The Texas Teacher Exodus: Causes, Consequences, and Strategic Actions for District Leadership

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

Personal Note: I once worked for a bank that was the Finance Advisor to Dallas ISD. We were notified that bond rating agency Standard & Poor’s wanted to meet with us, along with the key DISD officials. We were prepared to talk about tax rates, fund balances, and key financial ratios. We did focus on those topics, but only for 20 minutes out of the 75-minute-long meeting. It turns out, that was not why they wanted to meet. The bulk of the meeting was spent answering their questions about the deliberate steps DISD was taking to retain math and science teachers. They also wanted to know about the status of the school buildings and facilities. After the meeting was over, it became apparent that their perspective included large school districts across the entire U.S. They knew the warning signs of decay had been uncovered by asking the questions they did. LFM

Audience: Boards of Trustees, Superintendents, and Education Leaders
Purpose: To provide a comprehensive, Texas-specific analysis of why teachers are leaving the profession in unprecedented numbers, how this affects districts and students, and what leaders can realistically do locally — and what must be addressed at the state level.


Executive Summary

Texas is facing the most serious teacher-retention crisis in its modern era. According to the Texas Education Agency (TEA), more than 41,000 teachers left the classroom in the 2021–2022 school year, resulting in a statewide attrition rate of approximately 13 percent, the highest ever recorded. In many communities — including high-poverty districts, fast-growth suburban environments, and certain urban districts — first-year teacher attrition rates have reached or exceeded 20 percent, indicating that the profession is losing new teachers almost as fast as it recruits them.

Simultaneously, Texas has experienced a nearly 30 percent decline in educator-preparation program enrollment over the past decade. This means that as more teachers exit, fewer new teachers are entering the pipeline. Districts increasingly rely on uncertified teachers, alternatively certified candidates, and long-term substitutes to fill critical vacancies. Veteran teachers, many of whom once expected to finish their careers in the classroom, are retiring early or leaving for alternative professions.

This crisis is not caused by a single factor. It is the combined result of stagnant compensation, rising healthcare costs, expanding workloads driven by state mandates, increasingly complex student behavioral and mental-health needs, political pressure on curriculum and instruction, facility and resource challenges, post-pandemic learning gaps, and the growing appeal of alternative careers. Teachers are not leaving because they no longer care. They are leaving because the conditions of the job, not the mission, have become unsustainable.

This white paper provides a detailed exploration of these forces and offers both district-level strategies and state-level advocacy priorities needed to stabilize and rebuild the Texas educator workforce. A separate forthcoming paper will address the structural realities of Texas school funding, which remain the foundational policy challenge underlying most of the issues described here.


I. Compensation: A System That Cannot Sustain a Stable Teaching Workforce

1. Real Teacher Pay in Texas Lags Behind Inflation and Cost of Living

Although Texas reports an average teacher salary of roughly $60,000, this number is misleading when viewed through the lens of actual purchasing power. When adjusted for regional housing costs, healthcare premiums, inflation, and other basic living expenses, Texas ranks near the bottom nationally in real teacher pay. Teachers increasingly find that their paychecks do not cover basic family needs such as rent or mortgage payments, childcare, transportation, and food. As a result, many educators are forced to take second jobs in the evenings, weekends, or summers simply to maintain financial stability.

The affordability crisis is particularly acute in metropolitan regions such as Austin, Dallas–Fort Worth, and Houston, where housing costs have risen far faster than teacher salaries. Young teachers entering the profession with student loan debt often face the stark reality that they cannot afford to live in the communities where they work. Over time, financial instability erodes commitment to the profession, pushes educators into burnout, and accelerates their transition to higher-paying fields.

2. Property-Tax Compression Has Reduced District Salary Flexibility

Texas’ system of school finance relies heavily on local property taxes to fund public education. Over recent legislative sessions, the state has aggressively compressed local school tax rates in an effort to reduce the property-tax burden on homeowners. While tax relief may be a positive political talking point, the practical consequence is that districts have far less flexibility to raise revenue when they need to adjust salaries or maintain competitive compensation.

When the state compresses local tax rates but does not raise the basic allotment proportionally, districts lose one of their few tools for increasing salaries: local tax adjustments. This means that when teacher shortages intensify, or districts fall behind neighboring districts in compensation, they have limited options to respond. Wealthier districts — supported by high-value commercial and residential property — can still offer higher salaries and competitive stipends. Meanwhile, property-poor districts struggle to keep up, deepening workforce inequities across Texas.

3. TRS–ActiveCare Health Insurance Erodes Teacher Take-Home Pay

The Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) administers the TRS–ActiveCare health insurance program used by most districts. Over the past decade, premiums — especially for family coverage — have increased dramatically. It is now common for teachers to pay between $1,200 and $1,500 per month for family health insurance, a figure that consumes a disproportionate percentage of their salary. Deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums have also risen, making healthcare costs unpredictable and financially stressful.

Teachers frequently report that despite annual raises, their real take-home pay is actually lower today than it was ten years ago, once rising insurance premiums are factored in. These financial pressures are unsustainable and force educators to choose between healthcare access and other essential expenses. Over time, the inadequacy of TRS–ActiveCare contributes directly to teacher dissatisfaction and attrition.

4. Lack of Social Security and Weak TRS Retirement Security

Unlike many professions, teachers in Texas do not pay into the federal Social Security system for their teaching service. This means that their retirement security depends almost entirely on the Teacher Retirement System (TRS), a defined-benefit pension fund. Historically, the state has not consistently provided cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to TRS retirees, meaning that pension income loses value each year due to inflation.

This lack of predictable retirement protection creates significant anxiety, particularly for mid-career teachers who are beginning to assess long-term financial needs. When combined with stagnant wages and rising workloads, poor retirement security becomes a powerful motivator for teachers to exit the profession early in favor of careers that offer Social Security participation or more robust retirement packages. As big as this topic is, compensation and affordability are not the most critical message here.


II. Workload and Mandates: A Profession That Only Adds and Never Subtracts

1. Reading Academies: A Case Study in Unfunded Mandates

The Texas Reading Academies, required under House Bill 3 (HB 3), mandate 60–120 hours of rigorous coursework for many elementary teachers and certain secondary teachers. Although the pedagogical intentions behind the program may be sound, the practical implementation has placed immense strain on educators. Teachers are typically expected to complete the coursework outside of their contractual hours, during nights, weekends, and school breaks.

Many educators describe the Reading Academies as equivalent to taking on a second unpaid job. They express frustration that the state did not allocate time, substitute coverage, or compensation to offset the substantial workload. The Reading Academies have become a symbol of how state expectations frequently expand without adjusting teacher capacity or providing tangible support. This dynamic contributes significantly to burnout and decisions to leave the profession.

2. Accelerated Instruction Under House Bill 4545

House Bill 4545 (HB 4545) introduced new requirements for accelerated instruction for students who do not pass the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR). Teachers must provide 30–60 hours of individualized tutoring or small-group instruction for each student who did not meet standard — and must document every intervention session in detail.

In high-poverty or high-mobility schools, where large numbers of students require accelerated instruction, the workload becomes overwhelming. Teachers often find themselves trying to schedule tutoring during already full instructional days or extending their work hours significantly. The administrative documentation required to comply with HB 4545 adds yet another layer of workload. This mandate, while well-intentioned, highlights the disconnect between policy design and classroom reality.

3. Administrative Compliance Has Replaced Instructional Planning

Teachers now spend substantial portions of their workday completing compliance tasks. These tasks include Response to Intervention (RTI) documentation, Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) tracking, English Language Learner (ELL) paperwork, special education documentation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) entries, lesson plan submissions, benchmark test analysis, and professional learning documentation.

Each of these requirements may have merit individually, but together they consume a disproportionate share of teachers’ time. Teachers report feeling like they spend more time proving they taught than actually teaching. This administrative burden reduces time available for lesson planning, parent communication, grading, and professional development. Over time, it diminishes both instructional quality and teacher morale.

4. Technology Has Multiplied Tasks Instead of Simplifying Them

Districts have adopted multiple digital platforms — often simultaneously — for grades, attendance, intervention documentation, communication, professional development, testing, and walkthrough feedback. These platforms frequently do not integrate with each other, forcing teachers to enter the same data in multiple places. Notifications and alerts require constant monitoring, adding to mental load.

Rather than streamlining work, technology has often created more tasks, more accountability checkpoints, and more compliance expectations. Teachers spend significant time troubleshooting devices, navigating incompatible systems, and re-entering information. The growing digital infrastructure has not reduced workload; it has intensified it.


III. Classroom Discipline and Safety: The New Front Line

1. Behavioral Shifts Since the Pandemic

Teachers across Texas report profound changes in student behavior since the COVID-19 pandemic. They describe increased aggression, both verbal and physical, among students who previously might have shown milder forms of misbehavior. More students exhibit defiance, refusing outright to complete work or follow teacher directions. In addition, many students appear to struggle with basic interpersonal skills, such as resolving conflicts, showing respect for peers and adults, or managing frustration.

Teachers also observe high levels of emotional dysregulation. Some students display anxiety, withdrawal, or trauma responses that interfere with learning. Others exhibit impulsive, unpredictable behaviors that disrupt entire classrooms. The combination of these trends has increased the emotional and physical demands of classroom management, leaving teachers feeling overwhelmed and unsupported.

2. Discipline Systems That Do Not Adequately Support Teachers

Many teachers express concern that district discipline systems do not provide adequate support when serious misbehavior occurs. In some districts, administrators discourage teachers from writing office referrals, either to keep discipline metrics low or to align with certain philosophical approaches. As a result, students who engage in repeated or severe misconduct are often returned to the same classroom quickly, sometimes within minutes, without meaningful intervention or consequences.

Teachers frequently report feeling that their authority has been undermined, leaving them responsible for managing behavior that requires higher levels of support. Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs (DAEPs), which once served as placements for chronic or serious misconduct, are sometimes limited by capacity, funding, or policy, reducing their availability. Without consistent consequences or support structures, teachers are left to navigate difficult situations alone, contributing significantly to turnover.

3. Safety Mandates Without Staffing Support

Following the tragedy in Uvalde, Texas adopted a range of new safety requirements, including weekly locked-door checks, intruder detection audits, expanded emergency drills, and heightened facility documentation. While these measures aim to enhance campus safety, many districts lack the staffing needed to implement them effectively.

As a result, teachers and principals — already overloaded with instructional and administrative duties — often take on additional responsibilities related to safety compliance. This includes checking doors, documenting drill participation, and responding to facility alerts. These tasks, though important, add another layer of responsibility to educators’ workload without providing additional compensation or time. Over time, these mandates contribute to stress and burnout.

4. Emotional and Physical Safety as Departure Drivers

Teachers increasingly cite both emotional and physical safety concerns as reasons for leaving the profession. Verbal aggression toward teachers has increased in some campuses, and the frequency of physical altercations among students has risen. Teachers often report feeling unsafe in certain environments, particularly when aggressive behavior goes unaddressed. Emotional exhaustion is also widespread, as teachers attempt to support students dealing with trauma, grief, and mental-health struggles.

Without adequate mental-health staff, behavior specialists, or campus safety personnel, teachers shoulder the burden of managing these challenges. When educators feel unsafe or unsupported in addressing dangerous or emotionally draining situations, they are far more likely to leave the profession entirely.


IV. Professional Respect and Autonomy: The Erosion of Trust

1. Declining Public Respect for Teachers

Teachers report a noticeable decline in public respect over the last decade. Parents and community members increasingly question professional decisions, challenge curriculum materials, and criticize disciplinary actions. Social media amplifies these criticisms, sometimes distorting or misrepresenting the work teachers do. Educators often feel scrutinized rather than supported, and negative online narratives contribute to demoralization.

This erosion of respect has cultural and psychological impacts. Teaching is a profession deeply tied to personal identity and moral purpose. When society appears to undervalue or distrust educators, it weakens their sense of mission and long-term commitment. Many educators leave not because they dislike teaching but because they no longer feel valued in their communities.

2. Political Polarization and Culture-War Pressures

Education has become a central battleground in national and state-level political debates. Teachers now face intense scrutiny over instructional materials, library collections, social studies content, and classroom discussions about race, identity, or current events. Legislative proposals and public advocacy campaigns often portray teachers as ideological actors rather than trained professionals implementing state-approved curriculum.

This politicization creates a climate of fear and self-censorship. Teachers worry that a lesson taken out of context or a student complaint could result in disciplinary action, public criticism, or legal challenges. Many educators describe feeling caught between conflicting political demands, making it increasingly difficult to provide balanced, high-quality instruction. Over time, this environment pushes teachers away from the profession.

3. Loss of Instructional Autonomy

In many districts, the adoption of scripted curriculum has reduced teacher control over instructional decisions. Teachers are required to follow precise pacing guides, use exact wording, or implement rigid lesson structures designed to increase consistency. While these systems may support novice teachers, they can constrain experienced educators who possess deep knowledge of effective instructional strategies.

The loss of autonomy contributes directly to lower job satisfaction. Teachers who cannot adapt lessons to student needs or interests feel disconnected from their craft. Many educators entered teaching because they value creativity, problem-solving, and personal connection through instruction. When they perceive that the system views them merely as deliverers of predesigned scripts, the work loses meaning and joy, accelerating attrition.


V. Standardized Testing and Accountability Pressure

1. STAAR Dominates Instructional Priorities

The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) remains the dominant driver of instructional focus and campus accountability. Teachers frequently report that much of the school year is structured around preparing students for STAAR-related content. This includes regular practice tests, interim assessments, targeted remediation cycles, data-analysis meetings, and required documentation of interventions.

As a result, instructional time that might otherwise be devoted to enrichment, project-based learning, or deeper exploration of content is instead allocated to test preparation. The pressure to ensure that students meet proficiency targets often narrows the curriculum, reducing opportunities for creativity, critical thinking, and joy in learning. Over time, teachers find that the essence of their work — inspiring curiosity and developing lifelong learners — has been overshadowed by the need to produce test scores.

2. STAAR Redesign Increased Workload

In 2023, Texas redesigned the STAAR exam to include constructed-response questions requiring more extensive student writing and demonstration of critical thinking. While these changes may align better with rigorous academic standards, they also significantly increased teacher workload. Teachers must now incorporate more writing instruction into their curriculum, provide detailed feedback on student responses, and develop new strategies for helping students navigate complex tasks.

The redesign also requires teachers to understand new scoring rubrics and assessment frameworks. Many educators report spending additional time outside of school reviewing exemplar responses, analyzing practice essays, and designing instructional materials. Without additional time or support, teachers experience these changes as yet another workload increase layered onto existing responsibilities.

3. A–F Accountability System is Punitive in High-Poverty Contexts

Texas assigns A–F ratings to schools based largely on STAAR results and student growth metrics. High-poverty campuses, which often serve large populations of English language learners, students with disabilities, or highly mobile students, face significant structural challenges in meeting these measures. Even when teachers are highly skilled and deeply committed, their campuses may struggle to achieve ratings that reflect their efforts.

Teachers working in low-rated campuses frequently experience heightened stress, public criticism, and pressure from administrators to raise scores rapidly. These conditions contribute to higher turnover, creating cycles of instability that further depress performance. Many educators view the A–F system as inequitable and demoralizing because it fails to account for the broader social and economic factors that influence student outcomes.

4. Loss of Joy in Teaching

The cumulative effect of testing and accountability pressures is a profound loss of joy in teaching. Many educators describe feeling like they can no longer develop creative lessons, pursue student interests, or engage in meaningful projects because so much time is devoted to test preparation. Activities that once sparked excitement and curiosity are often replaced with worksheets, practice passages, and repetitive drills.

When teachers lose the ability to inspire students and use their professional judgment to shape instruction, the work becomes mechanical and unfulfilling. Over time, this loss of purpose and joy leads many to leave the profession altogether, particularly those who entered teaching because of their passion for subject matter and human connection.


VI. Resource and Facility Challenges

1. Chronic Under-Resourcing in Many Schools

Teachers across Texas frequently report that they lack essential instructional materials. These shortages include outdated or insufficient textbooks, malfunctioning technology, limited science lab equipment, and inadequate classroom supplies such as paper, markers, and manipulatives. In special education settings, teachers often lack the specialized tools needed to support students with significant needs.

As a result, many teachers spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars of their own money each year to provide materials. They purchase books, classroom decorations, software subscriptions, office supplies, and even snacks for hungry students. While many educators view this as part of their commitment to students, it is not sustainable long-term. Chronic underfunding creates frustration and signals to teachers that their work is not appropriately supported.

2. Facility Conditions Undermine Learning

Teachers in older or poorly maintained buildings frequently describe the physical environment as a daily source of stress. In some campuses, roof leaks force teachers to move students away from wet ceiling tiles or rearrange desks to avoid dripping water. HVAC malfunctions can make classrooms unbearably hot in August and September or uncomfortably cold during winter months, causing discomfort that disrupts learning. Pest control issues — including insects, rodents, or mold — create unsanitary conditions that undermine professional pride and student well-being.

These facility challenges communicate an unspoken message that the system does not value the physical environment in which teachers are expected to work. When educators spend their days in buildings with peeling paint, broken blinds, stained ceiling panels, and outdated portable classrooms, they feel that the state and district undervalue both students and staff. Modern facilities do not merely improve aesthetics; they improve teacher morale, retention, and the community’s confidence in the school system. Inadequate facilities, by contrast, can become a significant factor in a teacher’s decision to seek employment elsewhere.

3. Fast-Growth District Strain

Fast-growth districts across Texas — such as those in the Dallas–Fort Worth suburbs, Central Texas, and parts of Houston’s outer ring — face unique pressures that amplify teacher attrition. These districts often add thousands of students each year, necessitating rapid construction of new campuses, boundary adjustments, and reassignments of staff. Teachers may find themselves moved to new campuses, grade levels, or subjects with little notice, reducing continuity and increasing stress.

Overcrowding is another significant challenge. In some fast-growth areas, elementary classrooms reach 30–35 students, while middle and high school core classes swell to 35–40. These numbers make it extremely difficult for teachers to provide individualized attention, deliver specialized services, or manage diverse behavioral needs. Support staff — such as instructional aides, behavior specialists, and interventionists — often do not keep pace with enrollment growth, leaving teachers to absorb the impact. While growth can provide new facilities and opportunities, it also creates instability that contributes directly to early and mid-career turnover.


VII. The Pandemic’s Enduring Legacy on Teacher Retention

1. Emergency Instruction Burnout

When the COVID-19 pandemic forced schools across Texas to close, teachers were required to reinvent their instructional methods almost overnight. They mastered unfamiliar digital platforms, adapted lessons to virtual formats, and attempted to maintain engagement among students they often could not see. Many teachers tried to balance working from home while supervising their own children’s remote schooling. This period was emotionally and professionally exhausting, with teachers functioning more like first responders than traditional educators.

Even after returning to in-person learning, many teachers carried with them deep exhaustion and unresolved trauma from the crisis period. Challenges associated with technology failures, inconsistent attendance, and constant uncertainty left lasting emotional scars. Many educators describe feeling like they “lost their reserve” during the pandemic, leading to a slower recovery and significantly lower resilience when new mandates, initiatives, or crises emerged.

2. New Parent Scrutiny and Expectations

Remote learning gave many parents a real-time view into classroom instruction, assignments, pacing, and teacher-student interactions. For some families, this visibility increased appreciation for teachers’ work. But for others, it led to heightened criticism, unrealistic expectations, and assumptions that every decision made by a teacher should be open for debate. Teachers returned to classrooms facing increased communication demands, including more frequent emails, texts, complaints, and requests for exceptions.

This change in parent-school dynamics added pressure on teachers who were already stretched thin. Some educators felt they were under a microscope, with daily tasks scrutinized more intensely than ever before. The combination of higher expectations and reduced grace from families has contributed to teacher burnout and feelings of inadequacy or frustration. Parents who are highly involved in their children’s education are evident when students arrive in the classroom. However, some parents don’t seem engaged or supportive. Many teachers feel like they are having to parent students.

Technology is ruining the dopamine receptors of an entire generation of children. They are addicted to screens. Some kids spend all their free time on an iPad at home. Then go to school and are exposed to more technology. Some teachers feel like their lesson plans will never be as engaging as an overstimulating video/game on iPads or tablets. Teachers can tell a difference in “iPad kids vs. non-IPad kids” 

3. Deepened Student Needs and Limited Additional Support

Students re-entered classrooms after the pandemic with significant academic gaps, weakened social skills, and increased emotional and mental-health needs. Teachers found themselves responsible not only for catching students up academically but also for rebuilding foundational routines, supporting social-emotional development, and addressing trauma-related behaviors.

However, the number of counselors, social workers, school psychologists, and behavior specialists did not increase at the same pace as student needs. Because of this mismatch, teachers often had to take on informal mental-health roles, addressing crises in the moment while continuing to manage instruction. Many teachers report that this dual responsibility — academic and therapeutic — is simply unsustainable without additional support.


VIII. Alternative Career Options Pull Teachers Away

Teachers possess highly transferable skills: communication, leadership, organization, project management, public speaking, conflict resolution, curriculum design, and relationship-building. Employers in private industry, nonprofit organizations, and the public sector increasingly recognize the value of these skills, and they actively recruit educators.

Many teachers transition into corporate training roles, which allow them to use their instructional skills without the behavioral challenges or testing pressure prevalent in schools. Others move into human resources, where their experience managing diverse groups of people becomes an asset. Instructional design, educational publishing, and EdTech (educational technology) companies offer opportunities for teachers to apply their curriculum expertise while earning significantly higher salaries. Remote-work opportunities — which exploded after the pandemic — are especially attractive to teachers who crave flexibility and a healthier work-life balance.

When teachers compare the emotional toll of classroom teaching with the stability, autonomy, and compensation available in other fields, many find it difficult to justify staying. The opportunity cost of remaining in education continues to grow as more doorways open to highly skilled educators.


IX. The Collapsing Teacher Pipeline

1. Declining Interest in Teaching as a Career

Enrollment in educator preparation programs in Texas has fallen by nearly 30 percent over the last decade. Young adults who might once have considered teaching now perceive the profession as too stressful, too political, and insufficiently compensated. Many report that they heard negative stories from teachers they know — including parents, relatives, or community members — and concluded that teaching no longer offers a viable or rewarding long-term career path. This perception has created a pipeline shortage at the very moment Texas needs more teachers than ever.

2. Overreliance on Uncertified Teachers

To fill vacancies created by high attrition, many Texas districts rely on teachers with emergency certifications, alternatively certified candidates with minimal preparation, or long-term substitutes. While many alternatively certified teachers become excellent educators, they often enter the classroom with less preparation in classroom management, special education law, and instructional design. This increases turnover because these teachers may struggle more in their early years, particularly in high-poverty or high-need environments.

Veteran teachers must then provide additional mentoring and support, increasing their workload even further. Overreliance on uncertified teachers also affects campus stability, as turnover rates among these groups are significantly higher than among traditionally trained teachers.

3. Loss of Veteran Teachers and Institutional Knowledge

Every time a veteran teacher leaves the profession, the district loses instructional expertise, mentorship capacity, and deep institutional memory. Veteran teachers provide stability, help maintain school culture, support novice teachers, and often act as informal campus leaders. Their departure has ripple effects: new teachers struggle more without experienced colleagues to guide them, campuses lose continuity, and students lose trusted adults who know the school well.

When attrition accelerates among mid-career and veteran teachers, campuses become dominated by novices who cycle in and out every few years. This instability undermines long-term school improvement efforts and erodes community trust.


X. Strategic Actions for Trustees and District Leaders

1. Strengthen Compensation and Benefits

Districts should create multi-year compensation frameworks that focus on predictable, sustainable salary growth rather than one-time stipends. These frameworks must account for regional cost-of-living variations and aim to make teacher salaries competitive with comparable professions requiring similar levels of education. Districts can also ease the burden of health insurance costs by increasing their contributions to TRS–ActiveCare premiums or exploring local self-funded insurance alternatives where legally permissible. To address shortages in specialized areas, districts should provide meaningful stipends that genuinely reflect the difficulty of recruiting and retaining special education, bilingual, mathematics, and science teachers. Longevity-based retention bonuses — rather than hiring bonuses — help stabilize the workforce by rewarding teachers for staying in the district year after year.

2. Reduce Teacher Workload

Boards of trustees can direct administrators to conduct comprehensive workload audits that examine every task, form, requirement, and meeting imposed on teachers. The purpose of such an audit is not to eliminate accountability but to remove redundant, low-value tasks that do not directly improve student learning or meet a legal obligation. Districts should streamline digital platforms, reducing the number of systems teachers must log into each day. Where possible, districts can increase planning time by adjusting schedules, reducing non-essential duties, or hiring additional instructional aides. Each hour of genuine planning time reclaimed for teachers directly improves instructional quality and supports retention.

3. Improve Discipline and Safety Support

Trustees should ensure that discipline policies promote safe, orderly classrooms and provide real support to teachers managing disruptive behaviors. This may require increasing the number of behavior interventionists, counselors, and specialized staff who can respond promptly to significant incidents. Teachers should have clear authority to remove students who repeatedly disrupt learning or create unsafe environments, with consistent follow-up from administrators. Safety compliance — such as door checks and drill documentation — should be assigned to dedicated staff whenever possible so that teachers can remain focused on instruction. A well-supported discipline framework improves both campus safety and teacher morale.

4. Restore Professional Autonomy

Districts should review curriculum requirements and instructional frameworks to ensure that they provide structure without stifling professional judgment. Teachers should be included as meaningful participants in decisions involving curriculum adoption, pacing guides, and assessment practices. Principals should receive training on creating supportive instructional environments that emphasize trust, collaboration, and empowerment. Administrators must also protect teachers from frivolous or bad-faith complaints, ensuring that teachers feel trusted and respected as professionals.

5. Upgrade Resources and Facilities

Boards should prioritize facility improvements that directly affect classroom environments, such as HVAC modernization, roof repairs, lighting upgrades, and replacement of outdated portable buildings. Investing in functional technology — including reliable Wi-Fi, updated devices, and responsive IT support — helps reduce the time teachers spend troubleshooting equipment. Districts should allocate adequate budgets for classroom supplies, reducing the financial burden teachers currently absorb. When facilities and resources are inadequate, teacher morale suffers; when they improve, retention strengthens.

6. Build Sustainable Local Pipelines

Districts can partner with local universities and community colleges to create teacher-residency programs, where aspiring teachers spend a full year working alongside mentor teachers while completing coursework. Such programs produce more effective and stable novice teachers. Districts can also provide tuition assistance or scholarship programs for paraprofessionals who wish to become certified teachers; these individuals already have relationships within the community and often remain long-term. “Grow your own” high school programs further strengthen local pipelines by introducing students to teaching careers early. Strong induction programs for new teachers — focusing on mentorship, collaboration, and professional learning — improve first-year retention dramatically.


XI. State-Level Advocacy Priorities

1. Increase the Basic Allotment and Tie It to Inflation

The basic allotment is the foundational element of Texas school finance, yet it has not kept pace with inflation for many years. Trustees should advocate for meaningful increases in the allotment and for an automatic inflationary adjustment so that districts do not fall behind in real dollars each year. Without a stable and adequate base for funding salaries, no district can maintain a competitive compensation structure. By the way, there is a significant difference between headline inflation and the actual inflation most people experience. You will never figure out how the federal government calculated 2-3% inflation when yours may easily be 4-6% or more.

2. Fully Fund State Mandates

Mandates such as the Reading Academies, accelerated instruction under House Bill 4545, and expanded safety requirements create significant costs for districts. Trustees should insist that the Legislature fund these mandates fully or adjust them to reduce the burden on schools. Unfunded mandates force districts to use local dollars to meet state expectations, compromising their ability to fund salaries and support services.

3. Reform the A–F Accountability System

The A–F rating system relies too heavily on STAAR results and does not adequately account for student demographics, mobility, poverty, or special education needs. Trustees should advocate for an accountability framework that incorporates multiple measures of school quality, including growth, climate, and college/career readiness indicators. A more balanced system would reduce punitive pressures that drive teachers from high-need campuses.

4. Stabilize TRS–ActiveCare Premiums

Rising health insurance costs are one of the most significant drivers of declining teacher take-home pay. Trustees should push for increased state contributions to TRS–ActiveCare, exploration of cost-saving models such as regional insurance cooperatives, and reforms that improve affordability. Without relief in healthcare costs, salary increases alone will not improve teacher financial well-being.

5. Provide Regular TRS Cost-of-Living Adjustments

Retired teachers rely entirely on TRS pensions, yet lack predictable cost-of-living adjustments. Trustees should advocate for regular, inflation-indexed COLAs to protect retirement security. Such adjustments would also improve recruitment by reassuring young teachers that the profession offers long-term financial stability.

6. Increase State Support for Mental-Health Services

Mental-health challenges among students have increased dramatically, and teachers cannot fill the gap alone. Trustees should advocate for funding to expand counselor, social worker, school psychologist, and behavior specialist positions. More mental-health support for students directly reduces teacher stress and burnout.

7. Create a Statewide Educator Workforce Plan

Texas currently lacks a coordinated long-term plan for recruiting, preparing, and retaining teachers. Trustees should call for the development of a statewide workforce strategy that addresses educator shortages systematically. Such a plan should include teacher-residency expansion, loan-forgiveness programs, competitive starting salaries, and long-term retention strategies.


Conclusion

Texas teachers are leaving the profession in large numbers not because they have lost passion for students, but because the conditions surrounding teaching have become unsustainable. The forces driving this exodus — inadequate compensation, overwhelming workloads, increasing behavioral challenges, diminishing autonomy, safety concerns, resource shortages, and structural funding weaknesses — are systemic and interconnected. Teachers want to stay. But they need a system that meets the demands of modern classrooms with realistic support.

The real question is not why teachers are leaving.
The real question is why anyone expects them to stay under conditions that no other profession would accept.

A follow-up paper will address the elephant in the room: Texas school funding, including tax compression, the basic allotment, recapture, state aid formulas, and long-term fiscal implications.

APPENDIX A

Key Statistics, Data Points, and Source Notes Supporting the White Paper

This appendix compiles the most reliable quantitative and qualitative information available from the Texas Education Agency (TEA), the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS), RAND Corporation studies, National Education Association (NEA) analyses, Texas AFT teacher surveys, and major Texas media outlets summarizing public datasets. Each item is presented in complete paragraphs to ensure clarity for all readers.


1. Teacher Turnover and Attrition

Texas experienced more than 41,000 teachers leaving the profession in the 2021–2022 school year, according to the Texas Education Agency. This represents a statewide attrition rate of approximately 13 percent, the highest ever recorded in Texas history. By comparison, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that the national teacher attrition rate is typically about 8 percent. The Texas rate is therefore significantly higher, indicating that Texas is losing teachers at a faster pace than the nation as a whole. This difference underscores a deeper structural crisis within the state’s teacher workforce.


2. Average Years of Teaching Experience (Texas vs. U.S.)

The average years of experience for Texas public school teachers has remained between 10.9 and 11.2 years for roughly a decade, based on TEA workforce data. While this stability may suggest a steady profession at first glance, it masks a concerning trend: experienced teachers are leaving, but the average remains stable only because large numbers of new teachers continue to enter. Nationally, the average teaching experience is approximately 14 years, meaning Texas teachers have roughly three fewer years of experience than their national peers. This experience gap matters because veteran teachers play essential roles in mentorship, continuity, and instructional quality.


3. Declining Enrollment in Educator Preparation Programs

Educator-preparation programs in Texas have experienced a 30 percent decline in enrollment over the past decade. This decline is consistent with national patterns, as NCES reports a 35–40 percent reduction in traditional teacher-preparation enrollment across the United States. Several factors contribute to this trend, including increased workload concerns, declining respect for the profession, salary stagnation, and greater awareness among young adults of the challenges facing teachers today. When fewer individuals choose to pursue teaching as a career, the teacher workforce becomes increasingly dependent on uncertified or alternatively certified educators, weakening long-term stability.


4. Teacher Workload and Hours Worked

Multiple studies have found that teachers routinely work 50 to 60 hours per week, far exceeding the contracted school day. Organizations such as RAND, NEA, and Texas AFT have documented that teachers spend substantial time outside school hours planning lessons, grading work, responding to parents, preparing interventions, and completing administrative tasks. Many teachers report that the burden of paperwork and compliance documentation consumes more time than the instructional work they were trained to do. This imbalance contributes directly to burnout and dissatisfaction, and it is frequently cited as a primary reason for leaving the profession.


5. Health Insurance Costs Under TRS–ActiveCare

The Teacher Retirement System of Texas administers the TRS–ActiveCare program, which provides health insurance for hundreds of districts. Over the past decade, premiums have risen significantly, especially for family coverage, which often costs between $1,200 and $1,500 per month. Deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses have also increased, resulting in unpredictable and high annual healthcare costs for teachers. Many educators report that their net income—after paying for insurance—is lower today than it was years ago, even if their nominal salary has increased. Rising healthcare costs have therefore eroded real wages and contributed meaningfully to teacher attrition.


6. Salary Trends and Cost-of-Living Pressures

Although TX teachers’ average salary is around $60,000, this number fails to reflect the real value of that income after adjusting for inflation. Research consistently shows that teacher compensation in Texas has not kept pace with increases in the cost of housing, transportation, childcare, utilities, and health insurance. When adjusted for cost of living and inflation, Texas ranks near the bottom of all 50 states in real teacher pay. Teachers increasingly find that they cannot afford to live comfortably or sustain long-term financial security on their salaries, especially in high-cost urban and suburban regions. This financial mismatch is a major contributor to the teacher exodus.


7. Safety and Discipline Trends

Teachers throughout Texas report significant increases in student behavioral challenges. These include more frequent classroom disruptions, higher levels of verbal aggression, and a noticeable rise in physical altercations. Many students returned from the pandemic with weakened social skills and heightened anxiety, leading to increased emotional outbursts and difficulty regulating behavior. At the same time, post-Uvalde safety mandates have added additional responsibility for teachers, requiring them to participate in frequent drills, door checks, and facility monitoring. The combination of greater behavioral challenges and additional safety duties contributes directly to teacher frustration and burnout.


8. Testing and Accountability Pressures

The STAAR (State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness) testing system remains the dominant force shaping instructional priorities in Texas public schools. Teachers often spend months preparing students for STAAR benchmarks, interim assessments, and practice exams. The 2023 STAAR redesign, which added constructed-response writing tasks, increased teacher workload by requiring extended writing instruction, more grading, and deeper feedback cycles. Additionally, the A–F accountability system ties campus ratings heavily to STAAR performance, disproportionately affecting high-poverty and high-mobility schools. Teachers in these environments frequently feel punished for factors outside their control, leading many to leave high-need schools or the profession entirely.


9. Transition Into Other Career Fields

Teachers possess highly transferable skills — including communication, leadership, curriculum design, organization, and project management — making them attractive candidates in a wide range of fields. Many educators transition into corporate training, human resources, instructional design, nonprofit administration, or educational technology roles. These positions typically offer higher pay, more autonomy, predictable hours, and, increasingly, remote-work options. Teachers often describe these alternative careers as a healthier and more sustainable choice compared to continuing to teach under current conditions. This trend represents a major contributing factor to the shrinking teacher workforce.


10. Consolidated Summary of Key Indicators

Teacher attrition in Texas is higher than the national average, average years of teacher experience are lower, and educator-preparation enrollment has dropped substantially. Workload continues to rise, while healthcare costs consume a greater share of teacher earnings each year. Discipline issues have worsened, mandates have grown, and testing pressures remain intense. These data points collectively demonstrate that Texas teachers face a complicated and unsustainable professional environment — one that few other professions would tolerate.


11. Notes on Data Sources

Most quantitative information in this white paper comes directly from the Texas Education Agency (TEA), the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS), the National Education Association (NEA), RAND Corporation studies, and major Texas teacher surveys conducted by Texas AFT. Several findings, particularly related to trends and workforce shifts, are corroborated by analyses from the Houston Chronicle, Houston Landing, Texas Tribune, and Dallas Morning News, which summarize public datasets and state reporting. Statements about teacher experience, morale, and day-to-day pressures are grounded in multiple nationwide teacher surveys, legislative testimony, and district-level reports.

Rightsizing Under Enrollment, Funding & Choice Pressure

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI
(With suggested guidelines for any rightsizing exercise for public facilities)


I watched the McKinney ISD Board of Trustees meeting last night as they made the decision to close three elementary schools. It was emotional. It was intense. It was brutally honest from both the parents testifying and the Board members sharing about the difficulty of making hard decisions. In my own mental preparation for the event, I had put together these thoughts. Congratulations for these unpaid elected officials taking their jobs seriously. LFM


Executive Summary

Texas public education is at a turning point. Declining birth rates, smaller family sizes, flat per-student funding, the growth of homeschooling and private-school alternatives, and the weight of under-utilized facilities have combined to create a historic fiscal and structural challenge for nearly every district in the state.

For McKinney ISD (MISD), as well as neighboring Allen, Frisco, Plano, and Richardson ISDs, the question is no longer whether change is coming—it is how responsibly that change will be managed. Some campuses are now operating at 50–70 percent capacity. Maintaining them drains resources that could otherwise go to teachers, programs, and student safety.

This white paper explains why “rightsizing” through the consolidation or repurposing of under-utilized campuses is not an act of retreat but of stewardship. It details the statewide context, selection criteria, emotional and community impacts, financial rationale, and examples of how similar districts have adapted successfully. It concludes with a statement from the McKinney ISD Board of Trustees affirming both compassion and fiscal prudence—the twin obligations of public service.


1. Statewide Context: Demographics, Funding, and Choice

Demographic Shifts and Smaller Families

Texas has experienced a steady decline in birth rates since 2007, especially in inner-ring suburbs and mature neighborhoods. As families age and household sizes decrease, fewer children enter kindergarten. This “population echo” now reverberates through elementary and middle schools statewide.

In many communities, houses that once held three or four school-aged children now have one—or none. Districts built facilities for a baby boom that never fully arrived. As a result, entire wings of some campuses sit under-used, even as fixed costs for staffing, utilities, and maintenance persist.

Under-Utilization and Facility Inefficiencies

The problem is not just smaller classes—it is financial inefficiency. Schools must maintain minimum administrative and operational staff regardless of enrollment. A 350-student school costs nearly as much to operate as one with 600. When multiplied across several campuses, this structure creates unsustainable overhead and forces painful cuts elsewhere.

State Funding Constraints

The Texas Basic Allotment—the base per-student funding amount—has remained $6,160 since 2019, despite years of inflation and surging costs in special education, transportation, security, and staff benefits. Without an inflation index, the real purchasing power of that funding has fallen dramatically.

State law also limits how much local districts can raise through property taxes. Even when voters approve rate increases, state “recapture” mechanisms often offset local gains. Thus, districts are constrained between rising costs and capped revenue—a pressure cooker forcing attention to efficiency.

Homeschooling, Private Schooling, and Vouchers

During and after the COVID-19 pandemic, homeschooling surged. The Texas Home School Coalition estimates that more than 50,000 students withdraw from public schools annually to homeschool. The Johns Hopkins Homeschool Hub reports that 6.3 percent of Texas students were homeschooled in 2023–24, one of the highest rates in the nation.

Meanwhile, Christian and independent private schools have grown in Collin County, offering smaller class sizes and faith-based curricula. In 2025, Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 2, creating one of the nation’s largest Education Savings Account (voucher) programs, allowing parents to use public funds for private tuition or homeschool expenses.

The result is unprecedented school-choice migration—and an enrollment base for public districts that is smaller and more fluid than ever before.

Combined Implications

When birth-rate decline, small family size, school choice, and flat funding converge, no district can sustain the same footprint it built for 1990s-era growth. Rightsizing is not optional—it is essential to preserve program quality and teacher stability.


2. How Districts Choose Schools to Close or Consolidate

Purpose of a Transparent, Data-Driven Process

A closure or consolidation plan must rest on objective, measurable factors, not intuition or politics. A transparent rubric ensures fairness, maintains public trust, and demonstrates that each decision was made for both fiscal and educational reasons.

Proposed Selection Rubric (for MISD)

FactorWeightDescription
Utilization & Enrollment Trend30%Measures capacity use and 3- to 5-year enrollment trajectory.
Facility Condition & Life-Cycle Cost20%Evaluates the physical condition, deferred maintenance, and modernization needs of each building.
Operating Cost per Pupil15%Compares per-student costs in staffing, utilities, and transportation.
Academic & Program Fit15%Protects unique programs (dual-language, IB, SPED) and ensures receiving schools can sustain them.
Geography & Attendance Boundaries10%Considers distance, neighborhood continuity, and travel time.
Reuse or Repurpose Potential10%Assesses whether the facility can become an early childhood center, alternative program site, or community resource.

Transparency Requirements

  • Publish campus scorecards showing utilization, cost per student, and FCI (Facility Condition Index).
  • Provide five-year financial projections including both transition costs and long-term savings.
  • Identify receiving schools, showing enrollment impacts and program continuity.
  • Announce reuse plans for each closed campus before the final vote.

Alignment with TEA

The Texas Education Agency requires that displaced students be moved to equal or higher-performing schools, and that transition and communication plans be publicly documented. Following TEA guidelines not only protects equity but strengthens community confidence.


3. Community Reactions, Adaptation, and What Works

Emotional and Practical Impacts

A school is more than a building—it is the heart of a neighborhood. Closures evoke grief, nostalgia, and resistance. Teachers feel displaced; parents feel unheard; students feel uncertain. Without empathy and transparency, even financially sound decisions can damage community trust.

Common Concerns

  1. Fear of losing a neighborhood’s identity and “walkable” campus.
  2. Anxiety about longer commutes or split friend groups.
  3. Confusion about program continuity.
  4. Concern for staff job security.
  5. Worry about abandoned or blighted buildings.

Mitigation Strategies

  • Announce changes early and publish all relevant data.
  • Guarantee staff retention and re-assignment where possible.
  • Provide grandfathering options for current students and siblings.
  • Host family transition events, campus tours, and summer “bridge” programs.
  • Commit to clear reuse or redevelopment of closed facilities (early childhood centers, adult learning, community hubs).
  • Monitor post-closure academic and social outcomes for at least two years.

Examples of Successful Adaptation

  • The Texas Education Agency’s “Close & Consolidate” study found measurable academic gains when students moved to higher-performing campuses.
  • Aldine ISD (2024–25) closed nine campuses but retained 90 % of affected staff, redeployed programs effectively, and reported improved morale after transition.
  • Richardson ISD’s “Project RightSize” (2024) consolidated five elementaries, saving millions in fixed costs and redirecting funds to instruction.

4. North Collin County and Regional Snapshots

McKinney ISD

McKinney ISD’s Educational Facilities Alignment Committee (EFAC) is evaluating capacity, enrollment, and program distribution. Growth remains robust in the northern sector but stagnant in older southern zones. The committee is expected to recommend three elementary closures or repurposings.

Public comments reveal both empathy and apprehension—citizens want transparency, data, and fairness. The Board’s challenge will be to combine fiscal necessity with relational sensitivity.

Allen ISD

Allen ISD closed two elementary schools in 2022 amid rising costs and softening enrollment. The experience demonstrated that affluent districts are not immune to demographic shifts. Public protests underscored the importance of pacing and communication.

Frisco ISD

On October 20, 2025, Frisco ISD voted to close Staley Middle School after 2025–26. The district’s extensive public transition website—maps, FAQs, and staff updates—became a statewide model for transparent closure management.

Plano ISD

Plano ISD, long a symbol of suburban stability, saw utilization drop from roughly 85 % to 73 % between 2011–12 and 2024. In June 2024, the board voted to close four campuses—Davis Elementary, Forman Elementary, Armstrong Middle, and Carpenter Middle School—saving an estimated $5 million annually. The district emphasized facility repurposing, not abandonment, and made strong commitments to staff and families.

Richardson ISD

In March 2024, RISD approved the consolidation of five elementary campuses under “Project RightSize.” The district cited 9,000 empty seats and forecasted a multi-million-dollar deficit if action was not taken. Though community opposition was emotional, the board framed the plan as the only way to preserve academic integrity and staff quality. Transition support programs helped soften the impact by fall 2025.


5. School Choice, Homeschooling & Vouchers: The New Landscape

Texas now operates under the broadest school-choice environment in its history. Homeschool enrollment is stable at record levels, and private Christian and micro-schools are multiplying across Collin County.

The 2025 Education Savings Account (ESA) law magnifies the effect: state dollars now follow the student, not necessarily the district. While this empowers parents, it erodes the financial base of public schools, particularly suburban districts where private options abound.

For MISD, this means that right-sizing must anticipate—not just respond to—choice migration. A campus that is 70 percent full today could be 50 percent full in three years as vouchers take effect. Incorporating “choice leakage” into enrollment projections ensures that the district consolidates preemptively rather than reactively.


6. Financial Rationale and Reinvestment

Recurring Savings

  • Reduced administrative and support duplication (principal, AP, counselor, nurse, librarian).
  • Lower utilities, custodial, and security costs.
  • Avoided capital costs on roofs, HVAC, and deferred maintenance.

One-Time Transition Costs

  • Moving, signage, and relocation logistics.
  • Transportation route adjustments.
  • Stipends and placement assistance for reassigned staff.
  • Communications, summer bridge, and orientation programming.

Five-Year Net Impact

Typical closure/consolidation recovers transition costs by Year 2–3 and generates net savings thereafter, which can be reinvested into:

  • Teacher salaries and recruitment
  • Technology and curriculum innovation
  • Safety upgrades
  • New program initiatives

Reinvestment Transparency

The Board should publish a Reinvestment Report annually, showing where every dollar saved has been redirected to enhance student learning.


7. Governance, Process, and Timeline

  1. Phase 1 — Data and Transparency:
    Release campus scorecards and utilization data. Launch a public portal.
  2. Phase 2 — Engagement:
    Host listening sessions, surveys, and online Q&A forums.
  3. Phase 3 — Recommendation:
    Present shortlist of campuses, financial models, and reuse plans.
  4. Phase 4 — Board Decision:
    Conduct public workshop and final vote.
  5. Phase 5 — Transition & Support:
    Implement student/staff relocation, launch counseling and welcome events.
  6. Phase 6 — Review & Reporting:
    Publish one- and two-year outcome reports (achievement, travel time, cost savings, climate survey).

A “Right-Sizing Advisory Council” should remain active through the first post-closure year to monitor impacts and advise on adjustments.


8. Ethical and Emotional Imperatives

The heart of public education is people, not property. The moral duty of a school board is twofold: to care for the community it serves and to steward the resources entrusted to it.

Empathy and accountability must coexist. Compassion without discipline leads to insolvency; discipline without compassion leads to distrust. Balancing the two is the essence of leadership.


9. Lessons from Research and Experience

  • When done well, consolidations improve academic outcomes and staff morale within 24 months.
  • When done poorly, they damage trust, depress morale, and can worsen achievement.
  • Success requires early communication, equitable selection, strong receiving campuses, and clear reinvestment of savings.
  • Closed schools must never become “ghost campuses.” Reuse or redevelopment is part of closure responsibility.

10. Trustee Decision Framework

  1. Approve the evaluation rubric.
  2. Publish full data and financial analyses.
  3. Conduct engagement and document all feedback.
  4. Finalize closure and reuse recommendations.
  5. Adopt the board resolution publicly.
  6. Provide ongoing transparency through implementation.
  7. Measure results and adjust annually.
  8. Reinvest all savings visibly in instruction and staff.

11. What We May Have Left Out

  • Bond obligations and facility debt implications.
  • Teacher morale and retention post-closure.
  • Equity analyses for affected neighborhoods.
  • Land-use policy for repurposed campuses.
  • Ongoing public reporting standards.

12. My Version of the Heartfelt Statement from the McKinney ISD Board of Trustees.

To the Families, Staff, and Students of McKinney ISD:

No decision before this Board has weighed more heavily on our hearts than the prospect of closing schools. Each of us entered public service because we believe in the power of education to build lives and strengthen neighborhoods. Many of us have children or grandchildren who attend these very campuses. We understand the depth of history, friendship, and pride bound up in each school community.

Yet we must also confront a difficult reality. Across Texas, districts are facing unprecedented financial and demographic pressures: smaller family sizes, fewer kindergarten enrollments, the rapid growth of homeschooling and private-school alternatives, and a state funding structure that has not kept pace with inflation. The State limits our ability to raise local revenue; each additional dollar of tax effort is constrained by statute. Without prudent consolidation, the only alternatives would be to raise taxes again or make deeper cuts to the very programs that sustain quality instruction. Neither option serves our students well.

The decision to consolidate schools is not a reflection of failure but an act of stewardship — ensuring that McKinney ISD can continue to offer excellent teachers, safe facilities, and robust academic and extracurricular opportunities to all children. We make this choice with both compassion and resolve: compassion for the families who will experience change, and resolve to honor every student and staff member through a thoughtful transition.

In truth, there has never been a local government or public organization that has not, at some point, faced the most fundamental fiscal challenge of all: the reallocation of resources. McKinney ISD is not a static institution but a living organism that breathes, grows, and adapts with its community. If we had possessed perfect foresight decades ago—perfect population forecasts, perfect funding formulas—it is likely that several of our current campuses would never have been built in the first place. Our obligation today is to act with the wisdom we now have, to realign our facilities with the realities of our time, and to preserve the long-term health of the district.

We ask for understanding and patience as we navigate this process together. History and experience show that, while transitions are painful, communities adapt, students thrive, and new bonds form. Our promise is to communicate openly, listen honestly, and invest every saved dollar back into teaching and learning where it belongs.

Fiscal prudence and heartfelt compassion are not opposites; they are the twin obligations of public service. It is in that spirit—balancing empathy with responsibility—that this Board moves forward. We remain, as ever, committed to every child, every teacher, and every neighborhood that makes McKinney ISD the district it is today.

Signed,
The Board of Trustees of the McKinney Independent School District


13. Conclusion / Closing Thought

There has likely never been a city, county, or school district that has not wrestled with the same enduring challenge: how to reallocate finite resources to meet changing needs. That is not a failure—it is the natural rhythm of responsible governance.

McKinney ISD, like the community it serves, is a living organism. It grows, breathes, adapts, and learns. As neighborhoods mature and student populations shift, the district must respond with foresight and balance. If we had possessed perfect information decades ago, several campuses might never have been built—but foresight was limited, and optimism was high. Today, with clearer data and the benefit of experience, we have the duty to act wisely.

Rightsizing is not the end of McKinney’s story—it is a new chapter. It ensures that teachers remain supported, programs remain strong, and every child continues to learn in an environment that is safe, efficient, and sustainable. Change is difficult, but so is growth; both are signs of life.

In that spirit, McKinney ISD moves forward—with empathy for those affected, gratitude for those who serve, and confidence that the steps taken today will protect the strength of public education for decades to come.

Building Bridges in Early Childhood Special Education Programs

By Lindsey McLain, assisted by AI
lindseymclain17@gmail.com
Picture by proud Granddad as he listens to her stories!

Working with children with autism spectrum disorder is not just my career—it is my calling. My passion for special education began long before I entered the classroom as a teacher. In eighth grade at Faubion Middle School, I joined the Partners PE program—a life-changing experience that introduced me to the joy of working alongside students with disabilities. I didn’t know it then, but that program would be the beginning of finding my career.

Every day with my three- to five-year-old students reminds me that education is less about rigid lessons and more about relationships, trust, and patience. My years of experience supporting children of all ages with autism spectrum disorder, both in college and now in the classroom, have shaped the way I see teaching: as a bridge between worlds.


Trust as the First Lesson

Before I can expect children to learn letters, numbers, or colors, I have to show them that I am safe, consistent, and trustworthy. Building that relationship is the first lesson I teach, though I don’t do it with words. I do it with presence, with predictable routines, and with gentle encouragement. Only when a child trusts me can they begin to risk trying something new.

In my classroom, trust starts by connecting with what each child loves. Some of my students enjoy running and climbing on the playground, while others prefer sitting quietly with a favorite toy. Some love Eric Carle’s colorful storybooks, while others are captivated by anything with wheels or that flies. I use their preferences to build bridges—to join their world before asking them to join mine. When they see that I value what brings them joy, trust begins to grow.


Individual Needs, Individual Paths

No two children are alike, and no two learning journeys are the same. Some of my students need visual schedules to feel grounded. Others need sensory breaks to regain balance. Some thrive in structured play but struggle with transitions. My responsibility is to make sure every child is getting what they need. True fairness in special education isn’t sameness—it’s tailoring learning so that each child has a path forward.

I continue to learn how to adapt materials and instruction for my students. Recently, I was given the opportunity to go through an AAC (Augmentative and Alternative Communication) device training. Using what I learned, I now tailor communication to meet each student’s needs. Some of my students can access many words on their devices, while others focus on functional language—simple but powerful words like go, stop, and help. In the same classroom, I have children who can count to 100, read, and write simple words, and others who are still learning how to share preferred items or take turns. Each child’s growth is unique, and each one reminds me that progress comes in many forms.


Patience and the Pace of Progress

In the first month of school, my students were still learning to adjust to me as their teacher. They didn’t respond to my directions right away, and I quickly realized that relationships must come before expectations. In special education, we often say that progress is not linear—and it’s true. Growth happens at the student’s pace, not mine. Watching my students slowly build trust and routine has taught me to pause not just in my teaching, but in my own daily life. The slower I move, the more I notice the beauty in every little step forward.


Adapting Materials, Adapting Expectations

Every day I adapt. A worksheet might become a hands-on sorting activity, a storybook may come alive with picture cards, and a group activity might start one-on-one before a child joins peers. Adapting does not mean lowering expectations—it means clearing a path so the child can succeed. Flexibility is the tool that opens doors.

I’ve also learned that not all students learn best in the same way. Some benefit from tangible, hands-on experiences—holding real objects as they learn to identify them—while others respond better to visual supports like picture cards or digital images. For example, when working on identifying common objects, one child might need to touch and explore the physical item, while another can easily match it on a communication board. Differentiating materials this way allows each child to access learning in the way that fits them best.


Seeing Through Their Eyes

Teaching children with autism spectrum disorder means constantly trying to see the world through their eyes. What feels overwhelming to one child might be soothing to another. What looks like resistance may really be a need for predictability. The more I step into their perspective, the better I understand their needs—and the more compassion grows in me as a teacher.

Over time, I’ve learned that communication isn’t always spoken. Many of my students express their needs through subtle nonverbal cues—a shift in body language, a glance away, covering their ears, or beginning to pace. These moments often tell me more than words ever could. When I notice a child’s shoulders tense, their breathing quicken, or their focus fade, I know it’s time to pause. They may need a sensory break, help with a task, or simply a moment to feel safe again.

I’ve also come to understand that all behavior is communication. Sometimes a child might cry, run away, or throw items—not out of defiance, but out of frustration, fear, or an unmet need. Every action, whether it’s laughter, avoidance, or a meltdown, carries meaning. It’s my job to look beneath the surface and ask why a behavior is happening—what the child is trying to tell me through their actions.

Learning to read these signals has been one of the most powerful parts of my teaching journey. It reminds me that listening goes far beyond hearing words—it’s about observing, understanding, and responding with empathy. When I take the time to notice and respond with care, my students feel seen, supported, and understood.


Partnering with Families

I am also beginning to see the importance of resources for parents. Families often want to understand how to best support their children at home, and I’ve learned that open communication and sharing tools—like visuals, routines, and sensory supports—makes a huge difference. During my first parent-teacher conferences, I was able to share the progress I’d seen: new words, increased independence, and more engagement during group time. Seeing parents’ faces light up with pride reminded me why I love what I do.


Love, Smiles, and Joy

At the heart of my motivation is love—the love I give and the love I receive. It shows up in the smiles when a child recognizes me in the morning, in the laughter that bursts out during play, and in the quiet joy of a breakthrough moment. These children teach me as much about joy as I teach them about learning. Their small wins are also my wins. Their happiness, however fleeting, is a reminder of why I chose this path. Love is not just the motivation for teaching—it is the reward.

Now that I finally have a classroom of my own—two classes, ten students, and more to come—I feel the deep responsibility and joy of shaping a learning environment from the ground up. Every day brings new discoveries, laughter, and lessons. Watching my students love, smile, grow, and enjoy life just like all children do reaffirms that they are not defined by their challenges, but by their potential.


Celebrating the Small Wins

In my classroom, there is no such thing as a “small” win. Every word spoken, every step toward independence, and every positive interaction with a peer is cause for celebration. These victories remind the children—and me—that progress is real and possible. They build confidence and keep us moving forward together.

One of my favorite recent moments came during school picture day. One of my students was very nervous and hid their face when it was time for their photo. Their mother had been so excited to see their first school pictures and was eagerly looking forward to them. We decided to try again about an hour later, after the student had some time to feel calm and comfortable. This time, they walked up with confidence and gave the biggest smile. When their mother saw the photos, her face lit up with joy. That small moment reminded me that success doesn’t always come on the first try—sometimes it blooms quietly after patience, trust, and encouragement.


Conclusion: A Program of Hope

Teaching children with autism spectrum disorder is about more than academics. It is about dignity, relationship, and hope. My classroom is a place where every child can learn and grow at their own pace, supported and understood. It is a place where I adapt, celebrate, and most importantly—love.

McKinney ISD’s special education program is entering a new chapter with recent leadership changes, and I believe this will bring fresh opportunities for growth, collaboration, and advocacy. With continued focus on supporting teachers and families, we can keep building programs that meet every child where they are.

These children may see the world differently, but through their eyes, I have learned to see beauty, courage, and joy in ways I never imagined. Every day, I am reminded that teaching isn’t just about shaping their future—it’s about allowing them to shape mine.