Introduction
A state’s vision for education is only as good as its ability to measure whether it’s working.
Every state needs a strong system for measuring the successes of its education program. As the adage goes, “What gets measured gets done.” But too often, states envision measurement as simply the tests and ratings they give annually. Strong state measurement systems are more than just the assessment scores students earn and the ratings schools and districts receive. Effectively coordinating and intentionally using all parts of the state’s measurement system—assessments, accountability, public reporting, and school improvement—is essential to delivering a quality education that successfully prepares students and empowers adults to support them.
This is an urgent moment for state leaders to get measurement right. States are positioned, now as much as ever, to lead on education, and measurement must be part of that leadership. Today’s states need measurement systems that provide a clear and accurate picture of student learning, connect to what is happening in the classroom, rigorously prepare students for long-term success, and incentivize research-backed practices. When they do so, educators at all levels are empowered to make better, data-driven choices to support student learning.
Our team’s decade-long experience leading and supporting state governments in designing, implementing, and scaling transformative education systems informs our perspective on measurement systems. As state leaders evaluate their measurement systems, they should consider:
Is our measurement system aligned to a clear vision for what should be true for students’ education? Good measurement starts with a clear vision: what is the current experience of students, and what should be different? A strong measurement system aligns to a state’s vision so data can be used to make better decisions for better student outcomes. Watershed recommends states ground measurement systems in six guiding principles:
 |
All students are capable of excellence. States are responsible for ensuring all students graduate prepared for successful and fulfilling experiences in college, their career, or the military. ¹ To do this, states should set a clear, rigorous bar for excellence and reflect those high expectations across every aspect of the measurement system. |
 |
Good schools are not defined by how students entered school, where they live, or how much money their family has. To motivate educators and accurately inform families, the measurement systems should recognize and reward efforts that help students succeed, regardless of where they started. All schools—especially those serving the most disadvantaged students—deserve a fair chance at achieving the highest rating. |
 |
All student experiences across all grades matter. Every grade level has a role in preparing students for postsecondary success—beginning in kindergarten or before. States should ensure educators in early grades, in particular, are supported in meeting expectations. |
 |
Measures of school quality should be useful, accurate. Measurement systems should accurately reflect how students are performing and how schools help students achieve what the state has prioritized measuring. States should set school quality measures based on inputs, outputs, and/or outcomes that every school and student can reasonably work towards regardless of their resources. |
 |
Stakeholders need user-friendly, accessible information on school quality and student performance. States should increase transparency with educators, families, and policymakers by providing access to data that is easily understood by the public and publishing reports and resources for all stakeholders. |
 |
Measurement drives tangible improvements. Measurement systems should have meaningful implications for students, educators, and schools by tying results to positive and negative consequences. Clearly defined stakes aligned with research-backed practices ensure the measurement system becomes a powerful tool for continuous improvement rather than a passive reporting mechanism. |
Is our measurement system using every lever of measurement together in one coherent system to reinforce effective practices? Every state agency oversees the functions of measurement—assessments, reporting, school improvement, and accountability—but, frequently, each of these levers happens in a silo. A true measurement system should work together, across the entire state agency, to focus educators on the actions and behaviors that best support students in reaching their full potential.
In practice, this means:
Every assessment should connect to the content students learn throughout the year and inform system-wide practices. When assessments require students to grapple with the depth and breadth of rigorous state standards, educators have an incentive to use high-quality instructional materials.
Accountability starts with a fair and accurate model for evaluating a district and school’s impact on student outcomes — one that focuses educators on helping every student’s growth. Educators should be accountable for the outcomes that matter most for kids.
Reporting should include clear report cards, timely data, and alerts when students are off track, as well as recognizing and celebrating exceptional schools and districts. People can only respond to information they have and understand.
School improvement efforts should focus on identifying districts or schools for support, guiding them through improvement efforts that are grounded in evidence-based practices that align with the state’s academic vision, and tracking progress along the way. States can do more than label the bottom 5% of schools.
Is our measurement system simple enough for every parent and educator to understand what is being measured? States can’t improve what they don’t measure, and to maximize improvement, states should focus on simplicity and clarity. Every student, parent, teacher, principal, and district leader should be able to see exactly what is being measured and how the state transparently defines its expectations.
A state should be able to explain to all stakeholders what they are measuring and how it reinforces its vision for student learning. For example:
Students: We give unit tests to evaluate students’ reading and writing skills.
Teachers: We conduct teacher surveys and classroom observations to make sure teachers are using high-quality instructional materials as intended in their classrooms to support students’ reading and writing skills.
Principals and teacher coaches: We send questionnaires and visit schools to ensure principals are providing teachers with the training and support they need to learn and implement the curriculum.
School districts: We evaluate classroom observation and survey data to assess how many schools are implementing high-quality instructional materials, and how student achievement is improving.
A good measurement system doesn’t have to be complicated to be effective, but it does have to reinforce classroom instruction and signal to teachers and students what is important. Designed with a clear vision for better student outcomes, a plan to pull every lever available, and a simple and clear definition of success, measurement systems don’t just track progress–they help create it.
As state leaders navigate this playbook, we encourage using these questions to guide their measurement system— assessments, accountability, reporting, and school improvement:
- Is our measurement system aligned to a clear vision for what should be true for students’ education?
- Is our measurement system using every lever of measurement together in one coherent system to reinforce effective practices?
- Is our measurement system simple enough for every parent and educator to understand what is being measured?
Components of Effective State Measurement Systems
Many leaders view accountability as the primary lever to gauge the health of their schools. However, states need to adopt a more comprehensive and cohesive outlook on measurement systems to drive outcomes. A holistic approach to measurement that values and understands the role of each component is critical to ensuring a state’s educational goals are achieved.
| Domain | Why it Matters | Ideal State |
|---|---|---|
| Assessments | Assessments focus policymakers, educators, and families on where students are excelling and where they need additional support. | When assessments are well-executed, state assessment systems directly connect to the content students learn throughout the year and inform system-wide practices. Interim and formative assessments are reflective of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) and instructional practices that are aligned to rigorous standards. |
| Accountability | Accountability communicates transparently about district and school quality and focuses educators on the indicators that matter most for student success. | When accountability is well-executed, states design a useful and accurate model for evaluating a district and school’s impact on student outcomes, focusing educators on supporting every student to realize their full potential. |
| Reporting | Reporting illuminates how well districts and schools are performing, translating performance data into actionable information for families, policymakers, educators, and other stakeholders. | When reporting is well-executed, states publish user-friendly report cards on district, school, and student progress; make data transparent and accessible for all stakeholders in a timely manner; ensure schools and districts alert parents when their children are not on track; and find opportunities to celebrate and highlight the most exceptional districts and schools for academic and non-academic success. |
| School Improvement | School improvement strategies translate the results of a state’s accountability measures into direct actions that improve student outcomes. | When school improvement is well-executed, states transparently identify districts or schools for support, support them in improvement efforts that are grounded in evidence-based practices that support the state’s academic vision, and track progress along the way. |
Assessments
Ideal State |
| When assessments are well-executed, state assessment systems directly connect to the content students learn throughout the year and inform system-wide practices. Interim and formative assessments are reflective of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) and instructional practices that are aligned to rigorous standards. |
Students and teachers should be able to connect state standards to the instructional materials and assessments being delivered. To build this connection, states must start with a solid foundation: standards. Rigorous standards will inform the HQIM students see every day and will be reinforced by state assessments. Many states are grappling with building coherence between standards, curriculum, and assessments as well as ways to make assessment data more relevant for educators and classroom instruction.
1. Administer state summative assessments that reinforce high-quality instruction and meaningfully measure student learning
State assessments should be made up of items that allow students to engage with complex ideas, support their thinking with evidence, produce informed judgments, and demonstrate critical thinking and understanding through various item types, including written and open-ended responses. HQIM support teachers to ensure these types of activities happen in classrooms. The inclusion of these types of rigorous items in state summative assessments creates coherence with HQIM, reinforcing strong instructional practices aligned to state standards.
The sample assessment items below illustrate how a constructed response can elicit students to think on a higher cognitive level compared to a selected response, particularly when the test item is intentionally aligned with the standard. The comparison between the two test items demonstrates that better instruction is spurred by rigorous standards that are reinforced through rigorous assessments. As part of designing summative assessments that meaningfully measure student learning, states should consider the extent to which background knowledge may be a factor in influencing how students perform ³. At their best, state summative assessments should reinforce higher-order thinking by encouraging coherence with HQIM and rigorous state standards.
| Question 1 | Question 2 |
| Directions: Select correct answer.
Choose the two models that each appear to be exactly 1/4 shaded.
|
This question has three parts. Kevin is cutting oranges and apples into smaller pieces. Part A How many oranges has Kevin cut so far? Show or explain how you got your answer. Enter your answer and your work explanation in the space provided. |
Source: Virginia Department of Education. (2023). Revisions to the Virginia Standards of Learning Summative Assessments of Proficiency
2. Maintain high academic expectations by setting proficiency to be as challenging as NAEP
State assessments define a state’s academic expectations for students by signaling to educators what is required to demonstrate mastery—or proficiency—of standards in each grade level and subject. Setting a defensible bar for proficiency requires ongoing evaluation of state standards and assessments. NAEP, also known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” already serves as a national barometer of student achievement and provides a defensible proficiency threshold for states. NAEP allows states to see how their students match up against students across the country, in addition to how their academic standards match up against NAEP’s standards.⁴ Knowing NAEP holds a high bar for academic standards, states should evaluate their assessments and standards against NAEP’s level of rigor and expectations of students.
State Examples
 Empowering educators with a balanced assessment system in MontanaThe Montana Aligned to Standards Through-Year (MAST) pilot program was developed by the Montana Office of Public Instruction and New Meridian to provide classroom teachers with useful data points for instruction and align assessments to local scope and sequences while maintaining an assessment comparable to existing end-of-year summative models. The pilot, selectively launched in 2022, was granted a one-year waiver from federal assessment and accountability requirements in 2023 before being used statewide in 2024-2025. Students take multiple short, curriculum-specific testlets at different points in the year with varying item types that encourage students to think critically about the problems they are asked to solve (e.g., text entry, graphic hotspot). Teachers gain deeper insights from detailed performance reports and adjust instruction throughout the year. Students’ interim scores are rolled up into a final summative score at the end of the year. |
 Maintaining high academic expectations in VirginiaIn 2022, the Virginia General Assembly charged the Virginia Department of Education with convening a work group to develop state standards and assessments that can hold their own against a defensible proficiency threshold in response to Virginia having one of the lowest bars for student proficiency in the nation. As part of a larger statewide focus on restructuring and strengthening the state’s education framework, the work group oriented and aligned Virginia’s standards, assessments, and accountability system towards a single vision of high expectations for students that matched NAEP’s level of rigor. The work group recommended Virginia create clearer and more rigorous standards; include more rigorous assessment items; provide more timely, clear, and actionable reporting; ensure coherence in the assessment system; and encourage innovation in assessments. |
Accountability
Ideal State |
| When accountability is well-executed, states design a useful and accurate model for evaluating a school’s and district’s impact on student outcomes, focusing educators on supporting every student to realize their full potential. |
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) federally mandates states to develop a methodology to meaningfully differentiate schools based on student performance on state assessments, graduation rates, and other school quality and student success indicators. Many states have also developed their own accountability methodologies separate from the federally-required system. Whether states operate one accountability system or two, they must ensure educators understand what is expected of them and how it will be measured.
1. Define a vision of excellence for every student and what it means for a school to earn the state’s highest rating
States often focus on the bottom 5% and miss the opportunity to orient their accountability systems towards excellence. Instead of asking “How do I avoid the lowest rating?”, leaders should be driven and incentivized by “What does it take to earn the highest rating?” The first question every state accountability system should answer is: what is our state’s ambitious goal for every student statewide? For example, in Louisiana, the goal for many years was that every student score Mastery on the state assessment, meet or exceed their growth expectations, and graduate in four years with a high-value credential. Through the accountability system, the state communicates to all stakeholders whether students in a school or district are meeting its ambitious goal.
2. Measure what matters for student success
Accountability should prioritize key factors that advance student learning and future opportunities. A good accountability system should have indicators that are actionable, focusing educators on the most important measures for student success while accurately differentiating district and school quality. While ESSA defines a minimum set of indicators, states have significant flexibility in calculating these indicators and defining their own indicators to reflect their unique context and expectations. However, this flexibility still demands that indicators are clearly connected to the state’s education goals.
In addition to ensuring the accountability system measures what matters for students, states should be careful about how they include measures that can be easily manipulated and impose unintended consequences:
- Student, parent, and/or educator surveys – Surveys can be a valuable tool to understand what is going well and what can be improved in a school community. Research also shows that survey data can drive efforts to enhance student performance. ¹¹ However, states need to consider common survey challenges, such as responsiveness and representativeness, when using a survey for high-stakes accountability.
- Attendance or Chronic Absenteeism – Students cannot learn if they are not in school, and attendance and chronic absenteeism rates are an important indicator for schools and districts to monitor and address. Because attendance is self-reported, including it in accountability systems unfortunately risks incentivizing unwanted behavior in educators (e.g., school leaders dedicate unnecessary time to tracking teachers’ attendance records instead of their instructional practices).
States should choose evidence-backed indicators that are oriented towards delivering successful, well-prepared students and reliably measure the state’s goals. Beyond tried and tested indicators, states can also turn to less traditional indicators with high promise. Although the indicators mentioned below may not be ready to implement at scale for high-stakes accountability, they have been piloted in various contexts, show great promise, and are worth further study.
Aspirational Indicators
3. Build clear connections between ratings and each indicator at the student level
State accountability systems should be simple enough for educators to understand how their scores are calculated. However, this doesn’t have to mean states only measure proficiency rates. The most impactful state accountability systems measure each individual student outcome and then aggregate at the school level, allowing educators to see how each student connects to their school’s overall result. A student-centered accountability system will prioritize what needs to be true for individual students, rather than what needs to be true for the whole school.
| System Type | In a student-centered system, educators are incentivized to focus on individual students. | In a school-centered system, educators are incentivized to focus on students closest to reaching the minimum proficiency bar. |
| Achievement | Points for each student’s achievement level | Proficiency rates |
| Growth | Points for each student’s progress | Median student growth percentiles (SGPs) |
| College, career, and military readiness | Points for each student’s college and career readiness credential | Graduation rates |
States can also help educators understand how student outcomes connect to their school’s rating by building resources and supports targeted specifically to district and school leaders. This can include regular in-person or virtual training and data tools that allow leaders to use their data to predict their accountability results. When educators understand accountability indicators, they can adjust their actions as needed to improve student outcomes.
4. Use ratings people understand
ESSA requires states to annually meaningfully differentiate schools, but it does not mandate how. Some systems give a single summative rating (such as star ratings, an A-F scale, or improvement labels), while others provide multiple points of comparison (such as indexing or dashboards). Regardless of what methodology states use to differentiate schools, educators, families, and policymakers should be able to easily understand whether a school or district is exceeding, meeting, or falling short of state expectations.
States should also establish unambiguous criteria for district and school ratings, ensuring educators understand precisely what is required each year to achieve the highest rating or to be identified for intervention. Accountability ratings should not be determined relative to how other schools and districts performed. For example, many states identify the bottom 5% of schools for intervention, the minimum required by ESSA. This means that no matter how well—or poorly—schools perform in a given year, only the worst 5% will receive support. Additionally, using percentages creates a moving target for district and school leaders, whose rating is dependent on the relative performance of others instead of what they accomplish individually.
State Examples
 Measuring what matters for student success in Texas
Texas’ accountability system uses a “better of” approach to accountability allowing schools and districts flexibility in demonstrating excellence in the indicators the state believes matter most. Every district and school includes a gap closure measure as 30% of their score, and the remaining 70% takes the better of a school or district’s performance in one of the three domains: Domain 1 – Campus-level performance on student achievement on STAAR assessments; college, career, and military readiness (CCMR) indicators; and graduation rate are measured. If included in the formula, STAAR will represent 28%, CCMR will represent 28%, and the graduation rate will represent 14%. Domain 2A – The percentage of students who experienced at least one year of academic growth as measured by STAAR results and the percentage of students who moved from Did Not Meet Grade Level to Approaching or better is measured. If included in the formula, academic growth will represent 70%. Domain 2B – The relative performance of campuses with similar socioeconomic characteristics on STAAR and CCMR indicators is measured. If included in the formula, CCMR and STAAR achievement both receive 35%. ¹⁵ |
Reporting
| Ideal State |
| When reporting is well-executed, states publish user-friendly report cards on district, school, and student progress; make data transparent and accessible for all stakeholders in a timely manner; ensure schools and districts alert parents when their children are not on track; and find opportunities to celebrate and highlight the most exceptional schools for academic and non-academic success. |
Transparent, user-friendly information on school quality, student performance, and other essential data empowers families, educators, and policymakers to:
- Make informed decisions about a child’s educational journey;
- Identify where schools are underperforming overall, with particular groups of students, and with individual students to inform classroom, building, and system-level practices;
- Provide context to student experiences beyond accountability or federal reporting; and
- Deploy resources effectively to support student success.
Despite the value of transparent data, a recent analysis of state school report cards found that most state websites are inaccessible and confusing for families—only 11 states scored an “A” on either their state report card’s accessibility or usability. ¹⁶ Further research shows that when families do access state report cards, they are not receiving the information they desire in a comprehensible manner. Across the country, families report spending excessive time combing through irrelevant data that leaves them with more questions than answers. ¹⁷ State leaders can do more to harness the power of public reporting to drive student success.
1. Elevate relevant data contributing to students’ educational experience through public reporting
States should use transparent public reporting to shine a light on what students are experiencing in schools and classrooms even when their inclusion in high stakes accountability is not appropriate, including:
- Chronic absenteeism and out-of-school discipline rates
- Student, teacher, and parent survey results
- Curriculum quality
- Teacher quality
- Advanced course offerings
- Extracurricular and co-curricular offerings
- Post-graduation outcomes and median earnings
1. Empower families with their student’s assessment results, not just grades
Most families report that their children receive A’s and B’s and believe their child is on grade level in ELA and math. ¹⁸ However, individual state assessment data and reports from national organizations such as NAEP suggest otherwise. Moreover, a study from the Equitable Grading Project found that almost 60% of students’ grades did not match their standardized assessment scores. ¹⁹ States have a responsibility to help close this information gap by ensuring families receive information on their student’s academic performance, including state assessment results. This can include mandatory deadlines for schools or districts to communicate student assessment results and directing families to resources they can use to better understand results and progress monitor at home.
2. Make state report cards easily accessible and understandable for families
States are responsible for publishing a vast amount of information on school performance for the general public. Often, they fill report cards with information that is required by state or federal law but distracts from the most important headlines stakeholders care about on school quality. States should ensure school report cards are designed and written with a family-friendly lens, elevating the most important and relevant data families need to interpret school quality. (This doesn’t mean states should stop reporting other data; rather, they should differentiate how data is made available based on different types of users.) According to the Data Quality Campaign, states can make school report cards easy to digest for parents by:
- Categorizing report card data under clear headlines,
- Integrating graphic and visual explanations for data, and
- Dedicating space on the State Department of Education home page. ²⁰
States should develop report cards that allow families to immediately identify the most important information about their student’s school quality and easily answer any lingering questions about the data. Research suggests that families may take “shortcuts” when viewing report card information by primarily looking at what is most prominently displayed, implying that the visual presentation of the report card is just as essential as the information itself. ²¹
3. Elevate relevant data contributing to students’ educational experience through public reporting
The data that states choose to highlight within and outside high-stakes accountability should be selected and framed with families in mind. States should use transparent public reporting to shine a light on what students are experiencing in schools and classrooms even when their inclusion in high-stakes accountability is not appropriate, including:
- Chronic absenteeism and out-of-school discipline rates;
- Student, teacher, and parent survey results;
- Curriculum quality;
- Teacher quality;
- Advanced course offerings;
- Extracurricular and co-curricular offerings; and
- Post-graduation outcomes and median earnings.
Educators should also have access to comprehensive and detailed data that supports improvements in students’ classroom experiences, especially data not typically included in family-facing reports (e.g., insights into student misconceptions from state assessments). In order to deliver this type of comprehensive data, states need data systems that can collect and aggregate data across systems and data sources. Additionally, states should publish this information using user-friendly tools and language for families, educators, and policymakers to engage meaningfully with data.
MarylandState Examples
 Empowering families with more than their student’s grades in MississippiMississippi strengthened its 2013 Literacy-Based Promotion Act by codifying a provision requiring that parents are notified of any reading deficiencies starting in Kindergarten, signaling to educators and families that supporting students’ literacy is a collaborative effort within and outside school. Due to intentional guidance and policy at the state level, families across the state are empowered with information they can use to improve their student’s learning. Upon initial determination that a student is experiencing reading deficiencies, and continuing with quarterly progress reports, the school’s written notification to parents must include the following:
|
 Making state report cards accessible and understandable in TennesseeTennessee makes it easy for families to find and navigate report cards, and understand how key indicators play out in their student’s school once they are found. In the Center for Reinventing Public Education’s 2024 “State Secrets” report, Tennessee received an “A’ rating for accessibility of key indicators and the ability to compare pre-and post-COVID indicator data. They also received a rating of “Good” for overall website usability. ²⁴ Tennessee’s state report card and website ensures ease and accessibility by:
|
 Elevating relevant data for the student experience in MassachusettsMassachusetts’ curriculum dashboard provides the public and educators with a dashboard to track and incentivize high-quality instructional materials implementation, without mandating its implementation or attaching to high-stakes accountability. The “curriculum dashboard” displays the curriculum used from K-12 for ELA, math, and science for every district that has reported their curriculum and awards a rating of meets expectations, partially meets expectations, does not meet expectations, or no rating to each curriculum. |
School Improvement
Ideal State |
| When school improvement is well-executed, states transparently identify schools or districts for support, communicate what steps the school or district should take to improve, and track progress along the way. Schools and districts implement evidence-based practices, as required and supported by the state, in order to improve student outcomes. |
Too many states identify the lowest performing schools but provide little clarity on how or what strategies schools should implement to improve outcomes. States can intentionally align the behavior changes they wish to see at all levels of the system to specific evidence-backed interventions and financial resources.
1. Define simple, clear criteria to identify struggling schools
To maximize the measurement system’s influence on educator behavior, district and school leaders need to understand how schools get identified for improvement. States need to ensure their state and federal identification systems seamlessly work together, ideally utilizing a single, transparent methodology. At least 39 states include additional state identification criteria and improvement plans that align with their accountability systems, but few coordinate them with federal requirements. ²⁵ As a result, schools receive mixed messaging about what actions they need to take to improve. For example, two schools in the same district could both be identified for improvement using different criteria (federal and state), limiting the district’s ability to take a coherent approach to school improvement focused around student academics and future readiness. Identification should be simple, clear, and consistent so schools can focus on implementing strong interventions to bring about strong academic outcomes.
States often see ESSA as the ceiling for school improvement when it should be the floor. In virtually no state does the bottom 5% of schools statewide reflect the totality of schools in need of support and improvement, especially when considering student achievement outcomes. States can enhance clarity for educators and create better alignment between state identification requirements and school identification under ESSA by using absolute criteria (e.g., schools earning the lowest accountability ratings) instead of a relative and limited percentage (e.g., the bottom 5% of schools). ²⁶
2. Provide schools and districts with specific, research-based interventions and provide funding and support to help them improve
Schools should be focused on improving student outcomes rather than completing burdensome paperwork disconnected from core actions to support improvement for compliance’s sake. States should make the right choice the easy choice for districts and schools, so they can focus on doing the work that matters most: supporting students. States can ease the burden on district and school leaders to implement school improvement strategies by clearly identifying evidence-based strategies that work at scale, and by requiring state-controlled school improvement dollars be spent only on vetted, research-backed approaches and vendors. This requires state agency leaders to work together across divisions and offices to define which strategies align with evidence and the state’s priorities. For example, many states have a priority to support adoption and implementation of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) with aligned high-quality professional learning (HQPL), but few states make these required investments for schools identified for improvement, a missed opportunity to connect evidence-based best practices to schools most in need of academic support and improvement.
State Examples
 Identifying schools with simple criteria and providing specific, research-based interventions in LouisianaLouisiana takes federal identification and intervention for low-performing schools beyond what is required in ESSA. Schools that have been rated, or have subgroups performing, at a D- or F-level for a consecutive number of years will receive intervention support. Through its unified funding mechanism, SuperApp, Louisiana provides identified schools with a robust toolkit of specific, evidence-backed strategies to help them create their plans and aligned budgets, including:
To support schools in implementing those practices, Louisiana also developed a teacher leader summit, ELA and math observation tools, and a team to observe schools and assist in improvement. |
| Providing specific, research-based interventions in Mississippi Mississippi’s literacy coaching program is not a strategy directly connected to its accountability system; however, the program is an effective school improvement strategy that provides districts and schools with research-backed support to properly address specific areas of concern. Since the passage of the Literacy-Based Promotion Act (LBPA) in 2013, literacy coaches trained in the science of reading have been assigned to schools based on low third-grade reading scores. Coaches support and enhance Mississippi’s literacy priorities at every level of the system by:
Since the first cohort of coaches was hired in 2013, Mississippi has seen progress in student achievement and scaling its coaching program.
|
Innovative Assessment, Accountability and Reporting Examples
State leaders should consider new tools that measure the impact of outcomes and experiences they care about, but are not currently measuring. The following examples demonstrate promising and unique ways that measurement systems can be leveraged.
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
As AI technology improves, states and vendors are exploring what role it can or should play in measurement. States are currently utilizing AI in a variety of ways, including: ³⁰
Early Childhood Education
Many states are beginning to use Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS®), a research-based and validated observation tool that both defines what quality looks like in classrooms and functions as a coaching tool for educators as a means of measuring center and school quality in early ages and grades. CLASS® is primarily used in early childhood education, but has been used in early elementary grades and even secondary grade levels. ³¹
 Measuring early childhood quality in Washington D.C.D.C. leverages CLASS® in its pre-kindergarten classrooms as a school quality/student success indicator in its accountability system and in its public reporting tools, such as its state report card. ³³ Observers look for evidence of:³²
|
| Measuring early childhood quality in Dallas Dallas ISD implemented and measured the quality of its pre-K, kindergarten, and first-grade classrooms using CLASS®. A study on the impact on students in high-quality and low-quality pre-K, kindergarten, and first-grade classrooms found: ³⁴
|
Postsecondary Readiness and OutcomesSome states are experimenting with the reporting of postsecondary outcomes. Promotion power, a value-added-esque measure of how effectively high schools prepare students for long-term success while minimizing background influences (e.g., poverty, prior achievement), is one measure that offers insight into a high school’s impact on students’ postsecondary trajectories. |
| Measuring high school impact in Washington D.C. Washington D.C. partnered with Mathematica to understand how high schools are preparing their students for success. Promotion power provides families and leaders with a more fair assessment of a school’s influence on a student’s postsecondary outcomes, equipping both with more nuanced information to better support students. Schools that successfully support students in achieving outcomes they were unlikely to attain demonstrate high promotion power, celebrating schools that are often overlooked for their efforts in helping students succeed.D.C.’s model measured high schools’ impact on improving a student’s SAT scores, high school graduation rate, and college enrollment. ³⁵ Notably, their research revealed the likelihood of students achieving the aforementioned outcomes differed significantly between high, average, and low-promotion schools, demonstrating that promotion power can successfully differentiate schools. ³⁶* Louisiana also partnered with Mathematica to measure the same outcomes along with workforce outcomes. |
 Reporting Postsecondary Success in IndianaIndiana launched its Graduates Prepared to Suceed (GPS) dashboard in 2022 after thorough input from stakeholder groups including educators, families, and employers. Through these conversations, Indiana built a student-centered, forward-thinking dashboard around five key characteristics that will effectively prepare students for success whether they pursue an enrollment, employment, or enlistment pathway:
The GPS dashboard provides information on employment & enrollment, sustained employment, and median income trends for each high school in the state, with a particular focus on students who stay in-state. Overall, the dashboard empowers stakeholders with measures aligned to the key characteristics within each grade span, demonstrating the cohesive approach Indiana is taking for postsecondary readiness. |
Moving Forward
State leaders need tools that provide a clear picture of where students are, connect to what teachers are doing in the classroom, and incentivize the strategies that best help students. This measurement playbook has laid out multiple tools and tested solutions that leaders can use to bring their student-centered and rigorous systems to life. When tackled collectively, these solutions can improve students’ educational experiences.
It is imperative that states build measurement systems that align with and further their vision for students. The guiding principles mentioned in the Introduction section should be used as a beacon and barometer for improvement.
|
All students are capable of excellence. |
|
Good schools are not defined by how students entered school, where they live, or how much money their family has. |
|
All student experiences, from kindergarten through twelfth grade, matter. |
|
Measures of school quality should be accurate and fair. |
|
Stakeholders need user-friendly, accessible information on school quality and student performance. |
|
Measurement drives tangible improvements. |
References
- TNTP. (n.d.). The opportunity myth: What students can show us about how school is letting them down—and how to fix it.
- Recht, D.R. and Leslie, L., (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), p.16.
- National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Describing achievement: What does the NAEP achievement levels mean? The Nation’s Report Card.
- Lazarín, M. (2014, October). Testing overload in America’s schools: How too much testing is sapping instructional time. Center for American Progress.
- Achievement Network. (2024, May 3). Testing season: Who are we really testing for? Transforming assessments from obstacles to opportunities. Education Week.
- Mancuso, M. and Sigman, D. (2017). Designing a comprehensive assessment system. WestEd.
- Guest Author (n.d.). What are through-year assessments?. Data Quality Campaign.
- New Meridian Corporation. (n.d.). MasteryGuide Mathematics: Assessment Specifications and Blueprints.
- Education Commission of the States. (2024). 50-state comparison: States’ school accountability systems.
- Panorama Education. (n.d.). Using Social-Emotional Learning Data to Improve Academic Achievement.
- Educational Testing Service. Carnegie Foundation, ETS Partner to Transform the Educational Pillars They Built: The Carnegie Unit and Standardized Tests. ETS.
- Rothman, R. (2018). School Quality Reviews: Promoting Accountability for Deeper Learning. Jobs for the Future.
- Winters, M.A. (2016). Grading Schools Promotes Accountability and Improvement: Evidence from New York City, 2013-15. Manhattan Institute.; Rouse, C. E., Hannaway, J., Goldhaber, D., & Figlio, D. (2013, May). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2), 251-281.
- Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). 2024 accountability manual: Chapters 2-4.
- Polikoff, M., Michel-Herf, N., Avelar, J., Pillow, T., Pangelinan, C., & Casimere, H. (2024). State secrets: How transparent are state school report cards about the effects of COVID? Center on Reinventing Public Education.
- Ball, J., Felker, E., and Gross, S.. (n.d.). What makes a good ESSA report card? Learning Heroes & National PTA.
- Learning Heroes. (2023.). Parents: Go Beyond Grades 2023.; The Nation’s Report Card. (2023). NAEP long-term trend assessment results: Reading and Mathematics. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
- Equitable Grading Project. (2024). Can we trust the transcript?
- Data Quality Campaign. (n.d.). Best practices for communicating data to parents and the public
- Glazerman, Steven, Ira Nichols-Barrer, Jon Valant, and Alyson Burnett (2018). Presenting School Choice Information to Parents: An Evidence-Based Guide (NCEE 2019-4003). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
- Ball, J., Felker, E., and Gross, S. (n.d.). What makes a good ESSA report card? Learning Heroes & National PTA.
- Mississippi Department of Education. (2017). Literacy-Based Promotion Act implementation guide.
- Polikoff, M., Michel-Herf, N., Avelar, J., Pillow, T., Pangelinan, C., & Casimere, H. (2024). State secrets: How transparent are state school report cards about the effects of COVID? Center on Reinventing Public Education.
- Education Commission of the States. (2022). State comparison: School improvement policies: Plans and Needs Assessment.; Education Commission of the States. (2022). State comparison: School improvement policies: Improvement Categories.
- Alliance for Excellent Education. (2017, July). ESSA accountability fact sheet.
- Mississippi Department of Education. (2022, April). Literacy coach handbook: 2022–2023.
- National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Mississippi state profile. U.S. Department of Education.
- Alabama Association of School Boards. (2019, June). Mississippi’s Journey to Improving Literacy Outcomes: Implementing the Literacy-Based Promotion Act.
- World Economic Forum. (2024). Shaping the future of learning: The Role of AI in Education 4.0.; Office of Educational Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations. U.S. Department of Education.
- Watershed Advisors. (n.d.). The Future of American Early Childhood: A Framework for Building High-Performing Coherent Systems.
- Office of the State Superintendent of Education. (2022). District of Columbia Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) plan.
- Office of the State Superintendent of Education. (n.d.). A Guide to Capital Quality.
- Wright, A., Farmer, D., and Kara, Y. (2018, August). Effects of Sustained Quality in PreK, Kindergarten and First Grade in Dallas ISD.
- Barnum, M. (2020, March). A fairer way to judge high schools? This state is trying to find out which schools really help students graduate. Chalkbeat.
- Deutsch, J., Gill, B., Gross, M., and Shiferaw, M. (2021, September). Using Promotion Power to Identify the Effectiveness of Public High Schools in the District of Columbia.
Watershed Advisors supports governments to design, implement, and scale transformative education plans. Watershed was founded by former leaders of the Louisiana Department of Education, whose nearly decade-long tenure was defined by nationally recognized innovation in early childhood education, curriculum and preparation, college and career pathways, student assessment, and accountability. Learn more at watershed-advisors.com.
© 2025 Watershed Advisors LLC
