Chasing a different STAAR: HB8 changes to state testing for elementary and middle schooL students in Texas

I remember the exact moment. It was June 2023, right after the last bell rang on a Friday afternoon. My colleague stuck her head in my classroom door, grinning. “Did you hear? They killed the STAAR!”

We’d been teaching under the weight of the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness for over a decade. We’d watched students cry before testing windows. We’d seen curriculum narrow to test prep. We’d felt the pressure to teach to the assessment rather than teach the whole child. So yeah, we celebrated when House Bill 8 passed, eliminating STAAR and replacing it with Success, Student, Teacher (SST) assessments starting September 2027.

I wanted to celebrate too. I teach 5th-grade mathematics and reading at Dallas ISD’s School for the Talented and Gifted at Pleasant Grove, where I serve some of Dallas’s most economically disadvantaged students; yet this year, we are ranked 12^th best in the state of Texas. Many are first-generation college-bound. For these kids, gifted identification isn’t about prestige—it’s about access to opportunities their families might never know to request.

But that weekend, I did something most of my celebrating colleagues didn’t do. I read the actual legislation. Then, I read the committee hearings. Then the TEA implementation guidance. That’s when I realized: not a single mention of how Texas will identify gifted students once STAAR disappears. My students—the exact population everyone claims to care about in equity conversations—had just become invisible in Texas’s biggest education reform in twenty years. And I was pretty sure no one else had noticed.

The Problem No One’s Talking About

Here are the numbers that should worry every TAG teacher and coordinator in Texas:

– 17,000 students in grades 4-8 are currently identified as gifted and talented, with STAAR playing a role in their identification

– 1,023 school districts that will need new identification protocols

– 8 months until STAAR disappears completely (September 2027)

– Zero pages of TEA guidance on what comes next

Let me be clear about what this means practically. Texas Education Code §29.122 requires districts to identify gifted students using “multiple criteria.” For most districts, those criteria have included: teacher nomination, parent nomination, performance on STAAR, and portfolio evidence. 

When STAAR goes away in September 2027, one of those four pillars disappears. And despite what some people assume, you can’t just eliminate it and expect the other three to compensate. Here’s why.

Why Testing Data Matters: The Uncomfortable Truth

I need to say something that makes a lot of my progressive educator friends uncomfortable: sometimes the systems we hate are also the systems protecting our most vulnerable students. STAAR was deeply flawed. It created vast test anxiety while narrowing the curriculum. It reduced teaching to test prep. I’m not here to defend it. But here’s what STAAR did that we’re about to lose: it provided objective, comparative data that helped identify students whose gifts might otherwise go unrecognized.

Let me tell you about Miguel (not his real name). Fourth grade, quiet kid, English learner. Family working multiple jobs. Didn’t raise his hand much. Didn’t turn in homework consistently. Not the student who immediately screams “gifted” to a teacher doing quick mental assessments during a chaotic school day.

Then his STAAR mathematics scores came back: 95th percentile. Suddenly, everyone looked closer. Suddenly, we saw the sophisticated mathematical reasoning he was doing quietly at his desk. Swiftly, he got nominated for TAG screening. Today, he’s in my 5th-grade math class, working three grade levels above, headed for middle school algebra. Without those STAAR scores? I’m not confident Miguel would have been identified. And that’s the truth about what we’re about to lose.

The research backs this up. When Card and Giuliano (2016) studied the impact of universal screening using standardized assessment data, they found that it increased identification of underrepresented students by 180%. Not because the tests were perfect—but because they were systematic. They forced us to look at students we might otherwise have overlooked.

Meanwhile, research on teacher referrals tells a different story. Grissom and Redding (2016) found that teacher nominations systematically favor students who are organized, compliant, and from families who know how to advocate. These characteristics correlate strongly with socioeconomic status but weakly with actual cognitive ability. I see this pattern every year. The kids who get nominated quickly; they have parents who use phrases like “asynchronous development” and “twice exceptional” in parent conferences. They come from families who know the system. They match our mental images of what “gifted” looks like.

The kids who don’t get nominated without that objective data? They’re the Miguels. And we’re about to make it much harder to find them.

The Timeline Crisis: September 2027 is Closer Than You Think

Here’s what keeps me up at night: we have 18 months to figure this out. September 2027 sounds far away; alas, it’s not. It’s next school year’s budget planning (happening right now in most districts; current 3rd graders becoming 5th graders (prime identification window); families making enrollment decisions without understanding how identification might change, and districts needing to pilot new protocols, but lacking any model to properly pilot.

TAG identification typically happens in grades 4-6, with referrals occurring in the fall of each school year. That means:

• Fall 2025: Last cohort identified using STAAR-inclusive protocols  
• Fall 2026: Transition year—some STAAR data exists, but is expiring  
• Fall 2027: First cohort identified entirely without STAAR

We have essentially one pilot year (2025-26) to develop, test, and validate new protocols before they become the only protocols we have. That’s not a timeline. That’s crisis management. And here’s what typically happens under time pressure: districts default to what’s easiest, not what’s best. The easiest approach? Heavy reliance on teacher and parent referrals—precisely the subjective measures most vulnerable to bias.

What this Looks Like in Real Districts

Let me make this concrete with numbers from Dallas ISD; we serve approximately 8,600 gifted students across all grade levels. We operate multiple service models: self-contained gifted campuses (like Pleasant Grove, where I teach); cluster grouping in neighborhood schools, and pull-out enrichment programs. Our current identification uses all the required criteria. STAAR data serves two critical functions: first, initial screening—helping identify students who should receive a comprehensive evaluation even if not nominated by teachers or parents. Second, validation—confirming that subjective impressions align with objective performance indicators.

When STAAR disappears, both functions disappear. And Dallas ISD, like every other district in Texas, has received exactly zero guidance on what replaces them. The equity implications hit immediately. Pleasant Grove serves neighborhoods that include some of Dallas’s most economically diverse communities. Many families don’t have the cultural capital to navigate TAG identification. They don’t know the magic words to say in parent conferences. They don’t know how to ask for screening if their child isn’t nominated. They depend on systems that find their children, rather than systems requiring them to advocate for access. Eliminate the objective screening function, and we shift the burden of identification to the families least equipped to bear it. That’s not reform, its regression disguised as progress.

WHAT TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS NEED TO DO NOW

The good news is that we’re not powerless. The 18-month window is tight but not impossible. Here’s what needs to happen at every level.

FOR CLASSROOM TEACHERS (start immediately)

1. Document Everything. Start building comprehensive portfolios for students who demonstrate advanced reasoning, creativity, or domain-specific talent. Don’t wait for formal referral processes. 

Collect:

– Work samples showing sophisticated thinking

– Anecdotal records of advanced questions or insights

– Evidence across multiple subjects and contexts

– Documentation of potential, not just achievement

I started doing this in September. Every time a student shows me something remarkable—an unexpected problem-solving approach, a creative connection between concepts, a question that reveals deeper thinking—I archive their work and date it. Takes 30 seconds. Might save a kid’s identification.

2. Learn to Recognize Gifts Across Cultural Contexts

This is where we need the most growth. Traditional markers of “giftedness”—verbal fluency, sustained attention, compliance, organization—correlate strongly with middle-class cultural norms. But giftedness looks different across cultures:

– The English learner who struggles with vocabulary but grasps mathematical concepts instantly

– The student who can’t sit still but sees spatial relationships that adults miss  

– The kid who doesn’t turn in homework but asks questions that stop you in your tracks

Get training, read the research. Challenge your assumptions about what “gifted” looks like. Because when we lose objective screening data, our biases become the primary filter

3. Strengthen Your Referral Skills

Since we’ll be relying more heavily on teacher nomination, we need to get better at it:

– Use structured observation protocols, not gut feelings

– Document specific evidence, not general impressions

– Look for students who learn differently, not just students who learn quickly

– Pay attention to students who fly under the radar

– Examine your referral patterns—who are you nominating? Who are you missing?

For TAG Coodinators And Adminstrators: This School Year

1. Demand State Guidance Immediately

Contact your TEA representatives. Join TAG coordinator networks. Create a collective voice demanding:

– Explicit acknowledgment that HB 8 creates identification challenges

– Statewide standards preventing massive district-to-district disparities  

– Timeline for districts to develop and submit identification plans

– Technical assistance and funding for transition

Don’t wait for TEA to notice the problem. Make them notice.

2. Implement Dual Assessment During Transition

For the 2025-26 school year, collect STAAR-equivalent comparative data even as SST rolls out:

– Use transition year to validate SST-based identification against STAAR-based patterns

– Document which students would be identified under each system

– Adjust protocols based on empirical evidence of who’s being reached (and who isn’t)

– Build your case for what works before you’re forced to implement blind

3. Pilot New Protocols Now

Don’t wait until Fall 2027 to test new identification approaches. Start this spring:

– Identify volunteer teachers willing to try alternative assessments

– Test portfolio-based evaluation systems

– Try above-grade-level screening (can a 4th grader handle 6th grade math?)

– Document what works and what doesn’t

– Share findings with other districts

4. Invest in Professional Development

Teachers need training in:

– Recognizing gifts across diverse populations

– Understanding the difference between high achievement and high potential

– Documenting evidence systematically

– Mitigating bias in referral processes

– Using multiple measures effectively

This isn’t optional. This is essential if we’re going to maintain—or improve—identification of underrepresented students.

5. Monitor Equity Metrics Obsessively

Track identification rates by:

– Race and ethnicity

– Economic status

– English learner status  

– Geographic region within your district

If you see identification rates declining for underrepresented groups during transition, sound the alarm immediately. Don’t wait for annual reports. This is a real-time crisis response.

Medium-Term Proposals: 2025-2027

Alternative Assessment Development. We need to develop and validate assessments that serve STAAR’s identification function without STAAR’s drawbacks: off-grade-level assessments.t: Can we screen 4th graders using 6th grade material? Students who excel in above-level content demonstrate potential, not just grade-level achievement.

Domain-specific assessments: Not all gifted students excel across all subjects. We need assessments in mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies that reveal domain-specific talent. Non-verbal options: For English learners and students with language-based disabilities, we need assessment approaches that don’t require verbal fluency.

Performance-based tasks: Give students complex, open-ended problems. See how they approach uncertainty. See how they think, not just 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 need to learn from these pioneers, scale what works, and share findings statewide.

Research Partnerships

Districts should partner with universities to:

– Study the effectiveness of different identification approaches under the SST framework

– Document unintended consequences of assessment reform  

– Develop evidence-based best practices

– Create feedback loops between research and practice

We shouldn’t be flying blind. We should be learning systematically.

The Bigger Picture: Who Gets Forgotten in Reform?

Here’s the lesson that extends beyond TAG identification: every major education reform creates winners and losers. The question isn’t whether this happens—it’s whether we see the losers in time to help them. HB 8 focused on general education accountability. That focus made sense politically and pedagogically. High-stakes testing needs reform. SST represents a promising direction. But in the rush to fix general education, we overlooked specialized populations at the margins. And gifted students—particularly economically disadvantaged gifted students—live at those margins. They’re not a powerful advocacy constituency. They don’t generate headlines. They fall between the cracks of general education reform and special education protection.

This invisibility creates predictable problems:

– When populations are invisible in policy design, they remain invisible in implementation

– When their needs aren’t articulated in legislation, there’s no mandate driving resources

– When no one is accountable for addressing gaps, gaps don’t get addressed

Until someone notices. Until someone speaks up. Until someone says: wait, what about these kids? That’s our job as educators. We see the student’s policy makers overlook. We understand the classroom implications of legislative silence. We know which kids slip through cracks when systems change.

We must speak up, because if we don’t, who will?

What Success Looks Like

Let me paint the picture of what we’re aiming for—not what’s easy, but what’s right.

Scenario One: The Regression (What happens if we do nothing)

Fall 2027 arrives. STAAR is gone. Districts scramble to implement new protocols without guidance, pilot data, or validated approaches. Identification rates decline, particularly for: economically disadvantaged students, English learners, students of color, and students in under-resourced districts by 2030. Gifted programs look more homogeneous than they did in 2025. We’ve essentially returned to pre-accountability identification patterns, where access depended heavily on family advocacy and cultural capital.

Achievement gaps widen. Talented students from underserved populations lose access to an accelerated curriculum. The very students HB 8 was supposed to help—through “authentic” assessment and reduced testing pressure—are harmed by unintended consequences of reform.

Scenario Two: The Proactive Response (What’s possible if we act now)

TEA issues comprehensive guidance by Spring 2025. Districts receive technical assistance and funding to develop robust, equity-focused identification protocols. The 2025-26 school year becomes a genuine pilot year—testing approaches, validating methods, adjusting based on evidence. Teachers receive professional development in recognizing gifts across diverse populations. Portfolio systems complement (rather than replace) systematic screening. Districts monitor equity metrics in real-time and course-correct when disparities emerge.

By Fall 2027, Texas will have identification systems that are better than what we had under STAAR—more comprehensive, less biased, more attentive to potential rather than just achievement. We’ve used reform as an opportunity to build something genuinely equitable. Which scenario are we heading toward? That depends on what we do in the next 18 months.

The Call to Action

September 2027 is coming whether we’re ready or not. Districts are already planning. Families are making decisions. Students are moving through grades where identification typically occurs. The window for proactive solutions is closing. But it’s not closed yet. Here’s what I’m asking you to do—whether you’re a classroom teacher, a TAG coordinator, a campus administrator, or a district leader:

This Month: read this article with your team; discuss implications for your campus/district; identify who’s responsible for TAG identification planning; and start documenting student potential systematically

This Semester: contact TEA demanding guidance; join TAG coordinator networks; begin piloting alternative identification approaches; and invest in professional development on equitable identification.

This School Year: implement dual assessment during transition; monitor equity metrics closely; share what’s working (and what isn’t) with other districts; and build a coalition of educators demanding systemic support. We can fix this, but it requires acknowledging the problem exists and acting with urgency.

I teach these students. I see their potential. I see what happens when that potential is recognized and nurtured. I’ve watched students like Miguel go from invisible to thriving because someone looked at objective data and said, “Wait, look closer.” We’re about to make it much harder to find the Miguels. Unless we do something different. Unless we demand better. Unless we refuse to let 17,000 students become invisible in Texas’s biggest education reform in twenty years. The choice is ours. 

PRACTICAL RESOURCES FOR EDUCATORS

– Peters, S. J., et al. (2019). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. *AERA Open*, 5(2).

– Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2016). Universal screening increases representation of low-income and minority students. *PNAS*, 113(48), 13678-13683.

– Texas Education Agency TAG resources: tea.texas.gov/academics/special-student-populations/gifted-and-talented-education

– Texas Association for Gifted and Talented: txgifted.org

– Your Regional Education Service Center TAG coordinator

– National Association for Gifted Children: nagc.org

– To contact your TEA representatives: email gted@tea.texas.gov with subject: “HB 8 TAG Implementation Guidance Needed”

– Include your district, your role, and specific concerns about identification protocols

REFERENCES
Andrade, H. L., & Brookhart, S. M. (2020). Classroom assessment as the co-regulation of learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 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: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 1). University of Iowa, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Assouline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2011). Developing math talent: A comprehensive guide to math education for gifted students in elementary and middle school (2nd ed.). Prufrock Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807

Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research 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 learning in a diverse middle school (RM05210). University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

Buckley, B. (2025, September 3). Texas House approves bill to eliminate and replace STAAR test. CBS Texas. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/texas-house-bill-eliminate-staar-test-gov-abbott/

Cowan, N. (2014). Working memory underpins cognitive development, learning, and education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 197-223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y

Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. R. (2015). Clinical and mental health issues in counseling the gifted individual. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(2), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00192.x

Dallas Independent School District. (2024). Gifted and talented handbook. Dallas, TX: Author.

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

Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400302

Gándara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed social policies. Harvard University Press.

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

Kaplan, S. N. (2009). The grid: A model to construct differentiated curriculum for the gifted. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 235-252). Creative Learning Press.

Koretz, D. (2017). The testing charade: Pretending to make schools better. University of Chicago Press.

Lane, S., & Stone, C. A. (2006). Performance assessment. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 387-431). American Council on Education and Praeger.

Lockwood, J. R., & Castellano, K. E. (2015). Alternative approaches for evaluating student growth. In K. E. Castellano & H. Braun (Eds.), Research and practice in assessing and improving achievement (pp. 169-190). Routledge.

Lohman, D. F., & Korb, K. A. (2006). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ability and achievement during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(4), 451-484. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-409

National Association for Gifted Children. (2019). 2019 Pre-K–Grade 12 gifted programming standards. Washington, DC: Author.

Osman, D. (2024). The cost of standardized testing: Time, resources, and student outcomes. Educational Testing Research Institute.

Peters, S. J., Rambo-Hernandez, K., Makel, M. C., Matthews, M. S., & Plucker, J. A. (2019). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open, 5(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446

Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 280-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346946

Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K-12 education. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University.

Preckel, F., Götz, T., & Frenzel, A. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic self-concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 451-472. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X480716

Reeves, R. V. (2011). Dream hoarders: How the American upper middle class is leaving everyone else in the dust, why that is a problem, and what to do about it. Brookings Institution Press.

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A focus on student strengths and interests. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 323-352). Creative Learning Press.

Sireci, S. G. (2016). On the validity of useless tests. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(2), 226-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1072084

Steele, C. M. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. W. W. Norton & Company.

Texas Education Agency. (2024). Texas state plan for the education of gifted/talented students. Austin, TX: Author.

Texas Education Agency. (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 Education Agency. (2025b). Overview of House Bill 8. Retrieved from https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/news-and-multimedia/correspondence/taa-letters/overview-of-house-bill-8-0

Texas Legislature. (2025). House Bill 8, 89th Legislature, 2nd Called Session. Austin, TX.