Chasing a unique STAAR: HB8 modifications to state testing for elementary and center schooL college students in Texas

I bear in mind the precise second. It was June 2023, proper after the final bell rang on a Friday afternoon. My colleague caught her head in my classroom door, grinning. “Did you hear? They killed the STAAR!”

We’d been educating below the burden of the State of Texas Assessments of Educational Readiness for over a decade. We’d watched college students cry earlier than testing home windows. We’d seen curriculum slender to check prep. We’d felt the strain to show to the evaluation relatively than train the entire baby. So yeah, we celebrated when Home Invoice 8 handed, eliminating STAAR and changing it with Success, Scholar, Instructor (SST) assessments beginning September 2027.

I needed to have a good time too. I train Fifth-grade arithmetic and studying at Dallas ISD’s College for the Gifted and Gifted at Nice Grove, the place I serve a few of Dallas’s most economically deprived college students; but this yr, we’re ranked 12^th greatest within the state of Texas. Many are first-generation college-bound. For these children, gifted identification isn’t about status—it’s about entry to alternatives their households may by no means know to request.

However that weekend, I did one thing most of my celebrating colleagues didn’t do. I learn the precise laws. Then, I learn the committee hearings. Then the TEA implementation steering. That’s after I realized: not a single point out of how Texas will establish gifted college students as soon as STAAR disappears. My college students—the precise inhabitants everybody claims to care about in fairness conversations—had simply change into invisible in Texas’s largest schooling reform in twenty years. And I used to be fairly positive nobody else had seen.

The Drawback No One’s Speaking About

Listed below are the numbers that ought to fear each TAG instructor and coordinator in Texas:

– 17,000 college students in grades 4-8 are at present recognized as gifted and gifted, with STAAR taking part in a task of their identification

– 1,023 college districts that can want new identification protocols

– 8 months till STAAR disappears utterly (September 2027)

– Zero pages of TEA steering on what comes subsequent

Let me be clear about what this implies virtually. Texas Training Code §29.122 requires districts to establish gifted college students utilizing “a number of standards.” For many districts, these standards have included: instructor nomination, father or mother nomination, efficiency on STAAR, and portfolio proof. 

When STAAR goes away in September 2027, a type of 4 pillars disappears. And regardless of what some folks assume, you may’t simply eradicate it and anticipate the opposite three to compensate. Right here’s why.

Why Testing Knowledge Issues: The Uncomfortable Reality

I must say one thing that makes loads of my progressive educator pals uncomfortable: typically the methods we hate are additionally the methods defending our most weak college students. STAAR was deeply flawed. It created huge check anxiousness whereas narrowing the curriculum. It decreased educating to check prep. I’m not right here to defend it. However right here’s what STAAR did that we’re about to lose: it supplied goal, comparative information that helped establish college students whose presents may in any other case go unrecognized.

Let me inform you about Miguel (not his actual title). Fourth grade, quiet child, English learner. Household working a number of jobs. Didn’t increase his hand a lot. Didn’t flip in homework constantly. Not the coed who instantly screams “gifted” to a instructor doing fast psychological assessments throughout a chaotic college day.

Then his STAAR arithmetic scores got here again: ninety fifth percentile. All of a sudden, everybody seemed nearer. All of a sudden, we noticed the subtle mathematical reasoning he was doing quietly at his desk. Swiftly, he acquired nominated for TAG screening. Right now, he’s in my Fifth-grade math class, working three grade ranges above, headed for center college algebra. With out these STAAR scores? I’m not assured Miguel would have been recognized. And that’s the reality about what we’re about to lose.

The analysis backs this up. When Card and Giuliano (2016) studied the affect of common screening utilizing standardized evaluation information, they discovered that it elevated identification of underrepresented college students by 180%. Not as a result of the checks have been good—however as a result of they have been systematic. They pressured us to take a look at college students we would in any other case have ignored.

In the meantime, analysis on instructor referrals tells a unique story. Grissom and Redding (2016) discovered that instructor nominations systematically favor college students who’re organized, compliant, and from households who know advocate. These traits correlate strongly with socioeconomic standing however weakly with precise cognitive potential. I see this sample yearly. The children who get nominated shortly; they’ve mother and father who use phrases like “asynchronous growth” and “twice distinctive” in father or mother conferences. They arrive from households who know the system. They match our psychological pictures of what “gifted” seems to be like.

The children who don’t get nominated with out that goal information? They’re the Miguels. And we’re about to make it a lot more durable to seek out them.

The Timeline Disaster: September 2027 is Nearer Than You Assume

Right here’s what retains me up at evening: we now have 18 months to determine this out. September 2027 sounds distant; alas, it’s not. It’s subsequent college yr’s funds planning (taking place proper now in most districts; present third graders turning into Fifth graders (prime identification window); households making enrollment choices with out understanding how identification may change, and districts needing to pilot new protocols, however missing any mannequin to correctly pilot.

TAG identification usually occurs in grades 4-6, with referrals occurring within the fall of every college yr. Meaning:

• Fall 2025: Final cohort recognized utilizing STAAR-inclusive protocols  
• Fall 2026: Transition yr—some STAAR information exists, however is expiring  
• Fall 2027: First cohort recognized solely with out STAAR

We have now primarily one pilot yr (2025-26) to develop, check, and validate new protocols earlier than they change into the one protocols we now have. That’s not a timeline. That’s disaster administration. And right here’s what usually occurs below time strain: districts default to what’s best, not what’s greatest. The best method? Heavy reliance on instructor and father or mother referrals—exactly the subjective measures most weak to bias.

What this Seems to be Like in Actual Districts

Let me make this concrete with numbers from Dallas ISD; we serve roughly 8,600 gifted college students throughout all grade ranges. We function a number of service fashions: self-contained gifted campuses (like Nice Grove, the place I train); cluster grouping in neighborhood faculties, and pull-out enrichment packages. Our present identification makes use of all of the required standards. STAAR information serves two vital features: first, preliminary screening—serving to establish college students who ought to obtain a complete analysis even when not nominated by lecturers or mother and father. Second, validation—confirming that subjective impressions align with goal efficiency indicators.

When STAAR disappears, each features disappear. And Dallas ISD, like each different district in Texas, has obtained precisely zero steering on what replaces them. The fairness implications hit instantly. Nice Grove serves neighborhoods that embrace a few of Dallas’s most economically various communities. Many households don’t have the cultural capital to navigate TAG identification. They don’t know the magic phrases to say in father or mother conferences. They don’t know ask for screening if their baby isn’t nominated. They depend upon methods that discover their youngsters, relatively than methods requiring them to advocate for entry. Eradicate the target screening operate, and we shift the burden of identification to the households least outfitted to bear it. That’s not reform, its regression disguised as progress.

WHAT TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS NEED TO DO NOW

The excellent news is that we’re not powerless. The 18-month window is tight however not not possible. Right here’s what must occur at each stage.

FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS (begin instantly)

1. Doc Every part. Begin constructing complete portfolios for college students who reveal superior reasoning, creativity, or domain-specific expertise. Don’t anticipate formal referral processes. 

Acquire:

– Work samples exhibiting refined pondering

– Anecdotal data of superior questions or insights

– Proof throughout a number of topics and contexts

– Documentation of potential, not simply achievement

I began doing this in September. Each time a scholar reveals me one thing exceptional—an surprising problem-solving method, a artistic connection between ideas, a query that reveals deeper pondering—I archive their work and date it. Takes 30 seconds. Would possibly save a child’s identification.

2. Be taught to Acknowledge Items Throughout Cultural Contexts

That is the place we want essentially the most development. Conventional markers of “giftedness”—verbal fluency, sustained consideration, compliance, group—correlate strongly with middle-class cultural norms. However giftedness seems to be completely different throughout cultures:

– The English learner who struggles with vocabulary however grasps mathematical ideas immediately

– The coed who can’t sit nonetheless however sees spatial relationships that adults miss  

– The child who doesn’t flip in homework however asks questions that cease you in your tracks

Get coaching, learn the analysis. Problem your assumptions about what “gifted” seems to be like. As a result of once we lose goal screening information, our biases change into the first filter

3. Strengthen Your Referral Expertise

Since we’ll be relying extra closely on instructor nomination, we have to get higher at it:

– Use structured commentary protocols, not intestine emotions

– Doc particular proof, not basic impressions

– Search for college students who be taught in a different way, not simply college students who be taught shortly

– Take note of college students who fly below the radar

– Look at your referral patterns—who’re you nominating? Who’re you lacking?

For TAG Coodinators And Adminstrators: This College 12 months

1. Demand State Steering Instantly

Contact your TEA representatives. Be part of TAG coordinator networks. Create a collective voice demanding:

– Specific acknowledgment that HB 8 creates identification challenges

– Statewide requirements stopping huge district-to-district disparities  

– Timeline for districts to develop and submit identification plans

– Technical help and funding for transition

Don’t anticipate TEA to note the issue. Make them discover.

2. Implement Twin Evaluation Throughout Transition

For the 2025-26 college yr, acquire STAAR-equivalent comparative information at the same time as SST rolls out:

– Use transition yr to validate SST-based identification in opposition to STAAR-based patterns

– Doc which college students could be recognized below every system

– Modify protocols based mostly on empirical proof of who’s being reached (and who isn’t)

– Construct your case for what works earlier than you’re pressured to implement blind

3. Pilot New Protocols Now

Don’t wait till Fall 2027 to check new identification approaches. Begin this spring:

– Determine volunteer lecturers prepared to strive different assessments

– Take a look at portfolio-based analysis methods

– Attempt above-grade-level screening (can a 4th grader deal with sixth grade math?)

– Doc what works and what doesn’t

– Share findings with different districts

4. Put money into Skilled Growth

Academics want coaching in:

– Recognizing presents throughout various populations

– Understanding the distinction between excessive achievement and excessive potential

– Documenting proof systematically

– Mitigating bias in referral processes

– Utilizing a number of measures successfully

This isn’t elective. That is important if we’re going to keep up—or enhance—identification of underrepresented college students.

5. Monitor Fairness Metrics Obsessively

Observe identification charges by:

– Race and ethnicity

– Financial standing

– English learner standing  

– Geographic area inside your district

In the event you see identification charges declining for underrepresented teams throughout transition, sound the alarm instantly. Don’t anticipate annual stories. It is a real-time disaster response.

Medium-Time period Proposals: 2025-2027

Different Evaluation Growth. We have to develop and validate assessments that serve STAAR’s identification operate with out STAAR’s drawbacks: off-grade-level assessments.t: Can we display 4th graders utilizing sixth grade materials? College students who excel in above-level content material reveal potential, not simply grade-level achievement.

Area-specific assessments: Not all gifted college students excel throughout all topics. We want assessments in arithmetic, language arts, science, and social research that reveal domain-specific expertise. Non-verbal choices: For English learners and college students with language-based disabilities, we want evaluation approaches that don’t require verbal fluency.

Efficiency-based duties: Give college students advanced, open-ended issues. See how they method uncertainty. See how they suppose, not simply what they know.

Some districts are already doing this work. Austin ISD has experimented with above-level screening. Houston ISD has developed portfolio-based protocols. We have to be taught from these pioneers, scale what works, and share findings statewide.

Analysis Partnerships

Districts ought to associate with universities to:

– Research the effectiveness of various identification approaches below the SST framework

– Doc unintended penalties of evaluation reform  

– Develop evidence-based greatest practices

– Create suggestions loops between analysis and follow

We shouldn’t be flying blind. We needs to be studying systematically.

The Greater Image: Who Will get Forgotten in Reform?

Right here’s the lesson that extends past TAG identification: each main schooling reform creates winners and losers. The query isn’t whether or not this occurs—it’s whether or not we see the losers in time to assist them. HB 8 targeted on basic schooling accountability. That focus made sense politically and pedagogically. Excessive-stakes testing wants reform. SST represents a promising course. However within the rush to repair basic schooling, we ignored specialised populations on the margins. And gifted college students—notably economically deprived gifted college students—stay at these margins. They’re not a robust advocacy constituency. They don’t generate headlines. They fall between the cracks of basic schooling reform and particular schooling safety.

This invisibility creates predictable issues:

– When populations are invisible in coverage design, they continue to be invisible in implementation

– When their wants aren’t articulated in laws, there’s no mandate driving assets

– When nobody is accountable for addressing gaps, gaps don’t get addressed

Till somebody notices. Till somebody speaks up. Till somebody says: wait, what about these children? That’s our job as educators. We see the coed’s coverage makers overlook. We perceive the classroom implications of legislative silence. We all know which children slip by way of cracks when methods change.

We should converse up, as a result of if we don’t, who will?

What Success Seems to be Like

Let me paint the image of what we’re aiming for—not what’s straightforward, however what’s proper.

Situation One: The Regression (What occurs if we do nothing)

Fall 2027 arrives. STAAR is gone. Districts scramble to implement new protocols with out steering, pilot information, or validated approaches. Identification charges decline, notably for: economically deprived college students, English learners, college students of shade, and college students in under-resourced districts by 2030. Gifted packages look extra homogeneous than they did in 2025. We’ve primarily returned to pre-accountability identification patterns, the place entry depended closely on household advocacy and cultural capital.

Achievement gaps widen. Gifted college students from underserved populations lose entry to an accelerated curriculum. The very college students HB 8 was supposed to assist—by way of “genuine” evaluation and decreased testing strain—are harmed by unintended penalties of reform.

Situation Two: The Proactive Response (What’s attainable if we act now)

TEA points complete steering by Spring 2025. Districts obtain technical help and funding to develop sturdy, equity-focused identification protocols. The 2025-26 college yr turns into a real pilot yr—testing approaches, validating strategies, adjusting based mostly on proof. Academics obtain skilled growth in recognizing presents throughout various populations. Portfolio methods complement (relatively than substitute) systematic screening. Districts monitor fairness metrics in real-time and course-correct when disparities emerge.

By Fall 2027, Texas may have identification methods which might be higher than what we had below STAAR—extra complete, much less biased, extra attentive to potential relatively than simply achievement. We’ve used reform as a possibility to construct one thing genuinely equitable. Which situation are we heading towards? That is determined by what we do within the subsequent 18 months.

The Name to Motion

September 2027 is coming whether or not we’re prepared or not. Districts are already planning. Households are making choices. College students are shifting by way of grades the place identification usually happens. The window for proactive options is closing. Nevertheless it’s not closed but. Right here’s what I’m asking you to do—whether or not you’re a classroom instructor, a TAG coordinator, a campus administrator, or a district chief:

This Month: learn this text together with your workforce; focus on implications on your campus/district; establish who’s accountable for TAG identification planning; and begin documenting scholar potential systematically

This Semester: contact TEA demanding steering; be a part of TAG coordinator networks; start piloting different identification approaches; and put money into skilled growth on equitable identification.

This College 12 months: implement twin evaluation throughout transition; monitor fairness metrics intently; share what’s working (and what isn’t) with different districts; and construct a coalition of educators demanding systemic assist. We are able to repair this, however it requires acknowledging the issue exists and performing with urgency.

I train these college students. I see their potential. I see what occurs when that potential is acknowledged and nurtured. I’ve watched college students like Miguel go from invisible to thriving as a result of somebody checked out goal information and stated, “Wait, look nearer.” We’re about to make it a lot more durable to seek out the Miguels. Except we do one thing completely different. Except we demand higher. Except we refuse to let 17,000 college students change into invisible in Texas’s largest schooling reform in twenty years. The selection is ours. 

PRACTICAL RESOURCES FOR EDUCATORS

– Peters, S. J., et al. (2019). Impact of native norms on racial and ethnic illustration in gifted schooling. *AERA Open*, 5(2).

– Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2016). Common screening will increase illustration of low-income and minority college students. *PNAS*, 113(48), 13678-13683.

– Texas Training Company TAG assets: tea.texas.gov/lecturers/special-student-populations/gifted-and-talented-education

– Texas Affiliation for Gifted and Gifted: txgifted.org

– Your Regional Training Service Heart TAG coordinator

– Nationwide Affiliation for Gifted Kids: nagc.org

– To contact your TEA representatives: electronic mail gted@tea.texas.gov with topic: “HB 8 TAG Implementation Steering Wanted”

– Embrace your district, your position, and particular issues about identification protocols

REFERENCES
Andrade, H. L., & Brookhart, S. M. (2020). Classroom evaluation because the co-regulation of studying. Evaluation in Training: Rules, Coverage & Observe, 27(4), 350-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1571992

Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2015). A nation empowered: Proof trumps the justifications holding again America’s brightest college students (Vol. 1). College of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Clean Worldwide Heart for Gifted Training and Expertise Growth.

Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2011). Creating math expertise: A complete information to math schooling for presented college students in elementary and center college (2nd ed.). Prufrock Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom evaluation and pedagogy. Evaluation in Training: Rules, Coverage & Observe, 25(6), 551-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807

Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Under the bubble: “Instructional triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Instructional Analysis Journal, 42(2), 231-268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002231

Brighton, C. M., Hertberg, H. L., Moon, T. R., Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2005). The feasibility of high-end studying in a various center college (RM05210). College of Connecticut, The Nationwide Analysis Heart on the Gifted and Gifted.

Buckley, B. (2025, September 3). Texas Home approves invoice to eradicate and substitute STAAR check. CBS Texas. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/information/texas-house-bill-eliminate-staar-test-gov-abbott/

Cowan, N. (2014). Working reminiscence underpins cognitive growth, studying, and schooling. Instructional Psychology Evaluation, 26(2), 197-223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y

Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. R. (2015). Scientific and psychological well being points in counseling the gifted particular person. Journal of Counseling & Growth, 93(2), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00192.x

Dallas Impartial College District. (2024). Gifted and gifted handbook. Dallas, TX: Writer.

Downing, S. M., & Haladyna, T. M. (2006). Handbook of check growth. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically various college students in gifted schooling: Recruitment and retention points. Distinctive Kids, 74(3), 289-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400302

Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino schooling disaster: The implications of failed social insurance policies. Harvard College Press.

Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To supply or to not produce? Understanding boredom and the distinction in underachievement. Roeper Evaluation, 26(1), 20-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554235

Kaplan, S. N. (2009). The grid: A mannequin to assemble differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, Ok. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.), Programs and fashions for creating packages for the gifted and gifted (2nd ed., pp. 235-252). Inventive Studying Press.

Koretz, D. (2017). The testing charade: Pretending to make faculties higher. College of Chicago Press.

Lane, S., & Stone, C. A. (2006). Efficiency evaluation. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Instructional measurement (4th ed., pp. 387-431). American Council on Training and Praeger.

Lockwood, J. R., & Castellano, Ok. E. (2015). Different approaches for evaluating scholar development. In Ok. E. Castellano & H. Braun (Eds.), Analysis and follow in assessing and enhancing achievement (pp. 169-190). Routledge.

Lohman, D. F., & Korb, Ok. A. (2006). Gifted right now however not tomorrow? Longitudinal modifications in potential and achievement throughout elementary college. Journal for the Training of the Gifted, 29(4), 451-484. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-409

Nationwide Affiliation for Gifted Kids. (2019). 2019 Pre-Ok–Grade 12 gifted programming requirements. Washington, DC: Writer.

Osman, D. (2024). The price of standardized testing: Time, assets, and scholar outcomes. Instructional Testing Analysis Institute.

Peters, S. J., Rambo-Hernandez, Ok., Makel, M. C., Matthews, M. S., & Plucker, J. A. (2019). Impact of native norms on racial and ethnic illustration in gifted schooling. AERA Open, 5(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446

Peterson, J. S. (2009). Fantasy 17: Gifted and gifted people should not have distinctive social and emotional wants. Gifted Youngster Quarterly, 53(4), 280-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346946

Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Track, R. (2010). Thoughts the (different) hole! The rising excellence hole in Ok-12 schooling. Heart for Analysis and Training Coverage, Indiana College.

Preckel, F., Götz, T., & Frenzel, A. (2010). Means grouping of gifted college students: Results on tutorial self-concept and tedium. British Journal of Instructional Psychology, 80(3), 451-472. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X480716

Reeves, R. V. (2011). Dream hoarders: How the American higher center class is leaving everybody else within the mud, why that may be a downside, and what to do about it. Brookings Establishment Press.

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). The Schoolwide Enrichment Mannequin: A give attention to scholar strengths and pursuits. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, Ok. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.), Programs and fashions for creating packages for the gifted and gifted (2nd ed., pp. 323-352). Inventive Studying Press.

Sireci, S. G. (2016). On the validity of ineffective checks. Evaluation in Training: Rules, Coverage & Observe, 23(2), 226-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1072084

Steele, C. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes have an effect on us and what we are able to do. W. W. Norton & Firm.

Texas Training Company. (2024). Texas state plan for the schooling of gifted/gifted college students. Austin, TX: Writer.

Texas Training Company. (2025a). 89th Legislature updates. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/news-and-multimedia/correspondence/taa-letters/overview-of-house-bill-8-0

Texas Training Company. (2025b). Overview of Home Invoice 8. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/news-and-multimedia/correspondence/taa-letters/overview-of-house-bill-8-0

Texas Legislature. (2025). Home Invoice 8, 89th Legislature, 2nd Known as Session. Austin, TX.