This study compared different stakeholders' perceived validity of various indicators of student learning used to judge the quality of students' academic performance. Data were gathered from the questionnaire responses of 314 educators in three states that have implemented comprehensive state-wide assessment programs with high-stakes consequences both for educators and for students. MANOVA results showed that while educators generally hold similar perceptions, significant differences exist between school administrators and teachers. Administrators perceived the results from nationally normed standardized assessments, state assessments, and district assessments to be more valid indicators of student achievement than did teachers. In contrast, teachers granted more validity to classroom observations and homework completion and quality than did administrators. The implications of these differences for reform initiatives are discussed, particularly with regard to teachers' motivation to improve results.