State Education Agencies Hold the Key to Reimagining American High Schools, According to New NASBE Report
As American high schools grapple with declining student engagement, evolving labor markets, and the urgent need to bridge the gap between classroom learning and real-world application, education reformers are increasingly looking beyond localized experiments toward systemic, statewide solutions. A comprehensive report released Tuesday by the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) argues that state education agencies must play a pivotal, enabling role in this transformation. Rather than attempting to micromanage school-level changes, state leaders are urged to clear bureaucratic hurdles, foster collaborative partnerships, and enact policies that grant local districts the flexibility needed to reinvent the secondary school experience.
The release of this report marks the culmination of a rigorous, two-year initiative spearheaded by NASBE’s High School Transformation State Network. This collaborative cohort brought together a diverse group of states committed to rethinking high school education, supported by a network advisory council composed of national experts in high school redesign, systems change, and the science of learning and development. The findings underscore a fundamental philosophical shift: while communities and local districts are the primary drivers of school transformation, state governments possess the regulatory and financial leverage necessary to establish the conditions under which these innovations can thrive.
The Imperative for High School Redesign
The modern American high school was largely designed for an industrial economy that demanded standardization, rote memorization, and compliance. However, the contemporary economic and social landscape requires an entirely different set of competencies, including critical thinking, adaptability, digital literacy, and cross-cultural collaboration. When high school curricula fail to reflect these realities, students frequently disengage, leading to lower academic performance, higher dropout rates, and a disconnect between secondary education and post-secondary opportunities.
Transformed high schools seek to reverse this trend by creating vibrant, personalized learning experiences that help students discover their personal paths, recognize their strengths, and understand how to apply their talents meaningfully. According to Jon Alfuth, co-author of the report and senior director of policy development at KnowledgeWorks—a national nonprofit dedicated to advancing student-centered learning—these modern educational environments empower youth to take ownership of their futures.
Achieving this level of systemic change, however, requires more than just revised lesson plans. Celina Pierrottet, associate program director at NASBE and co-author of the report, emphasizes that successful high school transformation relies on deep, ongoing partnerships among school districts, state governments, higher education institutions, and community stakeholders. Building these robust relationships takes time, sustained effort, and a fundamental shift in mindset regarding what a high school education can and should achieve.
States are already beginning to take note of these requirements. In Indiana, for instance, policymakers spent more than a year gathering extensive input from educators, parents, business leaders, and students before overhauling the state’s graduation requirements. Set to take effect for all students beginning with the class of 2029, these updated guidelines introduce "readiness seals" on diplomas. Students can earn these seals by demonstrating academic skill development, engaging in structured work-based learning experiences, and participating in public service initiatives, thereby aligning graduation standards directly with real-world competencies.
Five Pillar Recommendations for State Policymakers
To help state boards of education and lawmakers navigate the complex process of high school redesign, the NASBE report outlines five core policy recommendations. These guidelines provide a roadmap for creating supportive regulatory environments without stifling local creativity.
1. Setting a Strong Vision Through Competency Frameworks
The first step in any systemic transformation is establishing a clear, unified vision of student success. States can accomplish this by operationalizing "Portrait of a Graduate" competencies—comprehensive definitions of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that students should possess by the time they finish high school. Beyond traditional academic mastery, these frameworks explicitly value critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and character development.
Adoption of these models is gaining momentum nationwide. Earlier this year, the California State Board of Education adopted a "Portrait of a Learner," an optional framework for the state’s districts that incorporates critical thinking, communication, multilingual learning, collaboration, and character competencies. According to the NASBE report, approximately 23 states have now adopted Portrait of a Graduate or equivalent policies. However, the report cautions that these visions must be formally aligned with statewide competency frameworks to ensure that classroom instruction and teacher professional development genuinely reflect these ambitions.
2. Creating Regulatory Space for Innovation
Innovation cannot flourish in a rigid regulatory environment. States must provide schools with the flexibility to test alternative educational models, such as pilot programs, non-traditional schedules, and credit-earning experiences that occur outside the traditional four-walled classroom.
To facilitate this, policymakers must broaden statutory definitions of when and where learning takes place, allowing for greater variability in school calendars and daily schedules. Several states are already pioneering these approaches. In Pennsylvania, schools have been granted the structural option of designing their academic calendars around instructional hours rather than rigid calendar days. Similarly, New Hampshire has redefined high school graduation credits around mastered competencies rather than the traditional "seat-time" model, ensuring that students advance based on what they know and can do rather than how many hours they spend sitting at a desk.
3. Prioritizing Relevant and Engaging Learning Experiences
Student disengagement remains one of the most persistent challenges in secondary education. This reality was repeatedly highlighted by high school students serving on state boards of education and on NASBE’s student advisory council during the drafting of the report. To combat this apathy, states must prioritize pathways that clearly connect high school coursework to future college and career opportunities.
Effective strategies include expanding access to dual-enrollment programs, structured work-based learning, registered apprenticeships, and robust career and technical education (CTE) programming. To ensure these programs remain aligned with economic demands, states are encouraged to build sophisticated data systems that link K-12 education data with higher education institutions and workforce boards. Such data integration allows policymakers to identify high-demand postsecondary pathways while phasing out programs that no longer serve economic needs. For example, the District of Columbia’s Office of Education Through Employment Pathways actively supports targeted workforce programs designed to guide youth and adults toward long-term economic mobility.
4. Rethinking Assessments and Accountability
Perhaps the most formidable barrier to high school transformation lies in traditional accountability systems. While states are eager to embrace holistic models of college and career readiness, schools remain legally and financially accountable for student performance on conventional standardized tests in mathematics, reading, and science.
Jon Alfuth acknowledges that rethinking accountability is arguably the most challenging area of reform for state policymakers. Because federal and state accountability mandates are deeply entrenched, no state has yet completely solved the puzzle of how to balance innovative, performance-based learning with traditional standardized testing requirements.
Nevertheless, pioneering states are beginning to crack open the door to reform. The New York State Department of Education’s Performance-Based Learning and Assessment Networks (PLAN) program permits participating pilot schools to utilize multiple performance-based measures in place of certain traditional tests. This initiative builds upon localized efforts across New York to integrate authentic, performance-based approaches into teaching, learning, and assessment.
5. Expanding Educator Capacity and Professional Support
Teachers, administrators, and school staff are the ultimate engines of educational change. If schools are expected to innovate, the professionals within them must be equipped with the appropriate training, resources, and autonomy to experiment safely. States can support this cultural shift by evaluating how teacher preparation programs ready prospective educators for modern, student-centered learning environments.
Furthermore, state education agencies can adopt flexible licensing standards, fund targeted professional development programs, and foster professional learning communities where educators can share best practices and lessons learned. A notable example is the South Carolina Department of Education’s PersonalizeSC program, which is specifically designed to help educators deepen their understanding of student-centered instruction and competency-based learning methodologies.
Implications and the Path Forward
The release of the NASBE report arrives at a critical juncture for American public education. As federal pandemic-relief funding sunsets and districts face tightening budgets, educational leaders are under intense pressure to justify the return on investment of their instructional programs. Critics of systemic reform often warn that moving away from traditional seat-time and standardized testing risks lowering academic rigor. Conversely, proponents argue that clinging to outdated models guarantees irrelevance and sustained disengagement among students who feel unprepared for the complexities of the modern workforce.
The pragmatic compromise outlined by NASBE suggests that states do not need to dictate the minutiae of classroom instruction. Instead, by establishing overarching competency visions, offering regulatory flexibility for scheduling and credit accumulation, investing in career-connected pathways, and supporting educator professional development, state agencies can construct an ecosystem where local innovation thrives.
Ultimately, transforming high schools is not a quick fix or a one-size-fits-all initiative. It requires sustained political will, cross-sector collaboration among education, business, and community leaders, and an unwavering commitment to meeting the diverse needs of 21st-century learners. As more states study and implement the recommendations set forth in the NASBE report, the landscape of American secondary education may finally begin to reflect the dynamic, rapidly changing world that students are preparing to enter.
