Refining Accountability Systems to Better Inform Improvement Efforts

October 21, 2025

By Mel Wylen and Mitch Herz

For over 20 years, federal accountability policy has aimed to identify schools needing support and direct resources for improvement. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) gave states flexibility to design accountability systems that reflect local priorities. But many systems still fall short: While states have expanded the measures they use, accountability often stops at labeling schools rather than driving meaningful improvement. As a result, states often struggle to connect identification with effective action and, at times, obscure inequities (EdTrust, 2024), disconnecting data from tangible improvement in outcomes.

In response, several states, including Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon, are reforming accountability systems to connect them directly with improvement efforts and resource allocation, making accountability a driver of possible change.

ESSA allows states room for innovation, and recent federal guidance encourages experimenting with new indicators, system designs, and improvement strategies. Our recent white paper introduces a four-level hierarchy to help states design fair and actionable accountability systems that result in better outcomes.

Level 1: Clarify Purpose and Vision

Every strong accountability system begins with an actionable vision of what a state’s education system is trying to achieve.

• Kentucky provides a powerful example of vision setting in action. Through its United We Learn initiative, the state engaged educators, parents, students, and community members in defining a Portrait of a Learner—a shared vision of the skills and dispositions all students should develop. This community-driven approach set the foundation for locally designed accountability pilots in which districts like Shelby and Fleming Counties are experimenting with new measures such as performance-based portfolios and student exhibitions. By starting with an inclusive vision, Kentucky has created ownership among educators and communities, laying the groundwork for accountability and improvement systems that are more coherent.
• Utah’s Lowest Quartile Growth Indicator reflects a clear vision centered on equal access for all learners. By emphasizing the growth of the lowest performing 25 percent of students in each school, the state signaled that progress for all students, not just those near proficiency thresholds, was a core goal. That vision shaped the design of the indicator and sent a powerful message that accountability must spotlight those students most in need of support.

These examples underscore the importance of starting with vision. Without clarity about what matters most, accountability systems risk trying to measure too much and losing the main message in a flood of data.

Level 2: Design the System to Serve the Vision

Once a vision is set, state leaders must ensure that their accountability systems support those goals. This involves both system design and technical decisions.

• Ohio’s Early Literacy Indicator illustrates how design can serve vision. Recognizing that reading proficiency by grade 3 is a critical milestone, the state incorporated a measure that tracks progress across kindergarten through grade 3. This approach reflects Ohio’s broader vision of equitable early learning and ensures that accountability data point toward a priority that strongly influences long-term success.
• Nebraska took a different route by developing a dual system: Its AQuESTT framework operates alongside ESSA’s requirements. AQuESTT connects indicators in the accountability system to the state’s six tenets of school improvement. By using a framework that is already familiar to schools and districts, AQuESTT creates a clear vision of how to connect school accountability information to school improvement purposes.

These design choices show that when states align system structures with their educational vision, accountability becomes a tool for reflection with direct connections to the broader purpose of improvement.

Level 3: Communicate Information Clearly

Accountability data must be accessible and meaningful to educators, policymakers, parents, and community members. Information is conveyed both explicitly (through dashboards, report cards, and public messaging) and implicitly (through the selection of indicators and the weight they are given).

• Shelby County, Kentucky’s school-based dashboards, created with input from more than 30 interest holder groups, prioritize growth and achievement and use plain language so that families can easily understand what matters most.
• Nebraska’s AQuESTT system also reflects careful communication. Instead of emphasizing competition, the system categorizes schools into support levels, signaling that the purpose of accountability is not to label winners and losers but to guide improvement conversations.

When states communicate accountability information clearly and transparently, they build public trust and create the conditions for data to drive meaningful, shared action.

Level 4: Link Accountability to Action

The purpose of accountability systems is to drive improvement. To achieve this, states must connect accountability information to coordinated actions across agencies and across system levels.

Mississippi’s literacy reforms show how this approach can work in practice. Through the Literacy-Based Promotion Act, the state aligned resources across agencies to support schools that are struggling and invested heavily in educator collaboration from the classroom to the statehouse. This resulted in measurable gains in student literacy that reflect not a “miracle” but rather years of coherent policy and practice.

• In Ohio, early literacy indicators sparked stronger data cultures in schools, with teachers using screener results and state report card metrics to drive interventions.
• Utah’s focus on the lowest quartile growth drove attention to students who had previously been overlooked.
• Kentucky’s locally designed pilots are shifting classroom conversations from test scores to student readiness, creating ownership and trust.

Ultimately, accountability systems fulfill their purpose only when they inspire and coordinate sustained action—turning data into improvement and vision into reality.

Looking Ahead

ESSA gives states room to innovate. The challenge is whether they will do so in ways that link identification with real improvement.

The path forward is clear:

• Anchor systems in a shared vision for student success.
• Design accountability intentionally to serve that vision.
• Communicate information in ways that engage and empower all interest holders.
• Connect identification to coordinated, sustained improvement.

Accountability systems should be dynamic tools that help states, districts, and schools move forward. By refining these systems with access for all learners and action in mind, states can advance ESSA’s purpose, ensuring that accountability empowers schools to better serve every student.

How WestEd Can Help Advance School Accountability

WestEd partners with states and districts to refine accountability models that go beyond compliance to actively drive improvement. We help leaders design systems that are rooted in a clear vision, responsive to local contexts, and actionable for educators and communities. Our approach combines technical expertise with a strong commitment to access for all learners, ensuring that accountability data lead to meaningful action.

At Wested’s Center for Standards, Assessment & Accountability (CSAA), we bring together state and local leaders to learn from case studies, share strategies, and pilot innovative approaches. Whether it’s supporting states in integrating new indicators, strengthening communication through dashboards and reporting, or building stronger links between accountability and school improvement, our work is grounded in practical solutions that meet the needs of educators, families, and students.

About the Authors

Mel Wylen is a seasoned expert in education strategy and accountability systems. As a research associate on WestEd’s Assessment for Learning team, she brings more than a decade of experience in partnering with state and local education agencies to turn accountability data into actionable strategies that drive smarter resource allocation and measurable academic gains. Wylen leads high-impact strategic planning, rigorous evaluation, and technical assistance initiatives, and she is a trusted facilitator of professional learning that builds real-world capacity for data-informed decision-making.

Mitch Herz is a national expert in school accountability system design and implementation with a focus on strengthening data systems that can drive school improvement and improved student outcomes. Herz helps states and districts create relevant, meaningful, and coherent accountability systems that communicate key information about student outcomes.