Committee recommends ‘no action’ on commissioner’s MATTER Academy proposal after hours of testimony

The Committee of the Full Board of the Texas State Board of Education voted Wednesday to recommend the state board "review and take no action" on the commissioner’s Generation 3 high-performing entity open-enrollment charter application from MATTER Academy to open two campuses in the Greater San Antonio area for the 2026–27 school year.

The committee’s vote followed more than two hours of public testimony from parents, educators, community groups and MATTER representatives and a presentation from Texas Education Agency staff. Supporters described MATTER as a proven network that emphasizes career-readiness and project-based learning; opponents raised concerns about special education enrollment, transparency of the expedited high-performing-entity process, and related-party real-estate and management arrangements.

Why it matters: The commissioner may recommend charter approvals under Texas Education Code §12.101 (the high-performing entity pathway), but the State Board of Education (SBOE) has statutory authority to accept or veto those recommendations. Committee action to "take no action" in this context forwarded a recommendation to the full SBOE; under the statute the board must act within the statutorily defined window or the commissioner’s approval can stand. A committee recommendation to "take no action" is the committee’s way of forwarding the item to the full board with that recommendation for Friday’s meeting.

Committee and public debate: Public testimony included parents and educators who said MATTER would provide a nearby option for families on the south and east sides of San Antonio where high-performing seats are scarce. Crystal Rios, director of engagement for the Texas Public Charter Schools Association and a San Antonio resident, said, "The demand is undeniable and the need is urgent," and urged approval so families would have more options.

Opponents included Maggie Stern, director of community engagement at the nonprofit Our Schools Our Democracy, who criticized MATTER’s record in Florida on serving students with disabilities and asked the board to pause consideration until the full set of information could be made public. Stern cited Florida Department of Education data showing lower proportions of students with disabilities at many MATTER campuses and questioned whether the Florida campuses served an equitable special-education population.

Board members and staff questioned both sides. TEA Deputy Associate Commissioner Marianne Shetty explained the agency’s high-performing-entity process and said TEA had: (1) checked whether MATTER’s out-of-state campuses met an equivalent of an A/B performance rating under the agency’s accountability methodology using domain-1 student achievement measures; (2) completed due diligence including site visits in Florida and Nevada and discussions with current authorizers there; and (3) conducted interviews with the applicant team. Shetty said TEA calculated a proportional district-equivalent rating for MATTER and deemed the organization to meet the statutory eligibility standard.

Applicant presentation: MATTER’s proposed superintendent, Courtney Oliver, and board chair Bonnie Salas described plans to open two P–12 campuses (one on the I‑10 corridor near the East Central/Judson ISD border and one on the South Side near Mission Del Lago), beginning with a PreK–6 campus enrolling roughly 360 students in its first year with a path to grow to grade 12. MATTER representatives said the network emphasizes "rigor, relevance and relationships," project-based learning, early college/dual-credit opportunities and career academies in education, health/medical science and government/law.

Key concerns and clarifications raised in questioning: - Special education: Opponents and several board members focused on Florida data showing lower percentages of students identified for special education at many MATTER campuses, and asked whether the organization would serve similar populations in Texas. Supporters and some board members noted the difference could reflect parental choice, local neighborhood demographics, or identification practices, and several asked TEA and the applicant to provide more precise, campus-level data and assurances about services. - Transparency and process: Critics said the high-performing-entity fast-track process limited public capacity interviews and some information that would otherwise appear in a standard application; supporters and TEA staff said the statute and agency process permit a modified application but still require rigorous review including site visits and authorizer conversations. - Related-party real estate and CMO relationships: Members pressed MATTER about facilities, use of a charter management organization (CMO) and payments to out-of-state organizations. The applicant said facilities had not been secured but that the Texas governing board would be a Texas nonprofit and that any back-office/CMO fees would be approximately 1% of funding and that local oversight would be retained.

Formal action and next steps: The committee motion — "recommend to the State Board of Education to review and take no action on the commissioner’s proposed Generation 3 high performing entity subchapter d open enrollment charter school, MATTER Academy, to open in the 2026–27 school year" — was made from the dais and seconded. The committee then called the question and, by roll call, the motion carried. The committee’s recommendation will be presented to the full State Board of Education at the board meeting on Friday for a final vote. Under Texas Education Code §12.101 the commissioner notifies SBOE of a proposed high-performing-entity approval and the board has a statutory period to act; if the board does not veto the commissioner within the statutory window the commissioner’s approval may go into effect.

What wasn’t decided: The committee did not adopt or reject the charter itself; rather it forwarded a recommendation (to "take no action") to the full board. The full board’s final vote and any conditions or follow‑up requirements will determine whether MATTER Academy’s application is accepted, vetoed, or returned for additional information. Several board members asked TEA and the applicant for additional documentation (special education enrollment patterns, impact on nearby district enrollment, authorizer records and board-resume information) before final action so the full board can consider that information on Friday.

Ending: The item concluded with the committee’s formal recommendation to the full board and the meeting moved on to the agenda’s instructional-materials items. The full State Board of Education will consider the commissioner’s recommendation and the committee’s referral at the board’s next scheduled vote.