Conversation with Grok 4 on STAAR Testing and HB 8

Date and Time: September 05, 2025, 10:28 AM CDT

User Question 1: What is the difference between last year's STAAR testing and the new system just put in place by the Texas legislature?

Grok 4 Response

The Texas Legislature passed House Bill 8 (HB 8) in late August 2025 during a special session, sending it to Governor Greg Abbott for signature. This bill replaces the longstanding STAAR (State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness) system with a new "through-year" assessment model, effective starting in the 2027-2028 school year. Last year's STAAR testing, referring to the 2024-2025 school year, used the traditional single end-of-year summative test format that has been in place for over a decade.

The primary goal of the new system is to shift from a one-time snapshot of student performance to ongoing measurement of academic growth, with faster feedback for educators and parents. It also aims to reduce overall testing burdens by shortening individual assessments and limiting redundant benchmark tests, though critics argue it could increase the frequency of high-stakes testing without fully addressing underlying issues.

Comparison of Old STAAR vs. New System

Aspect	Old STAAR System (e.g., 2024-2025)	New System (Starting 2027-2028)
Test Frequency	One summative test per subject, administered at the end of the school year.	Three shorter tests per subject: Beginning-of-Year (BOY), Middle-of-Year (MOY), and End-of-Year (EOY).
Test Length	Typically 3+ hours per test, often requiring multiple days.	Each test shortened (e.g., ~1.5 hours for EOY), designed to be completed in a single sitting.
Focus and Purpose	Measures end-of-year achievement against grade-level standards; heavy emphasis on absolute proficiency.	Emphasizes student growth and progress over the year; BOY and MOY are diagnostic, EOY remains summative but incorporates growth metrics into accountability.
Results Turnaround	Often takes several weeks to months for full results and analysis.	Available within 2 business days after each testing window.
Scoring and Reporting	Results show if students approached, met, or mastered standards; percentile ranks optional.	All results presented as percentile ranks (comparing to peers); EOY includes mastery levels; raw scores provided quickly.
Adaptivity and Options	Fixed-format tests, no adaptivity; all districts use the same TEA-developed assessments.	BOY and MOY can be adaptive; districts may opt for approved national norm-referenced tests at their own expense instead of TEA versions.
Specific Tests Affected	Includes standalone writing assessments and end-of-course (EOC) exams like English II for graduation.	Retains standalone writing (machine-scored with improved rescoring); eliminates English II EOC as a graduation requirement, but keeps others (e.g., English I, Algebra I, Biology). Restores 8th-grade social studies and U.S. History EOC via Senate amendment.
Accountability Integration	Test scores heavily influence A-F school/district ratings; commissioner has authority to adjust standards.	Introduces growth measures into A-F ratings; requires annual ratings (bans "Not Rated" designations); gives commissioner more flexibility to modify indicators annually, with some legislative oversight. Protects against lawsuits challenging ratings.
Teacher/Stakeholder Input	Limited formal involvement in test design.	Establishes a committee of 40 classroom teachers to review questions, rigor, and fairness. However, critics note the accountability advisory group has minimal educator/parent representation.
Additional Restrictions	No statewide caps on benchmark/practice tests.	Caps benchmark testing to reclaim instructional time; sets testing calendars and windows to minimize disruption.

Supporters, including bill authors Rep. Brad Buckley and Sen. Paul Bettencourt, claim the changes will reduce stress from "one test, one day" while enabling data-driven instruction. Opponents, particularly some Democrats and educator groups like Texas AFT, contend it triples testing volume, centralizes too much power with the Texas Education Agency (TEA), and fails to eliminate high-stakes elements. For the 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 school years, the old STAAR system will remain in use during the transition period.

User Question 2: What is the effect of HB8 on MAP testing?

Grok 4 Response

House Bill 8 (HB 8), passed by the Texas Legislature in late August 2025 and awaiting Governor Greg Abbott's signature as of early September 2025, significantly impacts the use of Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) testing in Texas public schools. MAP, a nationally norm-referenced adaptive assessment developed by NWEA, is commonly used by districts as a benchmark tool to monitor student growth in reading, math, and other subjects. While HB 8 does not explicitly name MAP, its provisions on benchmark testing and alternative assessments directly affect how and when MAP can be administered.

Immediate and Transitional Effects (2025-2027 School Years)

• Ban on Local Benchmark Testing: Effective immediately upon the bill's signing (expected soon after passage), HB 8 prohibits districts from administering local benchmark or practice tests, including vendor-provided exams like MAP, to reduce over-testing and reclaim instructional time. This ban applies fully to grades 3-8, where no local benchmarks are allowed until the new system launches in 2027-2028. For high school (grades 9-12), districts are limited to no more than two benchmarks per tested subject per year before end-of-course exams.
• Implications for MAP: Districts must cancel or suspend MAP administrations during this period if used as benchmarks, potentially leading to the termination of vendor contracts and a shift toward teacher-created quizzes or unit tests instead. Exemptions exist for certain diagnostic tests (e.g., for dyslexia) and state-required assessments, but MAP as a general benchmark falls under the prohibition. This addresses concerns over excessive testing, with some districts previously administering 10-12 benchmarks annually, but it may disrupt data-driven instruction in the interim.

Long-Term Effects (Starting 2027-2028 School Year)

• Redefinition and Restrictions on Benchmarks: HB 8 redefines "benchmark assessment instrument" to explicitly include nationally norm-referenced tests like MAP, practice tests, and vendor-created assessments. Districts remain prohibited from administering unapproved benchmarks in grades 3-8, and limited to two per subject in other grades.
• Options for Alternative Assessments: Under the new "instructionally supportive assessment program" replacing STAAR, districts can opt to use approved alternative norm-referenced tests in place of the Texas Education Agency's (TEA) beginning-of-year (BOY) and middle-of-year (MOY) assessments, at the district's expense. TEA must create and maintain a list of approved alternatives, and districts can submit tests (such as MAP) for inclusion. If approved, MAP could serve as a BOY or MOY test, providing faster, adaptive diagnostics aligned with the bill's focus on growth measurement.
• Potential Benefits and Challenges: This could integrate MAP into the state system for districts already using it, reducing redundancy and supporting equitable access to quality diagnostics. However, approval is not guaranteed, and costs shift to districts, potentially disadvantaging lower-resourced ones. The end-of-year (EOY) test remains TEA-developed and summative, so MAP cannot replace it.

Aspect	Pre-HB 8 (Current Use of MAP)	Post-HB 8 (Transitional, 2025-2027)	Post-HB 8 (2027-2028 Onward)
Administration Frequency	Often multiple times per year as district benchmarks.	Prohibited as benchmarks in grades 3-8; limited to 2 per subject in high school.	Restricted; can only be used if approved as BOY/MOY alternative (up to 2/year in non-3-8 grades for other benchmarks).
Purpose	Diagnostic growth tracking, STAAR prep.	Shift to non-benchmark alternatives like classroom assessments.	Potential integration as state-approved formative tool for growth focus.
Costs and Approval	District-funded, no state approval needed.	N/A (banned).	District-funded; requires TEA approval for list inclusion.
Exemptions	None specific.	Dyslexia diagnostics, state-required tests.	Same, plus approved alternatives.

Overall, HB 8 aims to curb "over-testing" by restricting MAP-like benchmarks in the short term while opening a pathway for their use in the new growth-oriented system, potentially enhancing instructional utility if MAP gains approval. Districts should monitor TEA's approval process for alternatives, as MAP's alignment with norm-referenced requirements makes it a strong candidate.