Too Much or Not Enough? Supports and Improvement Activities in CSI Schools

• In Event: Are CSI (Comprehensive Support and Improvement) Schools Getting the Support They Need? Evidence From Research and Practice

Abstract

The effectiveness of accountability systems is contingent on their ability to induce school-level improvement actions aimed at boosting student outcomes. According to the theory of action that has guided accountability policy for decades, states should catalyze school improvement by assessing school performance, assigning performance designations, publicly sharing results, and offering support and resources (Atchison et al., 2023). However, low-performing schools often struggle with interpreting data, selecting improvement interventions, and sequencing activities, due to limited capacity, resources, and shifting policy priorities. Drawing on findings from a federally-funded mixed-method study of CSI schools in three states this presentation will provide insight regarding the support provided to CSI (and other low-performing schools) and how schools are approaching the improvement process. This presentation will draw on state interviews, a survey of CSI schools and a matched sample of non-CSI schools, and a set of district interviews in three geographically diverse states.
Given that CSI schools are among the lowest-performing 5% in each state, it stands to reason that they should be the subject of intense improvement efforts and support. Indeed, all three states targeted additional school improvement support to CSI schools and their districts, predominantly through regionally-based service providers. This was echoed in principal survey findings: 83% of CSI principals reported receiving more support after their CSI designation. The majority of case study districts, however, reported that they provided support to all schools they perceived to be low-performing, regardless of the CSI designation. And, surveyed CSI principals reported similar levels of external support than did principals in a matched set of non-CSI schools.
And what activities are CSI schools undertaking in an effort to improve? Strategies emphasizing data-use, student well-being, and academic support for struggling students were among the most used improvement strategies among surveyed schools. Despite the documented effectiveness of human capital strategies in low-performing schools (Schueler et al., 2021), relatively few schools reported a major focus on strategies such as adding new staff positions or replacing teachers who were ineffective.
Interestingly, surveyed schools exhibited widely divergent approaches to school improvement. Based on a latent class analysis, we identified six classes of schools with different substantive foci, including student wellness, teacher learning, and instruction. One noteworthy difference among these classes was the number of interventions on which they focused: at one extreme, one set of schools focused on just one strategy, on average (which we characterize as “limited action” schools), while another group embraced 16 strategies (dubbed “everything, all at once” schools). The “limited action” schools apparently failed to heed the signals of the accountability system engaging in almost no improvement efforts. On the other end of the spectrum, an excess of uncoordinated improvement activities is a well-documented challenge in low-performing schools (Sebring & Bryk, 2000; Dougherty & Weiner, 2017). One of the distinguishing features of the “limited action” and “everything, all at once” schools was the principals’ reports of urgency association with the CSI designation. These findings suggest that policymakers should consider how to support appropriate school-level responses to accountability information.

Authors

• Kerstin A. Carlson Le Floch, American Institutes for Research

• Andrea Boyle, American Institutes for Research

• Steven Hurlburt, American Institutes for Research