Statewide Assessments Are Critical for Informed Public School Choice

Policymakers must consider how assessment and choice policies interact

School choice has re-emerged as a prominent education policy issue in recent months. Although choice policies that support student enrollment in private schools are getting a lot of attention, efforts to expand choice among public schools are also widespread and growing. That public-school expansion must be accompanied by a commitment to providing families with school performance data, including scores on statewide assessments to help them make sound decisions.

At the federal level, Senators Michael Bennet and Bill Cassidy recently introduced a bill to enhance charter schools’ access to facilities, and the U.S. Department of Education plans to allocate $500 million for charter school grants this year. Other public-school choice options, including magnet schools and inter- and intra-district enrollment policies, provide further opportunities for families to choose a public school other than the one to which their children are assigned based on their residential address. 

Several states and districts have greatly expanded public-school choice options for all students, and at least 21 governors mentioned school choice in their 2025 state-of-the-state addresses. Evidence of the effectiveness of public-school choice policies is mixed, though some recent research suggests improved outcomes for students who attend charter schools as well as for students in nearby traditional public schools.

Well-implemented public-school choice policies have the potential to help families and students access educational opportunities that fit their needs and interests, but they must be anchored in trustworthy, meaningful information. 

One widely available information source comes from the statewide tests that every state must give under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Under this law, statewide tests provide school-level information on how well students are mastering critical academic knowledge and skills in mathematics, English language arts, and science. 

Experts, including those at the Center for Assessment, have argued that it’s important for states to continue administering these tests, since they provide useful data for monitoring and improving school performance and signaling states’ priorities. 

But as public school choice expands, these tests serve an additional, increasingly important purpose: providing a common benchmark to help families evaluate their options. Indeed, there is evidence that providing test score information increases families’ selection of higher-performing schools and that their children benefit from attending those higher-performing schools. 

Yet these requirements could be eliminated if Congress changes the law or the presidential administration grants waivers. As the education policy context undergoes rapid shifts, education officials should be wary of compromising longstanding data sources that can inform and advance a range of policy options. 

Testing That’s Useful to School Choice Decisions

To be maximally useful for informing families’ choices, state testing systems should incorporate, at a minimum, three key features: 

1. Clear, accessible, and timely performance reports. Test results have limited value to families if they have to scour a state education website, only to find obscure, technical information. Studies show that test results and other school performance information can be confusing, particularly for parents with less formal education or who do not speak or read English well. Easy-to-interpret data displays, including tools such as short video explanations, can help families understand school performance. These resources are not only relevant to informing families; they also build transparency and trust among the broader taxpayer community.  

2. Information about achievement growth. Test scores based on a single point in time, such as the percentage of students performing at or above the “proficient” threshold, do not provide information about schools’ contributions to student learning. Measures of test-score growth can help families not only understand how well a school’s students are performing; they can provide evidence (albeit imperfect) of how schools foster student learning over time.

3. Guidance on appropriate inferences. Student achievement data are valuable for understanding school performance, but there are risks that users could make inappropriate interpretations that lead to less-than-optimal decision making. For instance, school-level score reports cannot be used to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers or the quality of support services provided to students with special needs. Score reports should offer guidance to help users understand what kinds of interpretations are warranted based on the information provided.

A Few Important Caveats

While we recognize the critical role of state tests for families that are considering school choice options, we must also acknowledge some limitations of our current state testing systems.

First, the information available through these systems is valuable, but it doesn’t provide a complete picture of schools’ outcomes or offerings. This can be remedied, in part, by comprehensive school accountability systems that incorporate other measures and easy-to-interpret school ratings. 

State accountability systems under ESSA require schools to report on indicators such as graduation rates and English learners’ progress. In addition, ESSA requires states to adopt additional indicators of School Quality and Student Success, such as college- and career-readiness, chronic absenteeism, or school climate. These are valuable complements to reading and math test scores.

Families can also benefit from information on other aspects of schools’ operations and performance, such as their curricular and extracurricular offerings and safety. Public reporting of these other indicators could help address concerns about the potential negative effects of excessive emphasis on standardized test scores, including concerns that reliance on these scores might hinder innovation.

Second, the emphasis on test scores may be misleading for specialized charter or magnet schools that serve students who have not thrived in traditional school settings. Many of those schools serve students who have experienced traumatic events, or those with mental health concerns or specific learning needs. Test scores might not reflect the distinct goals and characteristics of these schools, and families who are considering such schools for their children might prioritize other kinds of information such as measures of student persistence and earning industry credentials.

Our Focus on Public School Choice

Finally, we have emphasized the value of state tests for informing public-school choice because current assessment and accountability policy does not apply to private schools. Others have debated whether private schools should be subject to these requirements. If public funds are diverted to private schools through vouchers or education savings accounts, it is reasonable to expect these programs to offer transparency and accountability to taxpayers and families. But recent discussions regarding private-school choice policies suggest that legislation requiring private schools to administer state tests is highly unlikely to be enacted on a broad scale anytime soon.  

Despite these limitations, statewide testing is undoubtedly one of the best sources of information on school performance. As policymakers continue to explore changes to both school choice policies and state testing and accountability systems, it is imperative that they consider how these policies interact. 

Maintaining and improving statewide testing will not only provide families with critical evidence to guide their decisions; it will also help ensure that all public schools that participate in choice systems receive clear signals about the academic standards they are expected to uphold.

Kerstin Le Floch is a managing researcher at the American Institutes for Research. Her work focuses on accountability and school improvement.