The Texas Education Agency (TEA) released a letter Oct. 23 summarizing House Bill (HB) 8, legislation passed in 2025 that overhauls the state’s assessment and accountability systems. The agency’s communication frames the law as a transformative step toward reducing testing stress and aligning assessments with classroom instruction. However, educators should read carefully. Although HB 8 introduces notable changes, much of the current testing and accountability infrastructure remains the same under new labels and timelines.

According to TEA, the STAAR program will be phased out after the 2026–27 school year and replaced by a new “instructionally supportive” system that includes beginning, middle, and end-of-year assessments in grades 3–8, along with redesigned end-of-course exams for high school students. The agency emphasizes that the new tests will be shorter, deliver faster results, and be more useful for teachers. While these shifts sound promising, the law still requires multiple state assessments each year, raising legitimate concerns about whether testing time will truly decrease or simply be redistributed across more windows.

The letter also highlights efforts to reduce student anxiety and increase transparency, such as requiring parental notification when test results are available and integrating a “Family Portal,” which is also not new. Despite the rhetoric from agency staff and lawmakers—who are perhaps looking to score easy political points on the back of promises to reform the deeply unpopular testing system of their own creation—the underlying accountability pressures on students and educators remain unchanged. The agency’s presentation of these measures as major relief may therefore overstate their practical impact on classrooms, which are still constrained by test-based accountability ratings.

On the accountability front, HB 8 institutes a new default five-year refresh cycle for the A–F system, giving districts some hope for additional stability and predictability. The law limits TEA’s ability to raise cut scores and requires the public release of “what if” ratings before changes take effect. While these provisions add transparency, the commissioner of education retains significant authority to define performance indicators and adjust formulas. The law also adds significant new constraints on the ability of districts and charter schools to hold the agency accountable for exceeding its authority under the law. This consolidation of control under the agency continues a trend that raises concerns about limited educator and community input in shaping accountability criteria. It also shields the agency from getting pushback on recent TEA-driven reforms to the accountability system that have resulted in increased D and F campus ratings even though STAAR scores have generally remained stable.

The letter points to expanded teacher participation through advisory committees and review panels, but educators should monitor whether those opportunities translate into genuine influence over test design, growth metrics, and accountability rules. Without clear structures guaranteeing meaningful representation, these panels risk functioning more as symbolic gestures or, worse, as handpicked rubber stamps than as true vehicles for teacher voice.

Although TEA’s summary avoids direct discussion of costs or implementation burdens, HB 8’s rollout will require substantial investments in training, technology, and curriculum alignment. Districts will need to prepare for overlapping systems during the transition years as STAAR will remain in place until the new assessment platform is fully operational. That being said, the replacement has already been piloted in several districts. Educators should also note that while the reforms that expand TEA authority are immediate, the reforms on STAAR testing won’t roll out until 2027–28, leaving several years of uncertainty and adjustment ahead.

Ultimately, TEA’s messaging portrays HB 8 as a clean break from the past, but educators know reform often feels incremental on the ground—at best. While faster feedback and shorter tests could prove beneficial, the fundamental structure of state-controlled assessments tied to high-stakes ratings persists. ATPE members will need to stay engaged through upcoming rulemaking to ensure these promised improvements truly strengthen teaching and learning rather than rebranding existing pressures under a new name.