This originally appeared in Aligned’s weekly newsletter. Want future updates in your inbox? Sign up today.
Missouri’s assessment pilot and the case for balanced accountability
Missouri’s new assessment pilot has given life to an age-old debate in education policy.
As we wrote last August, testing and accountability stand at a crossroads, with many calling to reduce testing and deemphasize accountability in education.
After receiving federal approval to pilot the Success-Ready Student Assessment (SRSA), some now see a chance for the state to move away from annual summative testing altogether. In our mind that would be wrong move for the state, and it also misrepresents what the pilot is meant to accomplish.
Missouri was approved to pilot the SRSA under the federal Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA) last July. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) describes the SRSA as a “through-year, modular assessment” system in English language arts and math designed to give educators more timely feedback about their students during the school year.
What matters is what Missouri proposed for the SRSA, which is not a rejection of a summative assessment.
In its federal IADA application, Missouri says the modular results will contribute to a cumulative summative score and achievement level at the end of the year. The state also makes clear that the system will still produce a single, summative result for federal accountability purposes.
- In English language arts, the SRSA is intended to use three modular assessments across the fall, winter, and spring that cover the full range of the state’s ELA standards. Students can then “bank” demonstrated proficiency in components of standards, giving teachers more timely information during the year while still contributing to a statewide summative result.
- In math, the SRSA is built around cluster assessments and end-of-grade performance. That structure reflects the more sequential nature of math, where students need to build and demonstrate cumulative knowledge as they move through the standards.
Missouri put thought into the different ways students build knowledge in each subject. It did not design this pilot 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 ofunderstanding 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.
- Last year, we highlighted a study from Missouri’s own State Longitudinal Data System that tracked over 260,000 students from 8th grade through early adulthood. It found that the state’s standardized assessment was strongly associated with high school graduation, college enrollment, and degree attainment.
That does not mean assessments are the end-all, be-all. However, it does mean they should remain part of a balanced accountability system.
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.
That matters beyond the K-12 system. Employers need young people to enter the workforce with essential skills to read closely, reason well, solve problems, communicate clearly, and continue learning on the job. A balanced accountability system, paired with through-year tools like the SRSA, helps educators respond in real time before it’s too late.
Despite some opinions around assessment and accountability, most people 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 lack of accountability for underperforming schools as a bigger problem than how schools are measured.
It is in this context that DESE is approaching assessment and accountability with a focus on building a better system rather than phasing it out.
Missouri is now piloting the SRSA in a limited number of districts as it refines the model ahead of any wider rollout. That gives the state a chance to modernize assessment within a stronger, more balanced accountability system. We will follow the pilot closely as more information becomes available.
Missouri News
Senate Budget Discussions Around Education Heat Up
Missouri lawmakers are facing growing tension over how to fund public education across the spectrum. The Senate’s overall budget is lower than both the governor’s recommendation and the House-approved plan. This includes reductions and reallocations as lawmakers attempt to balance competing priorities in a tightening fiscal environment.
Current K-12 education funding includes roughly $4.3 billion from the foundation formula, $361.5 million from transportation (all general revenue), with the remaining funding provided by the lottery, casino taxes, and other funds. Money from the lottery is also used to fund a portion of the budgets for school transportation, community colleges, and four-year universities.
The Senate PK-12 budget recommended using one-time funds totaling $118 million from the Missouri State Capitol Commission to close the current gap in the foundation formula. Additionally, $15.2 million for school transportation was included.
According to recent reporting from the Missouri Independent, the formula is underfunded because the budget does not include extra weight for some students (per the 2024 law) and does not fund the incentive for schools to maintain five-day weeks.
At the heart of the education budget issue is a revenue shortfall stemming from bullish projections for lottery and casino taxes. Those revenues have not met expectations, resulting in an estimated $60 million gap for the lottery alone.
Lawmakers will negotiate differences in the upcoming conference committee, but the conversations this week highlight an ongoing challenge: maintaining stable, predictable funding for public schools amid fluctuating revenue streams. This has been, and will continue to be, a topic of conversation for the Missouri School Funding Modernization Task Force as they navigate recommendations for a new formula at the end of 2026.
In any case, the implications for districts could be significant. The foundation formula should be designed to ensure schools can provide equitable resources based on student needs. When funding is unpredictable, districts may be forced to make difficult decisions, from delaying investments to reallocating local resources to cover gaps.
Other Senate budget takeaways:
The Senate budget also reversed an overhaul of higher education funding passedin the House budget that would have redistributed direct support for community colleges and state universities based on full-time student counts. This overhaul certainly proved to have immediate winners and losers under the new student count funding plan. Other states have implemented changes over time to lessen the immediate impact.
Additionally, funds cut from child care subsidies ($51 million) were restored in the Senate version.
As budget negotiations continue between the House and Senate, the outcome remains uncertain. But the current trajectory signals a continued reliance on short-term fixes rather than long-term solutions, again raising important questions about the sustainability of Missouri’s current school funding model and its impact on students statewide.
Aligned’s take: It is safe to say that, overall, education funding mechanisms across the state need careful and swift attention. Education is the largest budget line item for most states, which warrants more time and attention to ensure it is done right for the long haul.
New resource: Missouri teacher workforce series, part 3
Aligned has released the final report in our Missouri Teacher Workforce series, looking at how schools are staffing classrooms amid growing workforce pressures.
While overall teacher counts have remained stable, this report finds a significant shift in who is leading classrooms.
- In 2015, nearly 97% of Missouri classrooms were led by fully certified teachers. By 2024, that figure dropped to 81.4%.
- At the same time, the number of classrooms led by substitute-certified teachers increased tenfold.
This last report highlights how temporary and early-career staffing solutions are becoming a more permanent part of the state’s teacher workforce, raising implications for labor force stability and system capacity in the long-run.
Check out the full report now!
Priority bill update
We’ve updated our priority bill tracker to show you where legislation stands with only a few weeks remaining.
In other news:
- Missouri treasurer’s office posted MOScholars student data on its website for nearly a year • Missouri Independent
- Kilburn Receives Missouri Governor’s Award for Excellence in Education
- How bilingual education supports student success – News – Missouri State University
Kansas News
Education funding task force reconvenes as Kansas weighs a new formula
The Kansas Education Funding Task Force resumed meetings this week, with major questions yet to be resolved.
Members are still considering and debating key formula design questions. However, with a looming deadline to pass a new formula, some officials are raising the possibility that the current formula may need to be extended to avoid implementation issues.
Design questions
Both days of meetings were structured by Kansas Legislative Research Department staff overviewing all aspects of the formula and presenting different hypothetical models at the request of legislators. Much of this review exercise focused task force members attention on a few major school funding policy topics.
At-risk funding, currently identified as students who qualify for free meals under the National School Lunch Program, was a major talking point.
- While members did not find consensus, KLRD staff presented alternative identification methods, such as students who receive federal Title I aid, census-based poverty measures, and student performance on state assessments.
- The conversation also included a look at Kansas’ separate high-density at-risk funding for districts with concentrated levels of poverty, as well as the possibility of financially rewarding districts for moving kids into higher performance categories.
Overall, state policymakers are grappling with how to account for and measure student need to change at-risk funding.
Potential changes to Bilingual funding raised other design questions.
- Members revisited whether Kansas should continue funding districts based on service hours for Bilingual students or student headcount (whichever is greater).
- The task force also looked at providing differentiated funding for newcomer students, with some arguing they should be treated differently than other English language learners who have been in programs longer.
High- and low-enrollment funding remained another major area of debate. The task force reviewed both models, including whether the current thresholds still make sense and if a density-based approach might better reflect district conditions.
- Most members appeared more comfortable with the rationale for low-enrollment support than with the justification for high-enrollment funding.
- KLRD noted that many districts across the state receive low-enrollment funding.
Across the discussion, a structural question continued to emerge: how much funding should flow through the base amount of funding per student versus targeted student weights?
- Note: Kansas currently uses a lower base amount of funding relative to some states and relies on higher weights to provide targeted support to certain student populations.
Implementation questions
In addition to these design questions, the task force is confronting a separate practical issue: time. The current school funding formula is set to expire July 1, 2027, and the taskforce is supposed to report out their recommendations by January 11, 2027.
Timeline concerns came up in the first meeting, when members discussed the predictability of state funding models, phase-ins of a new formula, and the possibility that major changes may require districts to adjust over a few years and not all at once.
By the second day, the implementation concern became harder to separate from the policy debates.
- Some officials openly raised the possibility that a current formula may need to be extended rather than replaced on the original timeline to avoid administrative and budget issues.
- Their concern is not theoretical. Members discussed, for example, that any changes to special education funding would require changes to many local cooperative agreements that would take some time.
- Legislators introduced a bill (SB 342) that would have extended the expiration date of the current formula by one year, but it was not taken up this year.
With the task force working to reach consensus on several big policy questions, coupled with the state and districts existing budget process and timelines, the question of when Kansas can implement a new formula remains.
The Taskforce also adjourned without deciding exact meeting dates over the interim session. Representative Susan Estes, chair of the task force, indicated she would like to meet a few more times before next January.
In other news
- Kansas survey points to softening of teacher interest in exiting the profession | HPPR
- Education department says 4 Kansas districts violated federal law
Save your spot for Aligned’s post-session webinar
Aligned will host a virtual post-session briefing on May 6 from 12 to 1 p.m. focused on what happened during the 2026 Kansas legislative session and what it means moving forward.
We will cover the major proposals that advanced, the measures that stalled, and the broader themes that shaped debate this year. If you want a practical rundown of where things landed and what to watch next, be sure to register!
Be on the lookout: We will host a similar session in May to cover the Missouri session.