In Texas, education foundations are supposed to support public school districts through fundraising, making donations, and offering other supportive services.
However, as documented in a recent report, these foundations sometimes blur the line when it comes to their own operations and the districts they serve. In a few cases, troubling evidence shows that they’ve grown into powerful quasi-governmental entities that influence policy while operating outside of the state’s transparency laws and ethical expectations.
These bad actors have raised so much concern among state-level policymakers that, for the first time in recent history, the Texas House of Representatives’ interim charges include an explicit directive to examine education foundations and the controversies that surround them. As part of this investigation, the House Select Committee on Governmental Oversight will scrutinize these foundations’ activities and “the applicability of state transparency, reporting, and oversight laws, and determine whether existing law adequately ensures accountability, prevents conflicts of interest, and protects taxpayer resources.”
A few questions that may merit discussion at this future hearing—likely to be held later this summer or possibly in the fall—include things such as: Can a foundation’s operations become too intertwined with a school district’s leadership, finances, and property? And if so, what checks and balances can be developed to protect the public interest? Likewise, to what extent are foundations serving as an avenue to circumvent state policy that a district may not like or support? And might a few of these foundations even be indirectly involved in Texas politics?
Questions like these may soon be prominent and their answers have the potential to be explosive. The reason why has to do with Barbers Hill ISD (BHISD) and its education foundation, i.e., the Barbers Hill Education Foundation (BHEF).
An initial review of BHISD board meeting resolutions and financials reveals that from June 2010 to October 2025, BHEF paid out $6.5 million to the school district. At first glance, it appears that the foundation is simply fulfilling its mission “to generate and distribute resources to assist the Barbers Hill Independent School District in enhancing its educational programs and processes.” However, public records also show that, from January 2012 to June 2025, BHEF took in a whopping $97.1 million from BHISD, setting off alarm bells in the process.
According to the BHISD Board of Trustees resolutions, the majority of these funds were supplemental payments through Chapter 313 agreements that were routed “to the Barbers Hill Independent School District Education Foundation in lieu of making such payments in like amount to the Barbers Hill Independent School District.” Chapter 313 agreements have since been replaced with the JETI Act, created by House Bill 5 in the 88th Texas Legislature.
If BHEF is truly following its mission to generate and distribute resources to assist BHISD’s mission and operations, then why has it been the net beneficiary of more than $90 million in taxpayer money that should be going to classroom needs? The answer to this question isn’t clear, which is why the Texas Education Agency got involved recently and is expected to provide some insight at the upcoming House hearing.
One possible explanation of this lopsided give-and-take is that the roles have inverted. Education foundations are generally formed to solicit donations from the community in order to support a specific district. In this way, these foundations serve as a financial resource. However, when this dynamic is reversed, a school district may—for some unknown reason—store, shield, or channel money through a foundation. In BHISD’s case, this may have been done to bolster the foundation’s real estate-related assets and holdings.
What limited public information exists points to a troubling relationship between BHISD, BHEF, and the Brickyard Apartments development in Mont Belvieu. Americus Holdings, the private development firm behind the project, states on its website that “The Brickyard project, in partnership with Barbers Hill School District Education Foundation,” has been approved for a two-phase multifamily development that includes a 336-unit luxury apartment complex. The company describes the project as a Class A apartment development intended to meet local housing demand. Based on this public acknowledgment, it would appear that the foundation’s activities extend beyond traditional teacher grants and scholarships, and into money-making ventures also. It is worth noting that BHEF is well connected, with BHEF board of director’s member Nathan Watkins, also serving as vice president of Americus Holdings. Similarly, BHISD has employed former state representative Craig Eiland, as one of the district’s taxpayer-funded lobbyists.
And considering that BHISD has deposited a significant amount of money with the foundation, those real estate endeavors become all that much more curious.
The governance structure surrounding this arrangement begs for scrutiny too. Consider that BHEF’s board includes current school trustees, administrators, and community members. Among those board directors is BHISD superintendent Greg Poole. Because the foundation manages assets that originated from donations, land transactions, and other activities closely connected to BHISD, the public has a strong interest in understanding how decisions regarding development projects are made, what safeguards exist to prevent conflicts of interest, and whether board members with ties to project stakeholders participate in decisions involving those projects.
Transparency is especially important when educational entities engage in public-private partnerships involving valuable real estate assets.
It’s an open question as to whether the Brickyard Apartments project is appropriate or beneficial. But the central questions here are whether taxpayers, parents, and donors know how their money is being used, whether this activity fulfills any legitimate government function, and whether greater separation is merited between BHEF’s board and BHISD personnel.
The gravity of these questions becomes much heavier considering that BHEF’s assets are approaching $175 million and its role in real estate continues to grow. The public deserves clear answers about how those partnerships are structured, who benefits financially, and how those activities ultimately advance the foundation’s educational mission.
Moreover, the public deserves to know if and how BHISD’s controversial dealings with its education foundation are an isolated affair, or whether this instance is one among many. This is something that we must get to the bottom of—and soon.