SERIES OVERVIEW
This series focuses on the role of accountability systems built to meet federal and state requirements to ensure that schools and districts are meeting their obligation to graduate all students ready for college and career.
Explore the full series from Bellwether experts on the role of state accountability in K-12 education systems.
If you work in education or have kids in our public K-12 school system, you probably agree that there should be some way to ensure that schools deliver on their promises to students and families. But what does it really mean to hold them accountable, and who should be responsible?
In its simplest form, accountability in public education looks like this: states allocate the majority of resources to public schools while the local school systems deliver instructional programs. The role of state accountability systems is to clearly signal whether those programs are working for all students.
When all three phases of this cycle work well, local leaders have the flexibility to make strategic choices about what instructional methods best support their students. They have the resources they need to implement them, and the state has the information and capacity to intervene when a problem arises.
While this cycle doesn’t currently operate well in every state across the country, we do have examples of what it looks like when it works.
Some states are making strong academic gains for students by combining transparent, rigorous accountability systems with strong systems of support and resources for schools and classrooms that support successful implementation of proven practices. Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Tennessee (the states behind the “Southern Surge”) are paving the way. Although this surge won’t translate perfectly everywhere, there are elements that every state can learn from.
- Transparency is key: Texas’ school report card website provides clear, plain-language information about how schools are performing along with resources for parents that cover how they can support their student’s education at home.
- Policy must translate into practice: Louisiana and Mississippi are models for implementing research-based strategies that are grounded in strong training for teachers and supports for new curriculum and instructional practices.
- Funding should follow student need: Tennessee has shifted state funding systems to target resources directly to students’ learning needs with flexibility at the local level to deploy those funds strategically.
But what undergirds the work in each of these states is a transparent and robust accountability system. These systems close the feedback loop between practice at the local level and the state.
As we rethink the role of accountability systems in the age of AI, declining enrollment, and tightening budgets, the purpose shouldn’t be to just shine a flashlight on results but to provide a toolkit of support that ensures students are receiving the baseline learning necessary to succeed in an evolving world — and steps in where they are not. These systems don’t tell the whole story of how schools are doing in educating and preparing students, but they provide a critical diagnostic that should signal when the state needs to intervene with support.
