The commissioner opened the board meeting with a wide‑ranging update on this year’s A–F accountability ratings and the process that underpins the STAAR assessment and related cut scores.

The most important data: the commissioner said Texas saw gains in 2025 compared with the prior release of ratings. ‘‘About 9,000 campuses in Texas…in 2024 about 18% earned an A rating. But in 2025, 23 percent earned an A rating,’’ the commissioner said. He noted there were fewer D and F campuses and that 31 percent of campuses saw their rating increase year over year.

Houston focus: The commissioner highlighted Houston ISD as an example of rapid turnaround. He told the board that the percentage of students on grade level in Houston rose from 39 percent before the district intervention to 46 percent in the most recent results; the commissioner contrasted that with a statewide average he cited as roughly 48 percent. He said Houston — a district of about 175,000 students and roughly 80 percent eligible for free or reduced price lunch — had seen “substantive improvement” in mathematics and that this gain exceeded state averages.

Why ratings matter, the commissioner said: ‘‘The A through F system is good for students. It causes us to do our best work.’’ He summarized research showing public accountability is associated with improvements in test scores, grades, attendance and later economic outcomes.

Explaining STAAR equating and standard setting

Board members asked for more detail on how STAAR raw scores translate to scale scores and to letter‑grade bands. The commissioner gave a plain‑language presentation of psychometric work the agency does:

- Field testing: a portion of items on each year’s test are field‑test items used to gather statistics for future forms.
- Equating: ‘‘If you take this year’s STAAR and then you look at last year’s STAAR, the questions are different. Equating is the discipline that ensures the tests have the same level of difficulty year to year,’’ the commissioner said. He used a scale analogy: ‘‘Last year’s test was 7 pounds of difficulty. This year’s test is also 7 pounds of difficulty…even though the things that we put on the scale have different weights.’’
- Standard setting: the commissioner described how subject‑matter professionals calibrate cut‑scores the first time a test is built. He summarized the commonly used interpretations: mastery (‘‘mastered’’) corresponds to roughly a 75 percent chance of success in the next grade or course, ‘‘meets’’ corresponds to roughly 60 percent, and ‘‘approaches’’ is about one standard deviation below that.

New assessments and vendor process

On the beginning‑ and middle‑of‑year assessments required by the legislature, the commissioner told the board that statute names the new assessment the Student Success Tool and establishes that beginning/middle‑year tests be adaptive and produce rapid, teacher‑usable information. He said the agency will provide a test option but that private vendors can also propose their adaptive instruments; vendors must demonstrate alignment to the TEKS and statutory design requirements to be placed on the approved list. The Student Success Tool is scheduled to take effect in the 2027–28 school year.

Rescoring and scoring accuracy

The commissioner addressed rescoring and scoring accuracy. He disputed claims rescoring materially altered many campus letter grades: ‘‘We have data on rescoring and rescoring has almost no impact on state level A through F ratings. It’s like a point 18% likely change.’’ He said the agency will move to automatically rescore certain writing samples where a one‑point change would alter the student’s overall score — a process the commissioner characterized as a ‘‘remarkable process improvement’’ to increase accuracy and reduce district burdens.

What board members asked and directed

Board members asked about beginning/mid‑year vendor review timelines, how the Student Success Tool will be administered, and whether vendors will be allowed to post‑test items. Member Ellis pressed the commissioner on the timeline and whether vendors can submit beginning/middle‑year options; the commissioner replied vendors will be able to submit proposals during an anticipated procurement window and noted statutory protections against double testing.

Ending note: The commissioner framed the accountability system as an engine for improvement. He emphasized the technical rigor behind testing, said the agency is working to reduce scoring errors and pledged to return with more detail where members requested it.

Key quote: ‘‘The A through F system is good for students. It causes us to do our best work,’’ the commissioner said.