Aurora Institute's report based on their 2025 survey of Washington State's MBLC cohort 1 schools (including ILHS). This particular report focuses on implementation quality and student engagement after 4 years. Students report feeling more engaged and supported. Click the ^ at right to see an AI summary of key findings.
Evidence of Student Success
Cognitive Engagement & Relationships
Students in high-implementation schools reported 0.23 standard deviations higher cognitive engagement than peers in traditional settings
See: Page 92, "Impact: Emerging, Strengthened by High-Level Implementation"
See: Appendix C, Table C1 (page 119)
0.59 standard deviation improvement in teacher-student relationships - the largest effect observed in the study
See: Page 92-93, "Teacher-Student Relationships" section
See: Appendix D, Figure D2 (page 122)
These benefits held true for students of color
See: Page 93, "Student Engagement for Students of Color"
See: Appendix C, Table C2 (page 119)
Real Student Outcomes
Students who struggled in traditional schools reported renewed motivation
See: Page 85, quote under "Academic Success: Student Motivation and Ownership of Learning"
69% of school leaders and 43% of teachers reported students became more engaged
See: Page 83-84, Table 14 (page 84)
Students described feeling seen and valued
See: Pages 86-90, "Cultural Competence: Welcoming and Affirming School Environments"
Validation of Core Practices
Assessment & Mastery-Based Learning
Nearly 75% of teachers allow retakes/revisions without penalty
See: Page 69, Figure 28
See: Appendix A, Table A5 (page 113)
High-implementation schools show 70% of teachers consistently using performance-based assessments
See: Page 74-75, "Assessment Formats" section
Students report using teacher feedback to reflect on progress
See: Page 72-73, Table 11
Student Agency & Voice
In high-implementation schools, teachers rarely make decisions alone
See: Page 65-66, Figure 27
92% of teachers in high-implementation schools support the MBL plan (vs. 70% in low-implementation)
See: Page 60, Figure 21
97% support CRSE practices (vs. 67% in low-implementation)
See: Page 61, Figure 22
Personalized Support
Nearly 90% of teachers in high-implementation schools provide individualized supports
See: Page 78-79, Figure 29 and discussion
See: Appendix A, Table A7 (page 115)
Why Smaller, Alternative Schools Excel
Size Matters for Quality
Micro and tiny schools demonstrated the highest levels of implementation
See: Page 55-56, Table 9 and discussion
See: Page 54, Figure 18
Research cited shows students in smaller schools perform as well or better
See: Page 55-56, paragraph beginning "Smaller schools have also been found..."
See: References section, page 107 (Cotton, 1996; Darling-Hammond et al., 2006; Wasley et al., 2000)
Strong Foundations
Alternative and credit-recovery schools entered with stronger equity foundations
See: Page 94-95, "Equity and Relationship-Centered Foundations"
See: Page 56-57, Figure 19 and discussion
Schools with higher percentages of students with disabilities showed higher student perceptions of culturally responsive practices
See: Page 95, first bullet point under "Equity and Relationship-Centered Foundations"
What Makes It Work
Relationship-Centered Approach
Students described schools as "families"
See: Page 97, "Broader Community Support and Collective Commitment"
Transgender student's testimony about feeling safe
See: Page 86-87, extended quote
Strong advisory systems strengthen community bonds
See: Page 94-95, "Equity and Relationship-Centered Foundations"
Real-World Learning
Students engage in internships, independent studies, and applied projects
See: Page 51, school leader quote about advanced competencies
See: Page 80, Figure 30
Learning connects to students' cultural backgrounds
See: Pages 89-90, examples under "Cultural Competence: Student Representation in Instructional Materials"
Addressing Common Concerns
About College/Career Readiness
Alumni visiting from college remarked how classmates struggle with autonomy
See: Page 68, school leader quote at bottom of page
Performance-based assessments are more authentic measures
See: Page 74-75, discussion of assessment formats
See: Page xi-xii, Recommendation 4 in Executive Summary
About Academic Rigor
Standards-based competencies ensure high expectations
See: Pages 50-52, "Competencies: Emerging, Not Fully Implemented"
Students must demonstrate actual mastery, not just seat time
See: Page 3, Figure 1 - CBE/MBL Framework
See: Page 2, list of MBL framework elements
Long-Term Perspective
Implementation Science
Research shows meaningful transformation takes 5-10 years
See: Page viii (Executive Summary)
See: Page 99-100, "Discussion" section
See: Page 105-106, "Conclusion"
Part of statewide initiative with evidence-based practices
See: Pages 1-2, "Introduction"
See: Page 6, Figure 3 - MBLC Theory of Action
Quick Reference Guide for Common Questions
"Does this model actually work?" → Pages 92-93 (student engagement & relationship outcomes) → Page 83-86 (perceived benefits, Tables 14-15)
"What about students who struggled in traditional schools?" → Page 85 (student testimonials) → Pages 86-87 (safety and belonging data)
"Is this just for small schools?" → Pages 55-56 (why size matters, but with recommendations for larger schools) → Page 103, Recommendation 3 (enabling comprehensive high schools)
"Will students be ready for college?" → Page 68 (alumni perspective) → Pages 80-82 (deeper learning and real-world application)
"What does research say?" → Pages 5-6 (Science of Learning and Development) → Page 107-110 (References section with peer-reviewed research)
"Is this just experimental?" → Pages 1-2, 7-8 (statewide initiative context) → Page vi-vii (theory of action and evaluation overview)
Key Findings for School Staff
1. Implementation Quality Matters - A LOT
What the data shows:
Schools with high implementation had dramatically different outcomes than those with low/moderate implementation
High implementation schools: 97% teacher support for CRSE vs. 67% in low/moderate schools (Page 61, Figure 22)
High implementation schools: 92% teacher support for MBL vs. 70% in low/moderate schools (Page 60, Figure 21)
Why this matters for staff: Inconsistency across classrooms undermines the entire model. The report found "significant variability within schools" even among high implementers (Page 58-59, Figure 20).
Page 59:
"Without school-wide accountability, students' experiences will vary widely. As one educator noted: 'In some classes, the MBL is strong; in others, teachers are doing what they've done for years and hiding in their classrooms.'"
Implication: Every staff member's commitment matters. Students who get inconsistent experiences across classes don't get the full benefits.
2. Where Schools Are Struggling Most: Varied Pacing
What the data shows:
Only 35% of students feel they can take more time to learn without penalty (Page 81)
Only about 1/3 of teachers allow students who demonstrate mastery to move ahead (Page 81, Figure 31)
68% of students report they rarely move ahead or go deeper when they master content (Page vi, Executive Summary)
Page 80-81:
"Varied pacing practices showed growth, but their pervasiveness was mixed... while some growth occurred, the practice of allowing students to advance early remains limited."
Why this matters for staff: This is supposed to be a core feature of mastery-based learning, but most schools aren't doing it well yet. This requires systemic solutions, not just individual teacher effort.
3. The Formative Assessment Gap
What the data shows:
Only 29% of students say teachers reteach in different ways when they don't meet a learning goal (Page v, Executive Summary)
72% of students report they rarely take practice quizzes to check readiness (Page 73)
Less than 50% of teachers arrange additional learning supports during/after school based on assessment results (Page 70, Appendix A Table A5)
Page v (Executive Summary):
"many students do not regularly take practice quizzes (72%), and only 29% report that teachers reteach in different ways when they do not meet a learning goal, highlighting gaps in the feedback-to-support loop."
Why this matters for staff: You can't have mastery-based learning without robust formative assessment and reteaching loops. The data shows most schools (including high implementers) haven't built these systems well yet.
What helps: Structured support times like WIN blocks, flex periods, or tutoring centers (Pages 101-102, Recommendation 2)
4. Teacher Preparedness Has Grown, But CRSE Lagged Behind
What the data shows:
77% of teachers feel prepared to implement MBL by Year 4 (up from earlier years) (Page 42, Figure 14)
But only 68% feel prepared for CRSE - and this plateaued between Years 3-4 (Page 42-44, Figure 14)
The gap between MBL and CRSE preparedness widened in Year 4 (Page 42)
Page 42:
"In Year 4, 77% of teachers reported feeling very or moderately prepared to implement MBL, and 68% reported the same for CRSE. Notably, the gap between MBL and CRSE preparedness widened in the final grant year."
Why this matters for staff: Your team may feel more confident with the MBL side (competencies, assessments, pacing) than with the CRSE side (cultural responsiveness, critical consciousness). This is common but needs attention.
Contributing factors mentioned (Page 44):
Local and national political climate around DEI work
Staff mindset barriers
Lack of concrete CRSE resources and models
5. The Critical Consciousness Gap
What the data shows: Very few examples emerged of teachers helping students examine inequity, power, and social transformation - the third pillar of CRSE.
Page 90-91:
"This also underscores a glaring gap in the third pillar of CRSE: critical consciousness. Few examples emerged of pedagogical approaches that explicitly engaged students in examining issues of inequity, power, and social transformation."
Student quote (Page 90-91):
"I mean, typically, we don't really learn about a culture just because a student from that culture joins our school... The teachers just don't really cover it. I don't think they often try to represent people through their cultural backgrounds."
Why this matters for staff: Most staff focus on the first pillar (representation in materials, diverse texts) but don't engage students in critical analysis of social issues. This is the hardest but most transformative aspect of CRSE.
6. What Actually Enabled High Implementation
The enabling conditions (Pages 94-97):
Strong leadership:
Leaders who communicated clear vision while allowing teacher autonomy
Leaders who ensured access to coaching and peer observation
Page 95: "Leaders who communicated a clear vision, encouraged innovation among their staff, and prioritized coaching fostered growth"
Collaborative culture:
Regular co-planning time was essential
Smaller, "close-knit" staff reported easier coordination
Page 96: "Implementation advanced as collaborative practices became routine"
Hiring for fit:
Schools emphasized hiring educators who were "already student-centered and equity-minded"
Page 95: "Hiring the 'right' people was also perceived as an important asset"
Systems and structures:
Standards-based grading already in place
Smaller class sizes
Flexible schedules (quarters vs. semesters)
Page 96: "smaller class sizes, flexible schedules, and standards-based grading created stronger foundations"
7. The Time/Capacity Barrier Is Real
What educators reported (Pages 97-98):
Page 98, teacher quote:
"We would need ongoing hours of PLC time in order to have any hope of implementing grading practices that could be used with any level of fidelity or consistency within our department. I don't see how or when that could happen."
Page 98, another teacher:
"I feel like last year we really started to see some impact of using an MBL approach. That being said, this year has been really really hard, and we are struggling to move forward. Lack of staff and resources have been a big issue."
Why this matters for staff: The report validates that this work is genuinely demanding. High-quality implementation isn't possible without:
Protected collaboration time
Manageable class sizes
Stability in staffing
Time to develop competencies and assessments
This isn't about teacher effort - it's about system design.
8. The Rubric Challenge
What the data shows: Rubrics are widely used but inconsistently applied and often not student-friendly.
Page 75-77 discussion reveals:
Different teachers use different terminology for the same concepts
Students struggle to interpret rubrics independently
Inconsistency across departments causes confusion
Teachers want shared rubrics but haven't created them
Page 52: Only about 50% of students report learning goals are explained in ways they understand at the start of units.
Why this matters for staff: If you're not using common language across classrooms and student-friendly rubrics, students can't track their own progress - which defeats the purpose of competency-based learning.
9. Performance Assessment Implementation Gaps
What the data shows:
Only 37% of students report frequently showing learning through real-world application (Page 74, Table 12)
Teachers reported issues with students copying during project work (Page 75)
Barriers include unclear expectations for collaboration and individual accountability
Page 75, teacher concern:
"I think the learning and assessments in context are more authentic—but students (at least 9th graders) are often seen copying from each other during project work…getting authentic data can be a challenge sometimes."
Why this matters for staff: Performance assessments don't automatically work. They require:
Clear expectations for collaboration vs. individual work
Scaffolding for student self-regulation
Consistent routines and accountability structures
Page 75:
"without clear expectations regarding collaboration and individual contributions, student buy-in, and guardrails to ensure individual accountability... performance assessments may fall short"
10. Small Schools Have Structural Advantages
What the data shows:
Micro/tiny schools (0-50 students per grade) were overwhelmingly the high implementers (Page 55-56, Table 9)
No medium-large schools achieved high implementation
About 70% of teachers in tiny/small schools report regularly implementing CRS MBL vs. less than 50% in medium/large schools (Page 54, Figure 18)
Page 55:
"These patterns... indicate that smaller schools may provide more flexibility and cohesion in staff collaboration, decision-making, and instructional practices"
Why this matters for staff: If you're in a larger comprehensive school, you face structural challenges that smaller schools don't. The report recommends:
Page 103: Schedule redesign support for comprehensive high schools
Block scheduling, flex periods, shorter terms
Advisory structures
Don't compare yourself directly to tiny alternative schools - you're working with different constraints.
11. Students Need Scaffolding for Agency
What educators observed: Students struggled with increased autonomy, especially those coming from traditional schools.
Page 68, educator concern:
"many fail to meet deadlines" and worry that "without these habits, they will struggle in high school, college, or the workplace"
School leader observation (Page 68):
"new students often struggle most with being asked what they want, because 'no one's ever asked them before'"
Why this matters for staff: Student voice and choice aren't "natural" - they're skills that need to be taught. Students need:
Explicit instruction in goal-setting and time management
Gradual release of responsibility
Structures that support choice within boundaries
Don't assume students will automatically thrive with autonomy.
12. The Veteran Teacher Challenge
What the data shows: Some experienced teachers resist the model, viewing it as unnecessary or insulting.
Page 77, veteran teacher quote:
"I believe that MBLC should be used by those that struggle to connect with kids... Veteran teachers with a knack for connecting with students feel as though jumping through the hoops of MBLC is kind of insulting. I pride myself in understanding all facets of the kiddos I teach... I don't need rubrics to make my learning more valuable."
Report's response (Page 77):
"While this perspective highlights real concerns about professional autonomy and respect for veteran practice, it also underscores the importance of clear communication about the purpose of mastery-based learning."
Why this matters for staff: If leadership frames MBL/CRSE as "here's what you're doing wrong," veterans will resist. But if framed as "here are tools to make your good instincts more systematic and equitable," there's more openness.
Your school needs to address this tension directly.
13. What Students Actually Experience vs. What Teachers Think They're Providing
Significant perception gaps exist:
Student Agency (Page 64-66, Appendix B Tables B1-B4):
46% of students say teachers decide daily activities alone
Only 25% of teachers think they decide alone
Gap of 21 percentage points
Reteaching (Page v, 73):
Only 29% of students say teachers reteach in different ways
Yet teachers report providing differentiated support
Moving ahead (Page 81):
68% of students rarely move ahead when they master content
But teachers report offering opportunities to go deeper
Why this matters for staff: Teachers perceive their implementation as stronger than students experience it. This isn't about dishonesty - it's about:
What teachers intend vs. what students perceive
Inconsistent application
Need for more explicit, visible structures
Check your assumptions with student feedback.
14. The "Just Beginning" Reality Check
Where the cohort actually is:
Page 53:
"On average, teachers reported they were 'just beginning to implement a few CRS MBL strategies in my classroom' (Mean = 2.56 on a 4-point scale)"
This was in Year 4 - after four years of implementation.
Page 50, regarding competencies: Only 19% of schools reported fully organizing learning around competencies by Year 4 (Mean = 3.67 on a 5-point scale where 5 = fully implemented)
Why this matters for staff: Even schools that feel "successful" are typically only at early-to-moderate implementation stages. This work is:
Genuinely complex
Takes 5-10 years to reach maturity (Pages 8-10, 99-100)
Normal to feel like you're still figuring it out
Don't expect your school to have it "mastered" - even the highest implementers are still developing.
15. What Coaching and Professional Learning Should Focus On
What the data shows schools needed most (Pages 33-37, Table 7):
High implementers focused on:
Organizational development and sustainability planning
Instructional rounds and classroom observations
Refining specific strategies (rubrics, social contracts, circles)
Low/moderate implementers focused on:
MBL 101 foundational learning
Basic competency development
Planning and priority-setting
What teachers requested (Page 46):
"Provide the curriculum if you want us to teach at multiple levels" - concrete resources
"We need more videos to show how this has helped in schools" - practical models
"We focus so much on MBL… we need more on CRSE" - balanced attention
Page 104, Recommendation 6: Professional learning should be:
Differentiated by implementation stage
Subject-specific where possible
Job-embedded (not just workshops)
Focused on practical tools, not just theory
Why this matters for staff: Your professional learning should match where you actually are, not where you "should" be. And you need concrete tools, not just concepts.
16. Students with Disabilities May Be Your Strongest CRSE Indicator
Surprising finding (Page 95):
"schools with a higher percentage of students with disabilities tended to have higher student perceptions of CRSE-aligned teaching practices (β = 0.007, p < .05)"
Examples given (Page 95):
Student with dyslexia: math became accessible through color-coding
Student with chronic health condition: flexible scheduling enabled continued education
Both experiences were described as empowering and identity-affirming
Page 100:
"spaces designed to meet the needs of students with disabilities may offer a promising roadmap for expanding CRSE, particularly in upper-grade levels"
Why this matters for staff: The accommodations and flexibility you provide for students with IEPs are exactly the kind of personalization that benefits all students. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles align closely with both MBL and CRSE.
Your special education practices may be your strongest model for equity.
17. The Political Climate Impact
What affected implementation (Pages 28-29, 44):
National/state political shifts:
Changes in federal administration created "tension and uncertainty" around DEI initiatives
Immigration policy shifts affected school climate
Teachers reported: "Some of our staff are waiting for Washington to lose its federal funding"
Budget crisis:
Many districts faced staffing shortages
Spending restrictions impacted implementation
Prolonged uncertainty about continued MBLC funding
Page 29, SBE staff reflection:
"How do we sustain our commitment to the CRSE work in this politically challenging environment, and really try to be responsive to the schools, but also really center the students and equity?"
Why this matters for staff: External pressures are real and documented. The report validates that implementation challenges aren't just about your school's effort - there are genuine systemic barriers.
The question becomes: how do you sustain this work despite these pressures?
18. Where Your School Likely Has Gaps (Most Schools Do)
Based on cohort-wide patterns, your school probably struggles with:
Flexible pacing - letting students move at different speeds (Pages 80-81)
Formative assessment loops - practice, feedback, reteaching cycle (Pages 71-73)
Structured support time - WIN blocks, flex periods, tutoring (Pages 69-70, 101-102)
Critical consciousness - engaging students in analyzing inequity (Pages 90-91)
Common language and rubrics across classrooms (Pages 75-77)
Real-world learning that counts for credit outside school (Page 82, Figure 32)
Consistency - students experiencing different approaches across classes (Pages 58-59)
Page 99:
"The evaluation found that, by the end of Year 4, Cohort 1 schools demonstrated progress in CRS MBL implementation, although it was uneven and fragmented across schools."
Why this matters for staff: These aren't unique to your school - they're system-level challenges across the entire state initiative. You're not failing if you haven't solved them yet.
But they need explicit attention and collaborative problem-solving.
19. What Equity Stance You Started With Matters
Critical finding (Pages 56-57, Figure 19):
Schools that rated themselves higher in equity stance in Year 1 were much more likely to reach high implementation by Year 4.
Page 57:
"schools' initial conditions and, in some cases, broader community dynamics and support played a meaningful role in shaping their CRS MBL implementation trajectories. Notably, schools with a stronger Year 1 equity stance were more likely to deepen their practices over time."
Why this matters for staff: If your school is struggling, it may be because you're still building equity foundations that other schools already had. This includes:
Shared understanding of educational equity
Value and commitment to equity in decision-making
Explicit attention to students from marginalized backgrounds
You may need to step back and strengthen these foundations before advancing MBL implementation.
20. The Accountability Question
What a veteran teacher said (Page 105):
"while they enjoy learning new approaches, the successful implementation of MBL requires clear expectations and accountability... without accountability, a culture of avoidance can develop"
But the report adds (Page 105):
"a system of compliance is not the best path for sustained change"
Recommendation (Pages 104-105): Pair accountability (like TPEP evaluations that include CRS MBL practices) with incentives:
Stipends or release time for leaders
Recognition systems
Leadership roles and fellowships
Pathways for advancement
Why this matters for staff: Your school needs to figure out:
How to hold everyone accountable for consistency
Without creating compliance-only culture
While recognizing and supporting those doing the work well
This is a leadership challenge, not just individual teacher commitment.
Key Takeaways for Staff
Implementation quality matters more than anything - inconsistency undermines everything
You're likely at "early implementation" even if it's been years - that's normal and expected
The formative assessment and flexible pacing systems are the weakest areas across all schools
CRSE is harder than MBL for most teachers - especially critical consciousness
What you think you're providing and what students experience may differ significantly - check with students
Your special education practices might be your best CRSE model
This work genuinely requires system changes (time, structures, staffing) - not just individual effort
Smaller schools have structural advantages - don't compare yourself unfairly
Students need explicit teaching of agency skills - it's not automatic
Where you started (equity stance) predicts where you'll go - you may need to strengthen foundations first
Most Important Page for Staff to Read
Pages 99-100: "Discussion" - This synthesizes what the entire study found and what it means.
Key quote (Page 99):
"The evaluation found that, by the end of Year 4, Cohort 1 schools demonstrated progress in CRS MBL implementation, although it was uneven and fragmented across schools. Educators reported increased preparedness, deeper engagement with student-centered assessments, and a growing alignment of instructional practices with CRS MBL principles. At the same time, challenges such as inconsistent application, limited pacing flexibility, and external policy and funding pressures highlight that this work is still in its early stages."
This validates both the progress AND the struggles your staff is experiencing.