This article provides a summary of recent newspaper reports regarding a lawsuit filed by school districts against the state of Texas, with Education Commissioner Mike Morath named as the defendant. The lawsuit, initiated by various school districts in the Fall of 2023, calls for a halt to the release of the A-F accountability ratings, citing various reasons for their disapproval.
The plaintiffs’ arguments point to three main reasons that address why they want to prevent the Commissioner from releasing the A-F ratings, as stated in the court document, dated September 16, 2024, Amended Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Application for Temporary Injunctive Relief.
(Cause No. D-1-GN-24-005018):
(1) the Commissioner failed to ensure the new, redesigned STAAR test is valid and reliable before administering the test;
(2) the Commissioner failed to provide fair notice of the measures, methods, and procedures he would use to calculate the A–F ratings; and
(3) the Commissioner failed to ensure that it is mathematically possible for every school district and school campus to achieve an A rating.
In the concluding remarks, I raise specific questions concerning the validity, reliability, and fairness of the STAAR (State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness) test in regard to students learning English as their second language. When we examine the various accountability issues, it’s critical to consider important related matters that affect all students.
Ten Article Reviews
The article summaries are briefly described as follows: Title, Author, News Fount, Publication Date. A link to the publication is included.
In this letter to families and staff at the Del Valle ISD, Superintendent Annette Tielle explains her dismay over the TEA’s decision to use a different accountability system “to paint a picture that public schools, including Del Valle ISD, are failing.” The superintendent lists the three reasons that underscore the problems with the accountability system: 1) the new rating system incorrectly and unfairly increases the score points on the College and Career Readiness (CCMR) standard by 28 points (from 60 percent to 88 percent); 2) the test was fully redesigned; and 3) in years past, students had an annual paper/pencil test but the new test was administered completely online.
In this article, Becky Fogel quotes Nick Maddox, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs. Maddox mentions that school districts receiving the “lower grades” will experience a negative impact on student enrollment and thus reduce their funding, adversely impact property values in the districts, and may be subject to an intervention by the Texas Education Agency if one of their campuses receives a “failing grade for five consecutive years.” Included in this publication is the full text of the court’s Original Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Application for Temporary Injunctive Relief.
In his insightful analysis, Brian Lopez points to a crucial aspect of the lawsuit, highlighting the recurring issue of inequity faced by lower-rated school districts with D’s or F’s. These districts, which serve a high number of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, often struggle with challenges such as lack of housing and food insecurity, which can significantly impact academic achievement. Lopez also references Jonathan Feinstein, Director of the Education Trust in Texas, who emphasizes the importance of accountability systems in identifying areas for improvement and advocating for tailored programs and resources to support the most vulnerable students.
In this report, Keri Heath reiterates the declarations by the court authority, District Judge Catherine Mauzy, that the state’s A-F accountability system for the “2022-2023 school year is unlawful and violates Texas law.” Accordingly, the report includes the statement that alleges Commissioner Morath of acting beyond his authority by using data from past years. It would cause “irreparable harm to the districts,” Mauzy is quoted as saying. Heath mentioned that failing districts could face a takeover by the agency, “such as happened in Houston this year.” A statement from the state agency points to their belief that the “ratings are meant to be helpful in supporting improved outcomes.”
Brian Lopez’ report includes arguments from both the plaintiff and defendant sides. On the plaintiff argument, Superintendent Cissy Reynolds-Perez states that her school district, Kingsville ISD “would have been close to getting an “A” for its performance in 2022”, however, the new TEA rules would result in a score of “C”. While the Superintendent Reynolds-Perez criticizes the A-F accountability system, she is not proposing to throw out an accountability system altogether. Lopez includes her quote: “We believe that we need to be held accountable. We just believe that the accountability system needs reform, and it needs to be done lawfully and fairly.” Reynolds-Perez also quoted, “You’re measuring a child’s ability on one test.”
In presenting the defendant’s arguments, Lopez quotes the Texas Education Agency statements: 1) “the state says it needs detailed data and higher benchmarks to measure schools’ performance to better prepare students for life after high school; and 2) that according to the George W. Bush Institute and Texas 2036, “70 per cent of jobs in Texas will require a post-secondary degree by 2036, but when cohorts of Texas eighth-graders were tracked, only 22% acquire such credentials within six years of high school graduation.” Additionally, Lopez quotes Mary Lynn Pruneda, a senior policy advisor for Texas 2036: “The harsh reality of this situation is that when Texas schools don’t have accountability ratings, the group that suffers the most are students.
In this article, Camile Phillips quotes Nick Maddox, one of the plaintiff lawyers from the law firm of O’Hanlon, Demerath & Castillo. Maddox focuses on the argument that the STAAR test lacks proper oversight by qualified professional psychometricians. She includes this quote by Maddox: “There’s some major and critical errors that we believe exist in the STAAR test that all the students took, and we would like to get the entire STAAR test thrown out for all students in all school districts across the State of Texas.” Two other quotes by Maddox are included: 1) “the use of artificial intelligence to grade written responses on the STAAR test invalidates their results”; and 2) “the new rules narrowing access to alternative STAAR tests for special education students was problematic.”
In explaining the defendant’s arguments Phillips includes this quote by the agency: “It is disappointing that a small group of school boards and superintendents opposed to fair accountability and transparency have once again filed a lawsuit aimed at preventing A-F ratings from being issued and keeping families in the dark about how their schools are doing.”
Nicholas Osborn points out in his article that according to the plaintiff’s attorneys, “the lawsuit was directed to the systems used to grade the STAAR tests, including the written responses, and seeks to invalidate the testing results. The accountability ratings are primarily based on the standardized testing results of the district, and the scoring system used to grade responses utilized artificial intelligence (AI).” He added that the plaintiff lawyers believe “there were major and critical errors which occurred.” Nick Maddox provides additional information in his statement, according to Osborn: “This change was made without ensuring that this radical change would not impact the new STAAR test’s validity and reliability. In fact it appears that AI grading has resulted in a test that is not valid and reliable and cannot lawfully be used to assign A-F ratings for school districts and campuses.”
In his article, Zachary-Taylor Wright focuses on the argument that the A-F grading system is an important tool for parents, specifically for gauging school success at the campus level. But according to Texas Representative Diego Bernal (D-San Antonio), “the system is intrinsically flawed and damaging for students.” The detailed list of the “challenges in question” include the following statements by a Northside ISD spokesperson: 1) “the redesigning of multiple-choice test questions into short-form and extended responses; 2) “ the introduction of new rubrics which determine how items are assessed; 3) “to maintain cut points on a more extensive test format; 4) “mandating STAAR tests be taken online;” and 5) “the introduction of an automated scoring software to gauge quality of short- and long-form answers.
Wright includes Rep. Bernal’s following statements, which reveal a political divide that magnifies the controversy behind the state’s A-F accountability system:
“Bernal said he and other legislators across the aisle are always willing to sit down and negotiate with the TEA on how to best move forward with their accountability system. However, he said the TEA is only down with Abbott. So, it raises the question: Are the TEA accountability ranking changes really intended to hold public and charter schools accountable? Or are the benchmarks bumps, which school district say are unfair a tool to bolster the argument in favor of vouchers?“
Edward McKinley’s report brings out the latest news on the decision made by Judge Daniella Deseta Lyttle on the school districts’ (plaintiffs) lawsuit v. Mike Morath as Commissioner of Education. Essentially, the Order prohibits the Commissioner from distributing the A-F performance ratings for the 2023-24 school year. The trial has been scheduled for February, 2025.McKinley included in his report the following comment made by Mike Morath during a Senate Education Committee: “He (Morath) told lawmakers they may need to pass a bill in the next Legislative session that would allow TEA to release the ratings if they are still tied up in legal proceedings.”
Although this article is not specifically about the lawsuit, it contains relevant information that addresses the role of poverty in the ranking or grading of school districts, particularly in the use of the TEA’s A-F accountability system.
In their article, Brian Lopez and Eric Lau delve into the complex issue of the relationship between poverty and academic achievement, specifically examining whether schools with a high percentage of economically disadvantaged students can still excel in state accountability ratings. They highlight the example used by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to challenge the notion that schools in poverty-stricken areas are destined to underperform. Their analysis of the Rio Grande Valley in the Region One Education Service Center area reveals that an impressive 95 percent of school districts and charter systems received an A or B rating, surpassing the statewide average of 87 percent.
This success raises questions about the factors contributing to the high scores and overall rankings of these districts, presenting a compelling mystery for further investigation.
Lopez’ and Lau summarize their analysis in the following statement:
“But there is a consensus that higher student achievement comes from a mix of high-quality teaching, emotional connections and the consistent battle to remove outside factors that affect students – such as not having a meal. One metric of note: School districts in the Rio Grande Valley rank among the best for getting meals to low-income students and families.”
However, the article does not mention any evidence that would substantiate “high-quality teaching.” This appears to be speculative. The statements from their interviews with qualified professionals point to social and cultural factors underlying effectiveness in the curriculum, as well other well-known effective practices such teachers and administrators holding high student expectations, and the hiring of an ethnically or racially balanced teaching force that strongly represents the culture and language of the students. Nevertheless, the authors are on-target in emphasizing the importance of creating a supportive learning school environment and making assurances that students don’t experience food insecurity, at least while they’re in school attendance.
Concluding Remarks
Recall the three major issues that court documents hold as the basis for the lawsuit. In my concluding remarks, I would like to address the first statement:
1) the Commissioner failed to ensure the new, redesigned STAAR test is valid and reliable before administering the test;
(2) the Commissioner failed to provide fair notice of the measures, methods, and procedures he would use to calculate the A–F ratings; and
(3) the Commissioner failed to ensure that it is mathematically possible for every school district and school campus to achieve an A rating.
The issues surrounding the validity and reliability of the STAAR test for English language learners (ELLs) or Emergent Bilinguals (EBs) is a pressing concern that needs to be addressed. The students, primarily Hispanic, enter the school system speaking Spanish as their first language and are in the process of learning English as a second language. With parent approval, the ELLs are appropriately placed in bilingual or ESL programs. When they take the English language STAAR test, beginning in third grade, the ELLs consistently score lower on the assessment compared to their English language dominant peers, creating a widening achievement gap that limits their educational opportunities.
Texas has a significant population of ELLs, with over 5.5 million students identified as such, or 24 percent of the total school enrollment. Almost all Texas school districts serve identified ELLs. Research has shown that well-developed, quality bilingual education programs that focus on first and second language development in the content areas can lead to successful educational outcomes for ELLs. However, the current TEA accountability system fails to accurately assess the progress of ELLs, leading to misconceptions about their academic abilities and the effectiveness of their programs.
One key question regarding the validity and reliability of the STAAR test for ELLs is the extent to which language (or linguistic) complexity contributes to measurement error. Research* has indicated that language proficiency significantly impacts assessment outcomes for ELLs, overshadowing other factors such as family income and parental education levels. When language proficiency is a major factor in assessment outcomes, student achievement is not accurately measured, as results are influenced more by language skills than actual knowledge. In this regard, the STAAR can be criticized with additional issues that threaten both validity and reliability.
In order to address the validity and reliability issues of the STAAR test for ELLs, it is crucial to consider the linguistic demands of the STAAR assessment and how they may impact student performance. By acknowledging the unique challenges faced by ELLs and implementing more effective assessment strategies that account for language proficiency, we can ensure that these students are accurately evaluated and provided with the support they need to succeed academically. The fact that these students experience school failure as often as they do while school officials remain unwilling to make any significant progress toward improvement is an indicator of how our educational system has normalized the condition of failure among language minority students.
*Abedi, J. (2002). The impact of students’ language background on the outcome of achievement tests. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231-257.
Bilingual Frontera 
One thought on “Texas School Lawsuit Argues for Major Changes, But Misses an Important Target”