Measuring Quality and Supporting Improvement: 2025 State Bills on School Accountability

As most state legislatures wrapped up their 2025 sessions, we reviewed key education bills that were considered, enacted, or defeated across four topics: college and career pathways; immigration-related education policies; statewide summative assessments; and school accountability. In this blog, we will be examining a few of the bills related to school accountability that caught our eye.

This year, several states enacted bills refining how schools are evaluated for accountability purposes and supported to improve their performance. A few states also introduced legislation specifically aimed at updating their college and career readiness accountability indicators, reflecting ongoing discussions about how readiness should be defined and measured in an ever-evolving economy.

This year, we saw a wave of legislative efforts aimed at scaling back statewide summative assessments. While these proposals may resonate with concerns about overburdening educators and students, they risk undermining the value and utility of summative assessment data for identifying gaps in student learning and school quality. While many states introduced or enacted legislation aiming to reduce the volume of statewide summative assessments, others explored how the results of these assessments could be better used to expand access to advanced academic opportunities. Together, these bills highlight the ongoing tension between efforts to reduce summative testing and the importance of maintaining it to better support student learning.

Updating School Accountability and Improvement

The effectiveness of school accountability systems hinges on how well states use these systems to identify student needs, provide targeted interventions, and address resource inequities to better support students and improve outcomes. During the 2025 legislative session, several states enacted laws to revise their school accountability and improvement systems, signaling evolving state priorities in how school quality is measured and how low-performing schools receive support.

Indiana enacted HB 1498, which mandates the return of A-F grades for school accountability. The law requires the state to develop a new school grading methodology by the end of 2025 and to issue letter grades by the end of 2026. The new methodology will be based on data already collected by the Graduates Prepared to Succeed (GPS) dashboard, include proficiency rates from a literacy screener in grade 3 and statewide summative assessments, and prioritize the attainment of a diploma seal. Indiana has not issued A-F grades to schools since 2018 due to a series of major transitions: the state first adopted a new assessment system, then faced COVID disruptions, and ultimately launched the GPS dashboard in 2022. That said, Indiana has continued to identify low-performing schools for support under its federal accountability framework, which is separate from the state accountability system.

In early June, the Indiana Department of Education released the first draft of the new school grades model, which is aligned with the five characteristics used in the GPS dashboard: Academic Mastery; Career and Postsecondary Readiness; Communication and Collaboration; Work Ethic; and Civic, Financial, and Digital Literacy. To measure college and career readiness, the current draft includes input measures such as earning a diploma seal and completing work-based learning. However, the state should also consider including outcome measures such as college enrollment, military enlistment, or employment, for which data is already collected and reported on the GPS dashboard. While the first public comment period will officially open later this summer, the public can now provide immediate feedback via an online form.

Kentucky enacted HB 298, which requires annual identification of schools for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) for federal accountability, replacing the current practice of identifying CSI schools every three years. It also removes the option for CSI schools to work with external vendors to implement school turnaround activities. Previously, CSI schools could either utilize the state department of education as the turnaround team or select a vendor from the state board of education’s approved turnaround vendor list. Under the new law, the state department of education will not only identify CSI schools much more frequently, but also become the sole provider of turnaround services for these schools. Specifically, the law

requires the department to establish professional learning for teachers in CSI schools and directs district superintendents to adopt evidence-based curriculum and select high-quality instructional materials for those schools. Effective implementation of these new policies will hinge on the department’s ability to provide expert guidance and oversight through the school improvement process.

Colorado enacted HB 1278, which directs the state department of education to strengthen support for schools at early stages of the “Accountability Clock,” which allows schools and districts to receive low ratings for five consecutive years before the state board takes immediate action, such as converting a school to a charter or closing it. The law requires the state department of education to (1) provide guidance to local boards on how to review and monitor improvement plans; (2) offer a process to identify and support schools prior to entering the “Clock;” and (3) offer ongoing support and feedback to schools that are in first and second years of the “Clock.” While it is encouraging that the legislature is emphasizing the department’s role in providing early support and oversight, it did not allocate additional funding to carry out these school improvement activities. It will be up to the department to review its current resources and determine how to incorporate these efforts using existing funding streams.

The law also creates a new option for schools and districts in the later years of the “Clock”: instead of facing immediate state actions, they may develop a multi-year “pathway plan” of their own design, which must include either a new proposed action or one of the existing state actions. Proposed actions may include “contracting with external partners, using contractors or resources provided by the state department of education, engaging in cross-district progress monitoring, or comprehensive school redesign.” School closure as a school improvement strategy has long been controversial. Research suggests it has mixed effects on student achievement, while its largely negative impact on students and communities goes beyond just academics. However, to ensure students don’t remain in low-performing schools for additional years without improvement, it is critical that the state review panel and the state board only approve “pathway plans” from schools and districts that demonstrate clear progress and potential of exiting improvement status.

Tennessee enacted SB 1273, which replaces the state-run Achievement School District (ASD) turnaround program with a “progressive tiered intervention system” to support CSI, or priority, schools. Research showed that ASD, which only included three remaining schools, failed to generate sustained improvement for students, prompting lawmakers to adopt a new, three-tier system with escalating levels of intervention. One example of a Tier 1 intervention, the least intensive, is requiring the local education agency (LEA) of a priority school to implement “an LEA-led, evidence-based, school turnaround intervention” approved by the state department of education. A Tier 2 intervention may involve charter conversion, while a Tier 3 intervention, the most intensive, may involve school closure. The state department of education will annually review the performance of each priority school and determine if the school needs to progress to the next, more intensive tier.

Revising College and Career Readiness Indicators

A few states introduced legislation aimed at revising their college and career readiness (CCR) indicators, one of the most commonly used accountability indicators beyond those required by ESSA. Using CCR indicators signals states’ priorities to prepare students for opportunities beyond high school and help education leaders identify areas where students need additional support to achieve readiness.

Colorado enacted HB 1278, which revises the state’s existing college and career readiness measures. Currently, the state’s Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness indicator includes three CCR sub-indicators: two based on SAT scores in Reading and Writing and in Math and one based on high school graduates’ matriculation rates, for example by earning a CTE credential or completing an associate degree in high schools. The new law removes the two sub-indicators based on SAT scores and instead includes SAT performance in the Academic Achievement indicator, as high school students take the SAT as the statewide summative assessment. The law also introduces two new CCR sub-indicators: (1) College and Career Readiness Before Graduation and (2) Postsecondary Progression. The first sub-indicator includes three measures: (1) earning transferable college credits while in high school; (2) completing work-based learning; and (3) earning a state-approved, industry-recognized credential. The second sub-indicator expands upon the current matriculation rate to capture a broader range of options. It includes: (1) enrolling in a career and technical education program, two-year college, four-year university, or a registered apprenticeship after graduation; (2) enlisting in the military after graduation; and (3) earning 12 college credits or a degree through concurrent enrollment or an early college program. While proxy measures like advanced course-taking and earning industry-recognized credentials are useful predictors of postsecondary success, data on actual outcomes, such as postsecondary enrollment and college remediation rates, provide concrete evidence of how well high schools prepare students for success. Colorado’s new CCR sub-indicators include both types of measures, indicating a critical step toward providing a more comprehensive picture of students’ postsecondary readiness.

Finally, North Carolina lawmakers introduced HB 773 to reform school performance grades, including updating the state’s CCR indicator. The bill has passed the House and is currently pending in the Senate. It proposes to replace the current readiness measures (i.e., earning an ACT composite score of at least 19 or at least a Silver on the ACT WorkKeys as a Career and Technical Education concentrator) with a set of new options: (1) passing an advanced coursework exam; (2) passing a dual enrollment course; (3) meeting benchmark score on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and earning two credits in Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) courses from the same branch; or (4) earning an industry credential approved by the State Board of Education. North Carolina’s current ACT/ACT WorkKeys indicator is unique due to its simplicity: one measure focused on college readiness and another on workforce readiness. This design makes it simple for state leaders to set goals, track progress, and target resources to improve student participation and success. The newly proposed indicator, by contrast, incorporates multiple measures across college, career, and military readiness, and thus more closely resembles CCR indicators used by other states. Recognizing a broader set of CCR measures makes the indicator more inclusive of diverse postsecondary pathways; but states must be more intentional about reporting how students demonstrate readiness, in addition to presenting an overall readiness rate.

School accountability systems are a valuable policy tool for state leaders to identify student needs, provide data-informed, evidence-based interventions, and address resource inequities. These legislative efforts demonstrate how states are refining not only how schools are evaluated, but also, more importantly, how they are supported through accountability systems.

While All4Ed continues to track the remaining legislative sessions in 2025, our State Policy Center features model legislation for policymakers and advocates aiming to move bills to improve college and career readiness indicators, prioritize school improvement and support, and maximize the number of students included in accountability systems. Continue to check the State Policy Center for updated information and reach out to Jenn Ellis, Director of State Government Relations (jellis@all4ed.org) for more information about technical assistance to move education policy in your state!