Missouri’s next step on education testing: Balance, not retreat

In Missouri and states across the country, testing and accountability stand at a crossroads. While states still administer annual assessments and hold schools accountable for their students’ performance, there are growing calls to reduce testing and deemphasize accountability.

Last summer, Missouri received approval from the federal government to pilot a new way to test students in a limited number of districts. The state developed the Success-Ready Student Assessment (SRSA) with educators, school leaders, and other stakeholders as a way to move beyond a single end-of-year testing event by using modular assessments throughout the year,  with results combined into one end-of-year score.

These English language arts and math tests are aligned with Missouri’s existing academic standards, break student progress into clearer checkpoints throughout the year, and provide timely feedback to teachers and parents.

Some see this pilot program as an opportunity to move away from annual, summative tests altogether. Not only would that be the wrong move for Missouri, it would misrepresent what the pilot is meant to accomplish. 

When the state applied for federal approval, it said SRSA results would be combined into one end-of-year score and achievement level. The state also made clear that the system would still produce a single, summative result for federal accountability purposes.  

Missouri put thought into the different ways students build knowledge in each subject, which is why implementing the SRSA looks different in math than in English language arts. Students learn math more sequentially – one skill leads to the next – and the assessments are designed accordingly. This pilot was not designed to remove assessments or thwart accountability.

While some may favor alternative ways to gauge student or school performance, research indicates that formal assessments remain a necessary part of understanding how students are doing.  

For instance, one recent study in New York City found that assessments were better predictors of advanced diplomas and college attainment than school climate surveys, though the surveys still provided useful information. 

A 2024 study from Missouri’s own State Longitudinal Data System tracked over 260,000 students from 8th grade through early adulthood. It found that the state’s standardized assessments were strongly associated with high school graduation, college enrollment, and degree attainment.

In other words, we need a balanced accountability system, one that includes different types of assessments and uses the results to drive progress. The goal is not to rank students against one another or use accountability to punish schools and teachers. It is to make sure students are not overlooked, that families can see whether children are meeting reasonable expectations, and that schools have clear signals when students need more support. 

The stakes also extend beyond the K-12 system. Employers need young people to enter the workforce with essential skills: reading closely, reasoning well, solving problems, communicating clearly, and continuing to learn on the job. A balanced accountability system, paired with through-year tools like the SRSA, helps educators respond in real time so students can develop these skills before it’s too late.  

Despite the noise around assessment and accountability, most parents still see value in it. According to a 2025 EdTrust brief, more than 77% of surveyed parents said academic tests provide “valuable insights into their child’s progress.” A separate 2025 national survey found broad support for school accountability. By a two-to-one margin, respondents viewed the lack of accountability for underperforming schools as a bigger problem than how schools are measured.

Missouri has spent much of this year focused on how to measure school and district performance, including a move toward A-F grades. Now, before the SRSA pilot leads to any wider rollout, the state should keep its attention on the harder goal: building a better assessment and accountability system, not weakening it.

If done well, the pilot can show how assessment can be more useful, timely, and responsive without abandoning the clear, comparable information that families, educators, and policymakers rely on. 

Ultimately, the question is not whether to test, but how to do it better. If the state stays focused on building a balanced system that combines through-year insights with a meaningful end-of-year measure, it can give teachers better tools, give families clearer information, and ensure more students are prepared for what comes next.