Commissioner Mike Morath told the State Board of Education on June 25 that statewide student assessment results show reading proficiency has generally recovered from COVID declines while mathematics recovery remains incomplete.

The presentation drew on STAR/STAAR results for grades 3–8 and high school end‑of‑course tests. Morath said reading-language-arts proficiency at several elementary grades now exceeds pre‑COVID levels, and he pointed to a 3 percentage‑point year‑over‑year gain in third‑grade reading 'meets grade level' rates. By contrast, he said, math shows mixed year‑to‑year changes and — unlike reading — has not returned to 2019 proficiency levels in any tested grade.

Why it matters: Morath framed math shortfalls as a structural concern because mathematics relies on cumulative mastery of prior topics. He said gaps from the pandemic years can compound as students advance, which helps explain the persistently low algebra 1 proficiency and the larger remedial needs seen in postsecondary settings.

Details from the presentation: Morath summarized proficiency trends by subject and subgroup. Highlights he cited:
- Reading (grades 3–8): year‑over‑year gains; third grade up roughly 3 percentage points (e.g., from 46% to 49% meeting grade level). He told the board reading results now generally exceed 2019 levels.
- Math (grades 3–8): mixed results with gains at some grades (third and eighth) and backsliding at others; none of the math categories have fully recovered to 2019 proficiency rates.
- Science and social studies: 5th and 8th grade science showed year‑over‑year improvements; 8th grade social studies remained low, with Morath noting limited curriculum time and weak elementary science instruction as possible causes.
- High school: algebra 1 proficiency was notably lower than pre‑COVID years (e.g., a cited decline from about 62% in 2019 to 47% in the most recent year). Biology and some science scores rebounded more strongly than math or high‑school English.

Morath emphasized that STAAR is designed to measure the TEKS at grade‑level rigor, that the test equating and standard‑setting process preserves comparability across years, and that materials and teacher preparation affect long‑term recovery. He also underscored subgroup gaps: he presented separate trend lines for economically disadvantaged students, emergent bilinguals, and students receiving special education services and reiterated the state goal to narrow those gaps.

Board members asked how TEA can help districts use item‑level or standard‑level data to guide intervention. Morath said TEA retains item‑level and percent‑correct data, and districts receive those reports; he cautioned that STAAR is not designed to give highly reliable single‑standard diagnoses for an individual student (only a few items per standard on a statewide test), but TEA can and does provide percent‑correct, trend and diagnostic data to districts and said the agency can create annual aggregate reports showing orders of State Board of Education–adopted instructional materials (the IMRA/EMAT ordering data) if the board wants it.

Charter cycle recap: Morath also briefed the board on the agency’s annual charter cycle (Generation 30), summarizing that TEA received multiple applications, and that the commissioner made recommendations for six applicants (Arcadia High School, Fort Worth STEAM Academy, Frank Lieu Junior Academy for Music and Arts, Museum School of East Dallas, Unidos Soccer Leadership Academy, Valenta Academy). He described the multi‑step approval process, common contingencies in final contracts (board bylaws, governance changes), and that the legal entities must still finalize contract terms after board consideration.

Legislative changes and implementation notes: Morath reviewed major education legislation passed earlier in 2025 and flagged items that will require action by TEA or the SBOE:
- Materials and IMRA: House Bill 100 clarified the legal effects of State Board designations; a new “rejected” designation will legally restrict districts from using or buying rejected materials. Morath warned the board that previously rejected items would not be automatically covered by the new rules and would require new action to take the prospective effect.
- Library and parent‑rights bills (SB 13 and SB 12): changes will require some rule work and new training for districts; TEA will coordinate with the Texas State Library and Archives Commission as needed.
- Teacher recruitment and certification: House Bill 2 included new investments in teacher pay, an expanded teacher preparation pipeline and funded math academies for K–3 teachers; TEA will implement exam‑reimbursement for bilingual and special education certification exam fees (administrative guidance was planned for the field). Morath said these investments are historic and will roll out over years.
- SBOE institutional changes: the legislature allocated five full‑time equivalent staff for the SBOE chair’s office and amended board staffing authority (HB 36 27). Morath said the appropriation created staff resources that the board did not previously have.
- Other curricular and social studies directives: the board will need to revise high‑school social studies TEKS and incorporate new statutory language about communism, civics, financial literacy, and parenting/paternity awareness (various bills specified curriculum requirements and timelines).

What the board asked TEA to follow up on: several board members requested a TEA package showing (a) more granular item‑level or standard‑level trend reports that could be used by the SBOE’s math and literacy ad hoc committees; (b) a proposed annual report on IMRA/EMAT ordering to track district purchasing of State Board–adopted materials; and (c) clarifying guidance on new statutory responsibilities for the board (for example, materials rejection implementation and school board training obligations in SB 204). Morath said TEA would prepare resources and a public implementation website (tea.texas.gov/sessionsummary) to support districts and the board.

Ending: Morath framed the data as a mix of encouraging reading gains and continuing math challenges, and he urged the board to use TEA data and implementation resources to prioritize teacher training, high‑quality instructional materials, and targeted interventions.