One charter left standing. Questions about accountability remain.

---

The annual charter application process doesn’t attract much public attention, but this year’s cycle produced a result that deserves a closer look. Of the five charter applicants that advanced to the TEA’s interview stage, only one was ultimately recommended by Commissioner Mike Morath to move forward to the State Board of Education (SBOE) for final approval later this month. On its face, that might sound like a sign that the review process is working exactly as intended: four applicants were rejected, one survived, and standards were applied. However, a closer examination of the lone remaining applicant raises a different question: if this is the best application left standing, what does that say about the state’s approach to charter approval and accountability? 

The applicant, Texas High School for Accelerated Learning (THSAL), proposes opening two campuses serving grades 7-12 in the Aldine and Spring ISD areas, with a maximum enrollment of 900 students. The schools would operate as alternative accountability dropout recovery campuses, a category created to serve students who’ve struggled in traditional educational settings. Supporting students at risk of dropping out is a critical mission. The concern is who would actually be running these schools, how public money would flow through the organization, and how much oversight the state would realistically have once approval is granted. Texans can review the full THSAL application ahead of the board’s final vote. 

According to the application, THSAL would be managed almost entirely by a for-profit Florida-based charter management organization (CMO) operating under the name Second Mile Education. While the THSAL charter board in Texas would retain authority over a limited number of decisions, the management company would oversee day-to-day operations, including hiring staff, handling financial transactions, and managing key administrative functions. Under the proposed agreement, the management company would receive a fee equal to 14% of all state revenue received by the school, along with additional fees for board support and facilities assistance. At the same time, portions of the company’s financial disclosures reportedly redacted significant information, including descriptions of related-party transactions that would normally help policymakers and the public understand where taxpayer dollars are ultimately going. 

Once a charter is approved by the SBOE, expansion decisions are made administratively through the commissioner’s office at TEA, with no public input. What may begin as two campuses serving 900 students in the Houston area can eventually become something much larger, expanding to other communities, which is why charter approvals have statewide implications even when the initial proposal appears geographically limited. For example, IDEA charter now operates 125 campuses throughout Texas. 

The concerns surrounding THSAL become even more significant when viewed alongside the history of the CMO itself. Second Mile Education is a rebranded version of an organization previously known as White Hat Management, which has been the subject of scrutiny in other states. A ProPublica investigation found that some alternative charter schools affiliated with the same corporate leadership allowed hundreds of students to leave quickly without degrees and with limited prospects, while the schools avoided counting them as dropouts. Alternative education programs serve some of the most vulnerable students in the system, and because of that, they should require a lot more accountability. 

That difference in accountability becomes especially noticeable when compared to the level of scrutiny facing Texas school districts. Traditional districts face A-F accountability ratings, state interventions, financial audits, and, in extreme cases (though they have certainly gotten a lot more common the last few years), the possibility of state takeover. Over the last decade, Texas has repeatedly justified aggressive intervention in public school districts by arguing that accountability demands it. Charters shouldn’t be exempt from that same principle, especially when they receive more public dollars and can expand beyond their originally approved footprint with no public input. 

The irony is that this year’s charter process actually demonstrates that stronger oversight can work. Leaders at Heart Academy, A.R.T.S. Academy, Nova STEAM Academy, and The Boone School of Agriculture all failed to advance to the SBOE for final approval due to applicants’ poor qualifications and subpar applications, suggesting the review process is capable of rejecting applications that fall short of expectations. The question now is whether those same expectations will be applied to the final applicant.

Public testimony before the State Board of Education is scheduled for Wednesday, June 24th, with a final vote expected Friday, June 26. Members and public education advocates can register to testify from Tuesday, June 15 at 8 am, through Friday, June 19 at 5 pm, and they can also contact their SBOE representative before the vote. Between now and then, Texans have an opportunity to ask questions about governance, transparency, finances, student outcomes, and the role of for-profit management companies in publicly funded education. 

For years, charter advocates have argued that innovation requires flexibility, but flexibility shouldn’t come at the expense of transparency and accountability. This month, the SBOE has an opportunity to show whether accountability means the same thing for everyone. If Texas is going to hold public schools accountable for every dollar spent and every student served, then charter applicants should be prepared to meet that same standard. Anything less than this creates a double standard that Texas students, educators, and taxpayers can’t afford to gamble on.