- Bottom line: When accountability is tied to a procedure like WorkKeys, trainees get short altered, and the general public gets a distorted signal Reconsidering employability abilities in K– 12 education Education in a
- connected world: Preparing students for global careers For more news on assessments, see eSN’s Innovative Teaching center
“Over the last 5 days, you made the following numbers of sales calls: 8, 7, 9, 5, and 7. On average, the number of calls did you make every day?”
Take a minute 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 stated 4th or fifth grade, you ‘d be on the ideal track.
This concern, however, is from ACT WorkKeys, offered to high school juniors to figure out labor force preparedness. Some states are requesting it be used in location of more strenuous exams like the ACT itself.
School responsibility systems measure whether trainees are mastering the scholastic requirements states expect them to teach and indicate where additional assistance is required. Education is one of the biggest budget plan items in most states, and responsibility is how states verify that costs equates into trainee knowing.
That signal just works if the underlying measurements accurately check grade-level understanding and skills and if the meaning of efficiency or readiness is tied to what trainees are expected to know. That is why it is significantly troublesome that numerous states are incorporating WorkKeys into accountability systems.
While WorkKeys consists of 9 subtests, the bronze, silver, gold and platinum ratings are based upon the 3 subtests that evaluate just reading and mathematics skills.
The intent behind WorkKeys is to provide an alternate “career ready evaluation” but in practice, the WorkKeys concerns evaluate reading and math skills at an upper elementary to early intermediate 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 trainees are being asked to demonstrate to be considered “College and Profession Ready.”
Over the past 20 years WorkKeys has actually waged a battle to attempt to place itself as equivalent or complementary to the ACT and SAT, to the detriment of trainees. States utilizing combinations of ACT and WorkKeys in “College and Career Readiness” accountability procedures raise severe concerns about rigor. In an example from South Dakota, two high schools made almost similar accountability rankings, yet had disparate student performance. Clark High School had 15 percent efficiency in ELA and 22 percent in mathematics for the 2024-2025 school year, while Stevens High School had 76 percent proficiency in ELA and 44 percent in mathematics. Yet Clark reported 75 percent of trainees as “College and Career Ready” while Stevens reported only 56 percent. Efficiency on WorkKeys balanced out low proficiency rates in ELA and mathematics and weak ACT efficiency. Regardless of having nearly similar responsibility ratings, the underlying scholastic preparation of trainees in these schools is extremely different.
Alabama is proposing that all 11th grade students take both the ACT and WorkKeys to measure grade level efficiency in reading and math. Currently, students need a 19 in ELA and a 20 in Math on the ACT to be considered skilled. Under the proposed waiver, students can be deemed skilled with a 15 on the ACT as long as they also make a Silver credential on WorkKeys. This is a direct lowering of expectations for trainees.
WorkKeys Silver reflects skills aligned largely to upper primary and early middle school content. Even WorkKeys Platinum, the greatest tier, only represents approximately lower intermediate school mathematics. At the very same time, WorkKeys excludes much of the scholastic content states anticipate its students to master by graduation. Students are double-tested in reading and mathematics, once on the ACT and again on WorkKeys, losing important instruction time and requiring states to spend for both assessments.
Allowing WorkKeys to alternative to ACT proficiency does not redefine success; it decreases the bar for what counts as “proficient.” States that are not gearing up students to satisfy grade-level expectations are using WorkKeys as a workaround to improve accountability scores without enhancing real trainee performance. That is not accountability. That is moving the goal up and calling it a quicker race. Accountability systems must reflect the depth and breadth of the academic standards developed by educators in the state to make sure all students have the chance to learn. When accountability is connected to a measure like WorkKeys, trainees get short changed, and the public gets a distorted signal. And due to the fact that accountability systems drive direction, this develops a perverse incentive: focus less on complete grade-level standards and more on the nominal skills shown in WorkKeys. This doesn’t assist companies or trainees. Proponents may argue that WorkKeys adds something the ACT does not– a measure of profession readiness. But WorkKeys mostly overlaps with ACT in reading and mathematics, just at substantially lower levels of complexity. Even companies aren’t persuaded: WorkKeys acknowledgment is mostly restricted to local labor force coalitions, it is not a signal that most working with managers recognize or look for. All of this is happening while students are still recuperating from pandemic-era learning losses. Closing those spaces requires honest measurement of where trainees in fact stand. Lowering proficiency expectations or redefining readiness through below-grade-level requirements does not resolve the issue but rather obscures it.
Schools that appear to be enhancing under lowered expectations face less pressure to resolve genuine gaps in instruction. On the other hand, trainees are given a misleading signal about whether they are truly on track for profession and postsecondary success.
Responsibility systems are developed on the premise that efficiency ought to suggest something real. A trainee who is ‘competent’ or ‘all set’ need to have actually satisfied grade-level expectations. Presenting WorkKeys into this structure deteriorates that property.
Preparedness and Efficiency rates might rise, however underlying skills do not.
Reducing expectations is not better measurement. It is less sincere measurement. Trainees should have a clear signal of where they stand, and taxpayers are worthy of to understand whether their investment in schools is producing genuine scholastic outcomes. WorkKeys supplies neither.