“Qui bono?”: The Impacts of Lone Star Governance on Districts and School Boards

• In Event: A Critical Examination of School Board Governance Models: Imagining a Better Future

Abstract

Purpose
Lone Star Governance (LSG), a derivative of SOFG, is a Texas-adopted school board governance model often mandated by the Commissioner of Education as a corrective measure for chronic low performance. While the Texas Education Agency (TEA) frames LSG as research-based and focused on improving student outcomes, its theory of action remains untested. Grounded in QuantCrit and critical sensemaking, we examine: (1) what patterns in accountability ratings emerge following LSG adoption; and (2) how board members interpret LSG within their local contexts. We examine how power, governance, and reform are experienced and contested in high-stakes policy environments.

Perspectives
The study is guided by QuantCrit and Critical Sense-Making. From a QuantCrit lens, accountability ratings and metrics are not neutral indicators of improvement (Gillborn et al., 2018), but tools the state uses to frame district "success and failure," obscuring inequities and reinforcing deficit narratives. Critical sensemaking centers how board members interpret LSG, foregrounding power, relationships, and institutional constraint (Mills et al., 2010).

Methods and Data Sources
We employed a transformative mixed-methods sequential exploratory design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). First, we merged data from a Public Information Request to the TEA, LSG-adopting districts and adoption years with district-level accountability data (assessment scores, ratings). We used descriptive analyses and OLS regression to examine whether LSG districts show different trends in test scores and accountability ratings compared to non-adopting districts.

These patterns inform our qualitative phase, where we conduct semi-structured interviews with current and former board members to explore how they interpret these changes and navigate LSG’s demands. To date, four interviews are complete, with ten more planned. Interviews (60-90 minutes) are transcribed and uploaded into Dedoose. Analysis includes inductive coding (Miles et al., 2020) and theoretical coding informed by critical sensemaking to understand how participants construct meaning and respond to LSG’s constraints.

Preliminary Findings
Since LSG’s 2017 launch, LSG districts experienced a 12.4-point decline in accountability ratings, steeper than the 7.4-point decline in non-LSG districts. In 2018, LSG districts averaged two points below non-LSG districts (84 vs. 86). By 2023, this gap grew to seven points (74 vs. 81). Several LSG districts, including Houston ISD, Fort Worth ISD, and Austin ISD, now face further state intervention.

Interview themes indicate LSG is: (1) a tool to silence dissent and censor discussion on budgets and equity under the guise of “student outcomes,” (2) deficit-oriented training that demoralizes board members, (3) a “money maker” for consultants, (4) performative and centered on rubric compliance, and (5) occasionally useful in goal setting and data use.

Significance
Findings raise questions about how LSG operates within Texas’ accountability landscape. While some board members described benefits related to structure and goal-setting, observed patterns and experiences suggest widening performance disparities in LSG districts. This study contributes to broader debates on the role of state-imposed reforms in reshaping local control, particularly in school board governance.

Authors

• Rachel Sue White, University of Texas at Austin

• Christina Bustos, Arizona State University

• Lolita A. Tabron, University of Denver