[en español clic aquí]

On Thursday, the unelected Board of Managers will vote to approve SB 1882 charter handoffs of four selective magnet schools in a deal that would give Mike Miles access to even more public funds to misdirect.

Will you sign up to speak at the Board Meeting? Miles is not listening, but the world is! You must register on HISD’s website by noon on Wednesday. Here are step-by-step instructions.

HISD should extend the school choice deadline to May and give families from closing schools priority placement. Families had only two weeks’ notice of closures and just one week to research schools, plan transportation, talk with family, and submit an application. People are not widgets on a chessboard. Stop school closures until we have an elected board.

Will you email the Board of Managers and your elected officials today to help? (here and here.) Since the Board of Managers won’t listen, ask real elected officials to intervene.

To understand what is at stake, here is a summary ahead of Thursday’s vote.

Follow the Money: HISD’s Plan to Charter Four High Schools

SUMMARY: In October, HISD Superintendent Mike Miles announced plans to turn up to seven selective magnet schools into in-district charter partnerships using a state law passed in 2017.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts: In Fall 2025, Mike Miles pressured principals in closed-door meetings to join these partnerships, promising more autonomy and funding. In reality, selective magnet schools have seen little of the promised Level 5 autonomy. Miles could simply provide it, but instead, he makes chartering appear to be the only path. Any additional funding will shrink further once pay-for-service costs and Miles’ share are applied.

Which Schools? HSPVA, Energy Institute, HAIS, and Challenge Early College are moving forward with SB 1882 partnerships, while Carnegie Vanguard, Eastwood Academy, and DeBakey High School for Health Professions have delayed their decision for a year.

The Law Behind This Charter Handoff: SB 1882, passed in 2017, allows in-district charter partnerships as a financial incentive for districts to partner with charter operators to avoid state takeover. The law was meant to support struggling schools or launch innovative campuses, not to convert long-established, high-performing schools like HSPVA. HISD leadership is presenting these partnerships as a path to more autonomy and funding, but the reality is that chartering shifts control to outside organizations and often brings hidden costs rather than the promised benefits.

Equity Concerns: At the same time that twelve neighborhood schools in historically Black and Brown communities are being closed, the district is directing additional funding toward already selective magnet schools serving more affluent families.

MYTH VS REALITY: THE FUNDING

Myth: The biggest myth is that an 1882 partnership brings more money to kids.

Reality:  While the state provides an additional $700–$1,300 per student per year, most of the funds get swallowed up by the new bureaucracy and management costs, and never get to the classroom. 

Where the “Extra” Money Really Goes:

• Economies of Scale Lost: Right now, schools share the cost of things like buses, IT, and maintenance across the whole district. When a school becomes a 1882 charter, it loses that ‘bulk discount,’ so many of those same services end up costing more.
• Pay-for-Services Requirements:  Most 1882 agreements require charter partners to pay the district for essential services, including transportation, food services, facilities, special education support, administrative services, and compliance. These charges can absorb a large portion of the extra per-student funding, meaning much of the state’s additional money simply cycles back to the district for Miles to use as he sees fit. For example, the Beaumont ISD 1882 charter partner was billed $150/hr for landscaping.
• Actual vs Average Costs for Personnel: Once chartered, schools will be charged the actual cost per teacher instead of the typical average teacher cost. Schools with many veteran teachers will face higher personnel costs, further reducing available funds for the school.

Net Effect: After accounting for district service fees, management contracts, and the loss of district-wide efficiencies, the real additional funding available to classrooms is often far less than the advertised $700–$1,300 per student.

TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY CONCERNS

Charters and school districts are legally required to spend public dollars for the benefit of Texas public schoolchildren. In contrast, SB 1882 partnership operators are treated as vendors. Once they receive funds, they have full discretion over how the money is used and no legal obligation to ensure it directly benefits students.

This was confirmed by Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath in response to questions about the legality of Third Future Schools (TFS) spending 1882 funding on his Colorado schools.

“Under Texas law, TEA does not have authority over what TFS does with the funds it is paid by Third Future Schools – Texas for administrative fees or shared services, just as the agency cannot broadly require any other school district vendor to identify how they expend their funds once the vendor has been paid for services provided. As a vendor of Third Future Schools – Texas, TFS may use the funds that they are paid as they see fit, once those funds have been transferred for goods or services rendered.”

SB 1882 partners are not required to have prior experience running a school. This is the case for the newly created nonprofits Friends of HSPVA, Friends of Energy, Friends of Challenge, and Friends of HAIS. Despite lacking operational experience, these organizations would have authority over:

• Curriculum and instruction, technology systems, school policies, discipline, grievance procedures, and budget decisions. 
• These decisions will be overseen by unelected boards, rather than locally elected school trustees, significantly reducing democratic oversight.
• The principal will be their employee. Theoretically, teachers will remain employees of the school district, although no one has seen the contracts supposedly finalized over spring break.

District Retains Legal Risk: Even when an outside organization manages the school, the district remains responsible for major legal obligations, including Special education compliance (IDEA), Student privacy laws (FERPA), and state reporting and accountability systems. This arrangement can create significant risk for the district while limiting local democratic oversight.

Events Leading to the March 19th Vote: Since October, HAIS and Challenge have quietly set up new 501(c)(3) nonprofits, modeled on Friends of HSPVA and Friends of Energy, to act as SB 1882 charter partners despite none of them having any experience running schools. In the fall, HISD submitted a letter of intent to the Texas Education Agency, but the documents are not publicly available, and parents and teachers have had no meaningful role in the decision. Questions remain about whether the applications meet legal requirements.

As recently as last week, parents still had not seen the contract, application, or budget that will govern their children’s schools, and the contracts are not included in the HISD Board agenda.

Bottom line:
Mike Miles is peddling 1882 partnerships as bringing more money and autonomy to selective magnet schools. In reality, once service fees, contracts, and higher operating costs are factored in, much of the extra funding disappears.

Many families and educators see this as part of a broader move to weaken oversight and local control, worsen inequity, and expand charter-style control within public schools.