How State Education Agencies Can Explain School Report Cards, Assessment Results, and Accountability Measures Clearly

Every year, state education agencies publish an enormous amount of information about schools. Federal law requires states to produce annual report cards for the state, each district, and each school, including information about student achievement on state assessments, graduation rates, progress of English learners toward proficiency, chronic absenteeism or other measures of school quality, per-pupil spending, educator qualifications, and accountability ratings or designations. States also release assessment results showing how students performed in reading, mathematics, science, and other subjects, often broken down by grade level, school, district, and student group. Many states assign schools ratings, such as letter grades, star ratings, or performance categories, based on multiple indicators. These data are intended to inform families, support improvement, promote transparency, and hold schools accountable for serving all students well.

Yet for many of the people the data is meant to serve, school report cards and assessment results are difficult to understand and use. Report card websites may present dozens of indicators, technical terms, and charts without explaining what they mean. Families may not know the difference between proficiency and growth, why a school with high test scores received a mediocre rating, what a scale score represents, or how to interpret results for student groups. Assessment results may be released with headlines about statewide declines or gains, but without context about what changed, why, or what it means for individual schools and students. Educators may feel that ratings oversimplify the complex work of schools, and communities may draw conclusions about school quality that the data does not support. Misinterpretation can lead to unfair stigma for some schools, misplaced complacency in others, and erosion of trust in the accountability system itself.

Clear communication can make school performance data genuinely useful. When state agencies explain what each indicator measures, how ratings are calculated, what the data can and cannot tell us, and how families and educators can use the information, report cards become tools for understanding and improvement rather than sources of confusion or anxiety. When agencies provide context, such as trends over time, comparisons to similar schools, and explanations of changes in assessments or methodology, the public can interpret results more accurately. When agencies support districts in communicating results locally, families receive consistent, accurate explanations. Good communication respects the complexity of school performance while making key information accessible.

This article examines how state education agencies can explain school report cards, assessment results, and accountability measures clearly. It looks at why performance data is so often misunderstood, how to design report cards that families can use, and how to explain key concepts such as proficiency, growth, and accountability ratings in plain language. It covers how to communicate assessment results responsibly, how to provide context that supports accurate interpretation, how to present data on student groups and equity, and how to support districts and schools in local communication. It also addresses communicating changes in assessments and accountability systems, accessibility and language access, engaging families and educators in report card design, and measuring whether communication improves understanding. The goal is performance data that every family and community member can understand and use well.

Why School Performance Data Is So Often Misunderstood

School performance data is inherently complex. It summarizes the learning of thousands of students using assessments designed by experts, combines multiple indicators using formulas set by policy, and reports results for many groups and categories. Each indicator has technical definitions, limitations, and appropriate uses. Accountability ratings reflect policy choices about which indicators matter and how much weight each receives. Assessment results can change because of real changes in learning, changes in the student population, changes in the assessment itself, or random variation, especially in small schools. Without careful explanation, it is easy for families, educators, policymakers, and journalists to draw conclusions that the data does not support. Understanding common sources of misunderstanding helps agencies design communication that prevents them.

Too Much Data, Too Little Explanation

State report card websites often present a large number of indicators on a single page, with charts, percentages, and labels that assume familiarity with education terminology. A family visiting the report card for their child’s school may see proficiency rates, growth percentiles, participation rates, graduation rates, chronic absenteeism, English learner progress, per-pupil expenditures, and an overall rating, each broken down by multiple student groups. Without clear explanation of what each measure means and which matter most for their questions, families may feel overwhelmed and leave without useful understanding. Others may focus on a single number, such as the overall rating, without understanding what it represents.

More information is not always more helpful. Report cards that prioritize the most important information, explain each indicator in plain language, and allow users to explore additional detail as desired are far more usable than those that present everything at once. Agencies can design report cards in layers, starting with a clear summary and allowing users to drill down into detail, which serves both casual visitors and those who want to explore deeply.

A layered design might begin with a one-page school snapshot that shows the overall rating, a handful of key indicators, and short plain language explanations, followed by tabs or sections for academic achievement, growth, graduation, school climate, and resources. Each layer should answer a progressively more detailed set of questions, and users should always be able to return easily to the summary. Agencies that have adopted layered designs often report that families spend more time on report cards and come away with a clearer understanding, because they are not confronted with everything at once.

Printed or downloadable summaries are also valuable. Some families prefer a simple one-page document they can read at home or bring to a meeting with school staff, and some schools want to share summaries at family nights or in enrollment packets. Providing a printable school snapshot in multiple languages, generated automatically from the same data as the online report card, extends the reach of report card information to families who rarely visit state websites.

Explanations should be available where users need them, such as short descriptions next to each indicator, information icons that reveal definitions, and links to longer explanations. Families should not need to consult a separate technical manual to understand what they are seeing.

Confusing Proficiency, Growth, and Ratings

One of the most common sources of confusion is the difference between proficiency and growth. Proficiency measures the share of students meeting a defined standard at a point in time, while growth measures how much students’ achievement changed over time, often compared with similar students. A school serving many students who start far behind may have low proficiency rates but high growth, indicating that students are learning a great deal. Another school may have high proficiency but low growth, suggesting that students who arrived well prepared are not advancing as much as they could. Without explanation, families may assume that high proficiency always means a better school, missing important information about how much schools help students learn.

Accountability ratings add another layer of complexity because they combine multiple indicators using weights and formulas. A school may receive a lower rating than families expect because of low growth, high chronic absenteeism, or low performance for a particular student group, even if overall proficiency is high. Explaining how ratings are calculated, what each component contributes, and why a school received its rating helps families understand ratings rather than accepting or rejecting them without context.

Clear, consistent explanations of these concepts, using examples and visuals, are among the most valuable communication investments a state agency can make. When families understand the difference between where students are and how much they are growing, they can ask better questions and make more informed judgments about schools.

Agencies can support understanding by publishing short explainer videos, illustrated guides, and examples that walk through how a hypothetical school’s rating was calculated. Showing, step by step, how indicators combine into a rating demystifies the process and helps families, educators, and journalists see why ratings sometimes differ from expectations. Making the calculation transparent also builds trust, since the public can see that ratings follow consistent rules rather than subjective judgments.

It is also important to explain what ratings are used for. Families should understand whether ratings trigger additional support, identification for improvement, or other consequences, and how ratings relate to the state’s goals. When the purpose of ratings is clear, families can interpret them as signals about where schools need support rather than as final verdicts on whether a school is good or bad.

Statistical Limitations and Small Numbers

Performance data has statistical limitations that are often overlooked. In small schools or small student groups, results can swing substantially from year to year because of a few students, making apparent changes unreliable. States typically suppress data for very small groups to protect privacy, which can make some information unavailable. Assessment results reflect performance on a particular test on a particular day and do not capture everything students know or everything schools do. Changes in the student population, such as an influx of newcomer students, can affect results in ways unrelated to school quality.

Communicating these limitations honestly helps prevent overinterpretation. Report cards can note when results are based on small numbers, explain why some data is suppressed, and remind users that assessment results are one source of information among many. These caveats should be presented clearly but not so prominently that they obscure the information itself.

Agencies can also encourage users to look at multiple years of data rather than a single year, since trends are more reliable than one-year snapshots, particularly for small schools. Displaying three-year trends by default, with clear notes when changes are within the range of normal variation, helps users distinguish meaningful change from noise and reduces the risk that a single unusual year will lead to unfair conclusions about a school.

Designing Report Cards Families Can Use

Report cards are often designed to meet federal and state reporting requirements, which specify many indicators that must be included. Meeting these requirements is necessary, but design choices about how information is organized, labeled, and explained determine whether report cards are useful. States that design report cards with families as primary users, testing designs with real families and refining them based on feedback, produce report cards that serve their intended purpose far better.

Starting With Family Questions

Families typically come to report cards with specific questions: How is my child’s school doing? Are students learning? Is the school safe and welcoming? How does it serve students like my child? How does it compare with other schools nearby? Report cards organized around these questions, rather than around reporting categories, are more intuitive. A summary page might present a few key indicators with plain language explanations, followed by sections that address common questions in more depth.

Agencies can learn what families want to know through surveys, focus groups, and usability testing. Testing report card prototypes with diverse families, including families who speak languages other than English, families of students with disabilities, and families with limited experience using data, reveals confusing terms, layouts, and navigation that experts might overlook.

Report cards should also work well on mobile devices, since many families access information primarily through phones. Simplified mobile views, clear navigation, and readable charts are essential.

Search and navigation deserve attention as well. Families should be able to find their child’s school easily by name, address, or district, and should be able to compare a small number of schools side by side if they wish. Clear links from district and school websites to the state report card, and from the report card back to school websites, help families move between sources of information. Agencies can track how users navigate report card sites, which pages they visit most, and where they leave, using this information to improve design over time.

Plain Language Labels and Visuals

Every indicator should have a plain language label and a brief explanation. For example, rather than labeling an indicator as English learner progress toward proficiency, a report card might say how well students learning English are making progress, with an explanation of what the indicator measures. Charts should be simple, clearly labeled, and accompanied by text that explains what the chart shows. Color choices should be accessible and should not rely on color alone to convey meaning.

Visuals such as trend lines showing performance over several years, comparisons to state and district averages, and simple gauges for ratings can help families grasp information quickly. However, visuals should be designed carefully to avoid implying precision or comparisons that the data does not support.

Translation and accessibility are essential for report cards to serve every family. Report card websites should be available in the languages most commonly spoken in the state, with translations reviewed for accuracy of technical terms, and should meet accessibility standards so that families using screen readers or other assistive technology can navigate them. Charts should include text descriptions or data tables, and downloadable summaries should be accessible documents rather than images. Families who cannot access report cards because of language or disability barriers are excluded from information that is meant to serve them, so these features should be treated as core requirements rather than enhancements.

Comparisons deserve special care. Comparing a school with state averages is common, but comparisons with schools serving similar student populations may be more meaningful for understanding how well a school is doing given its context. Some states offer similar-school comparisons or allow users to compare schools of their choice. When comparisons are offered, the report card should explain how comparison groups were defined and what the comparisons can and cannot tell users.

Communicating Assessment Results Responsibly

The annual release of state assessment results is one of the most visible moments in education communication. Media coverage often focuses on statewide trends, rankings, and dramatic changes, and the way the state agency frames results strongly influences public interpretation. Responsible communication of assessment results provides accurate information, appropriate context, and guidance on how to use results, while avoiding sensational framing that can mislead.

The release itself should be planned as a communication event with clear roles, coordinated messages, and materials prepared in advance. Agencies can publish a results overview, detailed data files, an interactive data tool, frequently asked questions, and family-facing explanations simultaneously, so that every audience finds information suited to its needs. Coordinating with districts so they are ready to communicate locally on the same day ensures that families hear consistent explanations from both state and local sources.

Framing Results With Context

State releases of assessment results should explain what the assessments measure, who took them, how results compare with previous years, what factors may have influenced changes, and what the results mean and do not mean. When results change significantly, agencies should explain possible reasons, such as changes in instruction, student populations, test design, participation, or external events, and should be cautious about attributing changes to a single cause. Including trends over multiple years helps the public see whether a change reflects a long-term pattern or a one-year fluctuation.

Agencies should also explain how results will be used, both for accountability and for improvement, and should highlight resources that schools, districts, and families can use to understand and act on results. Framing results in terms of what they reveal about student learning needs, rather than solely as a judgment of schools, supports a constructive public conversation.

State leaders also set the tone for how results are discussed. When the state superintendent or commissioner speaks about results, emphasizing both honest acknowledgment of challenges and recognition of progress, and describing what the state will do to support improvement, the public conversation tends to be more balanced. Highlighting specific schools or districts that have made notable gains, with permission, offers examples of what is possible and encourages others. Avoiding language that blames educators or communities for disappointing results keeps attention on solutions and preserves the partnerships needed to improve.

Agencies should also be mindful of rankings. Media outlets and others often rank schools and districts based on assessment results, and these rankings can oversimplify and mislead, particularly when differences between ranked schools are small or when schools serve very different populations. Agencies can discourage misleading rankings by explaining the limitations of single measures, providing multiple indicators, and highlighting growth and improvement alongside achievement. While agencies cannot control how others use public data, they can shape the context in which data is interpreted.

Press materials should be written in plain language, with key findings stated clearly and accompanied by accurate charts. Agencies can brief journalists before release, explaining technical issues and appropriate interpretations, which helps improve the accuracy of media coverage.

Individual Student Reports for Families

Families often receive individual student score reports, which may be the most direct way they encounter state assessment results. These reports should explain in plain language what the student’s score means, how it compares with grade-level expectations, what skills the student demonstrated, and what the family can do to support learning. Reports should be available in the languages families speak and should include guidance on discussing results with teachers. Many states provide online resources or videos explaining how to read score reports, which can be shared with districts for distribution to families.

Timing matters. Score reports that arrive months after testing, when students have moved to new classes or grades, are less useful. Agencies should work to release results as quickly as possible and should communicate clearly about when families can expect to receive reports.

Score reports should also help families take action. Including suggested questions to ask teachers, links to free learning resources aligned to the skills assessed, and information about how the school uses results to support students turns a static report into a starting point for conversation. Teachers can be encouraged to discuss score reports during conferences, and districts can host family sessions explaining how to read reports and how results relate to classroom grades, which often confuses families when the two do not align.

Presenting Data on Student Groups and Equity

Report cards and assessment results include data for student groups, such as students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds, students from low-income families, English learners, and students with disabilities. This data is essential for identifying gaps in opportunity and outcomes and ensuring that schools serve all students well. It must also be presented carefully to avoid reinforcing stereotypes or implying that differences in outcomes reflect differences in students’ abilities.

Framing Gaps as Opportunity Gaps

When presenting data on differences between student groups, agencies can frame gaps in terms of opportunities and system responsibilities, emphasizing that differences in outcomes reflect differences in access to resources, experiences, and supports rather than differences in students’ potential. Explaining what schools and systems can do to close gaps, and highlighting schools that are making progress with particular groups, supports constructive action.

Language matters. Phrases that imply deficits in students or families should be avoided in favor of language that focuses on what students need and what systems can provide. Agencies can develop guidance on equitable data communication for their own staff and for districts.

Agencies should also consider how student group data is visualized. Charts that rank groups from highest to lowest can unintentionally reinforce stereotypes, while charts that show each group’s progress over time relative to goals can emphasize growth and possibility. Thoughtful visual design, tested with community members from the groups being represented, helps ensure that data communicates accurately and respectfully.

Presenting gap data alongside information about progress can help shift the conversation from deficits to improvement. Showing where gaps have narrowed, which schools are achieving strong results for particular groups, and what practices those schools use gives communities examples to learn from. Pairing outcome data with information about access, such as enrollment in advanced coursework or access to experienced teachers, helps the public understand how opportunity differences contribute to outcome differences.

Protecting Privacy While Maximizing Information

Data for small groups is often suppressed to protect student privacy, which can leave some schools with limited information about certain groups. Agencies should explain suppression rules clearly so that users understand why data is missing, and should consider ways to provide useful information, such as multi-year averages or aggregated groups, while protecting privacy.

Suppression can also create misleading impressions if not explained. For example, a school with a small number of students with disabilities may show no data for that group, and families may assume the school does not serve such students or that results are hidden for other reasons. A brief note explaining that results are not shown to protect the privacy of a small number of students, along with information about how families can learn more about services for that group, prevents misunderstanding.

Agencies should also communicate openly about how they protect student privacy in all published data, describing the safeguards in place and the legal requirements they follow. As families grow more concerned about data privacy generally, clear explanations of what is and is not published, and why, help sustain trust in the reporting system while ensuring that useful information remains available.

Supporting Districts and Schools in Local Communication

Districts and schools are often the primary communicators with families about report cards and assessment results. State agencies can support them by providing advance access to data, communication toolkits, and guidance on explaining results.

Principals and teachers are often asked about results by families, and they may feel unprepared to explain technical indicators or ratings they did not design. State agencies can create short, practical guides for educators that explain key concepts and suggest how to discuss results with families honestly and constructively. When educators understand the data and feel equipped to talk about it, they become credible messengers who can help families interpret results in the context of what they see in classrooms every day.

Advance Access and Toolkits

Districts should receive embargoed access to report card and assessment data before public release so they can review results, verify accuracy, and prepare communication. Toolkits can include plain language explanations of indicators and ratings, sample letters and newsletter articles, presentation slides, frequently asked questions, and translated materials. These resources help districts explain results consistently and accurately.

The period between embargoed access and public release is also an opportunity for districts to identify and report data errors. Agencies should establish a clear process for districts to review data, submit corrections, and receive responses before publication. Communicating this process and its deadlines well in advance helps districts plan staff time for review. When errors are discovered after publication, agencies should correct them promptly and communicate corrections transparently.

Agencies can also host briefings for district communication staff and leaders before releases, walking through key findings, explaining new indicators or methodology changes, and answering questions. These briefings help districts prepare accurate local messages and anticipate questions from families, boards, and media. Recording briefings and posting materials allows districts that cannot attend live to benefit as well.

Helping Schools Tell Their Story

Report cards capture only some aspects of school quality. States can encourage and enable schools to provide additional context, such as narrative descriptions of programs, improvement efforts, and community partnerships, either on report cards themselves or through linked school profiles. This helps families see a fuller picture of each school.

Some states provide space on school report cards for principals or districts to add short narratives explaining context, such as recent leadership changes, new programs, or factors that influenced results, along with descriptions of the school’s strengths and improvement priorities. Others link report cards to school websites or profiles that describe academic programs, extracurricular activities, family engagement opportunities, and student support services. These additions help families understand schools as communities rather than as sets of numbers.

Agencies can support schools in writing effective narratives by providing templates, examples, and guidance on plain language. Narratives should be honest and specific, describing both strengths and areas for growth, so that families find them credible. When schools explain what they are doing in response to their results, report cards become a starting point for conversations about improvement rather than a final verdict.

Communicating Changes in Assessments and Accountability

Assessment and accountability systems change over time, through new standards, redesigned tests, revised cut scores, new indicators, or changes to rating formulas. These changes can make results difficult to compare across years and can confuse the public. Clear communication about changes is essential.

Changes also affect educators and districts, who may need to adjust instruction, reporting, and improvement plans. Agencies should provide them with detailed information about changes as early as possible, along with training and resources, so that they can prepare and can explain changes accurately to families. A coordinated communication plan for each major change, covering educators, district leaders, families, media, and policymakers, helps ensure that every audience receives consistent and timely information.

Explaining What Changed and Why

Before results under a new system are released, agencies should explain what changed, why, and how it affects comparisons. For example, if a new test is introduced with higher standards, proficiency rates may drop even if learning has not declined. Explaining this in advance helps prevent misinterpretation. Agencies should provide guidance on which comparisons are valid and which are not.

Communication about changes should begin well before results are released, ideally when the change is adopted. Families, educators, and journalists who understand in advance that a new test or rating system is coming are far better prepared to interpret results. Agencies can create explanatory materials, such as short videos and fact sheets, that describe what will be different and why, and can share these through districts, media briefings, and partner organizations.

When changes make year-to-year comparisons invalid, agencies should be explicit about this in every presentation of results, including report cards, press releases, and data tools. Some states mark the first year of a new assessment as a new baseline and display trend lines with a clear break. Others provide crosswalks or concordance information that allow approximate comparisons. Whatever approach is chosen, clear and consistent explanation prevents headlines that misinterpret technical changes as dramatic shifts in student learning.

Engaging Stakeholders in Design

Involving educators, families, and community members in designing report cards and accountability systems helps ensure that systems reflect community values and that communication is understandable. Advisory committees, public comment periods, and usability testing all contribute to better design and greater trust.

Engagement should include people who are often underrepresented in policy discussions, such as families who speak languages other than English, families from rural communities, families of students with disabilities, and students themselves. Their perspectives can reveal what information matters most to them and which presentations are confusing. Agencies can partner with statewide parent organizations and community groups to recruit participants and host sessions in accessible settings.

Agencies should report back on how stakeholder input shaped report card and accountability design, highlighting changes made in response to feedback. This demonstrates that engagement was meaningful and encourages continued participation. Ongoing advisory groups, rather than one-time consultations, allow agencies to refine report cards and communication over time as needs and technologies evolve.

How Performance Data Communication Compares With Other Agency Types

Many public agencies publish performance data intended to inform the public and drive improvement. Health agencies publish hospital quality ratings, infection rates, and patient outcomes. Environmental agencies publish air and water quality indexes. Transportation agencies publish on-time performance and safety data. Consumer protection agencies publish complaint data. These agencies have learned that performance data is most useful when it is presented with clear explanations, appropriate context, and guidance on interpretation. Hospital quality websites, for example, often explain what each measure means, why it matters to patients, and how to use the information alongside conversations with providers. Air quality indexes translate complex measurements into simple categories with clear health guidance. These approaches demonstrate how complex data can be made accessible without being oversimplified.

School performance data is distinctive in several ways. It concerns children, and families have intensely personal stakes in how schools are judged. School ratings can affect property values, enrollment, staff morale, and community identity, giving them significant consequences beyond their informational purpose. School performance is shaped by many factors outside schools’ control, making fair interpretation especially important. And school data is reported for many student groups, raising sensitive questions about equity and how differences are framed. These factors make thoughtful, contextualized communication about school performance data particularly important for state education agencies.

Tying It All Together

Performance data communication is not a side function. It determines whether school report cards, assessment results, and accountability ratings inform and empower families and communities or confuse and mislead them, and it shapes public trust in schools and in the accountability system itself.

Effective state agencies recognize why performance data is so often misunderstood, including the volume of data presented with little explanation, confusion between proficiency, growth, and ratings, and statistical limitations that are easily overlooked.

They design report cards with families as primary users, starting from family questions, using plain language labels and accessible visuals, layering information from summary to detail, and testing designs with diverse families. They explain key concepts clearly, especially the difference between proficiency and growth and how ratings are calculated.

They communicate assessment results responsibly, with context about trends, changes, and limitations, and they provide individual student reports that help families understand and act on results. They present student group data in ways that frame gaps as opportunity gaps, protect privacy, and support equitable action.

They support districts and schools with advance access, toolkits, and opportunities to tell their own stories. They communicate clearly about changes in assessments and accountability systems and engage stakeholders in design.

Taken together, these practices make school performance data genuinely useful, helping families, educators, and communities understand schools more accurately and work together toward improvement.

Strategic Communication Support for School Performance Data

School report cards, assessment results, and accountability measures provide families and communities with important information about school performance, but they are often difficult to interpret. Ratings, scale scores, growth measures, and subgroup data can confuse families or lead to misunderstandings about what results mean. Because explaining performance data requires coordination across assessment, accountability, data, policy, and communication teams, as well as districts and schools, state education agencies often partner with Stegmeier Consulting Group (SCG) to make data more understandable and useful. SCG helps agencies present performance information in ways that support informed questions and improvement rather than confusion or unfair judgment.

SCG supports agencies in assessing how performance data is currently presented and understood. This can include reviewing report card designs, score reports sent to families, dashboards, technical documentation, and press materials, along with testing how families, educators, and community members interpret key measures. These findings help agencies identify confusing terms, overwhelming displays, and missing context. Plain language explanations, clear visual designs, and guidance on what each measure does and does not show then help users interpret data accurately.

Sustained understanding depends on the people who explain data to families and communities. District leaders, principals, teachers, and counselors are often asked what results mean, yet they may not have consistent explanations. SCG helps agencies develop toolkits, talking points, and training that help districts explain report cards and score reports consistently. Family guides, translated into common languages, can explain how to read individual score reports and what questions to ask teachers about their child’s progress.

Annual data releases, changes to accountability systems, new assessments, and media coverage of results can make this work especially urgent. SCG helps agencies plan release communication, prepare districts in advance, develop media briefings, and coordinate messages that provide context for changes in results. By preparing communication before data becomes public, agencies can reduce misinterpretation and help communities focus on meaningful questions about student learning.

SCG also helps agencies evaluate whether data communication is improving understanding. User testing, website analytics, family and educator surveys, inquiry patterns, and media coverage analysis can reveal whether audiences interpret data accurately and find it useful. By incorporating these findings into annual report card updates and communication planning, agencies can make data transparency an ongoing practice that supports informed engagement and continuous improvement.

Future Trends

States are increasingly redesigning report cards with families in mind, using user research, plain language, and mobile-friendly design. Expect continued improvement in usability and accessibility. More states are conducting user research before launching new report cards, testing prototypes with families and educators, and publishing what they learned. This approach is likely to become standard practice as agencies recognize that design choices determine whether report cards achieve their purpose.

Interest in broader measures of school quality, such as student well-being, engagement, access to advanced coursework, and postsecondary readiness, is growing. Communicating these measures alongside test results will help families see a fuller picture of schools. These broader measures bring their own communication challenges, since survey-based indicators and measures of opportunity may be less familiar to families than test scores. Clear definitions, explanations of how data was collected, and guidance on interpretation will be essential.

Growth measures are receiving more emphasis in many accountability systems, increasing the importance of explaining growth clearly. Because growth models can be technically complex, agencies will need to invest in simple explanations and visuals that convey the core idea of how much students learned over a year, without requiring families to understand statistical methods.

Interactive data tools are allowing users to explore data in depth, but they must be paired with explanations to prevent misinterpretation. Tools that allow users to filter, compare, and download data are valuable for researchers, journalists, and engaged community members, but default views should remain simple and guided so that casual users are not overwhelmed or led to unsupported conclusions.

Finally, public debate about testing and accountability continues, making transparent, honest communication about what data can and cannot tell us especially important. Agencies that acknowledge the limitations of assessments and ratings openly, while explaining why the information still matters, are more likely to maintain credibility with skeptical audiences than agencies that present data as definitive.

Conclusion

School performance data has the potential to inform families, support improvement, and promote equity, but only if people can understand it. When report cards and results are presented without explanation, they can confuse, mislead, and erode trust. Schools may be unfairly stigmatized, families may make decisions based on misunderstandings, and educators may lose faith in the fairness of accountability systems, all of which undermine the improvement that data is meant to support.

State agencies that design report cards for families, explain key concepts plainly, communicate results with context, present group data equitably, support districts, and communicate clearly about changes can make performance data genuinely useful. These practices require collaboration between technical experts and communicators, and a commitment to seeing data through the eyes of the families and educators who must interpret it.

When families and communities understand what school data means and what it does not, they can ask better questions, make better decisions, and partner more effectively with schools.

Stegmeier Consulting Group’s Strategic Approach to Communication Systems

Make school performance data understandable and useful for every family.

Stegmeier Consulting Group helps state education agencies explain school report cards, assessment results, and accountability measures clearly. We begin by reviewing current report cards, releases, and materials from the perspective of families, educators, and communities, identifying where data is confusing or easily misinterpreted.

Our team works alongside assessment, accountability, and data teams to develop plain language explanations, design accessible visuals, conduct usability testing, plan annual results communication, and create toolkits that help districts explain results locally.

We treat performance data communication as a system that spans report card design, results releases, district support, and public engagement. That means aligning messages, providing context, and measuring whether communication improves understanding.

Use the form below to connect with our team and explore how strategic data communication can help your agency make report cards, assessment results, and accountability ratings understandable and useful to families, educators, and communities across your state.