04/17/2025 | News release | Distributed by Public on 04/17/2025 14:44
Successful leaders know that while it might feel good to have "yes men" around, they are not the best people to help you make important decisions. Support and encouragement matter, but so does honest feedback. With that in mind, recent actions and proposals in Missouri raise the question: are the accountability measures in Missouri improving our schools?
Pushing Back Against Policies that Dilute Standards
Currently, Missouri students are categorized into one of four performance levels based on their state standardized test scores. From lowest to highest, these are: below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced.
HB 607 proposes the addition of a fifth performance category, called "grade level," which would be above basic but below proficient.
This definition of "grade-level" implies that it should not be expected for Missouri students to have mastery over all appropriate grade-level standards.
Rather than diluting standards, Missouri should implement policies that make meaningful use of state assessments. One such example is a third-grade retention policy. The transition from third to fourth grade is pivotal-students shift from learning to read to reading to learn. To combat the well-documented fourth-grade reading slump, states such as South Carolina and Mississippi adopted mandatory retention policies paired with targeted phonics-based interventions. The result has been very positive.
Open Enrollment-Better Choice, Better Accountability
Currently, where you can attend school is largely determined by where you live. This prevents many families from changing schools. Establishing a cross-district, universal open enrollment program would allow more families to vote with their feet. Markets excel at revealing best practices, and districts with best practices will likely attract more students and pressure other districts to change.
There is some potential to align open enrollment with Missouri's accreditation process. In December 2024, it was announced that for the 10th year in a row, the state's accountability system would not be used for district accreditation. Perhaps there is fear of a trigger in the policy that would allow students to transfer out of unaccredited school districts, especially because the unaccredited districts must pay the tuition for the transfers to receiving districts. If universal open enrollment were adopted, lawmakers could revisit the tuition rule for transfer students out of those districts and implement a meaningful accreditation system.
These strategies offer ways to maintain high standards for our schools and children. Better accountability systems in education are the key to learning which strategies are working and which are not. Encouraging transparency and openness will generate more competition and innovation in our schools, and should ultimately strengthen our education system.