School Support & Improvement

The Key Question

How can we provide a statewide system of support to promote continuous improvement across all schools and districts, as well as ensure significant evidence-based interventions in the lowest performing schools?

ESSA Highlights

ESSA § 1111(d)(1)(A)

School Identification

States must identify schools that require interventions: 

• For comprehensive support:
  • Schools that are in the bottom five percent
  • Any high school failing to graduate 1/3 or more of its students
• For targeted support:
  • Any school in which a subgroup of students is consistently underperforming

ESSA § 1111(d)(2)(A)

Comprehensive Support

Districts shall locally develop and implement a comprehensive support and improvement plan:

• Needs assessment
• Stakeholder involvement
• Formal plan
• Evidence-based interventions
• Approved by school, district, and state
• “monitored and periodically reviewed” by state

ESSA § 1111(d)(2)(B)

Targeted Support 

Each school shall develop and implement a school level targeted support and improvement plan for each subgroup of students:

• Needs assessment
• Stakeholder involvement
• Formal plan
• Evidence-based interventions
• Approved and monitored by district

ESSA § 1111(d)(3)(A)(i)

Exit Criteria

States shall establish a statewide exit criteria:

• Comprehensive schools
  • Applied in a state-determined number of years after designation (not to exceed four years)
  • If criteria are not met, then more rigorous state-determined action takes place, such as the implementation of interventions (which may include addressing school-level operations)
• Targeted schools
  • If criteria are not met, then targeted school becomes a comprehensive school

ESSA Definition

Evidence

ESSA defines four categories of evidence based on their strength:

1. “Strong evidence” meaning supported by at least one randomized study;
2. “Moderate evidence” meaning supported by at least one quasi-experimental study;
3. “Promising evidence” meaning at least one correlation study with pretests as covariates; and
4. Programs with a rationale based on “high-qualify research” or a positive evaluation that are likely to improve student or other relevant outcomes and that are undergoing evaluation.

Considerations for the Future

• Tools and frameworks most effective for managing school improvement
• Improvement activities, strategies, and interventions most effective for Alaska
• Prescriptive vs. broad guidance for required interventions
• Reward schools (currently in state statute)
• Exit criteria conditions for low-performing schools
• Roles of stakeholder groups
• DEED actions to encourage continuous improvement