Designing a clearer path through complex Pre-K evaluation reports.

Starting from discovery, not the deliverable

The statement of work described design deliverables, but EdReports' team had already recognized that Pre-K was more than an extension of the K-12 model: it was an opportunity to build something suited to a new audience and review methodology. The engagement was structured around that recognition, starting with discovery to clarify who these reports were actually for and plan which K-12 patterns should carry forward versus where the new methodology called for its own presentation. That discovery work surfaced the decisions that needed real evidence before any design choices would hold up.

Where this work stopped

My role wasn't to reinterpret Pre-K evaluation criteria or substitute for the academic expertise already in the room. It was to build a structure that let that expertise travel: from a reviewer's judgment, through the supporting evidence, to whoever downstream was trying to make sense of it from a district leader, an educator or a state reviewer encountering the reports for the first time.

What the discovery found

One of the earliest realizations was that the reports no longer functioned as traditional documents. They were becoming digital products. People weren't reading them start to finish. District leaders, curriculum specialists, educators, and policymakers each arrived with different questions, different devices, different familiarity with the material, and different thresholds for how much evidence they needed before acting on a recommendation.

I came to think of the design challenge less as organizing pages and more as organizing confidence: the same report had to satisfy several different definitions of “enough evidence” at once.

A district leader trying to reach a quick, confident decision and a curriculum reviewer validating the underlying rationale don't arrive at “I have what I need” at the same point, and the architecture had to hold both without compromising the rigor of the evaluation itself. Rather than forcing every reader through the same depth of analysis, the experience was structured as a path: orientation, then confirmation, then full supporting evidence, each layer answering a different question (what's the recommendation, why was it reached, show me what it's based on). Readers could engage with the level of evidence appropriate to the decision they were trying to make while preserving a clear path to deeper supporting rationale when needed. That mattered beyond individual comprehension. Advocates needed material they could carry back into their organizations to make the case for a decision, not just understand it themselves.

Findings that solidified the underlying question: have I seen enough to trust this recommendation?

Pagination mattered more than expected. These were robust evaluation reports, and pagination was not just a formatting detail. Participants described it as a trust signal, confirming the document was complete, and giving them a way to reference specific pages when sharing with colleagues. For a document meant to carry real authority, length mattered. It was an important part of how the rigor behind the review showed up on the page.

Scoring required a careful balance. Some stakeholders emphasized preserving the depth and rigor familiar to existing K-12 users while others questioned how much of the established structure would benefit a new Pre-K audience. The team was particularly alert to the shared risk underneath both views: a strong top-level score being read as the end of the evaluation, rather than an invitation to look closer at the underlying evidence.

Internal familiarity and external credibility turned out not to be the same thing. Early concepts pressure tested a more restrained, data-forward treatment against a warmer, more approachable one revealed a contrast. A design people familiar to the work found conventional could be exactly what gave an unfamiliar reader the structure and authority they needed to trust it.

Users don't read top to bottom. Reports get printed, shared in fragments, and re-entered at different points depending on what someone needs in the moment. That meant the design couldn't assume a single linear path through the content.

Working through open questions

The team brought real expertise and strong instincts to every one of these questions, and workshops gave those ideas a way to travel: turning individual points of view into a shared set of concepts that could be tested with actual users. Allowing the team de-risk decisions before committing to code and using real reports instead of placeholder content to test with participants.

Turning principles into product

Organizing confidence took shape as:

• A layered structure (orientation, a confirming summary, then full supporting evidence) so a first-time visitor and a returning expert could both find what they needed without either being overwhelmed
• Score presentation designed so no single color or number stood in for the underlying judgment, while still giving a time-pressed reader a fast credible entry point
• Navigation and pagination treated as trust and orientation tools, not just formatting, since reports were routinely printed, shared in pieces
• Prototypes and handoff materials delivered in Figma, alongside the decision logs, so the internal team could carry the work forward

Accessibility shaped several of these decisions directly: scoring never relied on color alone, and interaction patterns accounted for keyboard, screen reader, and print use. Formal implementation and testing sat with EdReports' engineering and design system teams, consistent with the engagement scope.

Measurement

Although analytics wasn't part of this engagement the recommended layered structure created a natural opportunity for enhanced instrumentation.

The outcome

In a post-launch check-in, Karl Nelson, VP, Product & Technology remarked:

“This has been one of the smoother launches we've done, so folks are happy.”