Christian Nationalism Captures Higher Education, or, On Mandatorily Managing the Mystery of the Maker, Parts One and Two, by Joshua Gunn

Friends:

I want to call readers’ attention to this provocative and important two-part essay by UT-Austin Professor Joshua Gunn in The Higher Ed Advocate, both posted below. Densely documented with links to primary documents, investigative reporting, scholarship, and the institutions’ own materials, Gunn raises questions about the transformation of Texas higher education that deserve serious public scrutiny. 

In Part One, he examines changes in the language and governance of Texas public universities, drawing particular attention to terms appearing in official UT and UT System documents—academic “integrity,” “stewardship,” “solemn covenant,” “sacred space,” “spirit of grace,” and related formulations—and argues that their cumulative significance looks different when situated within the broader political ascendancy of Christian nationalism. The language itself is not in dispute: UT Austin’s Texas Statement on Academic Integrity describes the classroom as a “sacred space” and invokes a “spirit of grace,” while the UT System’s 2026 teaching policy describes teaching as a “solemn covenant” between faculty and students. 

In Part Two, Gunn moves from rhetoric to institutional development, examining the Civitas Institute and School of Civic Leadership and the political and financial forces surrounding their emergence. That history is significant: Civitas was initially established with $12 million in state and UT System funding following documented involvement by political leaders and conservative donors, the Regents created the School of Civic Leadership in 2023, and in 2025 committed another $100 million for its permanent home.

The public should be concerned not because conservative scholars, religious scholars, or people of faith have no place in public universities—they unquestionably do. Pluralism requires their presence, too. 

The concern arises when governmental power, university governance, major private wealth, and particular ideological or religious projects begin converging in ways that can determine which fields flourish, which departments disappear, which subjects become “controversial,” which forms of knowledge receive extraordinary institutional investment, and which become administratively vulnerable. That is a fundamentally different question from whether conservative ideas deserve a hearing. They do. 

The question is whether a public university remains a genuinely pluralistic institution when the state itself increasingly participates in deciding which ideas, histories, and intellectual traditions merit institutional protection and amplification.

Read together, Gunn’s essays therefore raise a larger and more consequential question of institutional capture: Who gets to determine what counts as legitimate knowledge, which histories universities teach, which questions professors may safely ask, and ultimately what kind of citizen public education is intended to produce? I encourage readers to read Part One and Part Two for themselves, follow Gunn’s many links, examine the underlying documents, and reach their own conclusions about what these developments mean for academic freedom, church-state boundaries, shared governance, and the democratic purposes of public education.

And there is one final connection we should not miss. The University of Texas System is governed by nine regents who are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Texas Senate, serving staggered six-year terms. University governance can therefore seem distant from electoral politics, but it is not. Who Texans elect determines who appoints the people who govern our public universities—and who confirms those appointments. 

Gubernatorial and state Senate elections are higher-education elections, too. Elections matter, my friends.

-Angela Valenzuela

New Restrictions Leave Some Texas Students Questioning Where They Belong in College

Friends:

I write to congratulate the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) and Dr. Chloe Latham Sikes for producing a timely and much-needed study on the consequences of Texas' anti-DEI policies for college-bound students.

Their report, Staying on Course When Schools Steer Clear, gives voice to what many of us have been hearing since the passage of Senate Bill 17: students are questioning not simply where they can attend college, but where they will be welcomed, supported, and safe.

Drawing on the experiences of more than 90 Texans—including high school students, parents, educators, and counselors—the study finds that recent state and federal policy changes have diminished students' sense of belonging, reduced confidence in campus supports, complicated the work of college counselors, and heightened concerns about both physical safety and mental health. Particularly troubling is that some students are now removing Texas colleges from their application lists altogether because they no longer believe these institutions will support them.

These findings should concern everyone who cares about the future of our youth, and higher education itself, in Texas. When students begin to self-select out of public institutions—for which their families pay taxes—because they fear exclusion or lack of support, the state risks losing talented young people whose contributions are essential to our civic, economic, and intellectual future. This dynamic potentially places an added "tax," if you will for families who cannot keep their children in the state.

What makes this report especially valuable is that it does more than document the problem. It also offers practical, community-based resources and recommendations to help students navigate these new barriers and expand their pathways to college.

IDRA and Dr. Sikes have provided an important public service by grounding this debate in the lived experiences of Texas families rather than political rhetoric. At a moment when questions of belonging, opportunity, and educational equity are under intense scrutiny, this research offers evidence that policymakers, educators, and the public would do well to take seriously.

Congratulations to IDRA and Dr. Chloe Latham Sikes for this important contribution to the field and to the ongoing struggle to ensure that every student has a genuine opportunity not only to access higher education, but to thrive once they arrive.

-Angela Valenzuela

View as a webpage • July 9, 2026

New Restrictions Leave Some Texas Students Questioning Where They Belong in College

IDRA Study Participants Report Concerns About Support, Safety and Access Following Recent Diversity Policy Changes

(July 9, 2026 • San Antonio) Federal and state restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion have created new barriers to college access for students across Texas, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds.

IDRA’s two-year study provides an early look at how these policies are affecting high school students’ access to and success in college.

In 2023, Texas passed Senate Bill 17, which bans diversity, equity and inclusion offices at public colleges and universities. That same year, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly limited race-conscious admissions in higher education in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC decision.

“All students deserve access to college and the support they need,” said lead researcher, Dr. Chloe Latham Sikes. “Participants in IDRA’s study report that recent policy changes compromised their sense of belonging in college, limited scholarship opportunities, diminished campus supports for historically marginalized students, and heightened concerns about physical and mental safety on college campuses.”

The report, Staying on Course When Schools Steer Clear: A Community-Based Study on the Impacts of Texas' Diversity Policy Change on High School Students and Tools to Expand their College Pathways, includes perspectives from more than 90 Texans across the state, primarily high school students. Students, parents, educators and college counselors reported that recent policy changes are affecting college access in several ways, including:

Counselors reported greater difficulty encouraging students to pursue college.
Students and counselors reported a diminished sense of belonging when exploring college options.

Educators and students expressed concern about reduced support for students transitioning to college, particularly first-generation students.

 
Parents reported heightened concerns about students' physical safety and mental health on campus

“[The impact of the policy changes] has made me more cautious… and also intentional about choosing a college that not only offers strong academics but also provides a safe and supportive environment for my daughter, especially in the absence of [diversity, equity and inclusion] programs.” – Parent

“I’ve definitely just taken at least five colleges off my list just based on the DEI [response and them] not supporting students whatsoever when it comes to this.” – High school student

One high school student said: “It has definitely changed my perspective on which colleges I'm even going to apply to, because I obviously don’t want to be on a campus that doesn’t support me.”

A parent shared that the new state law (SB 17) “has made me more cautious… and also intentional about choosing a college that not only offers strong academics but also provides a safe and supportive environment for my daughter, especially in the absence of [diversity, equity and inclusion] programs.”

The report offers recommendations for supporting students academically and addressing longstanding barriers to college access and affordability.

Drawing on community input, IDRA developed a Community-based College Access Technical Assistance package that includes three toolkits and more than 15 bilingual resources to support students’ transition to college.

To learn more about the study, contact Chloe Latham Sikes, Ph.D., at chloe.sikes@idra.org.Media contact: Thomas Marshall III, M.Ed., at thomas.marshall@idra.org.

Beyond the Bans – Changes Limiting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Practices Compromise Student Opportunity
IDRA is an independent, non-profit organization. Our mission is to achieve equal educational opportunity for every child through strong public schools that prepare all students to access and succeed in college.

Reach Out To Us

IDRA
5815 Callaghan Road, #101
San Antonio, TX 78228
United States

UT is becoming the face of Texas’ higher education failures. That must change. The Daily Texan Editorial Board October 11, 2024

Friends,

I want to call attention to this important Daily Texan editorial, “UT is becoming the face of Texas’ higher education failures. That must change.” Though published in 2024, it reads today less like a warning than a record of a crisis already unfolding at The University of Texas at Austin.

The student editorial board rightly centered faculty concerns over academic freedom, tenure, shared governance, DEI, and the chilling effects of state legislation like SB 17 and SB 18. Their point was simple and powerful: a university cannot claim excellence while ignoring the conditions under which faculty teach, research, mentor, and serve. Faculty well-being is not a private employment matter. It is fundamental to the academic mission of the university.

In this context, former President Jay Hartzell’s stated goal of attracting “more elite faculty and students” raises an uncomfortable question: if this is not an indictment of, or even an insult to, the faculty and students already here, what exactly does it mean? UT Austin is already home to extraordinary faculty, staff, and students.

The crisis is not that they are insufficiently elite; it is that university and state leaders are undermining the very conditions that brought them here and would keep them here: academic freedom—the freedom to teach and the freedom to learn; tenure rights and protections; shared governance; the intellectual diversity that Ethnic and Women and Gender Studies brings; and respect for the communities that make Texas what it is.

Since then, these concerns have only deepened. UT Austin has witnessed layoffs, program consolidations, diminished shared governance, and an increasingly constrained environment for teaching and research on race, gender, inequality, and democracy itself. These are not isolated administrative decisions. They are part of a broader political project to narrow what can be studied, taught, debated, and imagined in public higher education.

At times, it feels like a slow-moving train headed toward disaster, or toward some dystopian vision that refuses to see the very diversity before our eyes, while authoritarian forms of censorship become increasingly normalized.

The Daily Texan editorial board understood what many leaders still refuse to acknowledge: students lose when faculty are silenced, intimidated, or driven away. Texas loses when its flagship university becomes a place where scholars must look over their shoulders before doing the work that public universities exist to do.

UT Austin should be a beacon of intellectual courage, democratic inquiry, and public purpose. Instead, it is being made into a cautionary tale. That must change.

-Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

UT is becoming the face of Texas’ higher education failures. That must change.

by The Daily Texan Editorial Board

October 11, 2024




The recent publication of a survey of Texas faculty is as clear-cut as it is concerning.

According to a Sept. 5 American Association of University Professors (AAUP) survey, Texas faculty are dissatisfied with the conditions and direction of higher education in Texas. 61% of those surveyed would not recommend Texas for a faculty position to out-of-state colleagues, and 26.3% plan to interview elsewhere next year. Top concerns for faculty include the state’s political climate, academic freedom, salary, and diversity, equity and inclusion issues.

As one of Texas’ flagship institutions and a top 10 public university, UT represents the Texas education system internationally. UT can’t afford to neglect its faculty without risking long-term damage to its reputation and academic standing. At the time of publication, UT did not respond to a request for comment.

In his Sept. 18 State of the University Address, President Jay Hartzell said he, the provost and the deans will be working on “how, across the entire academic enterprise, we attract more elite faculty and students.”

Faculty is essential to the success of any university. But as it stands, we are failing ours. If UT wants to recruit and retain top-tier faculty, UT must prioritize their satisfaction and address key issues impacting their success. UT has a responsibility to protect academic freedom, and this begins with protecting faculty well-being.

According to the AAUP survey, the failure to address faculty concerns may result in a decreased retention of faculty, loss of academic talent and damage to the quality of higher education.

“These findings serve as a wake-up call for policymakers, administrators, employers, and other concerned citizens, emphasizing the urgent need to address the concerns raised by faculty members,” the survey said.

Intellectual debate and dialogue allow students and faculty to build upon each other’s independent analysis and critical thinking. State legislation constantly challenges the boundaries of academic freedom. Increasing limitations on academic freedom can have hefty implications not just on our education but on our political structure.

“(Faculty) are worried that people outside the University are going to be telling us what we can and can’t teach, what we have to say and what we can’t say in the classroom,” said Daniel Brinks, a professor in the School of Law and chair of the government department. “That will be a problem for students’ ability to learn, faculty’s ability to teach and do research, and the University’s ability to be an authentic academic institution.”

Senate Bill 17 has had lasting impacts on faculty perceptions of academic freedom. The University’s over-compliance with SB 17, including firing certain staff members without justification, raises concerns about UT’s commitment to faculty well-being amid the enactment of legislative changes.

“There’s a chilling effect … with Senate Bill 17, which banned DEI programs and practices, but it also put in there some pretty severe penalties,” said Brian Evans, president of the Texas Conference of AAUP. “If you are a faculty member perceived to be giving a training on diversity, equity and inclusion, you can face disciplinary action, including being terminated or dismissed.”

Additionally, SB 18 was intended to ban tenure at Texas public universities. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick proposed the bill because he felt professors at UT use the stability their tenure provides to “poison the minds of our next generation,” as he wrote in a Feb. 18, 2022 statement.

“These professors claim ‘academic freedom’ and hide behind their tenure to continue blatantly advancing their agenda of societal division,” Patrick wrote in a statement released April 20, 2023.

The bill was modified to keep tenured professors — with caveats. However, they can still be let go at the University’s discretion.

SB 18 may disproportionately impact untenured faculty who speak publicly on identity-related issues. The bill instills fear, making professors weary that a progressive curriculum would get them fired. If UT wants professors to continue to foster discourse in their classrooms, they must actively seek to protect tenure and ensure the stability of faculty.

“(AAUP) felt that SB 18 would potentially erode the protections of tenure … the whole reason there’s tenure is to protect academic freedom,” said Andrea Gore, a professor in the College of Pharmacy and Vice President of UT Austin’s chapter of AAUP. “If we didn’t have something that told us our jobs are going to be secure if we tackle difficult topics, we might not tackle those topics, and that would be a huge disservice to the students of the state of Texas.”

Forums exist for faculty to air their grievances, including the Faculty Council, but rarely does faculty input result in actual change. For example, the Council released a July 12 report criticizing UT’s handling of pro-Palestian demonstrations, and the council openly condemned President Hartzell’s mass layoffs following SB 17, which they said were made “without consultation of Faculty Council Leadership or other faculty leaders, in violation of shared governance practices, and without due process.”

In neither case did UT change or reverse its course of action despite callouts from faculty. If faculty cannot make change at UT, they may look for employment somewhere they can.

“Faculty Council, to me, is mostly a propaganda machine … it gives a veneer of a democratically-run institution,” said Stuart Reichler, an associate professor of practice in the College of Natural Sciences. “The reality is that the President and the other top administrators at the University decide what does and doesn’t happen.”

UT does have a requirement to adjust its practices according to the Texas legislature, but it also has a responsibility to recognize and act on the pleas of those it employs. If we can’t provide the basic protections our faculty deserves, how can we expect to attract and retain faculty members who contribute so to the prestige of UT Austin?

The University will soon become the face of Texas’ higher education failures unless it starts truly listening to its faculty.

The editorial board is composed of associate editors Tenley Jackson, Tanya Narwekar, Ava Saunders and Anjali Shenoy and editor-in-chief McKenzie Henningsen.

Where Are the Democrats? Why Ignoring the Assault on Higher Education Is a Strategic Mistake By Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Where Are the Democrats? Why Ignoring the Assault on Higher Education Is a Strategic Mistake

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

April 25, 2026

At a moment when Texas is rapidly remaking higher education, the question posed at a recent gathering at the University of Texas—“Where are the Democrats?”—should not be dismissed as rhetorical. It is a warning.

Over the past three years, Texas Republicans have not merely criticized universities; they have systematically restructured them. Through Senate Bill 17, diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts have been dismantled. Through Senate Bill 37, faculty governance has been weakened and authority shifted upward to politically appointed boards. Beyond legislation, we are now witnessing the installation of former lawmakers as university system chancellors, direct pressure campaigns on faculty and programs, and the quiet but consequential narrowing of curricula—particularly in Mexican American Studies and Ethnic Studies more broadly.

This is not episodic policymaking. It is coordinated governance.

And yet, as Lily Kepner, writing for the Austin American-Statesman reports, Democratic leadership has largely chosen to sideline higher education as a central political issue heading into the midterms, citing the press of “kitchen table” concerns like affordability and health care. The calculus is familiar: higher education is perceived as politically risky, too easily caricatured, and insufficiently resonant with voters. 

This is precisely the miscalculation.

Higher education is a kitchen table issue. It is where students decide whether they belong. It is where families encounter the rising costs of tuition and the shrinking availability of programs that reflect their histories. It is where future teachers, nurses, engineers, and civic leaders are formed. To wit, it provides access to all of the professions. 

And increasingly, it is where political actors—rather than professors who have devoted their lives and careers to scholarship and teaching—are deciding what can be taught, what can be researched, and what can be said.

To treat this as peripheral is to concede the terrain.

Republican leaders understand this well. Their messaging—casting universities as sites of “indoctrination”—has been paired with policy that transforms governance structures, disciplines faculty speech, and reorients curriculum. As one policy advocate bluntly stated, the work of “getting rid of stuff” is giving way to a new phase: building a reordered university. That includes proposals to center “Western civilization” in core curricula, monitor foreign influence, and further regulate academic standards.

In other words, the project is not simply subtractive. It is reconstructive.

Democrats who choose not to engage this arena are not avoiding risk; they are absorbing it. By ceding narrative control, they allow higher education to be defined by its critics while alienating students, faculty, and communities already mobilizing in defense of it. They also miss an opportunity to connect higher education policy to the very concerns they claim to prioritize. Affordability, workforce development, and democratic participation are all shaped—profoundly—by what happens on our campuses.

There is also a deeper issue at stake: democracy itself.

When faculty self-censor out of fear, when programs like Mexican American Studies are administratively weakened or eliminated, when governance is restructured to minimize dissent, the university ceases to function as a space of inquiry and becomes instead a managed environment. What we are witnessing is not simply policy change, but a redefinition of the public university’s role in a democratic society.

This is why the current moment demands more than quiet concern or behind-the-scenes conversations. It requires a clear, public, and sustained defense of higher education as a public good.

To be sure, Democrats face real constraints in Texas. They do not control the legislature, and they are navigating multiple urgent crises. But political limitation is not the same as political absence. Messaging, coalition-building, and agenda-setting remain powerful tools—even, and especially, in minority positions.

Indeed, we have seen glimpses of what this could look like: public statements in defense of students, testimony challenging vague restrictions on classroom speech, and convenings that center free expression. But these efforts remain fragmented, intermittent, and insufficient to match the scale of the transformation underway.

Meanwhile, the consequences are anything but abstract. Students report feeling unheard. Faculty describe narrowing their syllabi. Entire fields—especially those grounded in the histories and experiences of communities of color—face an uncertain future.

And still, the question lingers: Where are the Democrats?

If higher education continues to be treated as a secondary issue, the answer will become increasingly clear—not in press conferences or policy papers, but in the very structure of our universities.

By 2027, when the Texas Legislature reconvenes, the groundwork being laid today will shape what is politically possible tomorrow. The choice is not whether to engage, but whether engagement comes too late.

Because by then, the question may no longer be where the Democrats are.

It may be whether there is anything left to defend.

As Texas conservatives reshape higher ed, advocates ask: Where are the Democrats?

Going into the midterms, Texas Republicans say they have momentum to build conservative values in higher ed. Some advocates say Democrats aren’t doing enough.

By Lily Kepner,Staff WriterApril 22, 2026

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, left, with Texas AFT President Zeph Capo,

 speaks at a news conference at the AFL-CIO in Austin on Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2026. Weingarten said in April

 that Democrats need to do more to address conservative reforms of higher education.

Jay Janner/Austin American-Statesman

Randi Weingarten could have chosen anywhere to launch the American Federation of Teachers’ plan to elevate higher education issues in the midterm elections. She chose the University of Texas.

Weingarten, the president of the national teachers' union, last week spoke before a crowd of about 100 people gathered to oppose threats to academic freedom and protect ethnic studies programs at higher education institutions.

At UT, President Jim Davis has promised to address conservative concerns that the university has let indoctrination replace inquiry by recommitting his institution to “balance” and civic education. The changes during Davis' first year in office — including the consolidation of gender and ethnic studies and leadership shakeups — have made some faculty fearful that UT is changing in response to political pressure, not input from students, staff or the public.

Get the latest UT news from Lily Kepner delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for Inside UT.

At a time when Republicans are successfully reforming higher education, Democrats, Weingarten said, are not doing enough to stop them or to advocate for universities.

“We know where the Republicans stand,” Weingarten said. “We see this stripping out of people’s right to learn, right to teach, and we’re seeing the undermining of pluralism. And so part of my question — and I say this as a lifelong Democrat — is where are the Democrats? Where is the fight?”

Ahead of midterm elections, changes to higher education should be a central issue for Democrats, Weingarten said. But as conservatives are shaping Texas universities in their image, Democrats, experts say, can’t keep up — and may not benefit strategically from trying.

Michael Harris, dean of Southern Methodist University’s Simmons School of Education and Human Development and an expert in university behavior, said Republicans in Texas “without question,” have controlled the narrative around higher education for decades.

But how Texas conservative leaders have reshaped the state’s colleges and universities is unlikely to be a big factor in the midterm elections for Democrats given the success Republicans have already had and the other pressing national issues dominating the news, he said.

Kendall Scudder, chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, said that the party considers education access a “kitchen table issue” and is concerned about how political interference will impact educator retention. But Texas Democrats are limited in what they can message on as other issues like affordability or health care intensify, he said.

The party isn’t intentionally sidestepping higher education, but it is prioritizing other pressing concerns families face, he said.

“I understand this frustration from these organizations with us, I get it, but the challenge that Democrats are facing is that we’re drinking through a fire hose,” Scudder said. “Of course, these issues are important to us. I mean, we are the ones who created these institutions and invested in them in the first place, and that could be part of why Republicans are trying to tear them down.”

‘Now we can finally start’

As Democrats fight other battles, Republicans will want to center education in the midterms because their messaging works, said Cal Jillson, a politics professor at SMU.

“They’re running against universities as hotbeds of socialism,” Jillson said. “And that intimidates and frightens lots of parents.”

Republicans are also in a position of power to drive the debate around higher education in Texas, Harris said.

Since 2023, Texas Republican lawmakers — who hold a majority in the Texas Senate and House and every statewide seat — have banned diversity, equity and inclusion programs at universities, weakened tenure, curbed free speech and gutted faculty’s role in governing their schools.

This year, conservatives have secured non-legislative wins too, pressuring universities to fire professors and eliminate classes and departments targeted for being too liberal. Since the beginning of 2025, three former conservative lawmakers were named chancellors of state university systems, putting them in a position to further change how their universities operate.

Texas Tech University Chancellor Brandon Creighton is one of those newly

Sen. Brandon Creighton looks over paperwork with his staff at a Senate Committee on Education hearing.

Creighton now leads the Texas Tech University System as chancellor. He is one of several Republicans appointed to higher education leadership positions in 2026.

Ricardo B. Brazziell/American-Statesman

appointed conservative leaders. He authored major higher education reforms laws as a state senator and was critical of perceived indoctrination at universities. At a recent conference hosted by the conservative think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation, he told the audience that there was “garbage” in higher education curriculum that he and others had to root out.  

Glenn Hegar, the newly appointed chancellor of the Texas A&M University System is now overseeing a vast overhaul of how LGBTQ, gender and race topics are taught at all his system campuses.

Before 2027, when the Texas Legislature next meets for a regular session, Republicans are planning how to be more proactive around higher education policy.

“We’ve been getting rid of stuff in higher ed, and now finally we can actually start to pass things instead of clearing the way,” said Kate Bierly, higher education policy director for TPPF.

In an interview, Bierly said the think tank is planning future changes, including drafting legislation that would center Western civilization in core curriculum, curb foreign influence and target grade inflation.

‘An assault on public education’

Higher education is certainly not above reproach, according to the Pew Research Center, which found 70% of Americans believe higher education is heading in the wrong direction. Universities are to blame for the public’s lack of trust, a report from a specially appointed Yale University committee concluded this week.

The committee, charged with investigating public distrust in higher education, found that grade inflation, varied intellectual experience, political correctness, affordability challenges and investments into areas outside of a university’s core academic purpose detract from universities’ ability to build public trust and grow and produce knowledge.

“Both sides of the political aisle should be alarmed and even appalled at the lack of quality civic education that kids are getting at universities,” Bierly said in an interview before the report was released. She added that her organization’s suggested policies could gain bipartisan support.

But Weingarten said the Republican-controlled discourse discredits the good higher education already does and distracts from pressing issues like affordability and equal college access.

AFT’s policy blueprint for the midterms centers around broad issues with wide appeal, including regulating artificial intelligence and enhancing career education and innovation. The teachers’ union higher education platform also outwardly opposes the federal government’s “unprecedented campaign to control higher education” through research and program cuts that threaten the institutions, she said.


Weingarten said the policies are something either party could adopt to get higher education back on track. But Democrats aren’t engaging, she said, and in doing so, they’re leaving higher education behind.

Centering higher education’s value and adopting AFT’s platform before the midterms would be an unnecessary political risk for Democrats with little potential reward, Jillson, the political scientist, said.

Because of the Republican majority, “it is very difficult for Democrats in Texas to shape issue definition, let alone policy,” he said. With affordability issues and the declining trust in President Donald Trump’s leadership, Democrats, he said, “should play the hand that they hold right now.” They should focus on attacking Republican policies instead of trying to define new ones, Jillson said.

“Much of the public believes that there are issues and problems that need to be addressed and resolved. So you can’t just be a proponent of higher education as it currently exists without some danger,” said Jillson. “Certainly they don’t want to make it a midterm issue.”

That wasn’t always the case. Two years ago, Democrats often stood with students in opposition to Republican policies on college campuses. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, D-Austin, visited UT with other Democrats the day after dozens of people were arrested at a pro-Palestinian protest. Texas Democrats also drafted statements and made public remarks opposing UT’s decision to fire staff after it adopted Senate Bill 17, a law banning diversity, equity and inclusion support for students.

At the AFT press conference last week, Casar, who is up for reelection, decried Texas’ “extremist politicians trying to control what gets taught in our classroom,” but left before questions. Colin Diersing, a spokesperson for Casar, declined to respond to criticism from AFT on Democrats’ lack of action or answer if Casar has reached out to Texas university leaders directly.

Still, some Texas Democrats are paying closer attention and weighing in on higher education changes in their own way. Last December, the Texas House Democratic Caucus held a virtual “People’s Caucus” on free speech in December to counter an official interim hearing focused on civil discourse after Charlie Kirk’s murder.

In November, Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, who is the vice chair of the House Higher Education Committee, testified against the UT System Board of Regents’ policy limiting how professors can discuss controversial topics. The lawmaker said she feared the policy would be too vague and could chill classroom debate. The board thanked her, but passed the policy regardless.

At the same press conference Casar spoke at, Howard said she has met privately with UT President Davis to share her concerns on academic freedom and pressure from conservatives and the federal government. She said she knows leaders may be “hesitant” to meet with a Democrat in this political climate.

“There is probably less communication going on than there should be and that I would like to see,” Howard said about the relationship between Democrats and university leaders. “The leadership of the institutions have been put in a very difficult position.”

UT did not respond to requests for comment.

On the windy march to the Texas Capitol where Weingarten launched AFT’s higher education policy platform, students, professors and community members chanted: “Save UT.”

Professors spoke of censoring themselves out of fear of retaliation if they said the wrong thing. Students spoke of their desire to be heard in university decisions impacting the classes and programs available to them.

“If you are fighting against the assaults on higher education and trying to make the case about how important it is to the next generation of students,” Weingarten said. “Why not go right to the place where the fight is?”


April 22, 2026

Lily Kepner
HIGHER EDUCATION REPORTER

Lily Kepner started at the American-Statesman in October 2023. She has appeared on BBC, NPR and Texas Standard to talk about her coverage, which has spanned the impact of state laws and politics on the University of Texas, pro-Palestinian protests, free speech, the anti-DEI ban, LGBTQ student belonging and more. Kepner graduated with honors from Boston University's College of Communication in 2023, where she received the college's highest awards for writing and journalism leadership and led the award-winning student newspaper as Editor-in-Chief. In her time with the American-Statesman, she contributed to reporting that won an Edward R Murrow Award for breaking news, won the School Bell Award for Outstanding Feature from Texas State Teachers Association, and Critics Choice for Best of Austin in the Austin Chronicle. Previously, she has been published in USA Today, The Boston Globe, The National Catholic Reporter and GBH. Kepner is passionate about accountability and service journalism and encourages anyone to reach out to her to tell their story or share a tip.

Surveillance Without Rules: Texas’ New Ombudsman Office and the Quiet Policing of Higher Education, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Surveillance Without Rules: Texas’ New Ombudsman Office and the Quiet Policing of Higher Education

by 

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

April 6, 2026

A state agency with the power to investigate universities—and potentially cut off their funding—should, at minimum, have clear rules for how it operates. In Texas, it does not.

As recently reported by the Texas Tribune, the Office of the Ombudsman housed within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has been accepting complaints for months alleging violations of anti-DEI laws and new limits on faculty governance. Yet it has no written policies explaining how investigations are conducted—no standards of evidence, no clear procedures, no defined rights for those accused, and no appeals process. This is not a bureaucratic gap. It is a warning.

When an office holds power without rules, what fills the vacuum is discretion. And discretion, in a political environment like this one, is rarely neutral. 

The stakes are significant. If the office determines that a university has violated state law and the institution fails to remedy the issue, it can recommend that lawmakers cut off access to state funds. 

That is extraordinary authority for a body that cannot explain how it decides what constitutes a violation, what evidence matters, or how findings are reached. We do not know what triggers an investigation, how complaints are evaluated, or what recourse exists for those accused. What we are left with is governance by ambiguity.

Ambiguity, however, is not merely a flaw. It is productive. It creates an environment in which institutions cannot clearly identify the boundaries of compliance and therefore default to over-compliance. 

As Liliana Garces and others have documented, universities in Texas are already responding to the broader anti-DEI policy climate by exceeding what the law requires. Faculty are being encouraged to avoid certain language in their research, even when their work is legally protected. 

Administrators are consulting legal counsel preemptively, not because violations have occurred, but because the consequences of miscalculation are unclear. In such a context, the safest course of action becomes silence.

This is not simply policy implementation; it is a form of governance that operates through uncertainty. Michel Foucault described this as disciplinary power—a system that shapes behavior not primarily through punishment, but through the internalization of surveillance. 

When individuals and institutions cannot predict how rules will be applied, they begin to regulate themselves. The chilling effect is not incidental; it is the mechanism through which power operates most efficiently. The Ombudsman’s office, even in its procedural absence, has already begun to reshape the terrain of higher education by signaling that scrutiny is ever-present and standards are undefined.

Supporters of the office have described it as a neutral forum for resolving disputes, a place where concerns can be addressed without escalating into public controversy. But neutrality requires more than intention. It requires transparency, consistency, and due process. None of these are currently evident. 

Instead, the office has declined to release even basic information about its activities, including how many complaints it has received or the nature of those complaints. It has sought permission to withhold such data, even as it acknowledges that it has yet to develop the written procedures required by law.

At the same time, its staffing draws from ideological networks aligned with anti-DEI efforts, including individuals with ties to the Texas Public Policy Foundation. While political affiliation alone does not determine outcomes, it does shape institutional orientation. In this case, the alignment between the office’s mission and the broader political project to curtail DEI and Ethnic Studies is difficult to ignore.

The structure of the complaint system itself raises additional concerns. In the absence of clear evidentiary standards, complaints can be filed for a wide range of reasons, including those that are political or strategic in nature. Even if unsubstantiated, such complaints can generate administrative burdens, reputational damage, and institutional anxiety. 

Without a formal appeals process, those accused are left navigating a system that offers limited protection and little clarity. Under these conditions, the complaint process becomes less a tool of accountability and more a tool of vulnerability, that is, a risk to those targeted.

What is perhaps most striking is that the office does not need to exercise its full authority to be effective. Its mere existence, combined with its opacity, is sufficient to produce behavioral change. Universities begin to anticipate scrutiny. Faculty adjust their research and teaching. Administrators prioritize risk management over intellectual exploration. In this way, the office functions not simply as an enforcement body, but as a signal that higher education is subject to continuous monitoring. The result is a gradual shift from open inquiry to managed knowledge.

This moment must be understood as part of a broader struggle over who gets to define knowledge in public institutions. Battles over curriculum, Ethnic Studies, and representation have long revealed that what counts as “official knowledge” is deeply contested. What is new here is the mechanism of enforcement: a state office with expansive authority operating without clear procedural constraints. 

In my own work, I have described similar dynamics as part of a colonial matrix of power—a system that governs not only institutions, but the very boundaries of thought. When educators are compelled to anticipate political consequences without knowing the rules, the result is not simply compliance, but constraint.

In a democratic society, the exercise of power must be bounded by procedure. Rules are not bureaucratic formalities; they are the foundation of legitimacy. They ensure that decisions are made fairly, that evidence is evaluated consistently, and that those affected have recourse. An investigative body that operates without such rules does not strengthen accountability; it undermines it.

If Texas is serious about restoring public confidence in higher education, it must begin by ensuring that its own oversight mechanisms are transparent, accountable, and grounded in due process. Until then, the Office of the Ombudsman stands as a troubling development: a system in which uncertainty governs, surveillance shapes behavior, and the future of higher education is being quietly but profoundly remade.

This state agency was created to investigate Texas universities. How that works is a mystery.

Office of the Ombudsman has no written policies on how to investigate allegations that education laws are being broken, even though it’s been accepting complaints for three months.

by Jessica Priest April 3, 2026, 5:00 a.m. Central | Texas Tribune


Illustrated posters reading “We Belong Here” sit on the Capitol’s rotunda floor during Texas Students for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion’s protest of anti-DEI initiatives for public universities, on Mar. 23, 2023. One responsibility of the new Office of the Ombudsman is to investigate allegations that anti-DEI laws have been broken. Leila Saidane/The Texas Tribune

A new state office with the power to investigate whether public universities in Texas are violating laws on diversity, curriculum and campus decision-making has no written policies explaining how those investigations work, even after accepting complaints for nearly three months.

The Office of the Ombudsman, housed within the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and led by a gubernatorial appointee, was created last year to address GOP concerns that universities had become too focused on promoting liberal viewpoints instead of preparing students for the workforce.

The ombudsman accepts complaints from students, faculty and staff alleging violations of two state laws:A 2017 ban on diversity, equity and inclusion offices, programs and training at public colleges and universities.
A 2025 law limiting faculty’s role in some curriculum, grievance and discipline decisions.

The stakes are high: If the office finds a university violated a law and the school does not fix the problem within a set time, the ombudsman can recommend that lawmakers cut access to state funds until the school complies.

State law requires the office to provide complainants and subjects of complaints with a copy of its policies and procedures for complaint investigation and resolution. But when The Texas Tribune asked for those documents, Ombudsman Brandon Simmons pointed to a page on the office’s website that describes how complaints are filed and sets deadlines for when universities must be notified and respond and when the office must issue reports. It is unclear whether that satisfies the law’s requirements.

The webpage does not explain how the office decides an investigation is warranted, what standard of proof it applies in reaching findings or what recourse universities or employees have if they believe the ombudsman’s findings are wrong.

Clear, written policies can ensure investigations are conducted fairly and consistently, higher education experts say.

Neal Hutchens, a professor at the University of Kentucky’s College of Education who studies higher education law and policy, said people also need to understand how the system works to have faith in it. Without that clarity, the office’s authority could feel open-ended and intimidating to institutions and faculty members alike.

“It just has a big question mark for everyone,” he said.

The ombudsman office also asked the Texas attorney general for permission to withhold from the Tribune basic complaint data, including how many complaints it has received, when they were filed, the laws allegedly violated and the status of investigations.

Gov. Greg Abbott appointed Simmons as the office’s first ombudsman in October. Records obtained by the Tribune show he was the only person considered for the job. Simmons, a former technology executive, venture capitalist and corporate attorney, stepped down as chair of the Texas Southern University System Board of Regents to take the position. He had served on the board since 2023, part of a period later examined by a state audit that found significant weaknesses in Texas Southern’s financial controls, contracting and reporting processes.

His office began accepting complaints through an online portal Jan. 9.

That same month, Simmons agreed to an interview with the Tribune but canceled and instead responded to questions in writing.

Asked how the office planned to investigate complaints, he did not provide specifics. Asked how Texans should judge whether the office is working as intended, Simmons offered no concrete benchmarks, saying: “This office seeks to increase public confidence in higher education and to support the continuing ascent of Texas universities’ student success and research and development.”

Later, in response to a public records request, the office said it did not possess written policies or procedures for conducting investigations. The Tribune followed with 10 emails — the majority sent over the past two weeks — asking how the office was handling complaints but did not get an answer until two days before publication, when Simmons pointed to the office’s web page detailing how to file a complaint and listing deadlines.

“Additional policies and procedures will continue to be developed as outlined by Texas law,” Simmons added.

The law does not define when an investigation is necessary, but it says if the office determines one to be necessary, it can request information from a university, which has 30 days to respond. Afterward, it must submit a report to the institution’s board of regents determining whether a violation occurred and recommending corrective action if needed.

If a university does not resolve a violation within 180 days, the office can refer the matter to the state auditor and recommend that lawmakers block the institution from spending state funds until it complies.

The law also requires the office to keep a file on each complaint and submit annual reports to state officials, including the governor and legislative leaders, summarizing how many complaints it received, how many investigations it conducted and what it found.

Unable to get information from the ombudsman, the Tribune asked the state’s public university systems whether the office had sent them any notices of complaint and for related records. Six systems said they had not been notified of any complaints, one had not answered by publication, and the University of Texas System indicated it had responsive records but asked the attorney general if it could withhold them.

The lawmakers who helped shape the office offered different views on how it should function and how much it should disclose.

State Sen. Paul Bettencourt, the new chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, told the Tribune the office will need to develop “some type of complaint procedure” and said Simmons should come prepared to talk about it at a Higher Education Committee hearing this summer. He said the office should disclose the number of complaints filed, adding he had already asked for those counts.

Asked what protections should exist for universities or employees accused in complaints, including what standard of proof should apply and whether there should be an appeals process, Bettencourt said, “I’m going to leave that one open.”

He said he saw the ombudsman as more than an enforcement arm — a “neutral place” where people could bring problems for resolution that also could keep disputes from being “adjudicated on social media,” pointing to last year’s Texas A&M controversy, which began after a state representative shared a student’s secret recording of a classroom discussion about gender identity.

In a separate interview, state Rep. Matt Shaheen, House sponsor of the bill that created the office, said he was “very satisfied” with the process described on the office’s website, which restates the law’s complaint timeline and reporting requirements but does not explain key investigative standards or procedures. He cautioned against disclosing information about pending complaints, saying they could be false or “malicious in nature,” though he said he would be comfortable with releasing complaint data after the process played out.

Asked about a lack of appeals, Shaheen said those who believed the ombudsman’s findings were unfair could raise their concerns with lawmakers and would have “the opportunity to have their side of the story heard.”

Before the ombudsman office was created, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board handled a narrower set of student complaints, typically reviewing whether universities followed state rules on issues like tuition and financial aid, consumer protections and certain academic requirements. Students generally had to first exhaust a university’s internal grievance process before the board would review a complaint, and the agency did not have the authority to direct universities to change policies or recommend they be blocked from spending state funds.

So far, Simmons has drawn from conservative legal and policy circles to staff the ombudsman office. On April 1, Simmons announced that Ryan D. Walters, a former deputy attorney general for legal strategy and former attorney at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank, had joined as deputy director and general counsel. Simmons also hired Edgardo Mondolfi, also a former Texas Public Policy Foundation employee, as his assistant.

Other Texas agencies are more transparent about how they investigate complaints. The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation says investigators typically interview the complainant, the respondent and pertinent witnesses, gather relevant documents and can visit a business or site tied to the complaint before submitting a report to a prosecutor. If the agency seeks penalties, it weighs factors such as the seriousness of the violation, whether it was intentional, whether the respondent tried to address the violation after it was discoveredfix it and whether stronger punishment was needed to deter future misconduct. Respondents can then request a hearing before an administrative law judge and later seek rehearing or judicial review.

Critics fear what an office with broad authority and unclear procedures could mean for teaching, research and open inquiry at public universities.

Liliana Garces, a professor at UT-Austin’s College of Education, said such fear is not theoretical.

In a study of how the state’s anti-DEI law was implemented at UT-Austin, she and her research team interviewed nearly 100 administrators, faculty and students over more than a year and found that the flagship went beyond what the law required. For example, university officials encouraged faculty to have their research proposals reviewed by a university lawyer and to avoid using certain language, even though research was exempt.

Garces said the overcorrection was driven in part by undercover videos that appeared to show university employees discussing ways to continue DEI initiatives, followed by pressure from Republican state leaders suggesting universities were not complying. She said that created an environment in which universities felt they were being watched and became more likely to go beyond the law’s requirements.

“Compliance became this moving target where just any kind of visibility created liability for the institution,” she said.

The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.

Disclosure: Texas Public Policy Foundation, University of Texas System and University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Texas Higher Education at a Crossroads: Incentives Without Evidence Will Not Deliver Equity, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Texas Higher Education at a Crossroads: Incentives Without Evidence Will Not Deliver Equity

by 

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

December 30, 2025

Recent reporting from the Texas Tribune makes one thing unmistakably clear. In his December 18, 2025 analysis, journalist Rob Reid draws on newly released longitudinal data from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to show that while more Texas students are completing degrees and credentials than in years past, deep inequities persist. 

Overall attainment has inched upward, yet economically disadvantaged students—along with Black, Hispanic, rural, and first-generation students—remain far less likely to complete the journey through higher education. This uneven progress is not a puzzle to be solved nor is it accidental. Rather, it is the cumulative result of policy choices layered onto deeply unequal social and educational conditions.

Texas has taken steps to rethink how it funds readiness and completion, yet whether these steps meaningfully advance equity remains an open question. That said, the model is one that ties bonuses to college, career, and military readiness in K–12 together with a restructured finance system for community colleges, reflecting a shift away from seat-time accounting toward progress, momentum, and completion. In theory, these policies reward what matters. In practice, however, they raise questions the data cannot yet answer—and that policymakers may be eager to ignore.

First, incentives can redistribute attention without redistributing capacity. Schools and colleges serving high-poverty communities confront barriers—housing insecurity, work obligations, childcare needs, transportation breakdowns—that no performance formula can neutralize. Without sustained investments in advising, academic support, and students’ basic needs, outcomes-based funding risks rewarding institutions already positioned to succeed while leaving others further behind.

Second, measurement itself shapes behavior. What gets counted gets prioritized. When incentives emphasize short-term or easily documented outcomes, institutions may narrow pathways rather than expand opportunity—particularly for students whose educational trajectories are nonlinear and require time, flexibility, and sustained institutional support.

Third, these reforms are unfolding alongside an aggressive push to privatize education through vouchers. Diverting public dollars to private providers drains resources from the very public schools expected to produce better outcomes. You cannot systematically weaken public education and then fault it for uneven results. Well, I guess you can, but you shouldn't.

History matters here. Texas once understood that access drives attainment. The Texas Dream Act—adopted in 2001—expanded in-state tuition to undocumented students who had grown up in Texas schools. Research showed clear enrollment gains, particularly among Latino students, and Texas emerged as a national leader in pragmatic, workforce-aligned access policy. 

The repeal of that law did not improve outcomes; it constricted them. It removed a proven pathway to higher education for students Texas had already invested in—and whose talents the state still needs.

Reinstating the Texas Dream Act is not a symbolic gesture. It would be a data-aligned policy response to persistent attainment gaps and looming workforce shortages. Any serious conversation about outcomes must include restoring access to students intentionally pushed out by regressive policy reversals.

Texas has the data. Texas has the policy tools. What remains uncertain is whether state leaders—and voters—are willing to insist that equity, not privatization, guide the next phase of reform. Incentives alone will not save us. Public investment, inclusive access, and political courage might.

Policy and reporting can shape behavior, but incentives are not the same as evidence—especially when privatization undermines public capacity.

Finally, Texas must recommit to peer-reviewed, independent research to evaluate these largely untested policy shifts. Outcomes-based funding models, voucher expansion, and access rollbacks are being implemented at scale without the benefit of long-term causal evidence—particularly regarding their effects on low-income students and communities of color. 

Policy experimentation without rigorous evaluation is not innovation; it is risk. 

If Texas is serious about student success, it must fund and follow research that shows what works across differences in race, income, geography, legal status, and gender.

More Texas students complete journey through college, but low-income students still left behind
Economically disadvantaged students are much less likely to go on and attain degrees, according to new state data that tracks long-term outcomes.

By Rob Reid, GRAPHICS BY Alex Ford and Carla Astudillo

Dec. 18, 2025, 12:00 p.m. Central

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Audio recording is automated for accessibility. Humans wrote and edited the story. See our AI policy, and give us feedback.

Texas has long failed to get most of its students the higher education credentials the workforce increasingly demands. But recent laws that reward schools for helping students succeed later in life could help the state make up lost ground, experts say.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board regularly tracks if students enrolled in eighth grade eventually receive a degree or certificate at a two- or four- year institution within the state.

The proportion of students who have received a degree has climbed over the last 15 years, according to data the board released in December 2025.

Still, the state appears to be far short of meeting workforce demand. Nearly three-quarters of U.S. jobs will require education or training after high school by 2031, according to Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. In Texas, 25% of students obtained such education or training within the state. (The coordinating board didn’t track students who went out of state for college every year.)

Texas has long failed to get most of its students the higher education credentials the workforce increasingly demands. But recent laws that reward schools for helping students succeed later in life could help the state make up lost ground, experts say.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board regularly tracks if students enrolled in eighth grade eventually receive a degree or certificate at a two- or four- year institution within the state.

The proportion of students who have received a degree has climbed over the last 15 years, according to data the board released in December 2025.

Still, the state appears to be far short of meeting workforce demand. Nearly three-quarters of U.S. jobs will require education or training after high school by 2031, according to Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. In Texas, 25% of students obtained such education or training within the state. (The coordinating board didn’t track students who went out of state for college every year.)


“Texas is a tale of two states,” says Jesse Hendrix, executive director of College Possible, a national nonprofit focused on supporting low-income students through college. “On one hand, Texas is the eighth largest economy in the world; on the other, Houston now holds the highest poverty rate of any major U.S. city.”

Nearly 80% of students in the Houston Independent School District are socioeconomically disadvantaged, compared to about 60% statewide. And only 15% of students from the district received a degree or certificate, compared to 25% statewide.

But Hendrix also notes that rural regions face their own challenges, including limited broadband access, sparse postsecondary options, and long commutes to reach college campuses.

Male students also lag behind female students, and Black and Hispanic students face lower completion rates than their peers.

Sharp dropout rates have long persisted as students journey through high school and college. More than a decade ago, former Texas Higher Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes called it “leakage in the pipeline”.

Economically disadvantaged students, males, and Black and Hispanic students are more likely to experience it.

Note: Outcomes are based on a cohort of students enrolled in Texas public schools in the 2013-14 school year. The study tracks if students receive a degree or certificate at a two- or four-year institution in Texas within 11 years of enrolling in 8th grade. Numbers may not add up to 100 because of rounding.
Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Credit: Alex Ford

Despite these shortcomings and disparities, Texas ranks near the middle nationally in degree attainment.

Texas historically pioneered innovative policies, but its competitive edge was lost as the state was rolling back some initiatives, which other states also adopted, experts said. More recent policies — including bonus funding for schools with college and workforce success — may help Texas regain its edge. But the impacts aren’t yet fully known.

“This combination of wide-ranging disparities, fast-changing policies, and bold outcomes-based reforms makes Texas both one of the most challenging and most opportunity-rich environments in the country,” Hendrix said.
Economic challenges

Higher ed credentials are “one of the most reliable pathways to economic stability and long-term mobility,” according to Will Davies, the director of policy and research at Breakthrough Central Texas, a nonprofit focused on supporting first-generation students.

Davies notes that “even short-term credentials and associate degrees are associated with meaningfully higher earnings compared to a high school diploma alone,” citing a wage analysis by Commit Partnership.

But students from working-class and low-income families have to weigh more heavily the cost of college and household responsibilities with a shot at greater economic security, Davies said. He stressed that taking breaks away from post-high school education or training — often called “stopping out” — can backfire.

“Students who delay or stop out often accumulate debt without earning a credential, limiting both their earning power and their confidence in returning to school later,” he said.

Staying on track can be particularly difficult for economically disadvantaged students, according to Ann Vlach, who oversees Education to Employment Partners, a nonprofit that helps agencies in the Corpus Christi region support students as they progress through college. Things like work commitments, car repairs, and the need to line up child care can derail student progress, she said.

“It’s much harder to get back into that system once you’ve stepped away from it,” she said.

Look up student outcomes for your school district

Find your school district

Note: Outcomes are based on a cohort of students enrolled in Texas public schools in the 2012-13 school year. The study tracks if students receive a degree or certificate at a two- or four-year institution in Texas within 11 years of enrolling in 8th grade. The district-level data is one year older than the statewide data released this week by the state. District types are based on Texas Education Agency categories.

Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Credit: Carla Astudillo, Rob Reid.

Shifting policy, middle-of-the-pack results

Compared to other states, Texas has hovered around the “middle of the pack,” depending on the year and metric, said Carlo Castillo, a data analyst with Texas 2036, a nonprofit working on pressing statewide issues such as workforce development. He further noted that while Texas higher ed attainment accelerated in the past ten years, it’s still close to the national average.

In 1997, Texas created the Top 10% Plan, a first-of-its-kind program guaranteeing admission to high school students in the top 10% of their class. Then in 2001, Texas was the first state to provide in-state resident tuition for undocumented youth with the Texas Dream Act.

“Those types of policies tend to be impactful for student outcomes,” said Brian Holzman, an assistant professor at Texas A&M, who researches demographic gaps in higher ed attainment.

Holzman pointed to research from 2010 by Stella Flores, then an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University, who uncovered a sharp enrollment boost among foreign-born Latinos in Texas and other states that allowed undocumented students to pay in-state tuition.

But Texas rolled back these policies, undermining their aim to address disparities. Undocumented students in Texas no longer qualify for in-state resident tuition or state-distributed aid.

The Top 10% plan can slightly increase the number of students of colors automatically admitted into Texas colleges. But, Holzman said, it does not increase the number of students of color as much as race-conscious admission policies had. Amidst these changes, Hendrix said that College Possible has recently experienced a steep increase in requests for help from students and school districts in Texas trying to navigate the challenges of applying for and obtaining financial aid.

“Students are facing the consequences of newly regressive policies, such as a repeal of the Texas Dream Act, which directly fuels the affordability crises for many currently enrolled college students and those that are considering their next move after high school,” he said.
Promising Texas policies

Across Central Texas, the E3 Alliance partners with higher ed, employers, nonprofits, and policymakers to develop the student pipeline.

“The playbook is already in place for Texas and the eighth largest economy in the world, to really put together this massive workforce,” said Kyle Seipp, Senior Director at E3, which focuses on higher education and workforce development.

He points to some policies already in place that should help more students attain the degrees or certificates they need:The College, Career, or Military Readiness Outcomes Bonus, which was established in 2019, provides bonus funding to school districts with the highest rates of students who finished high school ready for college or the workforce. To address demographic disparities, this bonus is provided in separate categories for economically disadvantaged students, non-economically disadvantaged students and special education students.
A 2023 law restructured community college funding to incentivize schools that demonstrate students are making progress toward obtaining a workforce credential and completing college, rather than just boosting enrollment.

Because the state tracks the outcomes of students over the course of many years, the impacts of these laws won’t be apparent until the coordinating board has time to track whether recent eighth-graders end up attending or completing college or training programs.

Grace Atkins, a policy advisor at Texas 2036 focused on workforce and postsecondary education, is encouraged by these laws and thinks Texas is ahead of the pack with funding models based on student outcomes.

“Outcomes-based funding is something that is talked about a lot nationally, but Texas, more so than any other state, really, really emphasized that,” she said.

Vlach, with Education to Employment Partners, said the student outcomes bonus should help districts cover the costs of academic advising, which will aid students in filling out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, and preparing them for college admissions tests.

To help keep districts on track to earn a bonus, Vlach carefully tracks the outcomes data as it’s being updated and presents it to principals and superintendents every month.

“If we’re starting to see that we’re struggling with getting FAFSA done, if we’re doing that data once a month, it gives us a very active chance to pivot on that and do a FAFSA workshop,” she said. “Pull in more parents, do whatever we need to do to make that happen.”

“Same thing with testing,” she added. “If we’re not seeing testing happen, we can actually go in and say, like, hey, it’s time to do a testing workshop.”

About this analysis

Data for this analysis was obtained from the Texas Higher Ed Coordinating Board. We tracked outcome results for eighth grade students between the 1997-98 and 2013-14 school years and combined them into one longitudinal dataset.

The agency’s 8th Grade Cohort Longitudinal Study, now known as the Texas Talent Trajectory, tracks groups of Texas public school eighth graders over 11 years. This data is broken down by race/ethnicity, gender and economic status.