Support of local needs assessment and data use for school improvement
CCSSO’s Using Needs Assessments for School and District Improvement: A Tactical Guide
In 2017, a tactical guide was developed with assistance from the Center on School Turnaround, offering essential information on needs assessment for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) and Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools, as well as State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) collaborating with these institutions The guide outlines various approaches to needs assessment and provides a structured process and tools that align with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requirements.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can support Local Education Agencies (LEAs) by linking needs assessments to the selection of effective interventions By offering guidance and technical assistance in developing improvement plans, SEAs can mandate that LEAs provide data to justify their chosen interventions A recent RFA report indicated that 14 states intend to deliver advanced support to ensure a direct connection between needs assessments and intervention identification.
California offers an organizational tool and vetting rubric for identifying evidence-based interventions as part of its continuous improvement process
Georgia provides easily accessible resources for Systems of Continuous Improvement on its website, featuring a comprehensive needs assessment guide and template for schools This assessment process focuses on key improvement domains such as coherent instruction, leadership, professional capacity, family and community engagement, and supportive learning environments It emphasizes a collaborative team approach to data collection and analysis to identify root causes effectively.
The Ohio Improvement Process employs a five-step continuous improvement model that starts with identifying critical needs through comprehensive data analysis Guided by Decision Framework resources, district teams, school leadership, and teacher groups each take on specific roles to assess various data types, including adult data (hiring, professional learning, climate, and educator equity), student data (subgroup performance, attendance, and demographic information), organizational data (classroom resources and course offerings), and community data (climate surveys and after-school programs) Following the identification of these needs, teams research interventions and develop strategic plans for improvement.
Kansas has formed the Kansas Learning Network (KLN) under its Technical Assistance
The System Network (TASN) aims to deliver coordinated, evidence-based technical assistance (TA) to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) through a collaborative network of providers The Kansas Leadership Network (KLN) facilitates comprehensive needs assessments for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools, emphasizing root cause analysis and strategic improvement planning Additionally, TASN's website offers a range of coaching resources and access to KansaSTAR, the state’s Indistar-based performance management system designed specifically for CSI schools.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) play a crucial role in enhancing data literacy among Local Education Agency (LEA) leaders and school administrators A representative from Maryland highlighted the SEA's tailored support for principal supervisors and school leaders to improve their data skills Additionally, Maryland's principal evaluation rubric, aligned with the Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (PSEL), outlines the essential capacities leaders must possess for effective data utilization.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can establish effective systems that encourage the ongoing use of data and foster continuous improvement In Oregon, a collaborative continuous improvement system with Local Education Agencies (LEAs) assesses “readiness” for improvement efforts through a screening protocol The state aids LEAs in collaborating with local stakeholders to conduct root cause analysis Similarly, the Ohio Improvement Process involves LEAs in a tailored continuous improvement approach, which is made accessible via an interactive website.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) play a crucial role in assisting Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to evaluate human resource equity within and among schools The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) mandates that SEAs and LEAs address the uneven distribution of ineffective, out-of-field, and inexperienced teachers By advocating for equitable access to high-quality educators, SEAs provide essential support to LEAs through guidance, data tools, and assistance in analyzing educator distribution For example, Nevada is actively examining teacher retention across various school types and performance levels to identify disparities and improve equity in education.
California's Continuous Improvement Resources webpage offers a wealth of SEA-developed and curated tools aimed at enhancing LEA continuous improvement, needs assessment, and root cause analysis The state's online school dashboard serves as a valuable resource, supplying data essential for LEA continuous improvement efforts, particularly in identifying the needs of various student subgroups This dashboard features a comprehensive range of state and local indicators, along with detailed equity and student group reports.
Oregon has collaborated with the Building State Capacity and Productivity Center (BSCP) to enhance cohesiveness in its efforts under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) The state has implemented a system-oriented framework for continuous improvement technical assistance (TA) to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and schools BSCP played a key role in developing a CCSSO resource that outlines an improvement cycle, fostering collaboration among the State Education Agency (SEA), LEAs, and schools through a network called Utilizing Integrated Resources to Implement the School and District Improvement Cycle and Supports.
Wisconsin has collaborated with regional education service agencies to create WISExplore, a unified data inquiry process for schools This initiative provides resources for analyzing available data, evaluating leadership capabilities in data utilization, and facilitating data inquiry Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) WISE coaches are on hand to enhance data-related skills and formulate school improvement strategies based on data insights WISExplore is part of the broader Wisconsin Information System for Education (WISE), which offers dashboards, data outputs, and tools for uploading local data and learning about data analysis Local Education Agencies (LEAs) can use this system to investigate human resource equity by identifying root causes of educator distribution disparities, including school climate, preparation program quality, working conditions, turnover rates, teacher pipeline trends, and school leadership.
The Center on Great Teachers and Leaders offers the Moving Toward Equity Data Review Tool, which assists State Education Agencies (SEAs) in identifying metrics for equitable access, analyzing data and root causes, and shaping policy decisions Additionally, there are resources available for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to help them create equitable access plans.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) should prioritize systemic changes within Local Education Agencies (LEAs) alongside improvements in Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) and Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools Since schools function within district systems, the involvement of LEAs in meaningful transformations is crucial for achieving sustainable change in educational outcomes.
The Oregon model empowers Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to act as change agents for school improvement, emphasizing the need for capacity building to foster continuous enhancement An attendee at the SPI meeting highlighted that historically, schools facing challenges often lacked consistent district support Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), while it remains essential to identify struggling schools, the focus has shifted towards improving district systems as a whole The attendee noted that treating each school in isolation is ineffective, underscoring the importance of a cohesive approach to support all schools.
Arkansas offers comprehensive access to education data through its MySchoolInfo site, featuring essential information on educators such as salary schedules, licensure status, workforce stability, educational degrees, and the percentage of classes taught by highly qualified educators Local Education Agencies (LEAs) can generate reports to assess human resource equity at both school and LEA levels Additionally, the website includes role-specific "use case" videos to guide users in effectively utilizing the system.
SEAs must disburse and oversee ESSA and other federal funds to LEAs that can be used for school improvement purposes, ensuring that LEAs comply with federal requirements
SEAs must develop a consolidated LEA application for ESSA program funds, and they may design the application to promote strategies and coordination LEAs may use
Title I, Part A funds to support various school improvement activities, and can coordinate Title I, Part A with other programs to maximize resources (Sections
SEAs also may award school improvement grants to LEAs to support CSI and TSI schools in developing and implementing their improvement plans (Section 1003)
These may be awarded on a formula or competitive basis for a period of not more than 4 years
SEAs must also periodically review resource allocation for school improvement in LEAs with a significant number of CSI or TSI schools (Section 1111(d)(3)(A))
Support of LEA use of funds for school improvement
One formulaic approach, which Washington employs, is to provide all CSI schools with a base amount of school improvement funds, and then issue supplemental grants based on student counts
A state education agency (SEA) has opted not to allocate extra school improvement funds to eligible schools that do not have a plan for utilizing evidence-based providers However, the SEA remains committed to supporting these schools and anticipates that they will develop effective plans moving forward.
In the initial review round, one SEA did not approve funding for any of its school applicants, prompting collaboration with the schools to clarify the requirements necessary for qualifying for school improvement funds.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can allocate resources to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that have a significant number of Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools In addition to standard school-level funding, Washington offers supplemental grants to LEAs where at least two-thirds of their schools are designated as CSI schools.
ESSA, so that the LEAs can provide prioritized support to the identified schools and the schools that feed into them
2 SEAs can provide guidance and technical assistance to LEAs on how to coordinate federal and state funds for school improvement The Center for
(2018) details how federal dollars can be leveraged for improvement, with a focus on spending rules and opportunities for Title I Part A, Title II Part A, and IDEA Part B funds (but not
Section 1003) Examples are provided of funding use in four
Indiana CSI schools were eligible for formula planning grants for their first year with CSI status
In 2018-19, the state initiated a competitive process for schools seeking implementation grants with higher funding levels Districts could submit petitions to bypass the planning grants; if their petitions were denied, they would automatically qualify for a planning grant For more information, application forms, and review rubrics, visit the state's SIG webpage.
SEAs and LEAs can coordinate federal funds for school improvement, including those from:
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) encompasses several key sections aimed at enhancing educational outcomes Section 1003 focuses on school improvement, while Title I, Part A targets the enhancement of basic programs Title I, Part C is dedicated to migrant education, and Title I, Part D addresses the needs of neglected and delinquent youth Additionally, Title II, Part A emphasizes the importance of supporting effective instruction, and Title III, Part A is centered on English language acquisition Finally, Title IV, Part A aims to provide student support and academic enrichment, ensuring a comprehensive approach to education.
Title IV, Part B (21st Century Community Learning Centers)
Title V, Part B, subpart 2 (Rural and Low-Income Schools)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act
In some states, state-appropriated funds can also recommendations on braiding funds in Thought Leadership Forum Brief: Braiding Federal Funds Under ESSA
Braiding funds offers the benefit of coordinating multiple funding sources to support an initiative while preserving their individual identities and compliance with regulations However, it necessitates innovative and detailed planning regarding the funding structures involved.
States have enhanced Local Education Agency (LEA) coordination of funding by implementing consolidated applications, allowing LEAs to access federal and state funding sources in a single location An example of this is Massachusetts' LEA consolidated application, which promotes streamlined funding processes for educational improvements.
The integration of funds aims to effectively address district priorities, showcasing the SEA's commitment to offering comprehensive support for federal grants through resources like an application workbook and guidance slide deck In Colorado, stakeholder feedback was utilized to revamp the LEA consolidated application, complemented by regional training sessions and technical assistance.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) have the opportunity to create a framework for evaluating resource equity within Local Education Agencies (LEAs) They are mandated to ensure that LEAs perform resource equity assessments, particularly for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools and other targeted support institutions For LEAs with a significant number of these schools, SEAs are required to conduct their own reviews By developing a consistent approach for assessing school resource allocations, SEAs can offer guidance and establish requirements that encourage LEAs to engage in meaningful evaluations, ultimately fostering improvements at the school level.
Oregon has issued comprehensive guidance to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) on effectively utilizing federal funds, emphasizing strategies for braiding, blending, and transferring resources from various grant programs Although this guidance extends beyond school improvement initiatives, many examples are applicable to the needs of Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) and Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools A key principle highlighted in Oregon's guidance is the importance of "planning first, then identifying funding," underscoring that needs assessment and improvement planning are essential steps in formulating a successful funding strategy.
Nevada is integrating funds at both the State Education Agency (SEA) and Local Education Agency (LEA) levels to enhance its school improvement strategy SEA staff are offering tailored technical assistance to LEAs with underperforming schools, aiding in the strategic coordination of funds and the development of grant applications that align with their improvement plans Additionally, the SEA is providing support to district leaders through office hours, where principals can explore effective strategies and potential funding sources LEAs are utilizing a variety of funding sources, including Title I, Section 1003a, state turnaround funds, and remaining SIG funds, to finance different aspects of their improvement initiatives The SEA has observed that LEAs have diverse contexts and that this funding approach is novel for many, necessitating staff time, expertise, and innovative thinking in their technical assistance efforts.
The CCSSO's exploration of Principle #7 from the Principles of Effective School Improvement emphasizes the importance of equitable resource allocation and the identification of additional resources necessary for enhancing school performance The insights and recommendations provided in the report are not only valuable for State Education Agency (SEA) decision-making but also hold significance for Local Education Agency (LEA) considerations.
The CCSSO document references two key resources, including a 2018 working paper titled "What is Resource Equity?" by Education Resource Strategies (ERS), which outlines 11 dimensions of resource equity for local education agencies (LEAs) and schools to evaluate and manage Each dimension is accompanied by diagnostic questions for self-assessment by local leaders Additionally, ERS has created interactive budgeting games, such as Budget Hold’em for Districts and Budget Hold’em for Schools, to aid LEA and school teams in making informed budgeting decisions Facilitator guides are also available to assist local leaders in reaching a consensus on budgets and developing strategic plans.
The article "Making ESSA’s Resource Equity Provisions Meaningful," authored by a leader at The Education Trust and featured in the National Association of State Boards of Education journal, outlines a set of guiding questions designed to help states enhance their resource allocation reviews mandated by ESSA for school improvement.
The Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University offers valuable research and resources on education finance, focusing on California's 2013 transition to weighted student funding and local control over funding allocation Key resources include an analysis of fund distribution to high-need schools in California, guidance for states on utilizing data to inform finance policies for high-need students, and an introduction to student-based allocation models.
Minnesota has recently updated an Equitable Resource Distribution Guide intended to help
Development and delivery of technical assistance to LEAs on school improvement
assistance to LEAs on school improvement
Illinois has introduced a new statewide support system called IL-EMPOWER, transitioning from a single-provider model to a more diverse approach that includes varied support from multiple sources This system allows Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) and Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools to receive assistance not only from State Education Agency (SEA) school support managers but also from competitively selected "learning partner" organizations specializing in Governance & Management, Curriculum & Instruction, and Climate & Culture Additionally, IL-EMPOWER fosters peer-to-peer learning among similar schools and districts, enhancing collaborative support The pilot of IL-EMPOWER's structures and processes began in 2018 to refine this comprehensive support system.
“partnering with several intermediate units that will serve as the hub of coordination and deployment.”
Nevada has established a network of qualified technical assistance providers through a rigorous selection process, facilitating a networking event where approximately 80 low-performing schools engaged in a “speed dating” format to choose suitable providers Meanwhile, Idaho has collaborated with a university to recruit around 45 “capacity builders,” primarily former principals and superintendents, to support school leaders in enhancing their focus on student outcomes.
Drawing on partners can also provide a measure of objectivity, along with expertise
Maryland is contracting with a third-party expert to provide TA in root-cause analysis with
LEAs that have CSI schools
A recent survey of State Education Agencies (SEAs) reveals crucial insights into the entities designated to deliver technical assistance for school improvement Among the 41 SEAs that participated, they identified specific organizations that will be responsible for providing direct support to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) aimed at enhancing Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) and Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) are increasingly relying on external entities, including individual contractors, to enhance their capacity for providing technical assistance (TA) on school improvement According to recent data, 71% of SEAs view their ability to support Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in school improvement as a moderate to major challenge, with 25% citing it as a significant issue Discussions at the School Improvement (SPI) meeting further highlight SEAs' intentions to expand their capabilities through partnerships with outside organizations On average, SEAs incorporate three non-SEA entities into their TA systems for Comprehensive School Improvement (CSI), with 73% planning to engage individual contractors, 56% regional education service agencies, and 51% private provider organizations to support CSI schools.
Many State Education Agencies (SEAs) are planning to leverage the expertise of Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in their technical assistance (TA) strategies for school improvement Contrary to the perception that LEAs are merely recipients of TA, SEAs view them as valuable contributors to their TA offerings Reports indicate that 44% of SEAs anticipate that other LEAs will provide TA for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools, while 46% expect similar support for Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools Additionally, discussions at the School Improvement (SPI) meeting highlighted plans for SEAs to convene district and school leaders from various LEAs to engage in collaborative networks and cohort programs.
The Kansas Learning Network (KLN), a partner of the State Education Agency (SEA), provides essential support to Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools KLN collaborates with the SEA and educational institutions to conduct thorough needs assessments that identify root causes and risk factors while promoting the enhancement of effective practices Additionally, KLN assists districts and schools in developing strategic improvement plans.
Exhibit 2: Entities Providing Technical Assistance to Improve CSI and TSI Schools
Exhibit reads: All states reported that they expect SEA employees will provide technical assistance to
CSI schools and 78 percent anticipate SEA employees will be involved in providing technical assistance to TSI schools
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can enhance support for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) by regionalizing their efforts, which fosters effective communication and strengthens existing relationships By implementing strategies such as forming partnerships with regional entities, SEAs can offer consistent face-to-face assistance to LEAs, ensuring that support is both relevant and accessible.
Minnesota used a competitive process to create six Regional Centers of Excellence
Regional Collaborative Entities (RCEs) offer focused support to districts and charter schools identified for improvement, primarily funded by Title I and state appropriations These entities aim to enhance implementation capacity and ensure coherence in educational practices Staff members are regionally located and possess specialized expertise in areas such as math, reading, English Language Learners (ELL), and equity.
Nevada has established partnership networks for approximately 30 low-performing schools, collaborating with the state's largest district and evidence-based partners These networks emphasize collaborative learning among schools and district staff through communities of practice, focusing on a unified set of best practices The State Education Agency (SEA) intends to evaluate the implementation of these networks to identify effective strategies for scaling school improvement efforts Similarly, Pennsylvania is working with regional Intermediate Units and other partners to assist Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) and Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools in planning, executing, and assessing their improvement initiatives.
Regionalized support structures are essential for providing consistent, contextualized assistance to schools and districts, especially in rural areas distant from State Education Agencies (SEAs) and other resources In one state, school improvement grants empower small rural districts, enhancing their ability to influence the services offered by regional education service agencies, which have historically prioritized larger districts.
3 SEAs can coordinate internally among various SEA offices SEAs report that their systems of support involve the staff and capacities from multiple units within the SEA The delivery of
Recent efforts to support Local Education Agencies (LEAs) through enhanced systems have led to improved internal coordination and coherence, surpassing previous years when State Education Agencies (SEAs) primarily focused on program administration and compliance Several SEAs have identified cross-unit coordination as a key strategy to strengthen their support systems For instance, one SEA staff member highlighted their collaborative model, stating that teams are formed with representatives from each division to work together across the agency Additionally, another SEA emphasized the importance of aligning efforts between the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to create a unified school improvement plan.
SEAs will involve multiple internal units or division to provide direct TA to LEAs on school improvement When surveyed, 41 responding SEAs identified which units 1 would provide the
TA, as seen in Exhibit 3 Findings include:
State Education Agencies (SEAs) are collaborating with various units, including those focused on educator effectiveness, students with disabilities, curriculum and instruction, English language learners, and data accountability, to provide direct technical assistance to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) aimed at enhancing Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) and Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools Over 50% of SEAs have reported engaging these units in their efforts to support LEAs.
State education agencies (SEAs) are implementing strategic initiatives to unify staff from different divisions, ensuring alignment in school improvement plans and communication For example, the chief of Mississippi has established monthly inter-divisional meetings to emphasize that school improvement is a collective responsibility, extending beyond the school improvement office alone.
Participants expressed concerns about the slow adoption of new work practices in some offices, highlighting a lack of confidence in the sharing of school improvement information among staff Many employees feared that changes might be temporary, contingent on shifts in state leadership, while others remained focused solely on compliance within their specific programs Comments from SEA participants indicated that fostering cross-divisional collaboration on school improvement would necessitate a cultural shift within SEAs, accompanied by new institutional routines, updated job expectations, and enhanced training.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can enhance their support for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) with Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools by leveraging specific internal units to address identified challenges Many SEAs overlook the potential of their data and accountability units to assist LEAs, even though insufficient capacity for data utilization is a significant concern Additionally, while engaging stakeholders is a critical challenge for LEAs, most SEAs fail to involve their equity or community engagement units in providing technical assistance Furthermore, despite evidence indicating that LEAs struggle with financial resource alignment, finance units in most states do not offer the necessary support.
Exhibit 3: SEA Units Providing Technical Assistance to Improve CSI and TSI Schools
Exhibit reads: Ninety-eight percent of states anticipate that their school improvement units will provide direct technical assistance to LEAs to improve CSI and TSI schools
Strengthening school leadership as a strategy for school improvement
and TSI schools LEAs apply for funds to participate in a leader development program that they select from a state-approved list
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can foster collaborative networks among school leaders to enhance knowledge exchange and learning Seventy percent of SEAs identified these leader networks as a key strategy for improving school leadership in Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) and Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools Such networks facilitate peer-to-peer learning and help establish a shared understanding of challenges and effective strategies Additionally, they enable SEAs to maintain leaders' engagement with educational priorities over time, reflecting a broader trend where "Other Local Education Agencies" are integrated into state educational systems.
TA to CSI and TSI schools (Exhibit 2) Nevada has established a Partnership Network of CSI school leaders, support providers, and district and SEA staff that convene regularly to
Maryland initiated the one-year Leading for School Improvement Institute in 2018
The institute offers tailored support and professional development for leaders of schools designated as Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) or those facing low-performance challenges This includes specialized coaching, a three-day summer training session, bi-monthly meetings, and mentorship from Local Education Agency (LEA) staff Participants receive content from State Education Agency (SEA) leaders on essential topics such as data analysis, instructional leadership, school culture, and improvement planning Additionally, resources are accessible to the public.
New Mexico's Principals Pursuing Excellence (PPE) program is a two-year initiative designed to empower school leaders in improving student achievement, modeled after the University of Virginia's Turnaround Specialist Program Launched in 2018, the program focuses on job-embedded learning for principals of struggling schools and offers intensive, multi-tiered support, including seven multi-day executive education experiences and monthly coaching from Performance Coaches Additionally, district Thought Partners collaborate with participants to assess school needs and develop annual and 90-day turnaround strategies.
In 2018, Wisconsin established the Urban Leadership Institute in collaboration with the state's five largest school districts and the Madison Urban League Supported by the New York City Leadership Academy, this initiative aims to enhance the skills of 30 selected leaders to address learning gaps and promote equitable outcomes in the state's most diverse and underperforming schools Participants benefit from professional development, coaching, and networking opportunities aligned with Wisconsin's leadership standards.
3 SEAs can improve principal supervision as a strategy to strengthen CSI and TSI schools
Despite the requirement for State Education Agencies (SEAs) to provide technical assistance to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) for improving Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools, only 33% prioritize principal supervision as a key strategy for enhancing leadership in these schools As SEAs collaborate with LEAs to develop and implement improvement plans, there are potential opportunities to bolster the local supervision of principals However, implementing changes to supervision on a statewide level would necessitate extensive strategic planning and political backing, given the diverse roles of numerous superintendents and supervisors across various LEAs.
The Wallace Foundation's Principal Supervisor Initiative aims to enhance principal supervision by transforming the supervisor role into a focus on developing principals as instructional leaders across six urban Local Education Agencies (LEAs) A key opportunity for advancement at the state level involves clearly defining the roles and competencies of principal supervisors, which can be achieved through the adoption of supervisor standards or guidance for school boards, LEAs, higher education institutions, and the supervisors themselves.
Arizona, in collaboration with WestEd, offers the ELEVATE program, a two-year initiative designed for leadership teams from 25 high-need schools, including superintendents and principals Now in its third cohort (2018-20), this competitive program allows participating Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to utilize school improvement funds ELEVATE focuses on turnaround competencies and improvement science, promoting collaboration among LEA and school leaders to enhance school culture, data-driven instruction, feedback mechanisms, and talent management Key resources provided include 90-day plans, self-reflection tools for districts, and root cause analysis instruments.
Pennsylvania began its Superintendent’s Academy in 2016 as part of the SEA’s
The Poverty and Student Achievement Initiative has successfully completed its first cohort of 73 superintendents in a two-year program, with two additional cohorts currently in progress This initiative was developed in collaboration with the National Institute of School Leadership to enhance educational outcomes.
Idaho enhances leadership capacity for school and district improvement through two key networks The Idaho Principals Network offers tailored support and collaborative growth for principals in underperforming schools, emphasizing turnaround leadership skills, instructional rounds, personal growth plans, and networking among peers Meanwhile, the Idaho Superintendents Network, created in collaboration with Boise State University’s Center for School Improvement, facilitates learning among superintendents on vital topics such as instructional enhancement, stakeholder engagement, principal oversight, and data analysis.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can enhance leadership pipelines for low-performing schools through targeted preparation programs Although only 20% of states have identified leader preparation or licensure as a key strategy for improving school leadership in Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) or Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools, there are notable examples of SEAs working to expand the pool of qualified candidates These programs for aspiring leaders not only help identify individuals with the necessary skills and motivation but also offer practical training and clinical experiences tailored to the unique challenges faced by struggling schools.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) seeking to enhance leadership in low-performing schools can learn from innovative initiatives by Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and university collaborations The Wallace Foundation has played a crucial role in funding projects aimed at improving school leadership, notably through the University Principal Preparation Program, which shares valuable insights from LEA-led redesign efforts For instance, Hillsborough County in Florida has successfully partnered with universities to develop turnaround leader licensure programs, showcasing effective strategies for cultivating strong school leadership.
Exhibit 4: SEA Strategies to Strengthen School Leadership in CSI or TSI Schools
Exhibit reads: Eighty-eight percent of states (or 35 of 40 states), reported that they will prioritize professional learning or support for school leaders as a strategy area to strengthen school leadership
Under ESSA, SEAs must monitor LEA technical compliance for federal program requirements and law, although monitoring can also address implementation and performance in CSI and TSI schools
Specifically, SEAs must approve and then monitor implementation of CSI school improvement plans (Section
1111(d)(1)(B)(vi)) LEAs must approve and then monitor implementation of TSI school improvement plans (Section
Under Section 1003, State Education Agencies (SEAs) are required to monitor Local Education Agencies (LEAs), Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools, and Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools that receive school improvement grants This includes overseeing LEA responsibilities for the implementation of monitoring plans for TSI schools benefiting from these funds.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) are required to establish clear exit criteria for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools to transition out of CSI status, ensuring this evaluation occurs within a maximum timeframe of four years If CSI schools fail to meet these criteria within the designated period, SEAs must implement more rigorous interventions Additionally, SEAs are responsible for regularly reviewing resource allocations for school improvement in Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that have a significant number of CSI or Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools, as outlined in Section 1111(d)(3)(A).
In carrying out the above ESSA requirements, SEAs may consider a range of actions to monitor and evaluate school improvement efforts in CSI or TSI schools, such as:
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can establish monitoring systems to evaluate the execution of Comprehensive School Improvement (CSI) and Targeted School Improvement (TSI) plans This includes oversight for schools and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that are beneficiaries of school improvement grants The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) emphasizes the importance of this approach in its analysis of Principle 9 from the Principles of Effective School Improvement.
Improvement Systems provides guidance for SEAs on helping LEAs and schools set up
Development of a process to monitor school improvement
Massachusetts, and Oklahoma, as well as links to relevant resources and advice regarding
At the SPI meeting, one point of discussion regarding monitoring was the need to clearly identify indicators of progress that are meaningful for the interventions being implemented
A typical set of indicators may not adequately reflect all aspects of implementation that need monitoring State Education Agencies (SEAs), in collaboration with Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and their schools, should thoughtfully consider the most effective approaches for evaluation.
“look-fors” and data to track in specific schools
State Education Agencies (SEAs) may mandate that Local Education Agencies (LEAs) incorporate monitoring plans for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools within their improvement strategies For instance, states like Maine and New Mexico necessitate that school improvement plans detail a clear process and timeline for overseeing the implementation of interventions, along with a plan for communicating the outcomes to both the school and the wider community.
Tennessee employs a three-tier results-based monitoring framework that focuses on effective implementation and student outcomes rather than mere compliance The most intensive tier involves on-site visits by a dedicated team that offers feedback on local education agency (LEA) needs, which guides future state technical assistance Additionally, the framework includes desktop assessments and self-assessments, with districts evaluated on approximately 60 risk factors to determine the frequency and type of monitoring required.
Minnesota is establishing a dedicated full-time position to oversee school improvement grants, which will involve quarterly assessments of improvement plans and fund utilization, along with regular on-site visits This role will deliver direct technical assistance informed by monitoring reviews, contributing to the state's comprehensive support system for underperforming schools Additionally, the state intends to annually renew school improvement grants, contingent upon evaluations of the effective use of funds.
The Ohio Improvement Process includes guidance for LEAs and school teams for developing measures used for ongoing monitoring of improvement plan implementation and impact
School improvement plans are monitored through specific indicators by three local teams: a district team that reviews progress quarterly, a building-level team that meets monthly, and a teacher-based team that convenes bi-monthly The feedback gathered from these monitoring teams plays a crucial role in revising and enhancing the strategies outlined in the plan.
Arizona's school improvement specialists conduct biannual visits to all Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools, focusing on classroom walkthroughs, action plan progress monitoring, data analysis, fund usage review, and collaborative planning for future steps Schools engage in quarterly reflections on benchmark assessments to enhance their integrated action plans, while the state offers continuous desktop support.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can collaborate with researchers to assess the effectiveness of school improvement initiatives Several states are seeking external research expertise to gather systematic evidence on the progress and implementation of Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) and Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) interventions For instance, Massachusetts has partnered with researchers to analyze its turnaround strategy, focusing on impact, implementation, and scalable best practices Similarly, Nevada plans to allocate funds for research on its school improvement and networking efforts In Tennessee, data has been shared with university partners to evaluate two models aimed at enhancing the performance of its lowest-performing schools: district-run Innovation Zones and the state-run Achievement School District By promoting such research efforts, SEAs can provide valuable feedback across all levels of the education system regarding the implementation and impact of interventions.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can offer essential technical assistance to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) when monitoring reveals that Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) and Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) schools are struggling to meet exit criteria By integrating progress monitoring with SEA initiatives, continuous improvement can be achieved while providing targeted support Many SEAs conduct quarterly or annual progress reviews to guide future assistance, and some states implement multi-tiered technical assistance systems that increase support as necessary, including help with revising improvement plans or adjusting specific interventions.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) are tasked with implementing rigorous actions for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools that fail to exit CSI status within a maximum timeframe of four years, as mandated by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Although SEAs have some flexibility in deciding the specific actions to take, they must ensure that these measures are enforced for schools that do not show improvement While some states have already outlined preliminary plans for these actions, many are still finalizing the details for effective implementation.
Massachusetts has implemented a comprehensive monitoring system for low-performing Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and schools, centered around a structured protocol for on-site visits and turnaround practice indicators This process involves utilizing baseline and benchmark data from initial visits, which are updated annually The resulting annual reports offer an external review for schools and districts, guiding necessary adjustments and informing State Education Agency (SEA) and third-party support The visit protocol details the entire process, including individual roles, materials for instructional observations, rubrics for assessing turnaround practices, and a summary of reporting procedures.
New Jersey incorporates progress monitoring into its annual needs assessment and planning cycle, requiring school planning teams to establish timelines for tracking progress toward SMART goals These teams analyze both formative and summative data related to interventions A stakeholder team evaluates the effectiveness of these interventions, makes necessary adjustments, and ensures the allocation of required resources.
States can enhance governance structures for CSI schools failing to meet exit criteria by implementing measures such as state takeovers or establishing state-managed districts Notable examples include Louisiana's Recovery School District, Tennessee's Achievement School District, and Massachusetts' underperforming districts Additional strategies involve converting schools to charter entities, replacing local school boards, or forming new oversight bodies with the power to appoint leadership A review by the Center for American Progress revealed that approximately half of the states outlined governance change plans for schools that do not show improvement in their ESSA submissions.
Tennessee's iZones (Innovation Zones) offer a strategic approach to support Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and their Comprehensive School Improvement (CSI) schools that fail to meet exit criteria These LEA-governed clusters of struggling schools benefit from strong leadership, as they are assigned effective principals who enjoy increased autonomy in staffing and programming Additionally, iZones provide essential funding, resources, and collaborative opportunities to enhance school performance and foster improvement.
Oklahoma is implementing stringent interventions for schools failing to meet exit criteria within three years, guided by school data and needs assessments While Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools have flexibility in choosing interventions during their initial three years, those that do not exit may be mandated to adopt state-approved supports and professional development The state may also enhance support by requiring participation in leadership programs for both aspiring and current principals, such as Moving UP and Lead to Succeed, and is considering Networked Improvement Communities for non-exiting schools Proposed interventions include transitioning from a 4-day to a 5-day school week, enhancing child nutrition programs, and expanding school library resources.
Under ESSA, State Education Agencies (SEAs) are mandated to approve improvement plans from Local Education Agencies (LEAs) for each Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) school LEAs are responsible for creating and executing strategies aimed at enhancing student outcomes in these schools, which must incorporate evidence-based interventions along with other stipulated requirements.
(Section 111(d)(1)(B)) Along with the SEA, the LEA and its CSI school must each approve the improvement plan (Section
LEAs—but not SEAs—are required to approve TSI school improvement plans
Development of guidance and approval processes for CSI school plans
processes for CSI school plans
Some SEAs, like Tennessee, have online platforms for improvement planning that link directly to school-specific data and allow for dynamic evaluation of progress SEAs like
Maine and Kansas have leveraged the Academic Development Institute’s Indistar platform to enhance improvement planning, fostering reflective implementation, facilitating cross-school learning, and enabling effective progress monitoring in their low-performing schools.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can enhance the effectiveness of school improvement plans by implementing rigorous approval criteria that focus on the root causes of poor student outcomes For example, Maryland's approval rubric emphasizes the necessity of evidence-based interventions and the establishment of SMART goals connected to these interventions Additionally, states with a competitive framework for Section 1003 school improvement funds can leverage this process to ensure that improvement plans are both thorough and effective.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can leverage Continuous School Improvement (CSI) planning to enhance the capabilities of school leaders and their teams A participant from Missouri emphasized that the effectiveness of the plan hinges on principals understanding their roles, stating, “Successful implementation of the plan sinks or swims on whether principals know their responsibility.” Additionally, an Idaho participant highlighted the importance of shared responsibility within the school, noting, “We need to ensure that the responsibility is distributed throughout the school.”
Tennessee has developed a process and rubric to evaluate the quality of District Priority School
Improvement Plans are essential applications for securing improvement grants, evaluated by a three-member review team consisting of two SEA reviewers and one external reviewer Each application undergoes a thorough assessment using a seven-page rubric that focuses on needs assessment, improvement strategies, fund allocation structure, and evaluation/monitoring For additional resources, including the rubric, planning templates, and samples, visit the state’s “ePlan” site.
In 2018, Louisiana introduced the Super App, a streamlined planning process enabling school systems to access federal grants and competitive funding through a single application and timeline This innovative tool is based on the School System Planning Framework, which emphasizes evidence-based strategies and prioritizes four key areas: Core Academics, Students with Diverse Needs, Workforce Talent, and LEA Systems The State Education Agency (SEA) staff evaluate responses to specific questions within the Super App, ensuring alignment with these framework domains to approve improvement strategies and allocate competitive funds effectively.
Tennessee has enhanced its district and school planning processes by transitioning to an online platform called ePlan, which features InformTN This tool enables users to explore data, assess needs, visualize information, and collaborate effectively while developing their plans To facilitate the use of InformTN, the state offers webinars, rubrics, and personalized support on crucial topics like data analysis and budgeting Additionally, efforts are being made to reduce principal turnover by establishing a core team at schools, ensuring stability in school improvement planning and implementation.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) play a crucial role in aiding Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and schools in identifying evidence-based interventions for school improvement According to a recent survey, 83% of SEAs reported creating resource guides to assist LEAs in selecting effective interventions These state-developed materials clarify federal evidence tiers and offer practical guidance for local decision-making Additionally, some resources include decision-making processes, principles, and frameworks, along with examples of successful interventions.
Several states refer to or use An LEA or School Guide for Identifying Evidence-Based
The "Interventions for School Improvement" guide, created at Florida State University with contributions from State Education Agencies (SEAs) in Florida, South Carolina, and Mississippi, offers essential tools and processes for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to conduct self-studies and consensus evaluations of their interventions Additionally, a companion document is available to provide similar guidance tailored for SEAs.
Evidence for ESSA is a valuable resource for SEAs, LEAs, and schools, offering a searchable website that provides up-to-date information on programs and practices meeting ESSA evidence standards Developed by the Center for Research and Reform in Education in partnership with leading education professional associations and international researchers, this platform aims to enhance educational practices through reliable evidence.
Tennessee offers a comprehensive guide for selecting evidence-based interventions aimed at improving turnaround schools, developed by the Tennessee Education Research Alliance This resource outlines relevant research and highlights specific interventions across four key pillars: leadership, talent management, instruction, and student support.
Georgia's Selecting Evidence-Based Interventions guide assists Local Education Agencies (LEAs) by aligning with the state's continuous improvement framework and ESSA evidence requirements Utilizing WestEd's tools, the guide integrates intervention decisions within the Systems of Continuous Improvement framework and offers a comprehensive list of databases containing research on effective interventions, along with links to additional vetted resources.
Maryland supports Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools in their school improvement planning while simultaneously enhancing the skills of local leaders This planning process is complemented by a year-long Leading for School Improvement Institute for CSI principals, collaborative learning walks, and expert third-party technical assistance focused on root cause analysis.
Arizona’s guidance to LEAs and schools on ESSA evidence levels refers to the above two resources, but also encourages them to draw on another resource for SEAs and LEAS:
The "Effective Practices: Research Briefs and Evidence Rating," created by the federally funded Center on Innovation in Learning, is a comprehensive 208-page resource updated in 2019 It evaluates and outlines the research evidence supporting a variety of effective practices, providing valuable insights for educators and policymakers.
Exhibit 5: SEA Strategies for LEA Identification of Evidence-Based Interventions
Exhibit reads: Eighty-three percent of states reported that they are developing guides or resources to help LEAs identify evidence-based interventions for school improvement
State Education Agencies (SEAs) offer customized assistance and training to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) for identifying effective interventions According to survey data, approximately two-thirds of SEAs are delivering on-site support tailored to LEAs (68%) and providing training opportunities (63%).
Only 39% of State Education Agencies (SEAs) are creating a curated list of approved interventions for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to select from Most SEAs seem to be offering guidance and support without restricting the range of interventions available, though some are endorsing specific providers or mandating that LEAs and schools choose from a designated list.
Support of LEA engagement of stakeholders around school improvement
Engaging stakeholders in school improvement is essential for enhancing local community involvement A well-defined theory of action from the State Education Agency (SEA) can significantly improve the clarity and effectiveness of the guides, plan templates, and technical assistance provided to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and schools.
The CCSSO’s Deep Dive into Principle 3 of Principles of Effective School Improvement
Systems offer essential guidance for State Education Agencies (SEAs) on effective stakeholder engagement and partnerships, emphasizing support for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and school involvement initiatives The article highlights various state efforts in fostering stakeholder engagement, including a notable example from Illinois, which showcases its Healthy initiative.
The Community Incentive Grant allocates $15 million to support local education agencies (LEAs) and organizations focused on low-income students in establishing cross-sector partnerships aligned with state education objectives According to Colorado’s District Accountability Handbook, there are defined stakeholder groups, roles, and processes that guide the creation of effective improvement plans.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can enhance their partnerships by utilizing tools that help Local Education Agencies (LEAs) grasp the values and interests of their communities During the SPI meeting, participants emphasized the necessity for SEAs to actively listen to and integrate community feedback A representative from the Urban League in Nebraska highlighted that understanding community values is vital for SEAs to engage authentically with various regions, stating, “The school community might not remember who you are, will remember half of what you do, and will remember all of how you made them feel.” Therefore, SEAs should carefully define their outward role in relation to school communities.
In 2017, California, with support from the California Comprehensive Center, released the Family Engagement Toolkit: Continuous Improvement through an Equity Lens This toolkit serves as a valuable resource for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) to create effective family engagement strategies and enhance their continuous improvement processes.
California's Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), established in 2013, empowers parents, students, and community members by incorporating community engagement strategies into all Local Educational Agency (LEA) plans A 2018 report by Partners for Each and Every Child highlights case studies of eight California LEAs that successfully involved their communities in creating local accountability plans through the LCFF.
Ohio has established a Framework for Building Partnerships Among Schools, Families, and Communities, offering guidance for districts and schools to integrate engagement strategies into their continuous improvement plans This framework outlines specific roles and strategies for state, local education agencies, school buildings, early childhood programs, and community organizations It also provides valuable resources, including a family involvement survey, needs assessment tools, focus group protocols, community engagement models, and best practice examples based on Joyce Epstein’s research.
The U.S Department of Education’s Institute for Education Sciences offers valuable resources to enhance community and family engagement in education McREL’s comprehensive four-part Toolkit provides research, practical tools, and real-world examples from various states and organizations, serving as a vital resource for states looking to foster partnerships with families and communities.
Community School models offer valuable insights for State Education Agencies (SEAs) on engaging Local Education Agencies (LEAs) with their communities An example is Des Moines Public Schools in Iowa, which demonstrates how internal and community supports collaborate to create a comprehensive support system for students They have established clear criteria and processes for evaluating partnerships and have appointed community school coordinators for each high school feeder pattern and several elementary schools Additionally, the Coalition of Community Schools provides beneficial resources, including "Community Schools: Transforming Struggling Schools into Thriving Schools."
The Strive Together network prioritizes community engagement as a fundamental aspect of its collective impact strategy across 70 member communities Its Theory of Action offers a structured approach to fostering community involvement, establishing shared objectives, and promoting successful collaboration.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) are finding a balance between providing guidance and allowing local systems the flexibility to engage their communities in context-specific ways Each Local Education Agency (LEA) and Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI/TSI) school has distinct interests and relationships In Wisconsin, for example, efforts are underway to establish a consistent engagement strategy across LEAs, informed by insights from a new statewide equity council This council emphasizes the importance of community involvement while recognizing that local entities best understand who should participate in the engagement process and how to do so effectively.
New York has allocated state funds to enhance Community Schools, which are viewed by SEA leadership as vital for fostering school culture and promoting equity The Community Schools model in New York emphasizes a comprehensive needs assessment, active family involvement, strong collaborations with local stakeholders, rigorous academic programs, and additional student support services In the 2017-18 state budget, $150 million was designated to bolster Community Schools across 233 high-need districts Furthermore, the state collaborates with the National Center for Community Schools at the Children’s Aid Society to provide technical assistance to these districts and schools.
Massachusetts emphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement in its guidance for low-performing schools and local education agencies (LEAs) when developing turnaround plans The state asserts that effective turnaround plans are shaped by diverse stakeholders, ensuring regular updates on progress during implementation Additionally, Massachusetts offers guidance on forming stakeholder groups and collecting input, complemented by a Stakeholder Engagement Worksheet that outlines discussion topics leading to actionable recommendations.
The CCSSO’s "Meaningful Local Engagement Under ESSA: A Handbook for LEA and School Leaders," developed in collaboration with Partners for Each and Every Child, offers essential guidance for states and districts on engaging stakeholders in improvement planning This resource outlines effective engagement strategies and tools that Local Education Agencies (LEAs) can utilize to involve a diverse range of stakeholders, including students, families, educators, rural communities, tribal leadership, policymakers, and the business sector.
State Education Agencies (SEAs) can enhance their support for rural and small Local Education Agencies (LEAs) by fostering community engagement Unlike larger LEAs that benefit from proximity and resources, rural LEAs often struggle with limited educational resources and human capital To bridge this gap, SEAs can adopt strategies such as hiring staff from rural areas to strengthen local relationships and understanding of the educational landscape For instance, Maryland has successfully implemented this approach by employing local personnel who act as liaisons and organize meetings in remote regions Similarly, Montana has established case study teams focused on high-priority districts within tribal reservations to improve school-community connections.