AS THE Massachusetts K-12 Graduation Council nears its June deadline for final recommendations on new standards for high school graduation, the Commonwealth faces a defining choice. We can follow the familiar path of standardized testing and compliance—as the framework’s proposed end-of-course assessments would do. Or we can embrace what education researchers call “reciprocal accountability.” Reciprocal accountability is a system where the state sets high expectations for outcomes, but grants districts flexibility in how students demonstrate mastery, with the state responsible for providing the support communities need to succeed.

This isn’t about lowering standards or abandoning accountability. It’s about recognizing that in an AI-enhanced world that demands adaptability and creative problem-solving, our old industrial model of education—test, sort, repeat—no longer serves our economy, and it never actually served our students, nor their academic achievement, well.

The graduation council deserves credit for several recommendations in its interim report released in December.

Requiring all graduates to complete a capstone project or present a portfolio of high school work will show deep learning through real-world application. Requiring students to develop a post-secondary career and academic plan, including completing the FAFSA or MASFA financial aid application, and acquire financial literacy skills responds directly to what students and families say they need. These elements align beautifully with the state-issued Vision of a Massachusetts Graduate‘s call for students who can “think, contribute, and lead.”

Like many educators and advocates, however, I’m concerned about the council’s recommendation to require end-of-course assessments in several subjects in order to graduate. The council’s own survey data showed this was the least supported option, and standardized tests don’t measure what stakeholders say they want: critical thinking, effective communication, respectful collaboration.

I also think the state can also add flexibility to the recommendation that all students must follow the MassCore course sequence without losing the broader aims for equity and excellence. Growing interest in career pathways and technical education shows how rigorous learning experiences can take many forms—and that different approaches can expand equitable access to meaningful opportunities.

As we seek transformative solutions, let’s not frame this as a binary choice between state standards and local autonomy. There are models that honor both accountability for high standards and innovation—and they’re already working in other places.

Consider Beechwood Independent Schools in Northern Kentucky. Through their Educational Design Geared toward Experience, or EDGE, program, students don’t just pass Algebra II—they apply those mathematical concepts to solve real engineering problems for local businesses. They don’t just write research papers—they investigate issues that matter to their community and present findings to authentic audiences, including employers, civic leaders, and community partners.

This is more rigorous than traditional coursework because students must transfer knowledge to new contexts and defend their thinking to experts—exactly what college and career demand. The difference? Kentucky’s approach to accountability encourages local innovation.

Kentucky sets high expectations through a statewide Portrait of a Learner (like our Vision of a Graduate), but it lets districts innovate on how students demonstrate mastery, with state support for local efforts. Everyone is accountable, but for their actual role in the system.

Kentucky’s shift demonstrates a core principle: When we establish clear learning outcomes and reliable ways to assess them, we unlock the flexibility for students to discover their interests and excel in diverse ways. We unlock the flexibility for schools to offer different pathways. This is already happening in Massachusetts with Innovation Career Pathways, Early College, and deeper learning capstones. It’s happening in networks such as the Learner-Centered Ecosystems Lab and the Future of High School.

New credentials such as the International Big Picture Learning Credential (IBPLC) and tools like the Mastery Transcript allow students to showcase their unique strengths and competencies without being reduced to a single GPA. We have evidence that we can move beyond traditional report cards to create competency-based learning credentials that are understood and accepted by both major employers and universities. These aren’t just collections of assignments; they are rigorous, verified evidence of a student’s readiness.

To bridge the gap between our aspirations and our regulations, the Graduation Council should recommend three concrete shifts in its final framework:

1. Use Large-Scale Assessments to Check Systems, Not as Graduation Gatekeepers

End-of-course assessments can provide valuable data—but as system-level indicators, not individual gatekeepers. Administer them. Analyze the results. Provide targeted support where gaps appear. But don’t tie them to graduation. Establish strong literacy and numeracy foundations in the early and middle years to prepare each student for deeper learning in high school. Let diplomas be earned through demonstrated mastery in rigorous coursework, capstones, and portfolios—the very assessments the council’s survey data showed stakeholders prefer and that students need to be ready for the future.

2. Define Quality Through Shared Standards, Deliver It Through Local Design

The state should validate the quality of local assessment systems—not mandate uniform tests or coursework. Clear standards for what constitutes quality should include both inputs—the opportunities provided—and outputs, specifically, examples of the actual work students produce. Cross-school calibration, where educators analyze anonymized student work together, can help ensure a diploma in the Berkshires represents the same high standard as one in Boston.

Establishing calibration practices where educators score student work together is a practical way to build a shared “strike zone” for rigor and competency determination. This ensures that as students pursue different pathways within or across districts—whether through a CTE program, a dual-enrollment course, or a senior capstone—standards remain consistently high, whether they demonstrate mastery through a traditional exam or a performance-based portfolio.

3. Replace MassCore Course Mandates with Flexible Frameworks

Schools need the structural freedom to design innovative, interdisciplinary learning. Connecticut offers a model worth studying. Instead of prescribing four years of English, three of history, three of science, they use broader categories: humanities and STEM. This simple change allows a school to design interdisciplinary offerings without seeking special waivers. Traditional districts can still offer separate subjects like English and history if they choose. Both paths can lead to college and career readiness. Districts ready to innovate can move forward; others can stick with proven MassCore structures until they are ready.

Massachusetts doesn’t have to choose between high standards and transformative learning.

The council has until June to take the next best step. That means: Embrace the Vision of a Graduate with capstones and portfolios. Give districts flexibility in how they structure learning. Use state assessments to check systems, not sort students. And establish the infrastructure—funding, professional development, change implementation practices—that makes innovation possible.

This is reciprocal accountability: everyone responsible for their piece, everyone supported to succeed.

The voters signaled a desire for change with the November 2024 ballot question ending the use of MCAS as a graduation requirement. The Massachusetts Vision of a Graduate gave us a destination. Reciprocal accountability is the roadmap. Let’s not waste this once-in-a-generation opportunity to show the nation what future-ready education can look like.

Laurie Gagnon is an education consultant based in Somerville specializing in learning systems design. She previously served as the director of CompetencyWorks at the Aurora Institute, where she authored “Deepening Student Learning in Three Kentucky Communities,” a case study of innovative graduation approaches.