On September 18, 2025, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions convened a full hearing on the state of K–12 schools. Testimony from researchers, state leaders, and district practitioners underscored the challenges facing American education: historic declines in student achievement, rising absenteeism, strained teacher pipelines, and growing concerns about adolescent mental health.

While there was consensus on the promise of high-dosage tutoring and the importance of teacher effectiveness, a deeper debate emerged over accountability. Should it remain tied to coercive compliance, or should it evolve into a model that inspires teams and motivates growth?

The rapid rollout of Science of Reading mandates illustrates the risks of reform without capacity. States passed laws requiring evidence-based curricula, but many districts lacked guidance, professional development, or high-quality vendor support. Teachers improvised, parents received mixed messages, and vendors scrambled to prove compliance. The result was a climate of fear that hindered implementation.

Tutoring now faces the same crossroads. If reduced to hours logged and rigid compliance audits, it will replicate the missteps of early Science of Reading reforms. If, instead, it is tied to outcomes-based contracts and aligned with the needs of teachers and students, tutoring can become a lasting structural reform.

Procurement is more than an administrative process; it shapes how reforms take root. Outcomes-based contracting (OBC) offers a promising model by linking compensation to validated measures of student growth, rather than relying solely on inputs. Ector County ISD in Texas, for example, used OBC to transform multiple failing campuses into a district rated “B” by the state. Indiana’s statewide tutoring program also illustrates how contracts can embed tutoring into long-term accountability systems.

Research on psychological safety, self-determination theory, and human motivation shows that teams thrive when accountability fosters growth rather than fear. In practice, this means aligning individuals to their strengths, designing transparent systems that emphasize outcomes, and ensuring equity safeguards are in place.

Accountability without fear does not mean lowering standards. It means building rigorous, transparent systems that inspire innovation and sustainability. For districts, this requires procurement strategies that reward growth. For states, it means integrating tutoring data into dashboards that drive decision-making. For vendors, it requires openness, honesty, and a commitment to achieving outcomes.

The Senate hearing reflects a broader turning point in education. Mandates will continue to shift, but the real question is whether reforms will rest on coercion or inspiration. Tutoring has the potential to anchor a new model of accountability, one that combines rigor with humanity and ensures that every investment in students is a step toward long-term success.