At least 14 Texas school districts are now one year away from potentially triggering state takeover proceedings after preliminary 2026 accountability ratings showed that at least one campus in each district received a fourth consecutive failing grade. The districts include Clarksville, Cleveland, Coldspring-Oakhurst, Elgin, Judson, Kingsville, Manor, Nacogdoches, Poteet, Runge, San Angelo, San Antonio, Spring and Waco ISDs. For families following Texas youth education coverage, the development is significant because another unacceptable campus rating in 2027 could give Texas Education Commissioner Mike Morath the authority to replace locally elected trustees with a board of managers or pursue campus closure under state law.
The situation is not yet a list of districts that will definitely be taken over. Districts still have until September 11, 2026, to appeal their preliminary ratings, and several have already taken steps intended to prevent state intervention. But the latest numbers establish a clear warning for communities across Texas: the 2026–27 school year will be a critical academic year for campuses with long histories of underperformance.
Why Four Consecutive F Ratings Matter
Texas’ accountability system is built around annual A-F ratings for public school districts and campuses. The ratings are based largely on student performance on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, commonly known as STAAR, along with other academic measures.
The 2026 results showed that overall performance across Texas remained relatively stable. Of more than 9,000 campuses, approximately 24% received an A, 34% received a B, 23% received a C, 10% received a D and 4% received an F. The system is intended to give families a standardized way to evaluate academic performance while creating consequences for campuses that repeatedly fail to meet state standards.
The critical threshold is five consecutive unacceptable ratings.
Under Texas law, when a campus receives five consecutive unacceptable ratings, the education commissioner can take action that affects the entire school district. That can include appointing a board of managers to replace the locally elected board of trustees or closing the campus.
That makes a fourth consecutive F more than another poor report card.
It represents a warning that a campus has entered the final year before the state’s strongest accountability consequences can be triggered.
The 14 Districts Now Under Pressure
The districts facing the 2027 risk are spread across different parts of Texas, but most are concentrated around the Austin, Houston and San Antonio metropolitan areas. Their sizes also vary substantially, from small rural districts to large urban systems serving tens of thousands of students.
| District | Region | Key 2026 Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Clarksville ISD | Northeast Texas | Campus with fourth consecutive F |
| Cleveland ISD | Greater Houston | Campus with fourth consecutive F |
| Coldspring-Oakhurst CISD | East Texas | Junior high with fourth consecutive F |
| Elgin ISD | Central Texas | Campus with fourth consecutive F |
| Judson ISD | San Antonio area | Campus with fourth consecutive F |
| Kingsville ISD | South Texas | Two campuses with consecutive failing ratings |
| Manor ISD | Austin area | Campus with fourth consecutive F |
| Nacogdoches ISD | East Texas | Campus with fourth consecutive F |
| Poteet ISD | South Texas | Campus with fourth consecutive F |
| Runge ISD | South Texas | Campus with fourth consecutive F |
| San Angelo ISD | West Texas | Campus with fourth consecutive F |
| San Antonio ISD | San Antonio | Multiple campuses affected |
| Spring ISD | Houston area | Multiple campuses remain at risk |
| Waco ISD | Central Texas | Multiple chronically underperforming campuses |
The Texas Tribune reported September 1 that the average enrollment among the at-risk districts is about 11,700 students. Nearly every campus eligible to trigger future state action also has a higher percentage of low-income students than the statewide average, along with higher proportions of Black and Hispanic students.
Those demographic patterns matter because the accountability debate is not simply about letter grades. It also raises questions about resource allocation, instructional support, teacher retention and whether districts have enough capacity to address persistent academic challenges.
The Texas accountability system provides the official framework through which those campus outcomes are evaluated.
Austin ISD Has Already Crossed The Five-Year Threshold
While the 14 districts are preparing for another year of pressure, Austin ISD provides a more immediate example of what the fifth consecutive failing rating can mean.
Two Austin campuses received their fifth consecutive failing rating in the preliminary 2026 results, making the district eligible for state intervention. Austin also has nine additional campuses with four consecutive failing ratings, meaning those schools could become potential takeover triggers in a future cycle if their performance does not improve.
The Austin case demonstrates why the 2026–27 school year is so important for the 14 districts now on the watch list.
One academic improvement can change the trajectory.
A campus moving from an F to a D or higher breaks the sequence of consecutive unacceptable ratings. Conversely, another failing result can bring the district directly into the state’s intervention process.
That makes every point earned in the 2026–27 accountability cycle potentially consequential.
Spring ISD Shows That A Turnaround Is Possible
The most encouraging example among the districts at risk may be Spring ISD, which avoided having DeKaney High School reach a fifth consecutive failing rating.
DeKaney improved its score by 21 points, moving from an F to a C in the 2026 ratings. Spring ISD also improved its overall district rating from a D to a C.
That did not eliminate all of the district’s concerns.
Salyers Elementary and Bammel Middle School remain on the state’s radar after receiving their fourth consecutive failing ratings. State data showed that, on average, fewer than one-quarter of students at each campus met grade level on STAAR assessments this year.
Spring Superintendent Kregg Cuellar emphasized that the objective should extend beyond changing the letter attached to a campus.
“The goal is not simply to improve a rating,” Cuellar said in a district statement. “The goal is to improve outcomes for all students — and that work continues.”
That distinction is important.
A campus can technically avoid a takeover by improving its accountability rating, but sustainable improvement requires stronger student achievement, effective instruction and continued academic growth.
Small Districts Face A Different Kind Of Risk
The consequences of persistent failing ratings can be especially significant in smaller communities.
Coldspring-Oakhurst CISD, located roughly an hour north of Houston, enrolls approximately 1,600 students. About 360 attend its junior high school, which received its fourth consecutive failing rating in 2026. The campus has not earned a passing grade since Texas began issuing A-F ratings in 2019.
For a large urban district, a failing campus can be one of dozens of schools.
For a small district, the affected campus may serve a substantial share of the local student population.
That creates a difficult choice for families.
If a campus closes, students may have to travel farther to attend another school. If it remains open without significant improvement, students continue attending a school with a long history of unacceptable ratings.
Superintendent Bryan Taulton said Coldspring-Oakhurst educators have been using a data-driven approach to improve performance. The junior high needs to raise its score by only three points to reach the state’s acceptable threshold in the next cycle.
That three-point gap illustrates how accountability systems can turn relatively small changes in academic performance into major consequences for an entire community.
San Antonio ISD Is Using Multiple Strategies
San Antonio ISD, one of the state’s larger urban districts, provides another example of how districts are attempting to avoid the fifth-year trigger.
Four San Antonio ISD schools received their fourth consecutive failing rating in 2026. District officials used Senate Bill 1882 partnerships at two campuses and successfully closed a third.
The fourth campus presented a more complicated situation. The Texas Education Agency rejected an attempt to remove its state campus identification number, and the school’s accountability history was transferred to Barkley-Ruiz Elementary School. San Antonio ISD serves approximately 42,548 students.
The situation demonstrates why school closures do not necessarily erase accountability history.
Texas has recently tightened rules around the closure of persistently underperforming campuses. When a school closes, the state can transfer its campus identification number and accountability history to the campus receiving most of its students.
That prevents districts from simply treating a closure as a reset button.
The goal is to ensure that student outcomes, rather than the physical identity of a campus, remain at the center of accountability.
Senate Bill 1882 Gives Districts Another Option
Not every district approaching the fifth consecutive failing rating will necessarily face a traditional state takeover.
Senate Bill 1882 provides another path.
Under the partnership model, a district can partner with an outside organization such as a charter network, higher education institution, nonprofit or government entity to manage a struggling campus. Certain accountability-related sanctions can then be paused for two years.
Several districts have already used the approach.
Edgewood ISD, Everman ISD and Texarkana ISD partnered with the charter network Third Future Schools at eligible campuses. Waco ISD also works with Third Future Schools at two campuses with four consecutive failing ratings.
The strategy effectively creates additional time for academic improvement without immediately replacing the district’s entire governing structure.
But it also shifts some responsibility for school operations to an outside partner.
That means families and educators must evaluate not only whether a partnership prevents state takeover, but whether the partner can actually produce stronger academic outcomes.
Waco ISD Is Trying To Build Momentum
Waco ISD has another campus that remains exposed to the 2027 accountability cycle: G.W. Carver Middle School.
The campus increased its accountability score from 45 to 57 in 2026. A score of 60 is needed to earn a D under the state’s system.
That eight-point gap is significant because Waco is already using outside partnerships at two other campuses that have reached the four-year threshold.
District spokesperson Jill Anderson said Waco officials are confident that G.W. Carver can continue improving, citing the district’s lowest teacher turnover in years and stronger student performance.
Teacher retention is particularly relevant.
Academic improvement depends heavily on instructional consistency. A campus experiencing frequent teacher departures can struggle to maintain curriculum continuity, build relationships with students and implement long-term intervention strategies.
If Waco can combine improved teacher retention with stronger student performance, the district could provide another example of how a campus can move away from the takeover threshold without relying solely on a structural change.
The Accountability Clock Is Now Running
The 14 districts have roughly one academic year to demonstrate that their struggling campuses can improve.
That creates several immediate priorities for district leaders.
First, they must understand exactly which academic areas are driving the failing scores. Second, they must determine whether existing turnaround plans are producing measurable gains. Third, they need to maintain teacher stability and provide targeted instructional support. Finally, they must communicate clearly with families about what is changing.
Texas requires districts to develop turnaround plans for campuses that receive multiple consecutive failing ratings. Those plans become increasingly important as a campus approaches the fifth-year threshold.
The challenge is that there is no single strategy that guarantees a turnaround.
Some districts are changing reading and mathematics materials. Others are emphasizing instructional coaching, leadership changes, tutoring or partnerships.
The 2027 ratings will ultimately determine whether those interventions worked.
Students Will Experience The Consequences First
The state takeover debate is often framed around elected trustees, superintendents and the Texas Education Agency.
For students, however, the consequences are much more immediate.
A state takeover can alter campus leadership, instructional priorities, staffing structures and district governance. A campus closure can change where students attend school and how far they travel. An outside partnership can change the way a school operates.
The academic rating itself is therefore only the visible part of a much larger process.
For students at the 14 districts, the central issue is whether the 2026–27 school year produces meaningful academic improvement.
A higher rating can prevent state intervention.
More importantly, stronger academic performance can give students better preparation for graduation, college, technical education and the workforce.
2027 Will Test Whether Turnarounds Can Last
Texas’ latest accountability results create a clear dividing line for these districts.
The 2026 ratings show that persistent academic problems remain at specific campuses, but they also show that turnarounds are possible. Spring ISD’s DeKaney High School improved by 21 points. Waco’s G.W. Carver Middle School moved from 45 to 57. Coldspring-Oakhurst’s junior high needs only three additional points to reach the acceptable threshold.
Those examples suggest that the distance between chronic failure and acceptable performance is not necessarily permanent.
But the districts cannot rely on incremental improvement alone.
The 2027 accountability cycle will determine whether their strategies are strong enough to break years of unacceptable performance.
For communities in Clarksville, Cleveland, Coldspring-Oakhurst, Elgin, Judson, Kingsville, Manor, Nacogdoches, Poteet, Runge, San Angelo, San Antonio, Spring and Waco, the stakes are therefore unusually high.
A fifth consecutive F could bring the state directly into local school governance.
A passing rating could stop that process and give local leaders another opportunity to continue their own turnaround strategies.
The next year will ultimately be judged by more than whether a district avoids a takeover. It will show whether schools that have struggled for years can deliver sustained academic gains for the students who depend on them.
That is the real accountability test facing Texas schools in 2027.