english 2 staar test essay

STAAR English II Practice Test

If you need help studying for the STAAR English II test or just want some more information about what the test is like, you’ve come to the right place.

Click below to take a free STAAR English II practice test!

What’s on the Test?

  The STAAR English II test contains 64 questions and is timed at 5 hours. Some of the questions on the test are multiple-choice, but many of the questions fall under one of the following question types:

• Multiselect
• Inline choice
• Drag and drop
• Constructed response

The English II test is split into two sections: Reading and Writing.

These are the things you’re likely to be tested on:

• General reading comprehension
• Understanding character motivations and development
• Identifying themes and main ideas
• Recognizing and interpreting figurative language and symbolism
• Analyzing tone and mood
• Evaluating the effectiveness of plot and setting
• Understanding an author’s purpose and perspective
• Comparing and contrasting different texts
• Drawing inferences and conclusions from the text
• Knowing vocabulary in context
• Analyzing structure and elements of nonfiction texts
• Identifying and evaluating arguments in persuasive texts

You’ll also be asked to write a short persuasive essay about a given topic, usually a statement or quotation of some kind. The point of the essay is to defend a specific point of view and convince the reader of your position.

STAAR Test Scores

The STAAR English II test is scored using a scaled scoring method. Here’s how it works:

For every question you answer correctly, you get one point added to your raw score , which can reach a maximum of 64 points. At the end of the test, your final raw score will be converted to a scaled score . This scaled score will range somewhere between 1650 and 6050.

The reason your raw score is converted to a scaled score is because everyone that takes the test is given a slightly different set of questions. Since everyone has a different arrangement of questions, and because some questions are harder than others, converting your raw score to a scaled score ensures a more even playing field.

Your final score will fall into one of four performance levels:

AI Grading for the STAAR Test

In an effort to save time and money, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) implemented a “hybrid-scoring” model in 2024, which involves using a computer system to help grade STAAR tests. Specifically, the computer will grade about 75% of the test, then hand it over to a human to grade the last 25%.

Retaking the Test

If you didn’t get the score you wanted on your first try, that’s okay! You can take the test again during any testing administration window.

STAAR English II Study Guide and Flashcards

Get practice questions, detailed study lessons, and complex subjects broken down into easily understandable concepts.

How many questions are on the STAAR English II test?

The test contains 52 questions.

What is the time limit for the STAAR English II test?

Technically, the time limit is 5 hours. However, TEA no longer enforces a strict maximum time for STAAR tests , which means you are allowed to continue taking the test up to end of the school day if you need to.

What is a good STAAR English II score?

To fall under a performance level that meets or exceeds your grade level, you should aim for a scaled score of at least 4000.

Eat, Teach, Slay

English I and II STAAR EOC Test Prep- Writing

I have taught both English I and English II in Texas. Both grades have an English STAAR EOC test that includes a writing portion. On the English I test students have to write an expository essay. On the English II test they have to write a persuasive essay. I’ve put together the strategies and models I’ve used in my classroom into these materials that you can use. They can purchased in my TPT store. You can either buy a bundle for both ENG I and ENG II or purchase the one you need.

I am in Texas and originally created this for my English II students to help prepare them for the persuasive  or expository essay they would have to write on the STAAR English II or I EOC test. The advice and common mistakes are aimed towards the goal of passing that writing test. However, I have a PhD in Composition and have tried to create this unit to fit best practices for persuasive essay writing in any situation (whether for a standardized test or a dual credit class or in general).

I did not include a rubric because what you are evaluating can change greatly between standardized test, dual credit courses, or general classroom writing goals. If you are using this to prepare students to write a persuasive essay on a standardized test go to your state testing website and look for a rubric. Texas STAAR has a rubric and lined writing paper for the English I expository EOC essay or English II EOC persuasive essay. You can find released Texas STAAR tests here on the state website. You can find the rubrics for the writing portion of the STAAR English I and II EOC here along with other state writing resources .

Here is a preview of what it is in the persuasive bundle: This writing kit is good for any persuasive essay needs, not just the Texas STAAR test! It has been updated and is now 27 pages long.

It includes: – 5 pages of writing instructions handouts with detailed examples. It goes paragraph by paragraph. – It has two versions on the example. One version has notes about the organizational structure. – Tips & Common Mistakes to Avoid – A list of transition/linking words – A persuasive essay outline map for students who need a short structure guide – Outline with the organization structure labeled – Blank outline (some states allow blank organizers to be used on standardized tests) – A list of types of evidence with definitions – A list of 12 persuasive writing prompts – 12 Persuasive Essay Writing Prompt Cards – Notes for the teacher on how to use this kit

Here is a preview of what it is in the expository bundle: This expository essay writing kit is 25 pages.

It includes: – 4 pages of instructions on how to write the essay. It breaks the essay down paragraph by paragraph with examples. Includes the introduction with an attention getting device and thesis statement, body paragraph structure, transitions, conclusion, etc. – An example essay with and without a dissection of its parts – An outline graphic organizer with the components labeled – A blank copy of the graphic organizer (some states allow this on state tests) – A list of common mistakes and advice – A handy outline map to briefly remind students of the structure (handy for students with IEPs for additional handouts) – A list of transition (linking) words for student reference – A list of 12 expository prompts – A set of 12 expository prompt cards that can be printed and laminated for student use – Notes for the teacher with tips on how to use this kit.

+More about the writing prompt cards+ The prompt cards allow for practice with various prompts. You can print each prompt on a different color paper (the duplicate of that prompt should be the same color as the original). You can laminate them then have students choose a topic at random to write about. The second time around they merely pick a different color to ensure they get a different topic. Included is a blank set of cards for your own prompts.

• Click here to buy the Expository Writing Kit for the English I STAAR EOC
• Click here to buy the Persuasive Writing Kit for the English II STAAR EOC
• Click here to save money by buying them both in one bundle

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

You must be logged in to post a comment.

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

• Manage Account
• Best in DFW
• Things to Do
• Public Notices
• Help Center

news Education

Computers scoring Texas students’ STAAR essay answers, state officials say

Amid debates about ai and technology in schools, the texas education agency quietly rolled out a new “automated scoring engine.”.

By Talia Richman

6:00 AM on Feb 14, 2024 CST — Updated at 9:15 AM on Apr 9, 2024 CDT

Texas students’ written responses on the STAAR test will most likely be scored by a computer, rather than a person.

Some education leaders are confused by the change and question how using this technology to assess essays will impact students and teachers. State officials say this system is not the same as the generative artificial intelligence that powers programs like ChatGPT, but a tool with narrow abilities that can improve scoring efficiency.

The Texas Education Agency quietly rolled out a new model for evaluating student answers on the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, or STAAR, in December. Roughly three-quarters of written responses are scored by an “automated scoring engine.”

Related: How are computers scoring STAAR essays? Texas superintendents, lawmaker want answers

Receive our in-depth coverage of education issues and stories that affect North Texans.

By signing up you agree to our  Terms of Service  and  Privacy Policy

Officials emphasized that these engines don’t learn beyond a single question and are programmed to emulate how humans would score an essay. The computer determines how to assess written answers after analyzing thousands of students’ responses that were previously scored by people.

The automated scoring engine is “programmed by humans, overseen by humans, and is analyzed at the end by humans,” said Jose Rios, director of the student assessment division.

The new scoring method comes amid a broader STAAR redesign. There’s now a cap on multiple choice questions. The new test – which launched last year – includes essays at every grade level.

“These questions are very time consuming and laborious to score,” Rios said. “At the same time, you need to balance that with our commitment to produce results as fast as we can for districts. We needed to find a way to be more efficient.”

Agency officials estimated the new test format would require four to five times the number of human scorers, costing an extra $15 million to $20 million per year if they were to exclusively use people.

Only about one in four student responses will end up in front of a person’s eyes.

The rollout confused some education leaders, who said agency officials could have announced the move with more transparency.

“At the very least, they should do a pilot or study for a pretty long time,” State Board of Education member Pat Hardy, R-Fort Worth, said. “It’s an area that needs more exploration. … It just seems so cold.”

Dallas schools Superintendent Stephanie Elizalde said she only recently learned about the change and is left with questions about how the system was created and potential biases within it.

“It’s the same lesson, certainly, that I learn and want to improve on: That the more information we provide our communities, the better trusting relationships we build,” Elizalde said.

TEA officials say a technical report, with a detailed overview of the system, will be available later this year.

Other states have used this type of model for years, though not without criticism . In Ohio, for example , some districts said they spotted irregularities after tests were scored by computers, The Plain Dealer reported in 2018.

Cleveland’s newspaper reported that district officials began asking questions about scoring after a larger-than-expected number of student answers received zero points.

A similar question emerged in Texas, where large numbers of high schoolers received zeroes during the most recent STAAR test. State officials insist the automated scoring engines are not the reason for this.

Agency officials say they’re confident in their program.

The scoring engines were “successful in recreating the Spring 2023 results and were shown to be as accurate as human scorers,” they said. TEA officials did not provide information showing this result to The Dallas Morning News.

Humans validate about 25% of the answers scored by the computer. Essays are routed to human scorers based on certain conditions or if the scoring engine expresses low confidence about its determination. Random tests are also audited.

“The low confidence responses are often those responses that are on the border between two score points,” according to a state document outlining the method . “The purpose of this routing is to ensure that unusual or borderline responses receive fair and accurate scores.”

All Spanish STAAR tests are scored by people. Agency officials said their automated scoring engines don’t work for languages other than English.

Les Perelman, a former Massachusetts Institute of Technology associate dean and longtime critic of automated essay scoring, said this differentiation concerns him.

“It’s inherently unequal,” he said.

The shift in scoring STAAR tests is part of a larger conversation about the role of technology in classrooms. How can teachers catch students using ChatGPT to write essays? What could be accomplished with AI tutors?

“Where I really see AI going in education is moving towards: how do we give really timely, useful feedback that is going to allow students to learn better?” said Peter Foltz, a University of Colorado, Boulder professor and director of the Institute for Student-AI Teaming.

Teacher concerns

Some educators were taken aback by the quiet introduction of this new scoring method. Schools are graded on the state’s academic accountability system largely based on how students perform on STAAR.

Related: What are Texas’ A-F school grades, and why do they matter?

During the latest round of STAAR testing in the fall, a huge number of high school students scored poorly on the written questions. Roughly 8 in 10 written responses on the English II End of Course exam received zero points .

In the spring – the first iteration of the redesigned test, but scored only by humans – roughly a quarter of responses scored zero points in the same subject.

Many students who take STAAR in the fall are “re-testers” who did not meet grade level on a previous test attempt. Spring testers tend to perform better, according to agency officials who were asked to explain the spike in low scores in the fall.

Chris Rozunick, the director of the state’s assessment development division, said she understands why people connect the spike in zeroes to the rollout of automated scoring based on the timing. But she insists that the two are unrelated.

“It really is the population of testers much more than anything else,” Rozunick said.

Observers’ skepticism may be fueled by Texas’ previous problems with STAAR technology.

Related: Texas students kicked out of STAAR tests as ‘completely unacceptable’ glitches persist with online exams

In 2016, thousands of Texas students had difficulties logging in and staying online during writing exams, prompting state officials to void those results.

Testing vendor ETS was fined $5.7 million for damages by the TEA and ordered to spend more than $15 million on improvements to its online system and test shipping.

In 2018, the state was forced to throw out 71,000 online STAAR exams after server problems caused crashes during April and May testing windows.

Three years later, the state saw more technology flare-ups during testing , with students in various districts kicked out of tests and unable to log back in. ETS’ contract ended that year.

TEA officials said they worked with their assessment vendors, Cambium and Pearson, to develop the automated scoring engines.

Perelman said one of his concerns with the trend toward machine scoring is that it “teaches students to be bad writers,” with teachers incentivized to instruct children on how to write to a computer rather than to a human. The problem, he said, is machines are “really stupid” when it comes to ideas.

He previously made waves when he and others developed the “BABEL Generator,” which spit out incoherent essays that scored well when evaluated by automated scoring engines about a decade ago.

Texas Education Agency officials said their scoring engines look for anomalies, such as if a student has not responded in English or wrote an answer of “unexpected length.” Those responses are sent for human scoring.

Foltz said automated scorers must be built with strong guardrails. He added that it’s not easy to coach students on how to game a scoring engine.

Texas’ standard of checking roughly 25% of essays with a human scorer provides “a pretty good margin of safety ... to know that things are working,” he added.

More information about how Texas’ new system operates is expected in the coming months. Education observers are likely to look for whether the system appears biased toward any student group.

“There are also human biases there, and the computers may learn any biases that the humans may have,” Foltz said. “If there’s certain kinds of phrases that humans value more, the computer will tend to pick up on that.”

Staff writer Ari Sen contributed to this article.

The DMN Education Lab deepens the coverage and conversation about urgent education issues critical to the future of North Texas.

The DMN Education Lab is a community-funded journalism initiative, with support from Bobby and Lottye Lyle, Communities Foundation of Texas, The Dallas Foundation, Dallas Regional Chamber, Deedie Rose, Garrett and Cecilia Boone, The Meadows Foundation, The Murrell Foundation, Solutions Journalism Network, Southern Methodist University, Sydney Smith Hicks and the University of Texas at Dallas. The Dallas Morning News retains full editorial control of the Education Lab’s journalism.

Talia Richman , Staff writer . Talia is a reporter for The Dallas Morning News Education Lab. A Dallas native, she attended Richardson High School and graduated from the University of Maryland. She previously covered schools and City Hall for The Baltimore Sun.