gender-based harassment of students in public schools. But “Private religious schools don’t have to have that framework,” said Paige Duggins-Clay, chief legal analyst at the Intercultural Development Research Association, a Texas education and civil rights policy organization. “Private schools can say our religious beliefs or our moral beliefs dictate that having a gender identity or sexual orientation that doesn’t conform with traditional male-female binaries is against our religion.”

Texas’ voucher law also states that private schools will not be considered “state actors,” thus restricting the state from “imposing requirements that are contrary to the religious or institutional values or practices of an education service provider.” Attempts during the legislative session to include anti-discrimination provisions in the voucher law were blocked.

Unlike public schools, private schools are also not required to enroll or provide special education services to students with disabilities that are otherwise required under federal law—so long as they don’t receive federal funding under those provisions.

Even though Texas’ voucher program prioritizes students with special needs, most private schools currently enrolled lack special education services. The Observer received information from 257 schools regarding special education services through a mix of survey responses, phone calls, or information from school handbooks. Of those, less than a dozen schools stated that special education services are available to students. If students with special needs are accepted, some schools said they provide limited accommodations, such as extended time for tests, preferential seating, small-group instruction, and testing; fewer schools offer services for dyslexia and dysgraphia or tutoring for extra costs. Most Catholic school handbooks include a statement similar to that by the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, which states, “Students with exceptional learning needs are admitted to the extent that the needs of students can be met within the scope of the programs and available resources on each campus.”

These private schools’ limited ability to provide special education services to students has not stopped private school leaders from encouraging families to obtain an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) to qualify for up to $30,000 in school vouchers. The Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops, for instance, has created a handout for parents instructing them how to request an evaluation for an IEP from their local public school district. (The Texas comptroller enacted rules requiring an IEP to qualify.)

Steven Aleman, senior policy specialist with Disability Rights Texas, which advocates for public school students with disabilities, told the Observer he’s concerned this will “only divert precious public resources away from remaining public school students with disabilities.”

State Representative Gina Hinojosa, a longtime voucher opponent who is running to be the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, told the Observer, “Make no mistake, every time they talk about ‘school choice’ they are actually taking options away from Texans.” She added that Abbott is “making taxpayers pay the tuition of families who are already enrolled in private school.” 
Gina Hinojosa on the House floor in May 2025 (Jordan Vonderhaar for the Texas 
Observer)

Last December, Brentwood Christian School in Austin held a webinar on the program for families whose students were already enrolled at the school. During the meeting, a parent expressed concern that the award-winning school would change if there was a “run of people” from public schools.

But President Jay Burcham eased their concerns. “We’re full,” Burcham said, explaining that the school only has 15 remaining seats across 14 grade levels. “We do not have to change our accommodations for anyone. We are Brentwood Christian school. This program is for the parents. You’re the beneficiary,” he said.

Burcham suggested students already enrolled in private schools would be prioritized. “It’s been said they want this first go-through to be more for the people who are already in private schools,” he said, later adding, “We want as many of our people in as possible.” During the webinar, Burcham instructed parents how to qualify for the program’s first priority tier for students with disabilities: “If you got the diagnosis, that’s step number one. … Then we have to work really hard with the school district to get an IEP in place.” Even if they don’t qualify for the priority slots, Burcham still encouraged existing Brentwood parents to apply.

In response to the Observer’s inquiry about the webinar, Burcham said the school also held an informational meeting including prospective applicants. But he wanted to make sure currently enrolled families knew they could also apply. “BCS tuition is quite a bit lower than most Central Texas private schools. Even with this lower tuition, we still have many families who receive financial aid subsidies through BCS. These are families who are making ongoing sacrifices to keep their kids in a private and parochial school environment, and they are an intended and welcome participant in the TEFA program, just like the students who may be using TEFA to transfer from a public school to a private school are intended and welcome participants,” Burcham wrote via email.

According to the voucher law’s fiscal note, the billion-dollar program could grow past $6 billion in the next biennium since the Legislature can appropriate more money to expand it to cover more students.

“We need you to register, because the intent is that they’re going to grow this,” Burcham told Brentwood parents during the webinar. “In other words, if you register, but you don’t get TEFA, in two years, you have a high likelihood. So, think of the long game.”

Josephine Lee is a staff writer at the Texas Observer. She has previously worked as an educator and community organizer. Her reporting on labor, environment, politics, and education has been featured in Salon, The Daily Beast, Truthout, and other outlets. She was raised and lives in Houston.

Wednesday, January 07, 2026

Texas Already Ran the Voucher Experiment—And the Results Should Alarm Us, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Texas Already Ran the Voucher Experiment—And the Results Should Alarm Us

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.
January 7, 2026

Governor Greg Abbott’s successful push to pass school vouchers in the last legislative session (see Senate Bill 2), allows families to use public taxpayer dollars for private school tuition or related costs—a move he described as empowering for familiesBut Texas has already run a version of this experiment. And the evidence should give lawmakers and the public serious pause. Sadly, the advocacy community—comprised of students, families, educators, faith leaders, disability advocates, civic organizations, and policy experts—standing in opposition to the bill were ignored and the narrative that treated privatization as reform—regardless of the evidence—won out.

In Texas Already Gives Public Ed Dollars to Private Operators. Here’s How That Worked Out,” authored by Josephine Lee in the Texas Observer documents how Texas’ Senate Bill 1882 charter “partnership” program—sold as a turnaround strategy for struggling public schools—has instead produced worse academic outcomes, weak oversight, and massive diversion of scarce public funds to private operators. While vouchers are now being sold as something new, SB 1882 reveals what actually happens when public education dollars are routed to private hands with few strings attached.

Passed in 2017, Senate Bill 1882 allows school districts to avoid state takeover by turning campuses deemed “failing” over to nonprofit charter operators or universities. These arrangements function much like vouchers in practice: public funds flow to private entities operating outside the full scope of public accountability, while school districts remain responsible for facilities, transportation, special education, and other core services. The risk is privatized; the costs remain public.

The results have been sobering. Charter operators received more than $735 million in state and federal funds, often with higher per-student allocations than district-run schools. Yet most partnership schools failed to improve academically. A majority of campuses that exited the program remained academically failing, many performed worse than before privatization, and nearly all missed the academic benchmarks written into their contracts. As multiple school board members acknowledged, the charter operators did not outperform traditional public schools—calling into question the very premise of privatization.

Equally alarming is the lack of regulation and financial accountabilitySenate Bill 1882 partnerships operate under a separate, far weaker section of the Texas Education Code than either traditional public schools or open-enrollment charters. Oversight is largely contractual rather than statutory, creating space for missing audits, operating deficits, excessive administrative overhead, and six-figure executive salaries—all funded with taxpayer dollars. In some cases, operators were newly formed nonprofits with no proven track record, and some failed even to meet basic legal or reporting requirements in Texas.

This experiment unfolded against the backdrop of chronic underfunding. Texas already ranks near the bottom nationally in per-pupil spending, yet Senate Bill 1882 schools unlocked extra state funding, siphoning resources away from district-managed schools at a time of inflation, teacher shortages, and campus closures. In San Antonio ISD alone, more money was paid to private operators than the district’s annual deficit—even as the district shuttered schools and cut services.

This is precisely the danger posed by Abbott’s voucher program—only now at a much larger scale. As Lee’s reporting makes clear, privatization does not add resources to public education; it fragments and drains them. It does not strengthen accountability. It weakens democratic governance instead by shifting decision-making away from elected boards into private hands. Nor does it solve systemic inequities; it exacerbates them by diverting funds from the neighborhood public schools that serve the vast majority of Texas students.

Perhaps most troubling is the coercive logic underlying both Senate Bill 1882 and vouchers. Districts did not freely choose privatization; they were cornered by a punitive accountability system that threatened state takeover. Faced with closure or outsourcing, districts handed over schools and public dollars—even when evidence of success was thin or nonexistent. Vouchers now extend that same logic statewide, accelerating disinvestment under the banner of “choice.”

Texas has already tested what happens when public education dollars are handed to private operators with minimal guardrails. The results are now unmistakable: weaker oversight, inferior outcomes, and a steady hollowing out of public education. Abbott’s voucher program is not a new reform—it is the expansion of a failed one, and Texas students and communities together with taxpayers, will pay the price.

Texas Already Gives Public Ed Dollars to Private Operators. Here's How That Worked Out

by Josephine Lee, Texas Observer, May 13, 2025



















At an April 2017 committee hearing in a meeting room tucked away in the Capitol’s underground extension, state Senator Paul Bettencourt, a bespectacled Houston Republican, touted a proposal of his then called Senate Bill 1882.

The bill was meant to “turn around” public schools the state had deemed failing by tapping nonprofit charter school operators to take over and implement “innovative practices,” Bettencourt promised. The new system would be a “model of efficiency,” New Braunfels Republican Donna Campbell added to a chorus of bipartisan support. Co-author José Menéndez, a San Antonio Democrat, later told the Texas Observer that he aimed to tap into charter operators’ “highest expertise.”

At the hearing, one public school advocate warned of the proposal’s high cost and lack of accountability, and another requested more protections for public school employees, but their testimonies were largely ignored, and SB 1882 passed.

Since then, 27 school districts across Texas have struck deals under the statute, allowing nonprofit organizations and a few public universities to collect taxpayer dollars to operate 129 public schools. Some cash-strapped school districts were simply motivated to participate by extra funding made available under the program, while others avoided impending state takeovers by inking their contracts. Under a 2015 law (strengthened in 2021), the Texas Education Agency (TEA) can depose an elected school board and take over a district if even one of its schools receives a failing rating (F, D, or Improvement Required) for five consecutive years in the state’s “A-F Accountability” system. SB 1882 created an escape hatch for districts—if they turned over their failing schools.


    José Menéndez (right) on the Senate floor in 2017 (Sam DeGrave)


Sunday, August 20, 2023

HISD Takeover: New superintendent Mike Miles put on a play to inspire teachers. Not everyone was amused.

 Friends:

Here is a critical piece by investigative journalist, Josephine Lee, that I encourage you to read. It's rather bizarre to see Mike Miles, the Houston Independent School District (HISD) superintendent himself as one of the actors in the play described below, especially when the students that agreed to do this play weren't aware that he’s their superintendent. As one HISD teacher said, “It reeks of propaganda.” 

Read this in combination with Lee's July 14, 2023 piece titled, “Teachers strong-armed to get on board with Houston schools takeover.” The district is now part of Miles' New Education System as follows:

"In recent weeks, criticisms of Miles’ sweeping reforms—particularly removing school librarians and using libraries as student disciplinary centers—have become national news. Miles has said that the 85 schools taking part in his New Education System program, which he transplanted from his Third Futures charter school network, will expand to 150 schools by 2025."

It's all so suspect and not the way to be working in good faith with teachers, parents, community, and students. It's experienced as objectifying, getting treated like an object. And this objectification dishonors the teachers and unmasks this raw and shameful taking of power.

Where is the community in this story? The community is positioned in the background in this account.

I hope that the press is alive and well everywhere so that the people can get the information they need directly from the community. This could be in the hands of local bloggers, those with Instagram accounts, or on listservs or Facebook groups of people in the cultural arts. I'm confident that Lee will also continue producing credible accounts, too.

Thanks to journalist Alfredo Santos, he was been my consistent, local news source from his newspaper, La Voz de Austin. This, alongside a truly excellent source for local news on education, The Austin Chronicle.

Tony Diaz and Liana Lopez with Nuestra Palabra have been my go-to people on anything involving community and education in Houston. There are, to be sure, broad overlapping communities with a shared interest in the preservation of our democracy that are coming together—even as others are still needing to join on in defense of all public education—or "P-20 education," as we say in higher education, meaning Pre-K through 20 pointing to how learning is lifelong.

Do read the article below. Folks at the capitol are noticing that Harris County has been on fire with lots of young, progressive, highly diverse, and politically aware students, activists, and most importantly, voters! 

Without a doubt, this harshness of policy animus against HISD is everything about pushing back on the democratic party and the county's otherwise progressive or liberal base. 

Still, all of this sounds like such a hard time right now in HISD. May our teachers and everyone involved find ways to be whole so that all of our children's classrooms become the sanctuaries that they can optimally be.

I'm not amused either. I'm in prayer and meditation. My life is a constant prayer and meditation.  🙏 🙏 🙏

Sí se puede! Yes we can!

-Angela Valenzuela

HOUSTON ISD TAKEOVER, THE MUSICAL
New superintendent Mike Miles put on a play to inspire teachers. Not everyone was amused.

by JOSEPHINE LEE
AUGUST 18, 2023, 10:17 AM, CDT

A single spotlight shined on a student performer in an aisle belting the lyrics to West Side Story’s “Something’s Coming”:

Something’s comin’, something good
If I can wait!
Something’s comin’, I don’t know what it is
But it is
Gonna be great!

The stage lit up to reveal a 1950s diner with red and white checkered tablecloth tables and red rubber stools. In walked new district superintendent Mike Miles, playing “Mr. Duke,” owner of the joint who doubles as a counselor who listens to the teachers’ and students’ grievances. 

Since March, when the Texas Education Agency seized control of the Houston Independent School District (HISD), citing the failure to meet state standards at one high school, Houston’s teachers and parents have seen the battle with the state-appointed school board and superintendent play out in community meetings and in the press. Now, during a week of district-mandated conferences at the NRG Center, teachers were watching the takeover play out on stage. Miles directed the script—an hour-long musical that took six weeks to prepare, depicting how the new superintendent will rekindle the extinguished spirits of burnt-out teachers, give hope to hopeless students, and bestow a visionary plan to save public education. 

“We are lost as a profession,” a teacher said on stage. 

“My dreams are getting smaller and smaller,” a student later echoed. 

“Well, maybe that new guy—you know, super … super …”

“You mean Superintendent Miles?” 

“Maybe Superintendent Miles will make things better for us.”

Maybe.

But teachers who spoke to the Texas Observer said Miles’ performance wasted the district’s time and money and mocked their professional experience and concerns. 

“For him to turn our concerns into satire is really insulting,” HISD teacher Melissa Yarborough said. “It reeks of propaganda.”

“He wasted our time when we could be in our classrooms preparing our lesson plans before school starts,” said Chris, an elementary school teacher who asked only to be identified by his first name. 

Jessica, who has been teaching for 24 years, told the Observer Miles’ musical “was very condescending. The message was that we don’t know what we’re doing. And he’s coming in to show us how to do it right.”

Chris, Jessica, and others we spoke to asked that we use their first or middle names for fear of disciplinary action. A slide from the training states: “HISD expects any employee not to use social media or any communications platform or media, including forwarding, supporting, or ‘liking’ posts or communications to communicate false or misleading information about the school or district, particularly if designed to damage the school or district’s reputation.” 

“THE MESSAGE WAS THAT WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE DOING.”

In recent weeks, criticisms of Miles’ sweeping reforms—particularly removing school librarians and using libraries as student disciplinary centers—have become national news. Miles has said that the 85 schools taking part in his New Education System program, which he transplanted from his Third Futures charter school network, will expand to 150 schools by 2025.  

Earlier this week, Miles terminated nearly two dozen special educational and mental health contractors after the Texas Education Agency tasked the new administration to improve special education services as a condition to end the takeover. 

The day before the performance, someone called the fire marshall to address the district’s chaotic and overcrowded training conference at the NRG Center.

“I saw somebody get wheeled out because they had a panic attack. Then this lady asked me to watch the door to keep people from coming in, so I didn’t really get anything from that training,” Chris said. 

In one scene, a teacher rebukes other teachers who waste class time.

“Maybe I should show a movie every now and then and give you free time so you can surf the web and only look at videos and TikToks,” she said on stage.

In another scene, an older teacher admonishes a group of students using pretentious diction. Students respond with slang, saying, “They always treat us like we’re second class, but we’re not.”

Miles’ character Mr. Duke then stepped in to help translate for both parties and bridge their differences, telling the students, “There’s always going to be people like that, but you guys are the underdog, and you’re going to show them how you’re going to change the world.”

Comfort Azagidi, a senior at the High School for the Performing and Visual Arts, who performed in the show, said that unlike Mr. Duke, during rehearsals Miles “didn’t really talk to us. When he finally came to rehearsals, he never introduced himself or acknowledged us. He just came in and walked past students and teachers.” Comfort said they were misled into participating in the show and found the portrayal of Gen Z students and culture “offensive.”

Teachers also said the musical belittled their concerns about the lack of information and organization they see from the district as they struggle to prepare for a new school year starting in less than two weeks. 

Elizabeth, a teacher with nine years of experience at one school in Miles’ New Education System program, said administrators eliminated the elective class she had taught for years. She is now instructing a course called “The Art of Thinking,” for which she has received only a general curriculum guide and the first three lessons. 

“I don’t know what exactly I’m supposed to accomplish in this class,” Elizabeth said. 

In public meetings, Miles had promised he would not eliminate school electives. He has been under fire for instituting a salary system that pays elective, science, and social studies teachers less than reading and math teachers. 

“I can look at an elective teacher in third grade and say reading is more important to our students right now, and the value that teacher brings is higher than the value a P.E. teacher brings,” Miles told the Houston Chronicle

“The musical was a slap in the face to all the fine arts teachers,” Elizabeth added, noting that Miles had to obtain the help of fine arts teachers and students from the High School for the Performing and Visual Arts and other schools. “All the choreography, technology, and skills behind the musical—these elective teachers had to build up that skill.”

In another scene, Miles took a jab at the press and community members criticizing his decision to eliminate librarians and turn libraries into student detention centers. 

“Why are you getting rid of playgrounds?” students playing reporters asked. 

“I didn’t say I’m getting rid of playgrounds,” said Miles, playing himself. 

“Why do you hate children?” the reporters ask. 

Elizabeth told the Observer, “The musical was a dig at everybody who has criticized him. It wasn’t about what the schools could be. It was just about him.”

When asked to comment about teachers’ criticisms of the musical, Miles said, “Those are anecdotes from one teacher or a handful of teachers dissing the convocation. They didn’t get into the spirit of it. Some people always want to bring down something great.” 

Miles called his critics naysayers and said, “You will always have people who don’t want to change.”

Yarborough disagrees. She said that teachers have been calling for changes for years, including smaller class sizes and more resources and funding for the classroom. She said some of Miles’ reforms, which have not worked in the past, are moving the district backward. 

“I’d agree with Miles that things were not good the way they were,” Yarborough said. “But he is not inventing anything new. Districts have tried scripted curriculum in the past, and it has not fixed our problems. Reconstituting schools is not new. Paying teachers based on their student test scores is not new. I have not seen any evidence that that stuff works.” 

Miles’ musical ended with teachers and students singing, dancing, and laughing freely on stage, which teachers noted was a stark contrast to the sterile classrooms Miles wants in schools. 

“It’s all for show,” Elizabeth said. “Like in the Wizard of Oz, when you look behind the curtain, what’s being presented is not what’s really going on.”