Parents and educators in the Houston Independent School District said they are all for improving schools but do not believe a state takeover by an unelected board of managers will boost test scores.

The Texas Education Agency said the takeover of the state's largest school district is necessary because schools have failed to meet state standards.

Jackie Anderson, president of the Houston Federation of Teachers, called it a hostile move opposed by many Houston elected officials, local education advocates and parents. She cited a poll by New Economy for Working Houston showing two-thirds of Harris County voters oppose the takeover.

"These schools are underperforming because for years, the district has not given them what they need," Anderson contended. "We believe that all of this is a way to fund the charter schools, but defund public schools."

In 2015, Texas passed a law allowing the state to take over an entire school district if even one campus is rated "F" in standardized test performance within five years.

This week, the Texas Education Agency named former Dallas schools superintendent Mike Miles to be superintendent in Houston. Miles arrived from leadership posts in Colorado, where he founded a public network of charter schools.

The Houston school district had fought the state takeover since 2019, but a GOP-controlled state Supreme Court cleared the state's legal path in January, despite a "B" grade the district received in the most recent state school ratings.

Audrey Nath, a parent in the Houston Independent School District, said her son just completed Kindergarten and had an exceptional year.

"I am left to surmise that the true intent is part of a larger push for dismantling of public education," Nath asserted. "Because not a single reason that was stated officially made any sense."

There are 276 schools within the Houston school district, with nearly 197,000 students. The district's minority enrollment is 90%, and nearly 60% of students are economically disadvantaged.


get more stories like this via email

The state Supreme Court has upheld a law giving Nebraskans with prior felony convictions the right to vote once they have completed their sentence.

Proponents of the measure are calling it a hard-fought victory to restore full rights to citizens who have paid their debt to society.

State lawmakers challenged a clause in the state's 1875 constitution disenfranchising people with felony convictions for life.

Steve Smith, director of communications with the group Civic Nebraska, said the ruling ends a decades-long legal battle.

"Had the court ruled the underlying statute is unconstitutional, those folks would have been out of luck," said Smith. "And so, the stakes were pretty high. In a state the size of Nebraska, that's close to 10% of the electorate. It's about 100,000 voters."

Smith said eligible people must register in person by 6 p.m. on Oct. 25 at their county's local elections office.

Smith said the ruling negates an order by the secretary of state blocking county officials from registering former felons despite a bipartisan bill that eliminated a two year waiting period for people with convictions.

He said the requirements to register have been simplified.

"It is fully completing your sentence. And so, the term is 'off-papers,'" said Smith. "And most folks who have been justice-impacted understand what off-papers mean. They've served any term of incarceration. They have completed any terms of parole, probation or supervised release, and they have not reoffended."

Smith said his organization and other are urging people who are now eligible to register and to vote, calling it both a civil right and a civic duty.

"For those of you going, 'I don't know if I want to do this,' know that the Supreme Court, the highest court in our state, has said, 'You are good to go, and you should vote with confidence,'" said Smith. "If you're on the fence about not voting, think about how hard some people tried to keep your vote away from you, and then wonder why that is."

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

One in three Americans indicates they're living paycheck-to-paycheck, and that includes many artists. A Minnesota organization is expanding its guaranteed-income program for these individuals, so they can carry on with their creative contributions.

This fall, Springboard for the Arts announced it was tacking on more years and recipients to its pilot initiative, launched early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ricardo Beaird, community development director for Springboard for the Arts, said the changes mean that over the next five years, a total of 100 participants will receive monthly payments of $500, no strings attached. He said they're building a case for systemic change in how artists are supported.

"Artists are vital to the cultural and economic fabric of our communities. They help us imagine new futures. They help us rethink public spaces and they create connections that make our lives richer and more meaningful," Beaird explained.

But he added that artists tend to operate in a "gig economy" and often fall through the cracks because financial stability is out of reach. Based on initial program data, 36% of recipients used the income for essential purchases and services. This effort is part of a patchwork of similar programs surfacing around the U.S. for low-income populations, including one led by the city of St. Paul.

Springboard's guaranteed-income program, funded by private foundations, helps artists in St. Paul and rural Otter Tail County. Beaird said they're also trying to be more dynamic with their assistance by offering things such as personal finance guidance, and added that can help artists overcome the short-term thinking they're often locked in.

"I'm a theater artist, so the way that I thought about my year was in these six-week bursts, and it didn't really give me the opportunity to think about, 'What does my next year look like, or my next two years, or five years look like?" he continued.

Another benefit is helping emerging artists be more financially resilient when dealing with unexpected expenses, such as a hospital bill or car repair.


get more stories like this via email

Some federal incentives to bring internet access to Indian Country neglected to require tribal participation, according to a new report.

The Federal Communications Commission's 2020 Rural Digital Opportunity Fund awarded more than $9 billion to cable and satellite operators, phone companies and others to deploy broadband in areas lacking it. The report from the Institute for Local Self Reliance showed the program included no requirement for tribal consent or engagement before companies placed bids.

Jessica Auer, tribal broadband policy analyst at the Institute for Local Self Reliance and the report's author, said it left some tribes, especially those with their own broadband projects, in what she called a "bureaucratic boondoggle," leading to "tension and confusion."

"They're required to spend resources and staff time trying to contest these awards, confronted by outside providers who feel that they have a mandate and a right to build on sovereign tribal lands," Auer explained.

Auer argued not including tribal nations at the table is, in many cases, considered a violation of tribal sovereignty. According to a 2022 study, households in tribal areas are about 24% less likely to have access to broadband internet than others.

In some cases, tribes are able to build the projects themselves. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe was awarded a $40-million grant to connect more than 1,500 tribal households with fiber internet access and an LTE wireless network.

Auer noted it is preferable to a company building infrastructure in unfamiliar terrain, which can be detrimental.

"I just can't think that it necessarily makes them the most long-term effective and sustainable answer, when they have so little knowledge and familiarity with local realities," Auer added.


get more stories like this via email