In 2023, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has issued a “takeover” of Houston ISD (HISD), replacing the superintendent and elected board of trustees with state appointees. Supporters of the takeover view it as a chance for sweeping reform: the New Education System (NES) model in 100+ schools has reshaped staffing, redesigned instruction, and tied compensation to performance, which has produced “historic” gains on standardized tests. Critics counter that these rapid changes come at the community’s expense — citing forced resignations, high teacher turnover, highly scripted lessons, and major operational shifts as evidence of eroding local governance and educator autonomy — and they question whether the academic gains will endure.

Whether Houston ISD (HISD) is seeing meaningful, sustainable gains in a fair, democratic way under this takeover remains hotly debated — and it should be. While the controversy of the takeover has understandably dominated the national conversation, it’s also important for advocates to understand how the lead up to this moment illustrates the essential, but ambiguous (and often lacking) role of state agencies in enabling school improvement efforts.

Meaningful improvement is challenging but can happen when state education agencies prioritize adequate resources, tailored coaching, and technical assistance to identified schools to strengthen teaching and learning processes.

For instance, the state’s role is clearly defined at the beginning and the end of Houston’s takeover story. Texas is a central character in Act I, setting up accountability conditions and issuing ratings, and in Act III, enforcing the takeover. But what about Act II — the long stretch when schools are working to improve before drastic state intervention? This is the “mysterious middle” of accountability systems and school improvement. While Houston offers a complex case with specific state policy conditions, this dynamic is not unique.

Across the country, state education agencies (SEAs) have a clear, well-defined role at the start of the accountability process. They also have a clear role at the end: if identified schools are not sufficiently improving, education agencies are obligated under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to implement “more rigorous interventions” — HISD’s takeover is one example of this.

But the middle is where schools need their state’s support most. States are uniquely positioned to provide the backbone of support — the structures, guidance, and targeted resources that enable schools to improve. Identified schools often have fewer resources and disproportionately serve students with the highest needs. Meaningful improvement is challenging but can happen when state education agencies prioritize adequate resources, tailored coaching, and technical assistance to identified schools to strengthen teaching and learning processes. This prioritization also enables district administrators to support a school’s improvement.

However, this type of coherent, strategic state support is often under-resourced, disconnected from other initiatives, and mired in bureaucratic processes. Additionally, state education agencies now lack consistent federal support by way of resources, national guidance, and more, due to cuts from the current administration.

Why does this matter?

School improvement designations, particularly those required under ESSA, are meant to trigger support to help states target limited resources to the schools with the greatest need. But too often, these designations function primarily as labels. For communities already facing systemic underinvestment, being identified for improvement can feel like yet another judgment without any guarantee that meaningful support will follow.

This dynamic undermines the purpose of accountability systems. When the middle space of improvement work is weak or invisible, accountability becomes merely a measuring stick, rather than a mechanism for support. To shift accountability away from a punitive mechanism, policymakers must design it as a support system — and that requires investing in and illuminating practices so schools can improve before states escalate to high-stakes interventions.

The stakes are especially high for schools serving high proportions of students of color and students from low-income backgrounds. These schools are disproportionally identified for improvement and have long shouldered the burden of inequitable funding, inconsistent access to high-quality instruction, and structural barriers that are beyond the control of any single school.

Until states and advocates illuminate and strengthen this middle space, accountability systems will remain incomplete. Advocates can help ensure SEAs use their limited time and resources effectively, helping to push for school improvement supports that research consistently shows drive improvement.

This is the first post in EdTrust’s School Improvement blog series. This blog series features authors from EdTrust and partner organizations who explore different dimensions of school improvement and how it intersects with other core education advocacy issues. This series follows the release of a new EdTrust report, “Examining State Education Agency Perspectives on School Improvement Supports,” which draws on interviews and focus groups with state education agency (SEA) leaders across 11 states and Washington, D.C. to explore the barriers and opportunities SEAs face when designing, monitoring, and evaluating school improvement efforts.

Photo by Allison Shelley for EDUimages