This low vote of confidence on current accountability systems comes at a time when schools and districts face profound challenges. Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping the world of and . Basic literacy and math skills have been sliding for more than a decade. Families increasingly with the needs and aspirations of their children. Reimagining school to meet these demands means reimagining the systems of assessment and accountability that surround them.

For the first time in decades state and federal leaders are showing unprecedented openness to rethinking assessment and accountability. This shift offers both promise and peril, especially for new models of learning: Choosing systems with outdated metrics can smother innovation before it takes root, while too little accountability can leave students without clear standards or comparability across schools. 

the answer is to double down 鈥� strengthen accountability and demand more tests. Others increasingly question whether holding schools accountable for test scores makes sense at all.  But the Canopy survey reveals that school leaders want neither extreme. Only 10% of Canopy leaders favored eliminating accountability altogether, but just 5% supported maintaining the status quo. 

Leaders are eager for reform, the Canopy survey revealed. But they also warn that one of the most popular reforms under discussion鈥攖hrough-year testing鈥攎ay be moving in exactly the wrong direction.

Among these leaders鈥� critiques of existing systems is a familiar charge 鈥� that they rarely provide useful data for improvement. Fewer than one in three leaders said accountability data helps them adjust instruction in meaningful ways. Even fewer found it useful for supporting English learners or students with disabilities. In practice, the data often arrives too late, reflects too narrow a slice of student learning or simply confirms what educators already know from their own local measures.

To address these shortcomings, many states are betting on . Instead of a single end-of-year exam, these states administer multiple shorter assessments throughout the year, with the goal of producing timelier and more actionable data. Montana has rolled out a ; Texas passed legislation this fall to replace its annual testing with assessments ;  Missouri recently secured to pilot one under the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority; and several other states have either adopted similar plans or are in the process of considering them.

Yet Canopy leaders surveyed are skeptical. When asked to rank possible reforms, they overwhelmingly preferred less testing, not more 鈥� by nearly three to one. Their reasons are straightforward. While students may only be tested for several hours, the work required from adults for paperwork, preparation, and proctoring can be overwhelming. Several leaders also stressed that reducing state testing would free up space for richer, performance-based assessments 鈥� like public exhibitions, debates, or mock trials 鈥� that give students authentic opportunities to demonstrate mastery and teachers find much more instructionally useful.

The case for through-year testing rests on shaky assumptions: that state assessments are inherently more trustworthy than other measures, that they provide unique value beyond what teachers already collect, and that the logistical headaches are worth the benefits. The Canopy Project survey and interviews suggest otherwise. For many Canopy school leaders, through-year testing feels like a well-meaning but misguided boss who requires you to submit a new weekly report 鈥渢o make your job easier.鈥� Adding new state-mandated tests risks increasing the administrative burden on schools to generate additional data that educators do not want and will not use.

Despite their critiques, school leaders aren鈥檛 calling for accountability to disappear. On the contrary, only 10% of Canopy leaders favored eliminating accountability altogether. But even fewer support maintaining the status quo. They voiced strong support for systems that uphold equity and transparency while evolving in three key ways:

First, states should focus on right-sizing the assessment footprint. Don鈥檛 ditch testing, but be realistic that no single test can effectively serve multiple purposes. State-mandated tests should be designed to be useful for policymakers, researchers, and other state-level actors, not individual schools or teachers. Accordingly, states should explore that provide necessary information for state actors while minimizing the administrative burden on schools.

Second, states should differentiate accountability requirements 鈥� without lowering standards 鈥� for different kinds of schools. Leaders of specialized schools told us that accountability systems ignored progress on indicators that are core to their missions, like providing industry-accepted credentials or reengaging students after extended absences from formal schooling. In Washington, D.C., the Public Charter School Board has launched a new accountability framework that provides room for 鈥渟chool-specific indicators,鈥� mutually agreed upon by schools and the authorizer; states could consider a similar approach.

Finally, states have the opportunity to incorporate a broader set of measures into accountability systems, such as those related to learning opportunities and student engagement. States like Illinois already in their accountability systems, and Canopy leaders are interested in scaling up their use while exploring ways to .

Accountability systems need reform, but simply doubling down on existing models by layering on through-year tests is not the answer. Instead, new learning models require new forms of accountability so that today鈥檚 guardrails don鈥檛 become tomorrow鈥檚 handcuffs.

New data confirm that these issues are top of mind for school leaders, and that education innovators are working to find solutions. The , an ongoing national study of schools that focus on designing student-centered and equitable learning environments 鈥� and challenge assumptions about what school must be 鈥� just updated its with survey results from 189 innovative schools. 

In the survey, most participants agreed that teacher workforce issues, AI and the mental health crisis will shape the future of education. They are also working on solutions 鈥� but are concerned about having adequate resources to sustain those efforts.

School leaders selected teacher workforce issues as the top factor that they think will transform the education sector. While some respondents said they have struggled to recruit teachers in general, they particularly have trouble finding those with skills geared to working with non-traditional instructional models. A leader from Bostonia Global, a charter school that鈥檚 part of Cajon Valley Unified School District in California, wrote that credentialing programs need to 鈥渟hift to meet the needs of our current and future workforce.鈥� The school鈥檚 competency-based instructional model requires teachers to implement an individualized approach, not just teach the same content at the same pace to a classroom of 30 kids.

Canopy’s survey data show that many schools are innovating to solve these workforce-related issues: 65% reported they implement some form of flexible or alternative staffing model. For example, the Center for Advanced Research and Technology, a high school that enrolls students from two partner districts in California, brings in industry professionals to work alongside teachers. Several Canopy schools foster collaboration, using staffing models such as , which provides mentorship, opportunities for small-group teaching and professional development. 

Artificial intelligence was the second most-selected driver of change. School leaders鈥� responses showed they want to harness its potential while staying attentive to issues of access, privacy and equity. Only 7% of Canopy school leaders said they have a policy in place governing students鈥� use of generative AI, but 38% said they鈥檙e developing one. Despite the shortage of formal policy, experimentation appeared abundant.

Howard Middle School for Math and Science, based at Howard University, said the school鈥檚 policy is to use AI 鈥渢o enhance educational outcomes, personalize learning experiences and streamline administrative tasks, while ensuring the safety, privacy and well-being of all students and staff. Anastasis Academy, an independent microschool in Colorado, wrote, 鈥淲e have trained a GPT on our model, our writings and our curriculum to help personalize learning.鈥� 

The claimed the third spot on the list of factors that school leaders believe will transform K-12 education. Four in five leaders reported that their schools are already integrating social and emotional learning into all subject areas and student activities, making it one of the practices most commonly implemented across Canopy schools this year. Additionally, two-thirds of schools surveyed provide mental health services to students, either directly or through a partner like a community-based health organization, and just under half said they support adult wellness, too.

Some responses pointed to an even bigger problem beyond students鈥� acute mental health needs: about what the future may hold. One leader wrote, 鈥淪tudents are developing an increasing sense of hopelessness about the world beyond school.鈥� Many lower- and middle-income young people, he said, feel that social mobility is 鈥渘ot possible for them.鈥�

Many schools are working toward solutions that combat that sense of hopelessness. As in previous years of Canopy surveys, most schools reported designing solutions to meet marginalized students鈥� needs. At BuildUp Community School in Alabama, the school鈥檚 mostly Black and economically disadvantaged students split their time between classrooms and work-based learning in construction and real estate, revitalizing their communities and paving a path to homeownership. And 5280 High School, in Colorado, helps students recovering from addiction to reengage in their education and explore their passions in a setting that prioritizes mental health.

A majority of leaders worried about their ability to sustain resources in the coming years. Of those, the top concerns were the availability of local public, private and philanthropic funding. Over a third of those with concerns also said they worried about staffing shortages, inflation and the expiration of federal stimulus funding.

A few leaders pointed out that inadequate funding will not just make it harder to keep the lights on 鈥� it will stunt the development of innovative ideas to solve the enormous challenges ahead. Indeed, shows reduced philanthropic investment in broader systemic change in the sector.Funding shortfalls in many districts and states will also mean even basic education services may lack adequate resources, making it harder for leaders to defend funding for higher-risk innovation efforts.

Too often, the scale of K-12 sector problems lead education leaders, policymakers and funders to bemoan a lack of bold solutions or flock to attractive but still-theoretical ideas that fail in the implementation stage. School-level innovation efforts are worth watching because they show unconventional ideas in the process of becoming reality 鈥� and some may hint at what success can look like. Canopy schools are prime examples of this, whether it鈥檚 a New York City charter school student learning and well-being through summer programming or a North Carolina district school high growth rates with an innovative staffing approach. 

The Canopy project will release a full research report later this year. For now, the headlines from this year鈥檚 survey should prompt education leaders, policymakers and funders to take note of schools, like those in Canopy鈥檚 , that are working toward bold and unconventional solutions. 

Indeed, one answer to what will drive K-12 transformation in the coming years is that it will arise from innovation not just in ed tech companies and think tanks, but in the nation鈥檚 schools.

Young people have they want safe environments that support their well-being, and most adults schools should teach a range of practical skills, not just academics and college prep. Students also want more choice over what they learn, and they say they鈥檙e most engaged by relevant and customized schoolwork, according to a by the education nonprofit . 

Changing the DNA of how schools educate students 鈥� much less what purpose they serve 鈥� is hard, long-term work. But a diverse set of schools are already demonstrating what that work looks like. A fresh scan of hundreds of these schools shows that they commonly prioritize student relationships and well-being, focus on cultivating diverse skills beyond traditional academics and offer learning experiences with more student choice and relevance.

The Canopy project, a collaborative effort to share information about K-12 innovation, recently from a survey of leaders in 251 schools. These were nominated by a diverse group of experts for their promising efforts to design equitable, student-centered experiences for young people. Canopy data aren鈥檛 a representative sample of learning environments in the United States, and the project doesn鈥檛 require participants to report on student outcomes. Instead, this is a snapshot of schools with reputations for pushing the boundaries of what’s possible.

Innovative schools focus on student relationships and wellness

Nearly three-quarters of the schools in Canopy indicate they鈥檙e prioritizing connection and community as a key element of students鈥� experiences. 

For some (61%), that means designing advisories where groups of students meet regularly with adult advisers to set learning goals, reflect on progress and build relationships. For instance, at , a public charter school in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, the for multiple years, providing an opportunity to form deeper relationships than are often possible in conventional schools.

Many other Canopy schools integrate social and emotional learning throughout the academic curriculum. They offer mental health supports, train adults to recognize and respond to students who are impacted by traumatic stress, and pair students with an adult in school for regular individualized mentoring.

Innovative schools emphasize practical skills beyond pure academics

Almost 7 in 10 schools report nurturing not only learning, but human development, character, health and well-being. Four in five schools in Canopy report using project-based learning, an approach that builds skills like collaboration and critical thinking alongside core content. Most schools also report assessing those soft skills (often called deeper learning assessments). A majority (57%) say they engage students in career-oriented learning opportunities, like interview practice or apprenticeships, and about half report that students learn through community service. Smaller proportions of schools assess career-readiness skills (38%) and self-directed learning skills (21%).

For instance, (R2i2) in Columbia, South Carolina, involves students in project-based experiences with community partners and businesses to develop collaboration, communication and leadership skills. In Houston, the nonprofit offers individualized and work-based education programs for vulnerable and disconnected students, helping them earn their high school equivalency diplomas, develop job readiness skills and access health, legal and other supports.

Innovative schools offer students choice and relevance

Almost two-thirds of schools reported prioritizing student self-direction, meaning that students set and pursue learning goals largely independently from adult oversight. About the same number reported prioritizing relevance, meaning that students are learning topics and skills that directly relate to their lives and the world around them. For instance, at , a charter high school in Milwaukee, all students design an 鈥渁ction research鈥� project to address problems in their communities related to environmental justice.

Like Escuela Verde, the majority of schools in Canopy say their students set and pursue their own learning goals, such as by designing their own projects and choosing what they want to learn, breaking from the conventional idea that every student must learn the same things at the same time. A small but notable minority of schools are working to assess the skills that students develop to direct their own learning.

Of course, American families aren鈥檛 monolithic and don鈥檛 agree on a single vision for how schools need to change. Similarly, innovative learning environments don鈥檛 all look the same: In our from last year, we saw independent schools most often prioritizing highly individualized curriculum and student-directed learning, compared with public district and charter schools. And compared with rural and suburban schools, those in urban areas focused more often on designing curriculum and school culture to represent diverse identities and cultures. This year, we鈥檒l be analyzing patterns to reveal why and how schools use certain approaches with different groups of students.

Because the Canopy Project strives to widely share the innovative practices, specifics about each school 鈥� including details gleaned from this latest round of self-reported survey results 鈥� are posted online. Schools are searchable by state, by the innovative practices employed (such as project-based learning, individual learning paths and culturally responsive practices) or by the demographics of students enrolled. A new explains how to explore the data and offers examples of how anyone, from policymakers to educators to journalists, can filter for results that could inform their work. 

A redesigned school is far easier to imagine than implement. But too often, pessimism about the potential for change persists because educators, leaders, and families can鈥檛 picture what viable alternatives would look like. Amplifying the efforts of hundreds of schools designed to be equitable and student-centered is an exercise in optimism. Canopy offers hope that all kinds of schools can deliver on what students and families value most.