Related<\/a><\/p>\n Ending a Years-Long Standoff, State Officials Announce Houston Schools Takeover<\/p>\n Their outcry was, perhaps, foreseeable. Full-on takeovers are rare, usually only attempted in chronically struggling districts steeped in managerial problems. Houston Independent School District fit the bill in some respects, with large numbers of schools earning failing grades<\/a> from the Texas Education Agency, but parents and educators still deplored the loss of autonomy and the appointment of an outsider.<\/p>\n Two years later, the outcry hasn\u2019t quieted completely. Increasingly, however, local and state leaders are pointing to a competing narrative of revamped instructional strategies, swiftly rising student achievement<\/a> and newfound plaudits from state authorities. According to the release of student evaluation data in June, Houston pupils are catching up with \u2014 and, in some subjects, outperforming<\/a> \u2014 their peers across Texas after years of lagging far behind. This year\u2019s scores largely improved upon last year\u2019s, which themselves represented a leap forward from the pre-takeover status quo.<\/p>\n The most energetic evangelist for that progress is Miles, a former Army officer and diplomat<\/a> turned educator. His trek to Texas from his home state of Colorado has not always been smooth, with a three-year stint as Dallas superintendent ending in 2015<\/a> after Miles lost the backing of the local board. Both in that city and at a previous stop in Colorado Springs<\/a>, he angered some veteran educators<\/a> by advocating for a switch to a pay-for-performance system that many saw as unfair.<\/p>\n He has pursued a similar course<\/a> in Houston, along with a package of pedagogical and organizational reforms he dubs the New Education System<\/a>: a heavy emphasis on coaching and blending curriculum and instruction, along with longer school hours. Since its implementation, the majority of Houston schools run under the NES model have seen major improvements to their state ratings. Critics have called the model top-down and restrictive, but Miles insists it\u2019s about giving teachers the tools they need to succeed in schools enrolling historically underserved minority and low-income students.<\/p>\n In a conversation with The 74\u2019s Kevin Mahnken, Miles argued that wholesale, wide-ranging reforms are the only way to trigger lasting improvement for students.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are providing a proof point that it can be done, and that Black and brown kids challenged by poverty and language barriers can rise to high expectations. Don\u2019t sell them short. Don\u2019t say it\u2019ll take eight years or five years to do it.\u201d<\/p>\n This interview has been edited for length and clarity.<\/p>\n Superintendent, how do you interpret these results? Houston clearly saw big test-score gains across a very short span of time.<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019ve been around for a long time. I\u2019ve led other districts and been a consultant in other districts, and I talk to colleagues all the time. These results are unheard of.<\/p>\n In 2023, 93 schools in the district out of 273 earned an A or B grade. One year later, we were up to 170. These are accountability scores from the state, and the 2024 scores for all the districts in Texas will be released soon. You\u2019re going to see their A\u2019s and B\u2019s stay flat while their D\u2019s and F\u2019s go up. Meanwhile, Houston went from having 121 D- and F-rated schools to 41. It\u2019s not easy to take an F school and turn it around, but we did it in spades in just one year.<\/p>\n Just looking at the schools in the New Education System program: After one year, we went from 53 F-rated schools to nine, and from 55 D-rated schools to 23. When we started, only 11 earned A\u2019s or B\u2019s, and now 87 do. We\u2019re talking about mostly underserved populations of kids.<\/p>\n Think about what a difference that makes for their academic career and beyond. I challenge you to find an urban district that has seen these kinds of outcomes after just two years.<\/p>\n What does it mean for a school to have a D or F grade? What should parents know about those schools?<\/strong><\/p>\n If you attend one of those schools, the likelihood of gaining proficiency \u2014 being able to read or do math at grade level \u2014 is low. Your whole career, you will be haunted by that lack of proficiency because we, your educators, didn\u2019t bring you to grade level.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re now in a period when there\u2019s hardly any discussion about bold reform. So to answer the question about whether I\u2019m a throwback, the answer is partly yes. But I\u2019ve learned over time.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Down the road, here\u2019s what these scores really mean: For Black and brown kids in this country, especially those who live in poverty, the system has not lived up to the promise America made to them. We\u2019ve failed, in that sense. Across the country, the achievement gap has not closed in 20 years, and the opportunity gap has not closed. Black and brown poor kids are still mostly in failing schools. It\u2019s like being on two tracks: Kids in well-resourced neighborhoods are on a track, and they can be expected to run one lap in one year\u2019s time, but Black and brown and poor kids are starting 50 yards behind.<\/p>\n Related<\/a><\/p>\n The Achievement Gap Has Driven Education Reform for Decades. Now Some Are Calling It a Racist Idea<\/p>\n We\u2019ve got a changing world and workplace, and if you can\u2019t read or do math at grade level, your opportunities are going to be proscribed. So when I see data like this, and you ask me what a D or F school is like compared to an A or B? We\u2019re giving these kids, finally, a chance.<\/p>\n We need to go bold and go big. There was a report<\/a> earlier this year looking at how many high school graduates in the Houston area earned a livable wage. For the kids who graduated in 2017, the answer was 17%. Seventeen percent.<\/p>\n What\u2019s the secret, if one exists, to turning that around?<\/strong><\/p>\n I believe there\u2019s a recognition among superintendents that piecemeal, incremental reform has not worked. One of the things we\u2019ve done too often over the last 30 years is to focus on doing maybe one big, bold thing instead of several. Invariably \u2014 because it\u2019s an interconnected system where a lot of issues impact other issues \u2014 people have to step back from that one big reform.<\/p>\n To take one example, if you want to change the way we compensate people, you have to ask whether compensation is going to be tied to an evaluation. And just asking that question suddenly becomes very controversial. Are you going to just give people money? Does the system have the resources for that? Should you get any outcomes from that?<\/p>\n Or say you want high-quality instructional materials. Will teachers use them? Will there be effective training? Do people actually understand the close integration of curriculum and instruction? Our profession is replete with stories of textbooks in boxes, still wrapped, in a teacher\u2019s closet. So that one thing you want to do, which is both very expensive and a good thing, is tied to so many other things that the reform fails.<\/p>\n This brings us to something that\u2019s become a mantra for you: \u201cwholesale systemic transformation.\u201d You invoke it often enough that your subordinates must have nightmares about it. Lots of people say that sort of thing when they take over a school district, but what do you mean by it?<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s far-reaching, comprehensive reforms across the whole system, all at the same time. That will scare people unless they know what it means. Your image of someone waking up screaming about it at 3:00 a.m. is right for most people, but for us, it\u2019s very clear what it entails.<\/p>\n \u201cThe challenge is that the more change you have, the more pushback there is, and the more status-quo bias gets in the way. You start impacting a lot of vested interests. So you have to have a team that can move quickly.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So, take instruction. When we talk about transforming instruction, that means a change in curriculum. It means a change in lesson planning. It means a new instructional model. It means a change in how teachers are monitored and coached, including on-the-job coaching. It means that principals have to be instructional leaders, which means that the people who coach principals have to be instructional leaders. It means staffing in a way that gets the best instruction possible \u2014 for instance, in the 130 NES schools, there are no substitute teachers<\/a>.<\/p>\n In other words, it means getting everyone on the same page about what high-quality instruction looks like, and then teaching and coaching the heck out of it. You monitor that, tie it to evaluations, and tie the evaluations to compensation. You\u2019re changing the culture so that people focus on continuous improvement, high expectations, and accountability. And that\u2019s just the start of it.<\/p>\n It sounds like this approach is drawn right from the education reform playbook, which is now mostly ignored. Are you a throwback to that era?<\/strong><\/p>\n The reform era was 12\u201318 years ago. At that time, you had people like John Daisy and Dwight Jones and Chris Barbic and Cami Anderson and Michelle Rhee \u2014 there were reformers in big districts, and the movement had a lot of fans at that time. I was doing my thing in Harrison and Dallas.<\/p>\n We had a lot of support nationally from the philanthropic community, but there were also political discussions about reform during the debates about Race to the Top and No Child Left Behind. People were more willing to at least try new things. The problem was that there was such pushback and status quo bias, the reformers soon found themselves in the minority. And because they couldn\u2019t change things quickly, their tenure didn\u2019t last the time it would take to really make reforms.<\/p>\n Former Washington, D.C., schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee pushed an energetic school reform agenda, but ultimately met with a backlash that stymied her plans. (Getty Images)<\/p>\n We\u2019re now in a period when there\u2019s hardly any discussion about bold reform. So to answer the question about whether I\u2019m a throwback, the answer is partly yes. But I\u2019ve learned over time, and one of the things I\u2019ve learned is that you can\u2019t do just one thing at a time; you have to do all these things at the same time.<\/p>\n The challenge is that the more change you have, the more pushback there is, and the more status-quo bias gets in the way. You start impacting a lot of vested interests. So you have to have a team that can move quickly, and you have to generate proof that the change you\u2019re bringing will actually work. If we\u2019d only had modestly positive results in our first year, I\u2019m not sure it would have been enough to satisfy the entrenched interests. But because we got such huge results, it put wind in our sails and took some out of the sails of the opposition.<\/p>\n So how does this \u201cwholesale, systemic\u201d style work in the context of a particular policy?<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019ll give you an example. Pay-for-performance had some success with Michelle Rhee in Washington<\/a>, Tom Boasberg in Denver<\/a>, me in Dallas<\/a>, and in a couple of other places. It wasn\u2019t done well in most places that tried it \u2014 people confused it with incentive pay \u2014 and because of that, there was no proof point for the policy.<\/p>\n But in March of 2023, the National Bureau of Economic Research released a paper<\/a> showing that the pay-for-performance system in Dallas, which is the largest in the nation, actually works well in driving achievement growth. D.C. continues to get kudos for its system, and in Houston, we\u2019re now establishing a system that\u2019s even larger than Dallas. So if it\u2019s done right and done systemically, it can work.<\/p>\n \u201cMost people recognize that we can\u2019t keep doing what we\u2019ve always done because times are desperate.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n We also have a different instructional model<\/a> that hasn\u2019t been seen anywhere else. It\u2019s a combination of direct instruction and differentiated instruction, and it serves kids who struggle really well. That\u2019s why our struggling students are growing the fastest in HISD.<\/p>\n Without getting too technical, this notion of integrating curriculum and instruction is so advanced now that we can take new or inexperienced teachers and get them up to speed right away. We are providing PowerPoints, lesson objectives, demonstrations of learning, mini-quizzes, test material, differentiated assignments; we actually copy those materials for the teacher. If you\u2019re a new teacher, you can still teach effectively because we\u2019re giving you so much support and showing you the key steps.<\/p>\n That is indeed a rare amount of influence for district leadership to exercise over classroom teaching. The interim results are impressive, but what do you say to teachers who complain about their lessons being scripted and worry that you\u2019re encroaching in some way on their autonomy or professional mastery?<\/strong><\/p>\n First of all, the lessons aren\u2019t scripted. \u201cYou say this, the kids do this, you do that\u201d \u2014 it\u2019s not like that. You still have to be an effective teacher because, as we say all the time, curriculum does not teach.<\/p>\n Just today I was training some of our executive directors, who each have four or five principals under their supervision. We were going over what we call the Great Eight and the Next Eight, which are strategies to improve instruction. Teachers, principals, and executive directors are all taught how to scaffold and when to scaffold. We teach them multiple engagement strategies, but teachers have to know when to use them and when not to use them. There\u2019s a proper way to do a \u201cwhip around,\u201d<\/a> for example, and it\u2019s not right for some situations.<\/p>\n Today we talked about how teachers can take a question or answer from one kid, and instead of teaching that one student, they can expand the discussion to the whole class. That\u2019s not scripted, in that there will be a time and a place to use that technique.<\/p>\n So do your instructors actually like teaching this way?<\/strong><\/p>\n Teachers like this, despite what you hear from a handful. Teachers in the 130 NES schools like that they get the curriculum and the resources. They like that they can leave 15 minutes after the last bell and be done. They like the PowerPoints they get, and they can always tweak them.<\/p>\n The proof is in the pudding. In most of the non-NES schools, they are using our HISD curriculum even though they don\u2019t have to. Teachers ask if they can use it, and the answer is yes: We created it, and it\u2019s free for them to use. So 95 percent of the district schools are using this planned curriculum \u2014 in ELA, math, science, social studies, and the art of thinking \u2014 because it\u2019s better for them. It\u2019s already tied to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills<\/a> [the state standards], it comes with mini-quizzes, an answer key, and other texts and supplemental materials. I mean, what\u2019s not to like? You don\u2019t have to go on Teachers Pay Teachers<\/a> and hunt for resources. Even if I\u2019m the most effective teacher, I\u2019ll take the HISD curriculum and make it better.<\/p>\n Related<\/a><\/p>\n Meet the Etsy of Education: Online Marketplace Lets Teachers Buy \u2014 and Sell \u2014 Millions of Classroom Materials and Lessons<\/p>\n There\u2019s a good lesson design model, which is not new to us. You direct-instruct the first part, you gradually release kids, and then you give them multiple opportunities to practice the objective. It\u2019s divided into about 15 or 20 minutes for each part. Now, because we have inexperienced teachers, some of whom will spend 12 or 15 minutes just on the bell work, we\u2019ve got a color-coded lesson deck. I believe the first 15 minutes are bordered in red, the next 15 are bordered in blue, and the last 15 are bordered in green. It\u2019s not an exact science because every class is different, but they generally know that if they\u2019re still in the red after 40 minutes of class time, their pace is way off.<\/p>\n Do you think this kind of district takeover can be attempted elsewhere, and can its effects be sustained or improved upon? As you mentioned, the stories of backlash from the reform era may have been more numerous than the lasting successes. We haven\u2019t heard much from Michelle Rhee in a while, even if her teacher evaluation system is still in place in Washington.<\/strong><\/p>\n This is the right question to be asking. Every transformation has to fit the context it takes place in. What we\u2019re doing in Houston probably can\u2019t be replicated exactly in any other place. Having said that, however, a lot of people are looking for an answer. And most people recognize that we can\u2019t keep doing what we\u2019ve always done because times are desperate.<\/p>\n People from all over the country, including Alaska, are calling us to ask how we\u2019re doing this. Boldness is what\u2019s called for, and people are starting to have some hope that big turnarounds can be done. Kids will rise to the level of expectations, and we can narrow the achievement gap. What we\u2019re doing would probably have to be tweaked in another place, but the underlying principle of comprehensive, wholesale reform can absolutely be accomplished. Everybody, whether you\u2019re in a union state or a right-to-work state or whatever, can improve the quality of instruction.<\/p>\n But are most states and school districts even aiming at that goal? Between all the administrative concerns facing superintendents and the various non-academic priorities they have to deal with \u2014 absenteeism, social-emotional learning, discipline \u2014 teaching and learning can get lost in the shuffle.<\/strong><\/p>\n Unfortunately, our profession has not really focused on it. We don\u2019t have a lot of principals and superintendents who are instructional leaders because the focus has not been on instruction. In fact, we\u2019ve had this notion that teachers need to be left alone to teach because they\u2019re the experts. The truth of the matter is that effective teachers probably should be left alone to teach, but not everyone is effective. It takes a while to become effective, and even effective teachers can grow.<\/p>\n In this country, underserved populations have gotten the least effective and least experienced teachers. It\u2019s a great shame for our profession, but it\u2019s been an enduring problem. Do we want to leave those teachers alone to teach? No. We want to grow their capacities. We\u2019re having teacher shortages in a lot of places, and particularly in Texas, we\u2019re having to hire non-certified teachers. Fifty percent of new teachers<\/a> hired in Texas last year were not certified. That\u2019s a lot!<\/p>\n We need to be able to say, \u201cEffective teachers, do your thing. But everyone else, we need to make sure you\u2019re effective.\u201d To me, the word \u201ceffective\u201d only applies if you\u2019re getting outcomes. I\u2019m going to question it unless I see some results. For the vast majority of teachers, we need to guide them and coach them. They need to be coached by principals who know what they\u2019re doing. I\u2019m very sympathetic to a teacher who says, \u201cMy principal doesn\u2019t know anything about instruction, so why should he evaluate me?\u201d That\u2019s absolutely fair. But other districts can do what we\u2019ve done here, which is to make sure principals are instructional leaders, raise the quality of instruction, support teachers and raise the level of accountability and expectations.<\/p>\n Can I ask about Houston\u2019s <\/strong>drop in enrollment<\/strong><\/a> since 2023, when the takeover began? I\u2019m aware that this decline is part of a bigger, ongoing slide that began before COVID, and that lots of districts are dealing with similar issues. But are you concerned at all that some families are looking elsewhere because they feel these reforms aren\u2019t for them and won\u2019t help their kids?<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019m glad you put the enrollment issue in context. Almost every large, urban district is losing enrollment, even in Texas. In Houston, we\u2019ve had fewer kids being born for a few years now. And we\u2019ve always had transfers from low-performing, D- or F-rated schools to charters, so it wasn\u2019t surprising that people left in our first year. Now we have vouchers, which could also affect us.<\/p>\n Across the nation, since COVID, we also have kids dropping out of school. There are some economic forces at work in that some kids just haven\u2019t seen the value in high school \u2014 or at least not value enough to stay. You\u2019re 17 or 18 years old, you could have your senior year, but you can\u2019t read at grade level, and you failed algebra. So you quit to drive for Uber or deliver packages for Amazon. The gig economy is competing for those kids.<\/p>\n All that is happening. But having said that, we are already seeing that the sentiment is changing among our families after only two years. Kids are getting the education they want, and they\u2019re at A- or B-rated schools. One of my executive directors was at her hair dresser, who has a kid in the system. This parent said, \u201cI was against the reforms at first, but my school went from a C to an A, and my kid is happier about doing better in school.\u201d That was echoed by the other people in the shop, that things are changing and kids are getting a better education.<\/p>\n \u201cThe problem was that there was such pushback and status quo bias, the reformers soon found themselves in the minority. And because they couldn\u2019t change things quickly, their tenure didn\u2019t last the time it would take to really make reforms.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I know, that\u2019s just an anecdote. But there are a lot of those anecdotes. Our sentiment survey shows that people are happy with what\u2019s going on in their schools. I\u2019m engaged in this stuff every day, but most people are not; they care about their kids, their kids\u2019 teachers and the principal. The bigger reforms are nice to hear about every once in a while, but those are their priorities. We think we\u2019ll get enrollment back up when these schools show, consistently, that they are A and B schools.<\/p>\n Some school districts have been able to win back families in a really impressive way. Newark, which was in a lot of trouble, <\/strong>managed to increase enrollment<\/strong><\/a> during and after their takeover period. So could this be a marker to judge your successes in Houston?<\/strong><\/p>\n We\u2019re doing so much better than Newark ever did. The data shows that our underserved populations have narrowed the gap incredibly, have outpaced similar populations across the state, have done well on NAEP and have attended A- and B-rated schools for several years in a row. So yeah, I think we can compete with the charters.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/0ed566ce135e7c99f4e7322bff6f0ee0.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n\n
\n
![\"Former](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/83f6115eabdd0162863afbe6b0a28546.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/489681c36ca3247c88299b25a51ff7f3.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n\n