Reforming standardized testing in Texas: a break down of House Bill 221
ECTOR COUNTY, Texas (KMID/KPEJ) – Ahead of the 2025 legislative session, State Representative Brooks Landgraf introduced House Bill 221, which proposed significant reforms to standardized testing in Texas schools.
'House Bill 221 is the bill that I filed in the Texas House of Representatives to scrap the STAAR exam,' Landgraf said. 'It's an unnecessary, overly expensive, high stakes standardized test that's not serving Texas students very well, or taxpayers.'
Educators at Ector County ISD said they rely on STAAR data to assess what their students have learned.
'The assessment is made and designed to assess whether students learned the TEKS, which is the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, and just to see their academic performance year-over-year,' said Dr. Robert Trejo, the Executive Director of Accountability and School Improvement at ECISD. 'And, to inform educators what they can focus in in the classroom, year in and year out.'
While the STAAR does provide ECISD with data, it does not provide the district with funding.
'Our funding is based off of attendance or ADA – attendance or percentage of students attending our campuses,' said Trejo. 'So, STAAR performance has no yield as far as the funding that we receive from the state.'
Rep. Landgraf said other states offer better ways of conducting standardized testing.
'No other state uses STAAR, but there are some very successful models that are used in 27 other states. One being the Iowa Assessments, which are much more accurate than STAAR,' Landgraf said. 'They are more cost effective, and that's why they're used with such great success in many other parts of the country. Normally, I think we do everything better here in Texas, but standardized testing is one area where other states get it right and we don't.'
Rep. Landgraf also stated that the STAAR can be a major cause of anxiety in students and teachers.
'It's anxiety not only for the students, but for teachers and parents too,' said Landgraf. 'We put so much pressure on how students as young as third grade perform on this exam…We're not taking the entire education of our students into consideration.'
Educators at ECISD said that no matter what happens to the STAAR, they are still going to be dedicated to providing the best opportunities to their students.
'…We would look at what assessment is coming out of that, what instrument is coming out of that, and then we still do what we do as educators,' Trejo said. 'And that's dissect the data, and then intervene for students and provide them the best educational opportunities and ensure that they're learning.'
Landgraf said House Bill 221 could pass before Memorial Day this spring. The bill would take about a year to implement once passed.
'I think this is also going to be an important part of the debate that is going on right now in the state of Texas with regards to Education Savings Accounts,' said Landgraf. 'Governor Abbott has made ESA's and some other education issues emergency items for the legislative session that we're in right now. So, there is a lot of focus on these issues. I think we can include this as part of the larger discussion of education reforms here in Texas.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasts 'narrow-minded' judging on SCOTUS: ANALYSIS
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unloaded on her Supreme Court colleagues Friday in a series of sharp dissents, castigating what she called a "pure textualism" approach to interpreting laws, which she said had become a pretext for securing their desired outcomes, and implying the conservative justices have strayed from their oath by showing favoritism to "moneyed interests." The attack on the court's conservative majority by the junior justice and member of the liberal wing is notably pointed and aggressive but stopped short of getting personal. It laid bare the stark divisions on the court and pent-up frustration in the minority over what Jackson described as inconsistent and unfair application of precedent by those in power. Jackson took particular aim at Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion in a case brought by a retired Florida firefighter with Parkinson's disease who had tried to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act after her former employer, the City of Sanford, canceled extended health insurance coverage for retirees who left the force before serving 25 years because of a disability. MORE: Supreme Court upholds a state law banning some gender-affirming care for transgenders kids Gorsuch wrote that the landmark law only protects "qualified individuals" and that retirees don't count. The ADA defines the qualified class as those who "can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." "This court has long recognized that the textual limitations upon a law's scope must be understood as no less a part of its purpose than its substantive authorizations," Gorsuch concluded in his opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford. It was joined by all the court's conservatives and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Jackson fired back, accusing her colleagues of reaching a "stingy outcome" and willfully ignoring the "clear design of the ADA to render a ruling that plainly counteracts what Congress meant to -- and did -- accomplish" with the law. She said they had "run in a series of textualist circles" and that the majority "closes its eyes to context, enactment history and the legislature's goals." "I cannot abide that narrow-minded approach," she wrote. MORE: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says 'whole truth' about Black history must be taught Gorsuch retorted that Jackson was simply complaining textualism didn't get her the outcome she wanted, prompting Jackson to take the rare step of using a lengthy footnote to accuse her colleague of the same. Saying the majority has a "unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role," Jackson said her colleagues' "refusal" to consider Congress' intent behind the ADA "turns the interpretative task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences." "By 'finding' answers in ambiguous text," she wrote, "and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined parts of Jackson's dissent, explicitly did not sign-on to the footnote. Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the liberal wing, joined the conservative majority in all three cases in which Jackson dissented, but she did not explain her views. In 2015, Kagan famously said, "we're all textualists now" of the court, but years later disavowed that approach over alleged abuse by conservative jurists. MORE: Supreme Court allows Trump to begin removing 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela In two other cases decided Friday, Jackson accused her colleagues of distorting the law to benefit major American businesses and in so doing "erode the public trust." She dissented from Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion siding with major tobacco manufacturer, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., that gives retailers the ability to sue the Food and Drug Administration over the denial of new product applications for e-cigarettes. Barrett concluded that a federal law meant to regulate the manufacture and distribution of new tobacco products also allows retailers who would sell the products to seek judicial review of an adverse FDA decision. Jackson blasted the conclusion as "illogical" again taking her colleagues to task for not sufficiently considering Congress' intent or longstanding precedent. "Every available indictor reveals that Congress intended to permit manufacturers -- not retailers -- to challenge the denial," she wrote. MORE: Justice Stephen Breyer's blunt message to Supreme Court conservatives: 'Slow down' Of the court's 7-2 decision by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, giving gasoline producers the right to sue California over limits on emission-producing cars, Jackson said her colleagues were favoring the fuel industry over "less powerful plaintiffs." "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens," she wrote. Jackson argued that the case should have been mooted, since the Trump administration withdrew EPA approval for California's emissions standards thereby eliminating any alleged harm to the auto and fuel industry. MORE: Supreme Court limits environmental impact studies, expediting infrastructure projects "Those of us who are privileged to work inside the Court must not lose sight of this institution's unique mission and responsibility: to rule without fear or favor," she wrote, admonishing her colleagues. The court is next scheduled to convene Thursday, June 26, to release another round of opinions in cases argued this term. Decisions are expected in a dispute over online age verification for adult websites, parental opt-out rights for kids in public schools exposed to LGBTQ themes, and, the scope of nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump's second-term policies.
a day ago
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasts 'narrow-minded' judging on Supreme Court: ANALYSIS
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unloaded on her Supreme Court colleagues Friday in a series of sharp dissents, castigating what she called a "pure textualism" approach to interpreting laws, which she said had become a pretext for securing their desired outcomes, and implying the conservative justices have strayed from their oath by showing favoritism to "moneyed interests." The attack on the court's conservative majority by the junior justice and member of the liberal wing is notably pointed and aggressive but stopped short of getting personal. It laid bare the stark divisions on the court and pent-up frustration in the minority over what Jackson described as inconsistent and unfair application of precedent by those in power. Jackson took particular aim at Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority opinion in a case brought by a retired Florida firefighter with Parkinson's disease who had tried to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act after her former employer, the City of Sanford, canceled extended health insurance coverage for retirees who left the force before serving 25 years because of a disability. Gorsuch wrote that the landmark law only protects "qualified individuals" and that retirees don't count. The ADA defines the qualified class as those who "can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." "This court has long recognized that the textual limitations upon a law's scope must be understood as no less a part of its purpose than its substantive authorizations," Gorsuch concluded in his opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford. It was joined by all the court's conservatives and liberal Justice Elena Kagan. Jackson fired back, accusing her colleagues of reaching a "stingy outcome" and willfully ignoring the "clear design of the ADA to render a ruling that plainly counteracts what Congress meant to -- and did -- accomplish" with the law. She said they had "run in a series of textualist circles" and that the majority "closes its eyes to context, enactment history and the legislature's goals." "I cannot abide that narrow-minded approach," she wrote. Gorsuch retorted that Jackson was simply complaining textualism didn't get her the outcome she wanted, prompting Jackson to take the rare step of using a lengthy footnote to accuse her colleague of the same. Saying the majority has a "unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role," Jackson said her colleagues' "refusal" to consider Congress' intent behind the ADA "turns the interpretative task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences." "By 'finding' answers in ambiguous text," she wrote, "and not bothering to consider whether those answers align with other sources of statutory meaning, pure textualists can easily disguise their own preferences." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined parts of Jackson's dissent, explicitly did not sign-on to the footnote. Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the liberal wing, joined the conservative majority in all three cases in which Jackson dissented, but she did not explain her views. In 2015, Kagan famously said, "we're all textualists now" of the court, but years later disavowed that approach over alleged abuse by conservative jurists. In two other cases decided Friday, Jackson accused her colleagues of distorting the law to benefit major American businesses and in so doing "erode the public trust." She dissented from Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion siding with major tobacco manufacturer, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., that gives retailers the ability to sue the Food and Drug Administration over the denial of new product applications for e-cigarettes. Barrett concluded that a federal law meant to regulate the manufacture and distribution of new tobacco products also allows retailers who would sell the products to seek judicial review of an adverse FDA decision. Jackson blasted the conclusion as "illogical" again taking her colleagues to task for not sufficiently considering Congress' intent or longstanding precedent. "Every available indictor reveals that Congress intended to permit manufacturers -- not retailers -- to challenge the denial," she wrote. Of the court's 7-2 decision by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, giving gasoline producers the right to sue California over limits on emission-producing cars, Jackson said her colleagues were favoring the fuel industry over "less powerful plaintiffs." "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens," she wrote. Jackson argued that the case should have been mooted, since the Trump administration withdrew EPA approval for California's emissions standards thereby eliminating any alleged harm to the auto and fuel industry. "Those of us who are privileged to work inside the Court must not lose sight of this institution's unique mission and responsibility: to rule without fear or favor," she wrote, admonishing her colleagues. The court is next scheduled to convene Thursday, June 26, to release another round of opinions in cases argued this term. Decisions are expected in a dispute over online age verification for adult websites, parental opt-out rights for kids in public schools exposed to LGBTQ themes, and, the scope of nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump's second-term policies.
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court finds retired firefighter cannot sue for disability discrimination
Advertisement In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined, in part, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the justices had abandoned protections for vulnerable retirees. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Disabled Americans who have retired from the work force simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination,' Jackson wrote, adding that Congress had 'plainly protected their right to do so' when it drafted the federal disability rights law. Sotomayor, in a separate writing, argued that a majority of the justices appeared in agreement that retirees may be able to bring disability discrimination claims for actions that occurred while they were still employed. Stanley might have been able to argue that this would apply in her case, too, Sotomayor wrote, but the court had not been asked to weigh in on that question. Advertisement Stanley worked as a firefighter in Sanford, Florida, a city of about 65,000 people northeast of Orlando. When she started her job in 1999, the city offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees -- those with 25 years of service and those who retired early because of disability. In 2003, the city changed its policy, limiting health insurance to those who retired because of disability to just 24 months of coverage. After nearly two decades, Stanley retired in 2018 at age 47 after she was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. She expected that the city would continue to pay for most of her health insurance until she turned 65, but it refused, citing its changed policy. Stanley sued, claiming that the city had violated the ADA by providing different benefits to 25-year employees versus those who retired because of a disability. She argued that the city's policy amounted to impermissible discrimination based on disability. A federal trial judge dismissed her claim under the ADA, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit agreed. In asking the justices to hear the case, lawyers for Stanley said it could affect millions of disabled Americans who rely on retirement benefits that they earned while employed. One section of the ADA specifies that it is illegal to discriminate in compensation because of a disability. The justices wrestled with whether the section included retirees. Deepak Gupta, a lawyer for Stanley, said in an emailed statement that the decision had created 'a troubling loophole that allows employers to discriminate against retirees simply because they can no longer work due to their disabilities.' Advertisement In her dissent, Jackson wrote that she hoped Congress might step in and provide a 'legislative intervention' to shield other disabled retirees. This article originally appeared in
