What do you do when you are tasked with picking a dinner spot for a large group with a mix of dietary preferences and restrictions? You book a reservation at The Cheesecake Factory, knowing its multi-page menu of options spans several different cuisines and can feed each one of them. This sort of dining provides something for everyone. However, these places have a time and place. We know that each dish may not be exceptional, and the sheer volume of choices can dilute specialization. In many ways, public education in the United States is like a Cheesecake Factory.
Opportunities for secondary learners to demonstrate college and career readiness in federal and state accountability systems often take a similar approach. Rather than requiring learners to meet specific benchmarks for college and career readiness, learners are presented with a menu of options to choose from when determining how they will demonstrate preparedness for their chosen career after high school. Oftentimes, learners are asked to pick one experience to satisfy their college and career readiness requirement, and are presented with a selection that may favor one experience over the other. This broad approach may seem flexible for districts and responsive to learner interests, but it really obscures what is, and isn’t, working while weakening incentives for high-quality career preparation.
In this post, I discuss why states should consider moving toward including standalone indicators for career readiness in accountability systems to maximize successful learner outcomes, rather than utilizing metaindicators.
The why and why not for metaindicator use
Let’s first define our terms:
Standalone indicator: Indicators that measure a single outcome or performance for a particular experience. For example, a standalone indicator for industry-recognized credential attainment would assess each school/district against a preset benchmark for attainment.
Metaindicator: A composite or umbrella measure that aggregates multiple college and career readiness options. For example, learners are college and career ready if they earn college credit from an AP course or dual enrollment credit or participate in a work-based learning experience.
Metaindicators are appealing for a few reasons:
- They provide flexibility for learners to choose an experience that suits their interests – as well as flexibility for districts in what they may choose to offer.
- External partners can see their priorities represented within the list of options.
- This structure simplifies how states communicate overall college and career readiness performance by allowing them to present a single score.
However, these benefits come with trade-offs:
Loss of actionable insight
When multiple indicators are combined into a single metaindicator, tracking individual indicator performance becomes challenging. For instance, Mississippi reports that 53.4% of its learners were college- and career-ready in the 2024-2025 school year, but the method by which learners achieved this status is omitted. Only 13 states disaggregate their college and career readiness data in statewide report cards, such as California and Kentucky. The lack of disaggregated data for metaindicators is particularly problematic when investigating trends over time, as it makes it impossible to celebrate successes or identify declines in outcomes data.
Perverse incentives and “gaming” the system
If a particular indicator is “easier” to scale or already has strong existing infrastructure in a particular school or district, leaders may push every learner to participate in that opportunity rather than build more meaningful career-ready experiences. This ultimately undermines the goal of encouraging high-quality, career-connected learning. While some states may continue to add new college- and career-ready options under a metaindicator, they often do so without holding local education agencies accountable for offering all of them and their components. This approach can dilute and discourage meaningful innovation. Because the metaindicator measures whether learners meet any one option rather than how many are offered or how strong they are, adding new options doesn’t improve the composite score. There is little incentive to expand or strengthen access to high-quality opportunities.
Masking inequities and disparities
Metaindicators can hide which subgroups or special populations are using which indicators to achieve college and career readiness. Aggregated data will not highlight opportunities for strategic investment in one indicator over another, nor will it reveal implications for inequities in access as required by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins V). Metaindicators can also mask whether certain indicators are being used at all. For instance, if only a few learners are earning an industry-recognized credential, but the state continues to invest funding in credential attainment, the aggregated metaindicator data would not reveal that disconnect in participation. In some cases, metaindicators can even perpetuate tracking, where schools may steer a group of learners toward an easier-to-measure experience rather than high-value, career-aligned opportunities.
Making the case for standalone indicators
Standalone indicators provide key advantages in accountability systems. Not only do they strengthen data quality and the monitoring of inequities in access, but they also create meaningful incentives that elevate career readiness as an equal priority alongside college preparation.
Direct alignment with meaningful outcomes
A standalone indicator can be directly tied to an outcome that aligns with state strategy, labor market needs, or local priorities. This intentional investment hones and focuses resources on a handful of high-quality experiences that can be executed well, as opposed to multiple under-resourced opportunities. When learner participation in a specific indicator leads to additional resources, the incentive becomes strategic:
- Districts are more likely to build strong infrastructure for a given career-ready experience.
- Educators and school administration can focus their attention and efforts on learner progress toward that particular outcome.
- Learners and families can see a clear link between educational choices and real-world experiences.
Targeted improvement and monitoring
When one indicator is incentivized, it becomes easier to identify patterns and pinpoint where improvements are needed. States can identify which schools and districts are excelling and which may need additional support, determine whether particular subgroups or special populations are underrepresented in participation or outcomes, and assess which program offerings are underdeveloped. This clarity allows state agencies, district leaders, and external partners to target support and interventions more effectively.
Balanced incentives to protect the ‘and’
Adding a required standalone indicator ensures that career readiness is not optional or secondary. States should consider the right mix of standalone indicators that align with their key priority outcomes. A balanced set of standalone indicators (think Perkins V program quality indicators) recognizes and values the various experiences within the career-preparation ecosystem. When career readiness is embedded as a measurable requirement, it signals that developing career-focused skills is a priority of the curriculum and learner outcomes. Read more in our Protect the ‘And’ series.
State Examples
Hawai‘i tracks CTE concentrator status as a standalone career readiness indicator. This measures the percentage of students who complete a sequence of Career Technical Education (CTE) courses. By keeping it distinct from college-focused metrics, the state ensures career preparation is specifically measured. Schools are held accountable for enrolling students in CTE pathways and supporting them through completion. This provides clear data on career readiness outcomes for educators, families, and policymakers.
Maryland is working toward a goal that, by the 2030-31 school year, at least 45% of public high school graduates will have completed a high-school level registered apprenticeship or earned another industry-recognized credential. This is further incentivized in their Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) accountability structure. Although industry-recognized credential attainment and registered apprenticeship are not standalone indicators within their accountability system, they are state strategic priorities linked to accountability, positioning leaders to invest in these learner experiences.
Want to learn more?
Check out Making Career Readiness: A 2025 Update to explore national data and further considerations on how states are valuing career-focused indicators in their state and federal accountability systems.
