Public Schools Are on the Ballot: Why Gina Hinojosa’s Campaign Matters, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D. June 8, 2026

Public Schools Are on the Ballot: Why Gina Hinojosa’s Campaign Matters

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

June 8, 2026

Today’s news about Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gina Hinojosa’s
launch of “Team Texas Public Schools” could not come at a more urgent moment. Across Texas, school communities are being forc
ed to confront an unthinkable reality: neighborhood schools—beloved places where generations of children have learned, played, been fed, been loved, and been known—are being closed, consolidated, and destabilized.

Emilio, Gina, & me

It was an honor to stand with Gina today at the press conference she held at Pease Elementary this morning. CBS Austin below recorded the event so that you can view it, at least in part.

Here in Austin, the pain is immediate. Ten schools are closing. Families are grieving not simply the loss of buildings, but the loss of community, continuity, trust, and belonging. Anyone who has ever walked the halls of a neighborhood public school knows that a school is never just a school. It is where children learn their own worth. It is where teachers become lifelines. It is where parents build relationships. It is where democracy begins, one classroom, one child, one family at a time.

That is why Hinojosa’s words today matter: “It is not just you.” Austin families are not alone. This is happening across Texas. It is happening in communities large and small, urban and rural, Black, Brown, white, immigrant, working-class, and middle-class. It is happening because our public schools have been pushed to the brink by policy choices—choices that have starved districts, demoralized educators, politicized curriculum, over-tested children, and opened the door to privatization.

Let us be clear: school closures are not natural disasters. They are political outcomes.

For years, Texas leaders have told us that there is no money for public schools while finding money for vouchers, border militarization, tax giveaways, political theater, and the steady expansion of private interests into the public sphere. They have manufactured crisis and then offered privatization as the cure. 

They have treated our children’s schools as though they were expendable, especially when those schools serve communities of color, working families, emergent bilingual students, students with disabilities, and children whose parents lack the political power of wealthy donors.

This is why the fight for public education is inseparable from the fight for democracy.

Public schools are one of the last great public institutions where we still gather across difference. They belong to all of us. They are funded by all of us. They serve the common good. When they are weakened, the entire civic fabric weakens. When they are closed, communities lose anchors. When public dollars are diverted to private schools, the children left behind are our children, our neighbors, our students, our future.

Gina Hinojosa’s campaign speaks directly to this crisis because her own public life began in the struggle to save a neighborhood school. As a former Austin ISD trustee, a state legislator, a mother, and a longtime defender of public education, she understands that schools are not line items on a spreadsheet. They are living institutions. They carry history, memory, culture, language, and hope.

Her critique of vouchers as a scam resonates because vouchers do not create real choice for most families. They subsidize private options for some while draining resources from the public schools that educate the overwhelming majority of Texas children. 

They do not guarantee transportation. 

They do not guarantee admission. 

They do not guarantee services for children with disabilities. 

They do not guarantee accountability. 

What they do guarantee is that public money will flow away from public institutions at the very moment those institutions are being told to do more with less.

And the A–F accountability system, as Hinojosa rightly notes, has become part of this machinery. A state agency can design the test, control the rating system, shift the rules, and then declare schools “failing”—often without acknowledging the structural underfunding, poverty, language inequities, and policy instability that shape school outcomes. This is not accountability in any meaningful democratic sense. It is a system that too often punishes the very communities that deserve the most investment.

This is why voting matters.

We cannot mourn school closures and then stay home on Election Day. We cannot say we love teachers and then fail to defend them at the ballot box. We cannot lament what is happening to our children’s schools while allowing the same political leadership to continue dismantling them.

Getting out the vote is not a slogan. It is a responsibility. It means checking our registration, having a voting plan. It means helping our students, families, neighbors, elders, and young people understand what is at stake. It means offering rides, making calls, knocking on doors, sharing information, and refusing cynicism. It means remembering that democracy is not something we possess once and for all; it is something we practice, protect, and renew.

Texas is not a lost cause. Texas is a living struggle. And we are worthy foes against the oligarchs.

Every school closure meeting, every parent testimony, every teacher who stays late, every student who speaks up, every community member who refuses to accept austerity as destiny—these are signs that people still believe in the public good. They still believe that our children deserve better. They still believe that a multiracial, multilingual, working-family Texas has the right to govern itself.

This election must be about more than personalities. It must be about whether Texas will continue down the road of privatization, underfunding, censorship, and manufactured crisis—or whether we will choose a future rooted in public schools, public accountability, and public care.

Our children are watching. Our teachers are exhausted. Our families are hurting. Our communities are organizing.

Now we must vote like our schools depend on it—because they do.

Hinojosa launches program to fight Texas school closures, citing public school crisis

by Jahmal Kennedy | Mon, June 8, 2026 at 5:08 PM CBS Austin



Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gina Hinojosa in Austin Monday, June 8, 2026.

As school districts across Texas, including Austin ISD, face budget crises and the threat of campus closures, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gina Hinojosa is launching a new effort she says is aimed at helping communities fight back.

Hinojosa said Texas public schools are in dire condition.

“I will tell you that our public schools are on life support right now,” she said.

ALSO "It hurts": Austin ISD families look to keep community alive on final day for 10 campuses

Hinojosa announced a nonpartisan organizing program called Team Texas Public Schools. The program is designed to train parents, teachers and administrators to fight school closures in communities “getting hit the hardest.”

“Ten schools in this city alone in the school district are shutting down, but it is happening all over this state,” Hinojosa said.

Asked about Austin ISD’s budget process and closures, Hinojosa said, “WhatI think is important for the people of Austin to understand as they are in the trenches fighting this fight is that it is not just you.”

She also blamed Gov. Greg Abbott for the situation, saying, “And it is important for supporters of our public schools for parents and teachers to understand that Greg Abbott meant for this to happen.”

Abbott, Hinojosa’s November opponent, has focused his K-12 agenda on school vouchers in recent years. In February, Abbott celebrated what his office called “record-breaking school choice demand” after more than 100,000 families applied for vouchers.

Abbott said of vouchers: “Through this program, families will receive funds to send their children to a school that is the best fit for them.”

However, University of Texas at Austin professor Jennifer Keys Adair studies elementary and early childhood education, and says, "vouchers are definitely diverting funds from public neighborhood elementary schools."

She also added, "it seems like in this voucher conversation, oh, it will allow all families to be able to choose where they go to school. But we know that that's not what's happening," said Adair. She added more affluent families are more likely to get a voucher and said, "So in that case, you're furthering the kind of pressure on teachers and we're furthering the like lack of resources that we're offering to children who need it most."

Hinojosa said she opposes that approach.

“I don't believe in public school vouchers,” she said. Hinojosa even called it a "scam."

Austin ISD parent and former district principal Claudia Kramer Santamaria said she believes Hinojosa is the right advocate for Texas public schools.

“We understand as former principal and teacher that we needed to really have an advocate and I think that's what failed,” Santamaria said.

Hinojosa also criticized Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath for what she called a “rigged” A-F report card system, saying Morath gets to "make the [STAAR] test, rate the test, look at results, and then decide who fails and who passes," and added "And he rigs it to make it show what he wants it to show. And he wants it to show that our Texas public schools aren't strong. And he wants it to show that privatization is a better option."

Hinojosa said that if she becomes governor she would replace Morath.

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 families. But 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 accountability. Senate 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)

What We Refuse to Learn About Standardized Testing: Dr. Gerald Bracey and the 89th Legislature, by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

What We Refuse to Learn About Standardized Testing: Dr. Gerald Bracey and the 89th Legislature

by 

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

December 4, 2025

Learn more about Dr.
Bracey here.

When I revisited Gerald W. Bracey’s 2009 commentary in Educational Leadership, I was struck by how uncannily prophetic it feels in this political moment—especially in light of the sweeping changes enacted by the 89th Texas Legislature in 2025. Best known for his famous "Bracey Reports," his critique of the nation’s “test mania” reads not as a relic of a bygone era but as a warning flare we failed to heed, one whose consequences unfolded vividly during last session’s battles over testing, accountability, and privatization (see Valenzuela, 2025, for discussion).

While public school advocates secured incremental gains—slightly less disruptive testing policies, quicker turnaround on results, the elimination of a handful of assessments, and improved transparency—the underlying system remains largely intact. Schools are still judged primarily by test scores, accountability frameworks remain narrowly defined, and the deeper structural reforms that advocates have long demanded are once again deferred (Valenzuela, 2025). In this vacuum, the push for charterization and privatization only accelerates. 

Even so, there was a brief moment of meaningful political possibility: Texas lawmakers introduced proposals to overhaul or even eliminate the STAAR exam altogether. Raise Your Hand Texas, in particular, deserves a shout-out for leading the charge. For the first time in decades, a major statewide assessment regime came under serious legislative challenge, and the House even passed a bill to move the state away from STAAR. Yet despite the symbolic significance of this breakthrough, the effort stalled—revealing just how entrenched the test-based accountability system remains.

Bracey began with an observation so commonsensical that many policymakers today still stumble past it: no standardized test can ever know a child better than the teacher who sees that child every day. Yet over a fifty-year span, he noted, the United States managed to devolve from viewing tests as occasionally useful tools, to treating them as compulsory, and finally elevating them into the dominant—almost exclusive—measure of educational quality.

Even though tests like NAEP, PISA, TIMSS, or STAAR were never designed to evaluate teaching, curriculum, or the complex, relational work of schooling, policymakers have repeatedly misappropriated them for exactly those purposes. The result, Bracey argued, has been a national preoccupation with numerical indicators that flatten the human reality of learning, obscure the deeper conditions shaping students’ educational lives, and induce undue stress on teachers and the teaching profession.

That critique feels especially urgent in Texas today. This year, the Legislature passed a statewide voucher program that redirects public funds into private schools, one that rests on the long-standing assumption that public schools are failing (Edison, 2025). This assumption gets reinforced year after year through simplistic interpretations of test scores. 

These debates echo Bracey’s core argument: when policy decisions hinge on flawed measures, those decisions inevitably warp the system they intend to improve. Vouchers, sold as a remedy for supposedly failing schools, rely on the very test-based narratives Bracey spent a lifetime challenging. The claim that low standardized test scores reflect poor teaching ignores the deep structural factors shaping learning in Texas—poverty, segregation, underfunding, and what we are by now discovering as the soaring costs (or "price") of privatization. 

Yet these structural realities rarely appear in the public conversation. Instead, test scores are brandished as evidence that public schools are beyond repair, clearing the political path for vouchers, school district takeovers, and the redirection of taxpayer dollars into private hands.

The fight over STAAR reveals a similar contradiction. Legislators across the spectrum have acknowledged that STAAR tells parents little about what their children actually know and does nothing to inform day-to-day instruction. These critiques echo Bracey almost word-for-word. Still, unless Texas reimagines assessment from the ground up—beginning with teaching rather than measurement—any replacement risks replicating the same distortions. Bracey insisted that the best assessments are those built by teachers and anchored in teacher-made curricula, not imposed from above. 

Bracey also challenged the persistent belief that national or international test scores determine economic success. He reminded readers that Japan continued to dominate global assessments even as its economy faltered, and that countries like Iceland maintained high scores while facing economic collapse. 

The notion that bubbling in answers on a fourth- or eighth-grade exam shapes global competitiveness is, to use Bracey’s word, “easily refuted.” Yet Texas, like much of the nation, continues to tie student outcomes to broader narratives about economic health and workforce readiness, despite overwhelming evidence that economic forces are far larger than any test score.

Bracey’s insistence on returning to the human, relational work of teaching feels especially vital. Public schools are not failing; they are absorbing the accumulated burdens of inequality, political interference, and relentless underfunding—burdens that privatization schemes will only intensify. Vouchers will not solve the challenges facing Texas students. Nor will another standardized test, no matter how politically appealing.

Bracey’s enduring message is that education is not a number. It is not a rank, a percentile, or a scaled score. It is the web of relationships, communities, and possibilities that unfold when schools are supported rather than scapegoated. If Texas is serious about creating a stronger and more equitable education system, then we must move beyond the illusions spun by test scores and invest once again in teachers, teacher-made curriculum, and public schools as public goods.

In this critical moment, Bracey’s voice reminds us that the greatest danger is not that our tests show too little—but that we have come to believe they show too much.

Reference

Bracey, G. W. (2009). Multiple measures. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 32–37.

Edison, J. (2025, May 3). Private school vouchers are now law in Texas. Here’s how they will work. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/03/texas-school-vouchers-greg-abbott-signs/

Valenzuela, A. (2025, September 15). Accountability without justice: The continuing agenda to demonize K–12 public schools to set the stage for further privatization. Educational Equity, Politics & Policy in Texas, https://texasedequity.blogspot.com/2025/09/accountability-without-justice.html 

End Time Beliefs, Dominionism, and President Benito Juarez' Timeless Words to Heal a Divided Nation

Friends:

Here is an important piece by Eric Lane on End Time believers (ETBs). What is important to consider is that ETBs are a mixed bag unto themselves. Back in the 1980s, as I recall, they were termed "Millennialists," referring to Christ's anticipated one-thousand-year reign. I remember focusing on the book of Revelation and end times when I was young and finding it fascinating although simultaneously distressing and ultimately exhausting psychically and emotionally.

I would have lasted longer as an ETB had this not been so draining. In retrospect, I'm glad it was because it took me to a place of redemption that opened my eyes to the vast beauty of life in the moment where individual and group differences became opportunities for me to be more compassionate, loving, and caring.

On a personal level, this meant truly embracing the notion that every way in which I am different is every way in which I am strong. This is an ethic of not just tolerance, but acceptance, that I take into each and every class I have ever taught, as well as into my work in the community.

Lane is correct in linking violence and threats of it to ETBs but what should really get named are "dominionists" who are actually pro-society (not democracy) albeit according to their narrow vision of so-called "Christian principles" as long as they're the ones who are also in charge.

The two go hand in hand. They must be in charge—and not just in the U.S., but globally. This is what makes Trump very dangerous as he is the means to dominionists' perverse agenda a cornerstone of which is indeed controlling women's bodies. It's already playing out in our country.

Look no further than Texas where anti-abortion activists are not happy with families traveling to New Mexico for abortions and women's health care because Texas doctors fear performing certain procedures for which they could get sanctioned. These activists are pushing for restrictions in New Mexico and with some success in some counties. Read"Texas anti-abortion activists pushed abortion restrictions in New Mexico, records show."

Consider, as well, Governor Greg Abbott's pro-voucher legislation as caught up with dominionism and theocracy. Learn about this from an earlier post, "Texas: Two Billionaires Want to Destroy Public Education and Replace It With Christian Schools by Diane Ravitch." And do take time to see CNN documentary, "Deep in the Pockets of Texas," which explores this toxic agenda.

I've already referred readers to a great source on the dominionist agenda via an earlier blog titled, "BOOK RECOMMENDATION: Alberta, Tim (2023). The kingdom, the power, and the glory: American evangelicals in an age of extremism." Relatedly, if you haven't seen The Handmaid's Tale, I encourage you to do so it as it captures through fiction what an extremist dystopian society of their making would look like. It is based on Margaret Atwood's book by this name. You can see all five seasons on Hulu, Prime Video, or Apple TV right now. I also highly recommend listening to Dr. Kevin Kumashiro's keen exposition of dominionism on Bill Ayers' podcast, Under the Tree: A Seminar on Freedom, with Bill Ayers Episode #105, "Project 2025 with Kevin Kumashiro."

Dominionists are the more serious group as far as I'm concerned because they are perhaps witting or unwitting white supremacists who see themselves as having a God-given mandate to establish a theocracy—that is, a system of government led by those that these theists see as "divinely guided." The antithesis is, as Lane mentions, "democratic pluralism," which is a foundation for peace for which many, if not most, of us advocate—to which I might add the hope and promise of a multi-ethnic and multi-racial democracy.

One might argue that as opposed to ETBs, neoliberals, or global capitalists, are ultimately in control. I wouldn't disagree with that as they profit from the divisions that extremist agendas enable. They are playing with fire, however, a potential runaway train that is combustible and dangerous.

The irony in all of this is a lack of Christ's love, caring, and compassion which are so central to the gospel that it's crazy—yet understandable—that this gets overlooked.


View Informative Link
Yet here is where we find truth. The Golden Rule of doing unto others as wewould have them do to us could not be a more urgent ethic. This is, moreover, a foundational principle of this continent as conveyed in the Mayan concept of In Lak'Ech (You are my other me) and as expressed by Mexico's beloved Indigenous president, Benito Juarez, of Zapotec origin, serving between 1858 and 1872, “Entre los individuos, como entre las naciones, el respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz.” ("As between individuals, as well as nations, respect for the rights of others is peace.")

Pin this to your refrigerator door. Have no fear. Trust the power in these words.

As we embark on the celebration of Mexico's September 16th Independence celebration, how appropriate to reflect on Juarez' timeless words to heal a divided nation.

Feliz Diez y Seis de Septiembre! Happy September 16th! 💗

-Angela Valenzuela

How End Time Beliefs Undermine Democracy
by Eric Lane | September 8, 2024

Photo by Shubham Dhage on Unsplash

The rhetoric employed by End Time believers is not just forceful language but an expression of an extreme apocalyptic worldview. This way of thinking perceives the world as embroiled in a cosmic battle between good and evil. In the End Time narrative, political and cultural opponents are not merely individuals with differing opinions but enemies of God, often viewed as agents of Satan or participants in a divine showdown.

Framing Opponents as Evil or Godless

End Time believers operate within a stark black-and-white world. In this dichotomy, they and their allies are seen as the forces of God, while their political or ideological opponents—be they secularists, liberals, progressives, or members of other religions—are depicted as being aligned with evil.

This rhetoric transforms political disagreements into moral and spiritual battles, demonstrating the profound impact of End Time believers' conviction on their perception of reality.

Leaders in this movement use demonizing language to describe their adversaries. Terms like “godless,” “anti-Christian,” “Satanic,” or even “demonic” are common. Political opponents are painted not as people with different viewpoints but as existential threats to the survival of Christian values and, by extension, to God's plan for the world.

Religious Warfare Rhetoric

For End Timers, the Culture war is Spiritual warfare. Many End Time believers see contemporary political struggles, such as the battles over abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, or secular education, as part of a larger spiritual war. These issues are framed not as policy disputes but as clashes between the forces of God and the forces of Satan.

By placing current events within the framework of the apocalypse, End Time believers heighten the stakes, portraying each political confrontation as a precursor to Christ’s return or the arrival of the Antichrist. This sense of urgency makes compromise or negotiation a betrayal, as they see themselves fighting for God’s ultimate plan.

The "Enemy Within"

End-Time believers target secular and liberal politicians. Their rhetoric frequently focuses on politicians who advocate for policies that contradict their perceived Christian values. These figures are often painted as either unwitting pawns of evil forces or as consciously working against God's will, leading to the vilification of the Left.

Progressive movements, particularly those advocating for social justice, LGBTQ+ rights, or reproductive freedom, are often depicted as prompting the charge in a moral and spiritual decline. For example, political leaders who support abortion rights are commonly framed as agents of evil, facilitating a modern-day ‘holocaust’ or acting under the influence of Satan.

Christian Nationalism and Divine Authority

End Time believers claim they defend their political preferences and act under a divine mandate. They believe their political actions align with God’s will, while their opponents oppose both them and God. This gives their movement a theocratic and authoritarian edge as they seek to implement what they believe are God’s laws in place of democratic laws.

By asserting that God's law should take precedence over human-made laws, Christian nationalism inherently undermines democratic pluralism, which depends on the coexistence of diverse viewpoints and the peaceful negotiation of differences.

In this worldview, dissent is not seen as part of healthy democratic debate but as opposition to divine authority, fostering an environment that erodes democratic values in favor of authoritarian control.

They believe God chooses leaders. Thus, certain political figures are often characterized as chosen by God to lead during this critical period before Christ’s return. For example, End Time believers frame figures like Donald Trump as divinely appointed leaders, despite his conduct, because he is advancing a Christian nationalist agenda.

Hostility and the Threat of Violence

When political opponents are cast as enemies of God, it becomes easier for believers to justify extreme action. This rhetoric inspires hostility and, in some cases, violence. For example, the rhetoric surrounding abortion, often framed as "murder sanctioned by the state," has led individuals to justify violent acts against abortion providers, as seen in numerous attacks on clinics and the murder of providers.

Some End Time believers have connections with militia movements and paramilitary groups that prepare for literal battles. They interpret Biblical prophecies about war and persecution as mandates to prepare for armed conflict, especially against what they see as a corrupt or evil government. This is particularly dangerous when combined with contemporary political polarization.

Biblical Justifications for Hostility

In an earlier writing, I described two Jesuses: the Peaceful Jesus and the Warrior Jesus. While many Christians focus on Jesus's peaceful teachings (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount), End Time believers emphasize apocalyptic depictions of Christ, particularly from the Book of Revelation, wherein a militant Christ returns to lead armies. This violent, retributive image of Jesus is used to justify a more aggressive stance against perceived enemies.

By prioritizing this militant Christ in political discourse, believers frame modern political struggles as literal spiritual warfare, escalating rhetoric and fueling conflict. This not only intensifies polarization but also promotes a mindset in which violence is seen as a divinely sanctioned means to achieve political ends. When faith is tied to the belief that physical battles must be fought for divine purposes, it diminishes the possibility of compromise and undermines the democratic process.

End Time rhetoric invokes divine judgment and punishment, implying that those who oppose the End Time worldview will face not just political defeat but eternal damnation. This sense of cosmic justice encourages hostility towards anyone who thinks or believes differently. They are depicted as working against God’s plan.

Consequences of this Rhetoric

By framing every political battle as a holy war, End Time believers not only contribute to the intense polarization in U.S. politics but are also the primary instigators. This makes civil discourse and compromise impossible, as their opponents are wrong and evil.

The dehumanization of political opponents and the apocalyptic urgency surrounding End Time beliefs can lead to acts of violence. The January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol is a prime example. Many participants carried Christian symbols and saw their actions as part of a divine mission.

When political opponents are framed as enemies of God, End Time believers justify rejecting democratic norms, such as free elections and the peaceful transfer of power. They claim that following democratic processes is less important than ensuring that "God’s will" is carried out, even if that means undermining democratic institutions. This puts End Time believers at war with the U.S. Constitution as it undermines democracy.

End Time believers' rhetoric of framing opponents as enemies of God creates a highly toxic environment that threatens democratic principles like compromise and peaceful governance alongside social stability.

By dehumanizing their opponents and viewing politics through the lens of divine warfare, they create an atmosphere of hostility, leading to radicalization and violence. This is not just a spiritual or religious issue—it’s a political one that poses a direct challenge to the foundations of secular democracy.

It's horrible to learn that under Superintendent Mike Miles' leadership—after his and the Texas Education Agency's (TEA) takeover of Houston Independent School District (HISD)—children "are receiving no instruction or assistance in Spanish at all." Stated differently, their civil right to bilingual education is getting denied. I imagine that this will play out in court at some future point, as the damage is predictable and already evident. Special education has also been decimated (see People's Report of HISD takeover at State Board of Ed). Miles' curriculum is fully mandated and it is destroying teachers' morale.

When HISD Superintendent stated—in reference to his own teachers and community members—at a Texas Tribune Festival event in Austin last September, “If they don't want to work in that kind of culture, they need to make the decisions that's right for them,” geez, how dismissive can a public school leader be?!!!

Plus, Miles is not only being racist against Spanish-speaking children and hostile to the public, but also anti-public education itself. With his own words and arrogance, he demonstrates how his agenda falls squarely in line with the privatizers like Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and many in the Texas Republican leadership that represent urban areas as opposed to those representing rural areas that have solidly voted against vouchers.

As a public, we all need to care about HISD. A first start is to listen to the
People's Report of HISD takeover at State Board of Ed. Their testimonies begin at  1:09:00 (full testimony) on the meter with a shorter version taking place here. This is a clear attempt to dismantle public education in Houston. 

The testimonies further point to how democracy is literally at risk given that there is no one in government to whom they can appeal this decision. As Commissioner Morath himself has been inaccessible to these parents, teachers, and this community, they had no choice but to testify at the Texas State Board of Education that says it has no jurisdictional power over the matter. Even the legal advisor at the Texas SBOE didn't know where to direct those that testified.

It's all so surreal. Do listen at least to the shortened version of the testimonies on Youtube. 

It's not just an invasion, but an ambush. And the children suffer.

-Angela Valenzuela

Support for Houston ISD’s Spanish speakers has dwindled under state-appointed leader, parents say

For one reading class, Superintendent Mike Miles said instruction would focus on English, even if it meant risking state funding for dual-language programs. Parents say it goes further than that, adding that their kids are receiving no assistance in Spanish at all.

BY BRIAN LOPEZ

OCT. 3, 20235 AM CENTRAL

Celina Manzano takes her children to school at Pugh Elementary School in East Houston on Monday, Oct. 2, 2023.

For Celina Manzano, Pugh Elementary School in East Houston is no longer the welcoming place it used to be.

Manzano’s family mostly speaks Spanish, so her son Maycol’s teachers used to provide them with translations of his homework and make time for her to ask questions. But under the leadership of the state’s recently appointed superintendent, most of those teachers left after they were required to reapply for their jobs.

Accommodations for Spanish speakers are practically gone, Manzano said. Maycol, who started second grade this year, has told her he doesn’t want to go to school anymore.

It’s been over a month since the Houston Independent School District started its first school year after the state ousted its democratically elected school board and replaced the district’s previous leader with Superintendent Mike Miles. Since then, complaints have been piling up among Spanish-speaking families, who say they are not getting the support they need. In Houston ISD, about 36% of students are either bilingual or English learners.

The state’s takeover of the district was in response to years of poor academic outcomes at a single campus. Under Miles’ tenure, Pugh Elementary and more than 80 other campuses now operate under his “New Education System,” which he describes as an “innovative staffing model that puts the focus on classroom instruction and improved student outcomes.”

Classes used to be half in English and half in Spanish in dual-language schools like Pugh. Miles previously said that dual-language education would continue and even expand under the NES model, but parents say that support for Spanish speakers has dwindled.

Mike Miles, the state-appointed superintendent of Houston ISD, discusses public education in Texas' largest city at The Texas Tribune Festival in Austin on Sept. 23, 2023. Eddie Gaspar/Texas Tribune

Credit:

In particular, the new “Science of Reading” class — based on psychology and neuroscience research on how children learn to read and the skills they need to do so — is taught only in English.

“You cannot read well if you can’t decode, and you cannot decode if you don’t do it in English,” Miles said at a community meeting in July where he explained his approach to families. “So we’re gonna do the science of reading, decoding and language comprehension in English, and then we will supplement [many English learners’ native] language, Spanish.”

Miles told The Houston Chronicle last month he would try to keep reading instruction as close as possible to the 50-50 model, but his priority would be teaching children the science of reading, even if the uneven split means losing funding. State law requires dual-language programs to divide instruction equally between English and an English learner’s native language.

Miles did not respond to an interview request or emailed questions.

Parents say the changes have gone further than that, noting that this school year their kids are receiving no instruction or assistance in Spanish at all.

Marta Quinteros said her 8-year-old son Angel struggles to speak and understand English, and she feels like the district isn’t doing enough to support her son like last year.

Quinteros said when she asked teachers and administrators at Scroggins Elementary School if they could explain lessons slower or in Spanish to her son, she was told they couldn’t.

Angel has also had issues with bullying but told Quinteros he hasn’t told anyone at school because he is afraid school officials will tell him he needs to speak English and he can’t do it that well.

“‘I’m not going to learn English, I’m not going to,”’ Quinteros said her son has told her.

Duncan Klussmann, a clinical assistant professor of school leadership at the University of Houston, said Miles’ reforms are affecting Spanish-speaking and bilingual families because they do not allow for a lot of customization in students’ learning.

“What we know about education is when 1,000 students walk into a building each day they all have very different needs that need to be addressed,” he said. “It's still yet to be seen if the system that has been put in place will address the needs of bilingual students.”

Public education observers, teachers and parents have described Miles’ leadership and vision for the district as military-like and test-score-driven.

Several Houston ISD teachers and community members have criticized him for his “my way or the highway” approach, with Miles saying that those who don’t like his changes can choose to leave the district.

“If they don't want to work in that kind of culture, they need to make the decisions that's right for them,” he said at a Texas Tribune Festival event in Austin last month.

Under the NES schools, which were selected for the most significant immediate overhauls, every teacher had to reapply for their jobs with no guarantee they would be rehired. Those who stayed are monitored to make sure they are sticking to the curriculum and instructional materials provided by Miles’ leadership team.

Educators say Miles’ system has a rigid approach to teaching. They are tasked with following a strict teaching schedule, which district leaders created to reduce the time teachers spend preparing curriculum. Detractors say it limits educators' ability to decide how to teach their classes.

Teachers who spoke to the Tribune and requested to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation said Miles’ system requires them not to spend time repeating lessons — even when they feel like students didn’t fully understand the material — and to skip any ice breakers or socializing in their classes. Miles has monitors in NES schools to make sure teachers are not deviating from the curriculum.

Miles believes the bad experiences some teachers have described are purely anecdotal and has framed them as examples of the “status quo” thinking prevalent in the state’s education system.

David DeMatthews, an associate professor of educational leadership and policy at the University of Texas at Austin who has followed Miles’ career, said his approach will likely boost test scores. But DeMatthews doubts that such a system will produce sustainable academic improvements or help create a conducive environment for learning.

“That type of teaching is not going to be engaging over time. It's not going to be rewarding for teachers,” DeMatthews said. “This is a very fast-food approach to education.”

But Miles also has people rooting for his success. Sue Deigaard, a former Houston ISD school board member, said while she agrees that Miles’ changes have been abrupt, the district probably needed them.

“The intention to not waste another year for students who are behind is a commendable approach,” Deigaard said. “Our kids have had enough lost years.”

But she added that the new leadership could’ve done a better job at gathering input from the community, especially from people on those campuses that have experienced the greatest changes.

Klussmann said the underlying issue with the new system is whether Houston ISD leadership will give families options to opt out if it’s not working for them — especially in the midst of recent Republican efforts to allow parents to be more involved in decisions about their children’s education. One of the main arguments some Republican leaders have made for “school choice” — a proposal that would allow parents to use state funds to pay for their children’s private schooling — is that it would give low-income families more freedom to leave their school district if they’re not happy with it.

Last week, Gov. Greg Abbott called state lawmakers to return to Austin for a special legislative session starting on Oct. 9. He didn't indicate what the focus of the session will be but he has long said it would be on school choice, one of his biggest priorities this year.

“State leadership and the Legislature really focused on parental choice this last year and the parents should have a say in the type of education that their child is getting, and I think [whether Houston ISD lets parents opt out] is going to be a test at the state level,” Klussmann said.

Manzano said she is lucky to live in a school zone that would allow her to switch districts if she remains unhappy with the changes at Houston ISD — she could go to Galena Park ISD east of Houston — but many parents don’t have that choice, and their kids must conform to the new rules or fall behind.

For both Manzano and Quinteros, if things don’t change, they will look elsewhere for their children’s education.

“If things continue like this, I have to take my son out of this school,” Manzano said. “I don’t like what’s going on.”

Celina Manzano's children head to school at Pugh Elementary School in East Houston.
Danielle Villasana/ Texas Tribune

Greg Abbott Failed to Persuade Lawmakers on School Vouchers. Now He’s Threatening Them. | Texas Monthly

Gov. Greg Abbott is desperate and going against the public will. He has just called a fourth special session of the legislature to both pass vouchers and his racial profiling bill to beat up on immigrants and asylum seekers with penalties that will result in eye-popping profits for the prison-industrial complex.

As you can see in this October 4, 2023 piece by Alexandra Samuels in the Texas Monthly, he's been bullying members of his own party to accomplish this. Vouchers not only represent horrible, self-serving, de-democratizing policy, but is not all research-based. Here is but one policy brief that is based exclusively on peer-reviewed research that says as much: Will School Vouchers Benefit Low-Income Families? Assessing the Evidence," by Jabbar, H., Holme, J., Lemke, M., LeClair, Sanchez, J., Torres, E.M. & Pernetti, M. (March, 2023).

Gov. Abbott isn't interested in this research as he is party, like Florida governor Ron DeSantis, to an extremist agenda for our country from which he will surely profit where public education, environmental protections, public lands, and so on, are at enormous risk. Moreover, as cited below, he masquerades his false agenda as an "ethical" response to "right-wing outrage over alleged “woke” public school administrators teaching kids about sex and racism, public school administrators."

If elections this week are any indication—and they are—this characterization of both public schools is wildly off base. For example, read about results of school board elections where far-right Moms For Liberty candidates overwhelmingly flopped per the following news items:

Moms for Liberty and the ‘parental rights’ agenda flopped in this week’s elections

On Tuesday, Voters Rejected Moms for Liberty and Its Agenda of Cruelty and Hate

Texans and Americans, generally, are wisening up to these well-heeled, anti-democratic, white supremacist, fascist organizations, thankfully, as they should. 

Do always take a close look at that glossy flyer in your mailbox and do your research before voting. Organizations like Moms for Liberty, Right Turn, and America First—the latter of which has a notoriously anti-Semitic history that you can read about in The Atlantic—are anathema to democracy.

All told, Senate Bill 1 is moving quickly in this fourth-called special session of the Texas State Legislature. 

Do not be deceived by phrases like "education freedom" or "education savings accounts" as these are euphemisms for school vouchers. This is nothing more than taking our hard-earned, taxpayer dollars and diverting them to private schools that will seriously damage an already under-funded public education system and diverting these dollars into private schools that actually do indoctrinate and are not at all accountable to the public in the way that elected school boards are. Hence, a loss of governance with public dollars!

Plus, there's nothing holding back these schools from raising their private school tuitions meaning that these schools will segregate by class—and because class and race overlap, racial segregation will increase, as well. 

As for rural education, the price that rural schools will pay should SB 1 become law, is both declining funding and opportunity, considering that private schools mostly do not exist in rural communities—Tyler, Texas, notwithstanding.

Go to this link if you want to know who represents you in the Texas State Legislature so that you can reach out to them as soon as possible.

-Angela Valenzuela

Greg Abbott Failed to Persuade Lawmakers on School Vouchers. Now He’s Threatening Them.

 

Ahead of a special legislative session, the governor has implied there will be political consequences for those who get in his way.

by Alexandra Samuels | October 4, 2023 | Texas Monthly 

Governor Greg Abbott on September 9, 2023.

Vasha Hunt/AP

After a busy legislative session in Austin, Travis Clardy was ready for a lazy Saturday morning. It was mid-June, and the Republican state representative was finally back home in Nacogdoches, sipping coffee on the balcony of his downtown loft and watching his constituents amble about El Camino Real de los Tejas, a.k.a. Main Street, the central artery of the East Texas city. He had all but forgotten that one of his bills, regarding occupational licensing, remained unsigned on Governor Greg Abbott’s desk. Traditionally, the governor’s approval is automatic for minor proposals such as his that pass with overwhelming bipartisan support.

Then Clardy’s phone began to ring. A staffer for the governor was on the line, telling him Abbott was going to veto the representative’s bill, which would’ve made continuing education programs for state-certified fire alarm technicians mandatory rather than voluntary. The governor’s staffer explained that the bill, in Abbott’s estimation, presented an unjustified obstacle to maintaining an occupational license. But those qualms, Clardy said, could’ve been fixed in a matter of minutes during the session. “If that had been a concern,” he recalled asking, “why am I hearing about this now, after he’s already signed the veto?” The answer became clear to Clardy later, when Abbott published a missive explaining his decision. In the second paragraph of the letter, Abbott wrote: “This bill can be reconsidered at a future special session only after education freedom is passed.”