Earlier this month, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) announced that 12 Austin-area schools with an “F” rating could be closed. For many families, this isn’t just a policy decision—it’s a direct threat to thousands of children’s educational stability and their communities’ future.
The affected schools, all part of Austin Independent School District (AISD) received three consecutive failing grades under the state’s accountability system tied to the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) exam. TEA ordered the campuses to submit improvement plans by mid-November, which could involve major staffing changes or closures. The schools include Winn Montessori, Barrington, Dawson, Linder, Oak Springs, Pecan Springs, Sanchez, Widen, Wooldridge, Bedichek, Martin, and Paredes. As education researchers and community advocates, we know that school ratings often reveal more about poverty than about student learning. Decades of research show that standardized tests don’t measure intellect, creativity, or resilience. They measure zip codes. Numerous studies also highlight the direct ties between the testing industry and the prison industrial complex.
The problem is clear: Austin’s “F” schools overwhelmingly serve mostly low-income African-American and Hispanic children. Closing them on the basis of a flawed metric sends one message: Your community does not matter.
More specifically, data from the Texas Academic Performance Report outlines that the twelve Austin ISD campuses at risk of closure or major intervention serve predominantly low-income African-American and Hispanic student populations (see a full chart here): At these campuses, between 78 percent and 97 percent of students are classified as economically disadvantaged, with most schools exceeding 90 percent. This strongly suggests that socioeconomic status, not instructional quality, is the most consistent predictor of school ratings. Research has long demonstrated that poverty shapes educational outcomes through limited access to resources, higher mobility rates, and increased exposure to stressors outside of school. The racial and ethnic composition of these same schools is between 57 percent and 91 percent Hispanic, while African-American enrollment ranges from 1.9 percent to nearly 39 percent. The clustering of F-rated schools in predominantly Black and brown neighborhoods highlights the racialized nature of standardized testing outcomes, aligning with scholarship that critiques accountability systems as mechanisms that reproduce racial and class stratification.
TEA’s accountability system disproportionately penalizes schools that serve economically disadvantaged students of color. All twelve schools identified for improvement or closure received failing (“F”) ratings, yet their student demographics highlight structural inequities rather than deficiencies in teaching or learning.
Parents and teachers have long known what research confirms: Standardized testing is a poor predictor of success. It rewards test-taking strategies, not curiosity. It privileges students with resources, tutors, and stability at home, while penalizing those navigating poverty, language barriers, or trauma.
Standardized testing has become a billion-dollar business. In 2013, TEA awarded Pearson a $462 million contract, followed by a $280 million contract with Education Testing Services. Nationally, 45 states spend a combined $669 million annually on testing contracts. These corporations reap massive profits, yet there is no evidence that more standardized testing improves student learning or narrows achievement gaps. What these tests do measure—reliably—is the ability of corporations to siphon resources away from Texas students, teachers, and communities.
Instead of doubling down on testing, TEA should reduce the number of exams and provide real support. Before closing schools, the agency must engage communities in honest conversations about what children need to thrive—whether it’s more bilingual staff, smaller classes, or after-school programs.
Austin’s children deserve more than a test score. Closing schools will not build stronger communities. Listening to them will. TEA must choose partnership over punishment.
A growing body of scholarship urges states to move beyond single test scores and adopt multiple measures of accountability. Such systems better capture the breadth of student learning by incorporating graduation rates, college and career readiness, access to qualified teachers, and school climate. Authentic assessments—such as project- and portfolio-based evaluations—offer viable alternatives that measure higher-order thinking and student creativity while remaining compliant with the federal Every Student Succeeds Act, which explicitly authorizes states to integrate portfolios, extended performance tasks, and adaptive assessments into their accountability systems. Despite this flexibility, Texas continues to rely almost exclusively on high-stakes standardized tests, ignoring well-established recommendations for more equitable, comprehensive approaches to evaluating student learning and school quality.
At the state policy level, Texas must fundamentally rethink accountability. Policymakers, TEA, and school leaders should establish school-based teams to collect and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data, ensuring that decisions are grounded in the realities of students, families, and educators.
These efforts must prioritize schools with the greatest needs and the fewest resources, offering sustained support rather than punitive closures. Specifically, TEA should end costly assessment contracts with for-profit corporations and redirect those funds into classrooms, counseling services, culturally relevant curricula, and community engagement initiatives that actually strengthen schools.
Credit: Source link
