Tomball ISD

Dr. David Surdovel is the Director of Math & Science for Tomball ISD. He completed his doctoral research with a STEAM certificate at Rockhurst University in May 2026, examining mathematics acceleration, local implementation, and student assessment outcomes in Texas.

Expanding access to advanced mathematics creates an opportunity for school leaders to reconsider how they evaluate student success. When students enter advanced courses earlier, all aspects of the population taking each assessment may change. Leaders need to understand those changes before evaluating the effectiveness of a program, campus, or teacher.

As Director of Math & Science for Tomball ISD, I explored this challenge through my doctoral research at Rockhurst University, completed in May 2026. My study examined mathematics acceleration practices across ten comparable suburban Texas districts and their relationship to publicly reported mathematics assessment results. The findings offer a practical lesson for educators and technology leaders: assessment data becomes more useful when it includes the context of students’ instructional pathways.

A Policy Focused On Access

Texas Senate Bill 2124 requires districts to develop a middle school advanced mathematics programs pathway designed to enable students to enroll in Algebra I prior to high school. It also requires automatic enrollment in advanced mathematics for qualifying sixth graders based on fifth grade performance. Students qualify through the top 40 percent on the state mathematics assessment (STAAR) or a qualifying local measure. Parents or guardians may also opt their children out of the pathway if desired.

The policy establishes an access requirement while leaving districts to design their own individual instructional sequences and supports. My research used public curriculum documents and state assessment reports to examine how districts translated that requirement into practice.

Nine of the ten districts already offered acceleration beginning in sixth grade. Pearland ISD was the only district in the sample that changed its starting grade after SB 2124. The study’s classification identified changes in student selection procedures in three districts. These findings suggest that, within this sample, implementation involved adjusting access more often than redesigning the course sequence.

Understanding the Assessment Population

Across the ten districts, the average percentage reaching the Meets Grade Level standard on Texas mathematics assessments was 60.2 percent in grade six, 47.3 percent in grade seven, and 64.6 percent in grade eight. These figures average district percentages equally since they do not follow the same students over time.

The seventh-grade STAAR test also showed the greatest variation among districts. That pattern deserves investigation before anyone attributes it to instructional weakness. In accelerated pathways, students may take a higher-level assessment earlier. Consequently, the students taking the seventh-grade test may differ from the full seventh-grade enrollment.

"Assessment data becomes more useful when it includes the context of students’ instructional pathways."

A lower percentage on one assessment can therefore reflect a change in who takes the test. My study identified cohort composition as a plausible explanation, but aggregate data could not establish how much it contributed. With only ten districts and an early implementation window, the findings are exploratory. They cannot establish that a particular placement practice caused higher or lower achievement. 

What Technology Should Help Leaders See

These findings suggest a useful direction for education technology. Reporting systems should make the relationship between course placement and assessment participation visible. Alongside a performance percentage, leaders should be able to identify the assessment taken, students’ enrolled grades, and the number of students represented.

When appropriate student records are available, longitudinal reporting can help districts examine what happens after placement. Do students remain in advanced courses? How do they perform in subsequent mathematics classes? Does access translate into sustained participation across student groups? These questions would extend the research beyond a single assessment snapshot.

Districts should also examine participation alongside achievement. A program that reaches more students may change its aggregate results as its population changes. Understanding that shift requires attention to prior preparation and the support students receive. A dashboard should help educators investigate these conditions and plan instruction.

Instruction Remains Central

Data interpretation must lead back to the classroom. Accelerated courses need coherent sequences that preserve conceptual understanding while students move through content at a faster pace. Teachers need opportunities to identify prerequisite gaps and respond without lowering expectations for students newly entering advanced coursework.

Leaders can support this work through evaluating formative assessment tools, fostering collaboration around student reasoning, and clear communication with families about course expectations and available assistance. These are implications for practice, rather than interventions evaluated in my study.

For districts expanding advanced mathematics access, the next step is to connect placement decisions with evidence of learning over time. Technology can support that work when its reports reflect the pathways students experience. The goal is to sustain mathematical understanding and continued opportunity as students progress into more demanding courses.