Opinion: Making Districts and Providers Mutually Accountable for Student Success

Running a school district is challenging. Superintendents and principals shoulder the great responsibility of ensuring students receive a high-quality education and services to support learning in a fiscally responsible way. This requires establishing relationships with multiple vendors — perhaps even hundreds —  to provide needed supplies and educational services.  The expiration of ESSER funds places additional pressure on districts to make the most of their financial resources. In this environment of increasingly complex resource constraints, ensuring that providers’ services directly improve student outcomes is more critical than ever.

Frequently, districts use a single procurement process and request for proposal/contract documents to purchase everything from goods and supplies, like food and laptops, to instructional services. However, the latter are quite different from durable goods and supplies, which are easily quantified and measured. Determining whether a district got its money’s worth for instructional services is less straightforward; nationally, districts have invested billions of dollars in ed tech tools regardless of student participation or learning gains .

Outcomes Based Contracting , a strategic initiative of the Southern Education Foundation , has offered tailored support, technical assistance and expert guidance to nearly 20 school districts. These resources and hands-on experience empower them to achieve measurable, long-term student outcomes. Under the outcomes-based contracting model, at least 40% of a provider’s pay is contingent on meeting agreed-upon student outcomes. This approach compels mutual accountability between school districts and providers and helps shift districts from buying services to prioritizing buying outcomes, ensuring that dollars spent deliver academic impact.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Two critical features make outcomes-based contracting effective. First, tying financial incentives directly to educational achievements ensures that every dollar invested drives tangible student success. Both the district and the provider have a financial stake in producing the agreed-upon results, with financial repercussions if either side does not uphold its end of the deal.

For example, a charter school network signed a $700,000 contract for high-impact literacy and math tutoring. It was 40% contingent on performance on the NWEA MAP and state assessment results, and the agreement included a midyear assessment to measure student progress. When it was discovered that not all students had taken the midyear assessment, the district and provider had to work together to ensure those students took the test in order to fulfill their contractual obligations.

Outcomes-based contracts include financial incentives tied to measurable student outcomes, like a midyear assessment, to formalize both sides’ commitment to student achievement.

In addition to the financial incentives, the model requires ongoing commitment and partnership. This begins with presenting the contract to the school board for approval and gaining community buy-in, rolling it out in the district and ensuring all parties are aware of their responsibilities. The contract includes specific requirements, measures and outcomes for each student that districts and providers are required to revisit and continuously check throughout and at the end of the contract period.

Final payment depends on three critical factors: whether the student met the attendance requirement, whether the provider upheld its responsibilities (such as ensuring students have the same tutor for each session) and whether the student achieved the expected outcomes. During ongoing continuous improvement meetings, the district and provider examine data for each student. If one is not on track for any of the three critical factors, they collaborate to determine how to address this deficit.

This approach is much more in-depth than a typical contract. Because the final payment is contingent on specific outcomes for individual students, the outcomes-based model forces districts and providers to thoroughly evaluate their performance and adherence to the contract. This thorough review process guarantees that both sides remain focused on student success and accountability.

A great example of this collaborative approach is Jackson Public Schools in Mississippi. The district spent significant time working with principals to schedule high-impact math tutoring sessions to ensure at least 70% of its approximately 800 middle schoolers attended. Throughout the program, Jackson Public Schools monitored attendance and collaborated with the provider to address any challenges. Though attendance fell early in implementation, the district and provider, working together, were ultimately able to maintain an attendance rate of 70%-81% for the duration of the program.

Districts are not simply committing to meeting a 70% attendance threshold in isolation. Instead, they are engaging in regular, collaborative progress monitoring with their providers. The schedule for evidence-based continuous improvement meetings is established in the contract — no less than every two weeks. These meetings ensure regular check-ins on progress toward achieving the specific goals articulated in the contract. If any issues arise, the district and provider work together to find solutions.

rl=”https://www.the74million.org/article/under-pilot-program-in-texas-florida-tutoring-fees-depend-on-student-progress/”]

Additionally, this collaborative accountability has demonstrated improved instructional alignment between districts and providers. In the case of Jackson Public Schools, the district noticed some differences between how the provider was teaching the standards and how they were assessed on state exams. As a result, the provider adjusted its instruction and started sharing sample lessons and items ahead of time, allowing the district to give further feedback. The provider found this so valuable that it extended this practice to other partners as well.

These are just a few examples of how outcomes-based contracting directly translates into maximizing the impact of a district’s investment in instructional support services. It promotes a culture of mutual accountability and collaboration, holds all parties responsible for measurable outcomes through a contractual obligation, encourages efficient use of resources, prevents investments in ineffective solutions and drives meaningful progress in student success.

Through clear and quantifiable expectations within contracts, districts and providers move from trying to work together, despite other priorities, to being mutually accountable for instructional interventions that lead to student success. District leaders, accountable to the community and students they serve, can work closely with providers to meet shared goals, turning accountability from a concept into a concrete practice. This collaboration drives continuous improvement and helps districts make strategic decisions under increasingly complex resource constraints while staying focused on what matters most: student learning.