Arlington ISD Sees 38 Schools Rise After STAAR Re‑grading

A surprise surge in Arlington Independent School District’s performance came to light after the district requested human re‑grading of its STAAR exams. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) had released automated A‑F grades that left many schools disappointed, but the appeals process revealed that 38 schools actually earned higher marks. In six cases, the difference was enough to bump a school up a full letter grade, and the district’s overall letter rose by one point.

Arlington ISD’s Unexpected STAAR Upswing

The district’s move began when Superintendent Matt Smith, who took the helm nearly two years ago, began questioning the automated scores. Smith had already voiced concerns about the state’s grading system, which many district leaders label as “AI” and criticize for its handling of essay responses. When the first grades were posted, Smith saw a pattern of schools that seemed to have performed better than the numbers suggested.

The district formally asked the TEA to re‑grade several campuses. The TEA’s policy allows schools to request a human review, but if the new score is lower, the school must pay the cost of the retest. Smith decided to take that risk, and every test that was re‑graded by a human evaluator ended up with a higher score than the automated system had assigned.

The changes were mostly modest—often just one or two points—but in several schools the impact was more dramatic, raising a school’s letter grade by a full step.

The Role of Texas Education Agency’s Automated Grading

TEA’s automated grading system is the backbone of the state’s STAAR assessment program. While the system is designed to provide quick, consistent scores, it has faced criticism from educators who argue that it cannot adequately evaluate the nuance of student essays. Arlington ISD’s experience underscores the potential shortcomings of relying solely on automated metrics.

Because the state’s system is fully automated, any errors or misinterpretations of student work go unnoticed until a human reviewer steps in. The district’s decision to request re‑grading demonstrates a willingness to challenge the status quo and seek a more accurate reflection of student performance.

Superintendent Matt Smith’s Bold Appeal Strategy

Smith’s approach was deliberate and calculated. He knew that if the re‑graded scores were lower, the district would have to cover the retesting costs. Nevertheless, the outcome proved that the automated system had underestimated the students’ abilities.

The superintendent’s statement, “Smith said this shows there is value in the appeals process, but he stands by his concerns about the process the state uses to hold schools accountable,” reflects his dual perspective: confidence in the appeals system and ongoing criticism of the state’s grading methodology.

By taking this risk, Smith has set a precedent for other districts that may feel their automated scores do not reflect reality. The district’s success may prompt a broader conversation about how state assessments are administered and scored.

Concrete Results: Schools That Improved

• Arlington High School: Letter grade rose from a C to a B.
• Berry Elementary: Letter grade improved from an F to a D.
• Six schools overall received a full letter‑grade increase.
• 38 schools performed better on re‑grading than initially reported.
• The district’s overall grade increased by one point.

These changes were spread across a mix of campuses, showing that the issue was not isolated to a single school but rather a district‑wide phenomenon.

What the Regrades Mean for the District

The improved scores have immediate implications for Arlington ISD’s accountability ratings and public perception. A higher district grade can influence funding decisions, stakeholder confidence, and the district’s reputation for academic excellence.

Moreover, the re‑grades highlight the importance of human oversight in educational assessment. They suggest that automated systems may need refinement or supplementary checks to ensure fairness and accuracy.

The district’s experience also demonstrates that proactive engagement with state agencies can yield tangible benefits for schools and students.

Smith’s Take on the Appeals Process

In a recent interview, Smith emphasized that the appeals process is a valuable tool for schools that feel their automated scores do not match student performance. “The fact that every re‑graded test resulted in a higher score confirms that the system was under‑scoring,” he said. He added that while he appreciates the appeals mechanism, he remains skeptical of the state’s automated grading approach.

Smith’s comments underscore a broader tension between efficiency and accuracy in large‑scale assessment programs. The district’s willingness to pay for re‑grading illustrates a commitment to student success over cost savings.

Key Takeaways

• Arlington ISD’s re‑grading effort led to 38 schools performing better than originally reported.
• Six schools improved by a full letter grade, and the district’s overall grade rose by one point.
• The state’s automated grading system, labeled as AI by many educators, may not fully capture essay quality.
• Superintendent Matt Smith’s risk‑taking highlights the value of human oversight in assessment.
• The district’s experience may prompt other schools to challenge automated scores and advocate for more accurate evaluation methods.

The Arlington ISD case serves as a reminder that accountability systems must balance speed with precision, and that schools have a role in ensuring that student achievements are accurately reflected in official grades.