Why Voters Should Vote AGAINST HISD Bond Propositions A and B: A Summary

As advocates for public education and accountability, the Supporters of HISD Magnets and Budget Accountability urge Houston voters to consider the pressing issues surrounding HISD’s bond proposal and vote AGAINST Propositions A and B. Though these propositions promise funding for infrastructure and improvements, a closer examination reveals troubling concerns: lack of transparency, financial mismanagement, disregard for community engagement, weak safeguards against wasteful spending, and leadership that undermines educational priorities. Below is a summary of each key issue we’ve discussed in the weeks leading to Election Day.

1. Lack of Transparency in Bond Allocation: Inconsistent Criteria and Questionable FCI Ratings

HISD’s bond allocation process raises serious transparency concerns, particularly around Facility Condition Index (FCI) ratings and utilization rates, with some indicators suggesting potential bias. For instance:

? Meyerland Middle School was flagged in a 2023 report as needing a full replacement, yet received a low FCI of 31% and minimal funding, without a clear rationale from HISD.

? Similar discrepancies exist across schools with comparable FCI and utilization scores receiving vastly different funding amounts:

? Bush Elementary (FCI 70%, utilization 108%) received $660,000, while Montgomery Elementary (FCI 77%, utilization 93%) is allocated $77 million.

? Herrera Elementary (FCI 60%, utilization 111%) was allocated $1.96 million, while Kelso Elementary (FCI 63%, utilization 91%) received $79 million.

These inconsistencies raise questions about HISD’s methodology for determining funding. The lack of a clear, transparent allocation process erodes trust and casts doubt on whether the funding genuinely reflects each school’s needs.

2. Co-Location and School Closures: Lack of Community Input on Major Decisions

The bond proposal includes plans to “co-locate” certain schools, a concept that remains vague and raises significant questions. What will happen to schools whose students are moved to a new location? Will these buildings be closed, abandoned, or sold? Co-location risks the disappearance of neighborhood schools, disrupting students’ lives and altering community identity and cohesion.

Despite the potential impact of these changes, HISD has provided minimal information and has not meaningfully engaged the community in this process. Parents, students, and community members deserve clarity and a voice in decisions that could reshape their neighborhoods and educational landscape.

3. Inflated Costs Compared to Neighboring Districts

HISD’s proposed bond costs are significantly higher than those for recent and planned school construction projects in neighboring districts from 2021 to 2026, raising concerns about financial efficiency. For example, the average cost for new elementary schools in districts like Alvin, Alief, and Spring Branch ISDs ranges from $28 million to $46 million, whereas HISD’s bond allocates an average of $84.5 million per elementary school. For middle schools, neighboring districts show costs between $39 million and $82 million, while HISD’s proposal averages $162.9 million.

Bond proponents argue these costs will be refined if the bond passes, but this poses potential issues. If initial estimates are inflated, where will excess funds go? Accurate estimates are essential to ensure fair allocation, potentially allowing for additional resources to support other schools in need.

4. Financial Mismanagement and Misaligned Priorities in HISD Leadership

HISD’s budget deficit has ballooned to over $528 million, a concerning figure. Under state-appointed Superintendent Mike Miles, HISD’s leadership has prioritized expanding high-pay executive roles and micromanaging school leadership, often at the expense of essential student supports. The district has cut over 200 wraparound specialists, reduced special education and maintenance staff, and repurposed libraries into disciplinary centers, diminishing vital resources for students. Remaining wraparound specialists now cover multiple schools, and students are expected to access basic support at off-campus “Sunrise Centers,” raising accessibility concerns. Essential maintenance and repairs are also neglected, worsening HVAC and plumbing systems in many schools.

Meanwhile, the district continues expanding the New Education System (NES) to 130 campuses, despite protests from parents and teachers, consuming around $700 million of the $2.1 billion budget, while non-NES schools face up to 12% budget cuts. NES offers a rigid “teach bell-to-bell” approach, intensifying the focus on standardized test scores at the expense of a well-rounded education. Students are tested multiple times daily, often on the same day new material is introduced. This strategy prioritizes testing metrics over comprehensive development, depriving students of essential social-emotional learning, creative exploration, and critical thinking skills foundational for long-term success.

The HISD Board of Managers has largely approved Miles’ initiatives with minimal oversight, granting him broad authority. This disregard for community input and transparency has eroded trust, with community members questioning whether this administration can responsibly manage additional bond funds. Houston taxpayers deserve a bond focused on genuine educational priorities, not on unchecked administrative agendas.

5. Rushed Bond Process and Minimal Stakeholder Engagement

HISD’s bond process has moved from proposal to vote in just four months—well short of the year-long planning recommended by the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB). This rush has limited meaningful community engagement, with only four Community Advisory Committee meetings and five community meetings, reaching fewer than 300 people across a district of 189,000 students. Unlike the community-driven 2012 bond, HISD’s approach lacks transparency in assessing and prioritizing needs, with few schools set for major rebuilds while others with similar conditions receive only temporary fixes. This lack of community involvement and clear planning undermines the trust and accountability necessary for successful bond implementation.

6. Lack of Accountability Safeguards

While bond proponents cite safeguards like the SEC and other regulatory entities, the Bond Oversight Committee, and the Board of Managers, these mechanisms are limited in practice.

The Board of Managers has shown near-total alignment with the Superintendent, with only one opposing vote out of over 300 decisions, highlighting a rubber-stamp culture that lacks true oversight.

The Bond Oversight Committee reports to the Superintendent and Board before the public, lacking authority to prevent wasteful spending.

Municipal bond regulations ensure funds meet bondholders’ obligations and align with general categories but do not monitor spending efficiency.

This minimal scrutiny leaves spending effectiveness unchecked, underscoring the need for strong internal oversight and transparency. With HISD’s track record of budget mismanagement, it’s crucial to question whether this administration can be trusted to spend bond funds wisely for the benefit of students and the community.

7. High Turnover Among Teachers and Principals: Instability’s Impact on Education

HISD’s current administration has fostered a fear-driven, micromanaging culture that has eroded morale and driven out qualified professionals. This has led to unprecedented turnover rates, with over 40% of teachers and more than 50% of principals leaving the district. Such instability destabilizes school communities and disrupts students’ academic and emotional well-being. Many educators have been replaced with uncertified staff—20% of HISD teachers are now uncertified—reflecting a leadership that undervalues experienced, certified educators. An administration that disregards the role of skilled educators and treats them as replaceable assets is fundamentally unsuited to lead an organization dedicated to educating children and thus cannot be entrusted to build schools for the future.

8. Broad and United Opposition from Key Community Organizations

It’s rare to see Republicans, Democrats, teachers, parents, the NAACP, and religious organizations agree on a single issue, yet all are united in opposing this bond proposal. Organizations that previously supported HISD bonds—like the Houston Federation of Teachers, the NAACP (Houston Branch), and Community Voices for Public Education—now oppose this bond due to HISD’s lack of transparency, top-down leadership, and disregard for community engagement.

Conclusions

The HISD bond proposal exposes deep issues within district leadership, marked by a lack of transparency, cost inefficiency, misaligned priorities, and disregards for community involvement. Voting AGAINST this bond is not a rejection of better facilities for students; it’s a demand for responsible stewardship. Houston deserves a better bond. Stakeholders deserve to have a voice. This isn’t a vote against schools but a call for HISD to prove it’s ready to manage our investment. In business, leadership matters. A capable leader can turn around a struggling organization, while misaligned leadership can sink even the best-funded venture. Voting AGAINST it isn’t opposing investment in education—it’s about protecting that investment, ensuring HISD’s future reflects our community values and truly serves our students.