It may seem almost quaint now, but there was a time not all that long ago that parents clearly understood what an “A” or “C” or “F” meant. It was a simple method of holding students – and schools – accountable.

Today it is increasingly difficult to know what those letter grades actually mean under the state’s ever-shifting accountability system.

Since moving to a letter grade accountability scale in 2013, the state has turned them from a simple rating tool into something closer to a final verdict on schools and districts, whether that verdict is accurate or not.

Accountability grades and a district’s accreditation are two different things, but it would be reasonable to think the two would correlate. If accountability scores are the objective standard, you would think those districts are worsening.

On Tuesday, Mississippi Today reported the accreditation status of 14 school districts in the state has been downgraded for a variety of violations. Yet only two districts – North Bolivar and Carroll County – face imminent state takeover. Just two of those 14 schools currently have a D rating for 2025. Four districts have B ratings. The other eight, including North Bolivar and Carroll County, have C ratings.

This is an example of how accountability scores aren’t necessarily an accurate reflection of the health of a school district. That can have serious negative consequences for communities. Economic developers say one of the most important factors in recruiting new business or industry is the quality of schools. Companies naturally want to locate in communities with good schools. Mississippi makes it easy to think you can judge its schools. Just look at their letter grade.

Communities have landed or lost new industry in part because of their letter grades. It also affects where families choose to live.

No accountability system that relies so heavily on standardized testing should carry that kind of weight.

And the state is about to make the problem worse. At the direction of the Legislature, the Mississippi Department of Education board made major updates to the school accountability model in November.

The reason?

Too many schools performed too well.

By law, the cut scores (the base number that separates one letter grade from another) must be raised when more than 65% of schools earn a “B” or higher, a benchmark reached in 2023.

What was an “A” last year could be a “B” this year. Next year, letter grades are expected to go down even as the scores remain steady or, in some cases, improve by a few points. It will take time for schools to adjust to the new requirements, which is also likely to be reflected by lower scores.

When a parent sees his child’s school go from a “B” to a “C,” there is a natural cause for concern. If that school goes from “C” to “D,” it’s cause for alarm. It creates a negative narrative that only makes the jobs of our educators more difficult and can affect economic development.

To a skeptic, when 65% of the schools earn a “B” or higher, it’s not proof that the schools are rising to the challenge, but evidence that testing isn’t rigorous enough.

There is no shortage of skeptics among lawmakers where public schools are concerned. An accountability system that sets up districts to show falling performance gives that faction more ammunition.

Accountability is not a dirty word. Schools should be accountable. But they should be accountable first to parents and communities, not to legislators who too often seem more interested in proving public schools are failing than in helping them succeed.

The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.