How School Accountability Keeps Kids Out of Prison

If you want to shut down the “school-to-prison pipeline,” holding failing schools accountable may be the best place to start. Many education debates focus on relaxing discipline as a way to keep kids out of the justice system. But a new study finds that receiving a failing accountability rating—and the reform pressure that then results—can work to reduce the share of students who get arrested or incarcerated as young adults.

“School Accountability, Long-Run Criminal Activity, and Self-Sufficiency,” published in the Journal of Human Resources in November 2025, followed more than 54,000 South Carolina students who entered ninth grade between 2000 and 2005, tracking them into their thirties to examine arrest and incarceration outcomes. Since 2000, South Carolina has rated public schools from “unsatisfactory” to “excellent” based on graduation rates, merit scholarship eligibility, and test scores.

The study focuses on low-performing schools, using the cut-off between “unsatisfactory” and “below average” ratings to compare otherwise similar students on either side of the threshold. The researchers found that students who attended schools rated “unsatisfactory” were 12 percent less likely to be arrested and had lower incarceration rates relative to those attending schools scored with the less severe “below average” rating.

That’s because the harsher ratings initiated more state oversight. Schools with poor ratings must submit improvement plans that include strategies to raise academic performance, professional development for teachers, and a timeline for progress. They may also assign education specialists to offer targeted instructional support. Failure to make significant progress can also prompt leadership changes and school takeovers.

The study shows that accountability pressures are associated with improvements in school climate, measured by student satisfaction with a school’s learning, physical, and social environments. Notably, these positive results appeared without students moving to higher-rated schools or the dumbing down of standards. In fact, more students in the lower-rated schools passed the tenth-grade exit exams. The improvements associated with South Carolina’s accountability system also occurred without significant spending, teacher turnover, or leadership changes.

Some parents appreciate metrics (A–F letter grades, for example) that are easy to understand and that quickly communicate the quality of a school. But in recent years, accountability metrics have faced pushback from teachers’ unions, school administrators, and those opposed to high-stakes testing. Critics argue that accountability ratings stigmatize low-performing schools, rely too heavily on test scores, and oversimplify school quality. State interventions triggered by low ratings can be even more controversial.

The South Carolina study doesn’t identify the specific reforms that low-rated schools adopted—only that accountability pressures improved school climate and achievement. But the Houston Independent School District offers a vivid, albeit more sweeping, example of how schools can respond to accountability pressure. After a state takeover of the district in 2023, Superintendent Mike Miles overhauled curriculum, required frequent checks on learning for students, and adopted merit pay for teachers. Early state exam results show large gains in Houston schools serving disadvantaged students. These interventions are far more intensive than what was studied in the South Carolina cohort, however.

The South Carolina study shows that a poor rating is not necessarily a death sentence for a school. Indeed, it can be a motivator for real improvements, delivering better long-term outcomes for students.

Photo by John Tlumacki/The Boston Globe via Getty Images