What Accountability Should Look Like Without More Testing

Growth, Support, and Trust—Not More Screens and Scorecards

If Mississippi truly wants less testing—especially in the elementary grades—then we need to answer a question that policymakers and the public often skip:

How do we measure whether schools are improving without piling on more tests?

The answer is not “no accountability.”The answer is better accountability—the kind that helps schools improve, keeps parents informed, and protects instruction time.

This post lays out a practical model for how Mississippi can hold schools accountable through growth, support, and trust, rather than expanding the assessment calendar.

The problem with “more testing = more accountability”

The last 20 years taught many educators a hard lesson:

More testing does not automatically produce more learning.

It can produce:

• more test prep,

• more screen time,

• more narrowing of the curriculum,

• more paperwork,

• and more anxiety.

And in the early grades, it can work against child development—reducing movement and play while increasing seat time.

If we want real accountability, we should measure what matters without hijacking the school day.

A better definition of accountability

Real accountability answers three questions:

1. Are students learning more over time? (growth)

2. Are schools responding when students struggle? (support)

3. Can parents and communities trust what they’re seeing? (transparency with context)

If an accountability system can’t answer those questions clearly, it’s not serving families or schools—no matter how many tests it includes.

1) Make growth the headline, not just proficiency

Proficiency matters—but growth is the fairest indicator of whether a school is improving.

A school serving students who enter behind grade level should not be labeled hopeless simply because proficiency is still climbing slowly. If students are catching up, that is progress.

What to report (simple and clear)

• student growth in reading and math (year-over-year)

• growth by student group (to ensure equity gaps don’t get hidden)

• growth trends over multiple years (not just one snapshot)

Growth measures hold schools accountable without turning schools into test factories—especially when the state limits the number of required measures and streamlines reporting.

2) Tie accountability to “response,” not just scores

Families don’t just want to know if a school has low scores. They want to know: What is the school doing about it?

A healthier model holds schools accountable fora timely response:

Accountability indicators that don’t require more testing

• How quickly are struggling students identified?

• How quickly is intervention provided?

• How consistently is progress monitored (without excessive frequency)?

• Are interventions staffed by trained people or mostly software?

• What percentage of students receiving intervention improve within a cycle?

This moves the system from “score reporting” to “student recovery.”

3) Protect instruction time and recess as accountability priorities

If we believe elementary learning requires movement and play, then accountability should protect those conditions—not erode them.

That means the state should publicly track:

• whether recess is protected,

• whether districts maintain a balanced instructional day,

• whether screen time is expanding due to mandated assessment cycles.

This may sound unusual, but it’s not. If learning conditions matter (and they do), then conditions belong in accountability.

4) Make accountability transparent—with context

Most public distrust comes from two things:

• data without explanation, and

• comparisons without fairness.

If Mississippi publishes school performance data, it should also publish context indicators that help families interpret it responsibly:

Context indicators worth reporting

• student mobility rate (mid-year movement)

• teacher vacancy and turnover rate

• counselor ratio

• special education service intensity

• transportation burden in rural areas

• chronic absenteeism trends

• facility age/limitations

Context isn’t an excuse. Context is honesty.

5) Use high school accountability that matches the purpose of high school

High school accountability should answer one question:

Are students ready for life after graduation?

This is where your values are especially clear: the ACT is a meaningful readiness indicator.

High school accountability should prioritize:

• ACT performance and participation

• graduation rates (4-year and extended-year)

• dual credit/advanced coursework participation

• career-tech credential attainment

• postsecondary enrollment and persistence (where available)

This model reduces redundant state testing while focusing on readiness outcomes that matter.

6) Track workforce stability as a core accountability measure

Mississippi will not improve outcomes if schools cannot keep teachers.

Teacher retention is not a “staffing problem.” It is an academic outcomes driver.

Accountability should include:

• teacher turnover rate (overall and by grade band)

• vacancy duration

• principal/leadership stability

• long-term substitute coverage trends

If a school has constant churn, students suffer. That should be visible.

7) Replace punishment-first accountability with support-first accountability

If accountability identifies a struggling school, the first response should not be blame.

It should be:

• targeted support teams

• coaching capacity

• intervention staffing help

• operational support for scheduling and implementation

• realistic improvement timelines

Accountability without support becomes theater.

And it contributes directly to teacher burnout and leadership turnover.

A “no more testing” accountability checklist Mississippi could adopt

Here is a practical list of what can be measured without expanding standardized testing windows:

✅ Growth trends (limited, meaningful measures)

✅ Intervention response indicators (time-to-support, improvement rates)

✅ Attendance and engagement (chronic absenteeism + recovery)

✅ School climate and safety indicators

✅ Curriculum access (science/social studies/specials protected)

✅ Teacher retention and vacancy trends

✅ High school readiness (ACT + graduation + CTE credentials)

✅ Context indicators (mobility, SPED intensity, rural transport burden)

This is accountability that informs, not punishes. And it doesn’t require turning elementary school into a testing calendar.

A balanced takeaway

Mississippi can reduce testing and still hold schools accountable—if we stop equating “more measurement” with “more improvement.”

Real accountability is:

• growth that is visible,

• support that is timely,

• transparency that includes context,

• and readiness indicators that matter.

The goal is not to produce better spreadsheets. The goal is to produce better learning, while protecting childhood and sustaining the teachers who make learning possible.

Reflection question for readers

If we removed one major testing window from the school year, what accountability measures would you keep to ensure students still receive the support they need—and how would you report it fairly?