Recently, the Oklahoma State Board of Education lowered the accreditation status of 67 school districts to accredited with warning. Fifty-nine of those districts were downgraded under a new rule tying accreditation to student achievement. Under that rule, districts face an academic deficiency when fewer than half of their tested students score at the Basic level or above in English language arts or mathematics across grades three through eight and eleven. Districts that fail to increase the percentage scoring Basic or above by at least five percentage points in the following year face a warning.
Based on my calculations using Spring 2026 state assessment results, 38 of those 59 districts appear not to have met the improvement threshold needed to avoid probation next year. The State Board can consider evidence of substantial improvement before making its decision, so that figure is a projection, not a final accreditation determination. Still, if it holds, nearly two-thirds of the districts downgraded for academic performance could face a further downgrade. That makes me wonder: What comes next?
Mike Tyson famously observed that everybody has a plan until they get hit. Planning is one thing; execution is another. Oklahoma has the beginnings of a plan to address reading deficiencies, but whether those initiatives can be implemented well enough to bring meaningful change to chronically underperforming schools remains an open question.
The recent past shows us that the best intended plans to improve schools often don’t produce results. For example, the federal government spent $7 billion in the 2000’s in School Improvement Grants to try to transform underperforming schools. In 2017, the US Department of Education concluded that the School Improvement Grants did not create any measurable sustainable change.
Oklahoma’s Strong Readers Act requires evidence-based literacy instruction using approved instructional materials, reading screenings three times a year for students in kindergarten through third grade, and targeted intervention plans for students with reading deficiencies. The Legislature strengthened the law in 2026 and committed additional resources to reading instruction and teacher training. Recently, the State Department of Education requested another $7 million to establish regional service centers that would bring literacy training and other assistance closer to local districts.
This is a start, but again what happens when schools chronically underperform?
I’ve argued that proficiency rates in Oklahoma were tied to NAEP proficiency rates and aren’t really a good measure of whether a student is prepared for the next grade or a career. However, I do believe that a majority of students scoring in the lowest performance level in reading or math (Below Basic) is a sign that something is wrong in a school.
For all of Ryan Walter’s faults he did get it right in tying accreditation to the percentage of students performing in the Below Basic category. However, he didn’t lay out what happens when schools constantly miss the mark.
Texas has taken a more aggressive approach in several chronically underperforming districts, including state takeovers. In Houston, following the state’s 2023 takeover, new leadership implemented a centralized instructional model with district-developed curriculum, prescribed instructional practices, and intensive monitoring. The district has since reported substantial improvement in student achievement and campus accountability ratings. The approach has also drawn criticism for its heavy-handedness and its impact on teacher autonomy and working conditions. Whether the gains will be sustained remains to be seen. Nevertheless, Houston provides an example of a comprehensive intervention strategy that is actually being carried out.
The test for Oklahoma over the next several years will be whether the next state superintendent can turn a collection of policies and initiatives into a comprehensive school improvement strategy—first in reading, and then in mathematics. The state must clearly define what happens when districts continue to underperform. At what point does it require changes in curriculum, instructional practices, or district leadership? When does it provide intensive technical assistance and additional resources? When does it intervene directly? And what happens when those interventions fail? Simply assigning progressively worse accreditation ratings without a clear strategy for improving instruction accomplishes little.
The next state superintendent is going to get punched in the mouth. There will be resistance to reform, resistance to additional funding, and resistance to the difficult decisions necessary to turn around chronically underperforming schools. Tyson understood that having a plan means little once the punches start landing. Oklahoma needs a superintendent who not only has a plan but also possesses the knowledge, skill, and courage to execute it when things get difficult. Most importantly, we need a superintendent who understands that the real measure of success isn’t how many districts are placed on probation, but how many students are finally learning what they should.
Leave a Reply