The Houston Chronicle wants accountability for the HISD takeover while conveniently skipping its own part in promoting it. Its October 21 editorial endorses ending state control, recounts warnings about Mike Miles, and catalogs the damage that followed. Missing is an acknowledgment that its own editorial board helped sell Houston on the intervention.
The paper’s earlier position was explicit. In a December 2019 editorial, the board declared: “We see the takeover, now that it’s all but certain, as an opportunity to be embraced rather than contested.” Houston residents fighting to preserve their elected school board were being told by the city’s major newspaper to embrace the loss of that control.
The Chronicle knew there were reasons to doubt the state’s promises. Its December 26, 2019 editorial acknowledged the poor national record of state takeovers. Nevertheless, it assured readers that “the takeover will provide a means for great changes for the good.” The board recognized the risk and chose to promote the opportunity. It should own that judgment.
When Mike Miles arrived, the editorial board again urged Houston to give the state’s choice a chance. Its June 1, 2023 editorial presented his proposed overhaul as a potential transformation for the better. That same editorial reported his anticipated elimination of librarian positions at selected schools. The possibility of those cuts was already before the board when it encouraged readers to hear him out.
Now the Chronicle opens with the people who warned Houston about Miles. Today’s editorial recounts Dallas educators traveling here to sound the alarm, then describes gutted libraries, departing teachers, falling enrollment and a culture of fear. Those warnings deserve recognition. So does the newspaper’s decision to lend credibility to the leadership those educators feared.
An editorial board is entitled to change its mind, and readers are entitled to an honest accounting of that change. One sentence would have helped: We urged Houston to embrace this takeover, and the results require us to reconsider our judgment. Instead, readers get an indictment of the takeover without a reckoning with the paper’s earlier advocacy.
The Chronicle should apply its demand for accountability to itself. Morath and Miles must answer for their decisions. The editorial board should explain why it encouraged Houston to trust the intervention, how it weighed the warnings, and what it got wrong. A newspaper that urges its community down a consequential road owes that community more than directions to the exit.
___________
December 30, 2019 — They told readers to embrace it. In “HISD at a crossroads: A call to all Houstonians to participate,” the board wrote:
“We see the takeover, now that it’s all but certain, as an opportunity to be embraced rather than contested.”
The editorial encouraged people to support the transition from elected trustees to state-appointed managers, while demanding community involvement and accountability. houstonchronicle.com
December 26, 2019 — They argued that the takeover could deliver major improvements. In the opening editorial of that four-part series, the board acknowledged the poor national record of state takeovers, but nevertheless declared:
“the takeover will provide a means for great changes for the good.”
They argued that appointed managers could overhaul ineffective practices and introduce substantial reforms. houstonchronicle.com
June 1, 2023 — They urged Houston to give Mike Miles a chance. In their editorial supporting his opportunity to lead, the board wrote:
“But it’s in the best interest of Houston students, and our city as a whole, that Miles succeeds.”
The editorial described his plans favorably while acknowledging likely disruption. It also reported his anticipated cuts to librarian positions at selected campuses.
