Key points:
- When accountability is tied to a measure like WorkKeys, students get short changed, and the public gets a distorted signal
- Rethinking employability skills in K–12 education
- Education in a connected world: Preparing students for global careers
- For more news on assessments, visit eSN’s Innovative Teaching hub
“Over the last 5 days, you made the following numbers of sales calls: 8, 7, 9, 5, and 7. On average, how many calls did you make each day?”
Take a moment to consider what grade level a student might reasonably be in when they first learn to calculate single digit simple averages like this.
If you said fourth or fifth grade, you’d be on the right track.
This question, however, is from ACT WorkKeys, given to high school juniors to determine workforce readiness. Some states are requesting it be used in place of more rigorous exams like the ACT itself.
School accountability systems measure whether students are mastering the academic standards states expect them to teach and signal where additional support is needed. Education is one of the largest budget items in most states, and accountability is how states verify that spending translates into student learning.
That signal only works if the underlying measurements accurately test grade-level knowledge and skills and if the definition of proficiency or readiness is tied to what students are expected to know. That is why it is increasingly problematic that many states are incorporating WorkKeys into accountability systems.
While WorkKeys includes nine subtests, the bronze, silver, gold and platinum scores are based on the three subtests that assess only reading and math skills.
The intent behind WorkKeys is to provide an alternate “career ready assessment” but in practice, the WorkKeys questions assess reading and math skills at an upper elementary to early middle school level, not the high school standards states expect students to master before graduation. The sample question above illustrates the level of skill high school students are being asked to demonstrate to be deemed “College and Career Ready.”
Over the past 20 years WorkKeys has waged a battle to try to position itself as comparable or complementary to the ACT and SAT, to the detriment of students. States using combinations of ACT and WorkKeys in “College and Career Readiness” accountability measures raise serious concerns about rigor. In an example from South Dakota, two high schools earned nearly identical accountability ratings, yet had disparate student performance. Clark High School had 15 percent proficiency in ELA and 22 percent in math for the 2024-2025 school year, while Stevens High School had 76 percent proficiency in ELA and 44 percent in math. Yet Clark reported 75 percent of students as “College and Career Ready” while Stevens reported only 56 percent. Performance on WorkKeys offset low proficiency rates in ELA and math and weak ACT performance. Despite having nearly identical accountability ratings, the underlying academic preparation of students in these schools is very different.
Alabama is proposing that all 11th grade students take both the ACT and WorkKeys to measure grade level proficiency in reading and math. Currently, students need a 19 in ELA and a 20 in Math on the ACT to be considered proficient. Under the proposed waiver, students can be deemed proficient with a 15 on the ACT as long as they also earn a Silver credential on WorkKeys. This is a direct lowering of expectations for students.
WorkKeys Silver reflects skills aligned largely to upper elementary and early middle school content. Even WorkKeys Platinum, the highest tier, only corresponds to roughly lower middle school math. At the same time, WorkKeys excludes much of the academic content states expect its students to master by graduation. Students are double-tested in reading and math, once on the ACT and again on WorkKeys, losing valuable instruction time and requiring states to pay for both assessments.
Allowing WorkKeys to substitute for ACT proficiency does not redefine success; it lowers the bar for what counts as “proficient.” States that are not equipping students to meet grade-level expectations are using WorkKeys as a workaround to improve accountability ratings without improving actual student performance. That is not accountability. That is moving the finish line up and calling it a faster race.
Accountability systems must reflect the depth and breadth of the academic standards established by educators in the state to ensure all students have the opportunity to learn. When accountability is tied to a measure like WorkKeys, students get short changed, and the public gets a distorted signal. And because accountability systems drive instruction, this creates a perverse incentive: focus less on full grade-level standards and more on the nominal skills reflected in WorkKeys. This doesn’t help employers or students.
Proponents may argue that WorkKeys adds something the ACT does not—a measure of career readiness. But WorkKeys largely overlaps with ACT in reading and math, just at significantly lower levels of complexity. Even employers aren’t convinced: WorkKeys recognition is largely confined to regional workforce coalitions, it is not a signal that most hiring managers recognize or seek out.
All of this is happening while students are still recovering from pandemic-era learning losses. Closing those gaps requires honest measurement of where students actually stand. Lowering proficiency expectations or redefining readiness through below-grade-level standards does not solve the problem but rather obscures it.
Schools that appear to be improving under lowered expectations face less pressure to address real gaps in instruction. Meanwhile, students are given a misleading signal about whether they are truly on track for career and postsecondary success.
Accountability systems are built on the premise that proficiency should mean something real. A student who is ‘proficient’ or ‘ready’ should have actually met grade-level expectations. Introducing WorkKeys into this framework weakens that premise.
Readiness and Proficiency rates may rise, but underlying skills do not.
Lowering expectations is not better measurement. It is less honest measurement. Students deserve a clear signal of where they stand, and taxpayers deserve to know whether their investment in schools is producing real academic outcomes. WorkKeys provides neither.