School Improvement Data Supports: When the Principal Doesn’t Math Good

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

Abstract

School-based professionals supporting their improvement activities may not have the experience to deeply understand the criteria and implications for the identification of low-performing schools. Leaders need support to transition from “your school got a low score” to “your school’s low score is explained by the performance of these specific students in these specific areas, and here are other areas with significant impact.” Further, school leadership needs support in interpreting and accessing their own data locally and from each school’s annual report. A Western State Education Agency (SEA) representative will discuss the state’s experiences in addressing these needs.
In 2022, the SEA shifted the CSI identification process for schools with low academic performance (CSI-LA) from a single-indicator to a comprehensive analysis of multiple school performance indicators. The initial 2017 identification depended solely on student proficiency on the statewide assessment., a single-indicator process that did not meet ESSA guidelines. That metric, though, was explicable—a principal understood that if only 12% of their students passed the state tests they would be identified. The 2022 shift to a comprehensive model based on multiple indicators introduced a level of complexity that confused educators, leaders, and the public.
Compounding the confusion was the state’s publication of its A-F Letter Grade Accountability system, which relies on some, but not all, of the same metrics as the federal CSI-LA system. Letter grades are published, shared, posted on social media, printed in flyers, and displayed on billboards. Schools with poor letter grades are statutorily required to submit improvement plans, notify their community, and present those plans to their constituents, or risk losing school funding. However, the results of Federal Accountability are not publicized in any broad manner beyond a list on the state website, and only released to affected schools.
The state’s federally identified schools receive multiple types of support. Schools are given access to grant funds to complete a comprehensive needs assessment (CNA) and plan approaches to address root causes of their achievement issues. Schools are assigned an Educational Program Specialist (EPS) – a state employee with extensive experience and training in school administration and improvement. The EPSs work closely with school leadership to apply research-backed supports and interventions from the top tiers of ESSA’s evidence-based programs. Schools receive further funding to implement those programs with EPS support.
However, these specialists come from professional backgrounds much like those of the school administrators with whom they were working. They tend not to be statisticians and data analysts. The state’s accountability office responsible for the black-box analysis did not have school leadership experience. To bridge this gap between data needs and leadership needs, the state created a new position – the Data Specialist – to act as a liaison and data communicator, between school administrators, EPS personnel, and the state accountability division responsible for producing the identification reports. This presentation will describe specialized roles within this state agency to improve the clarity of information and data interpretation at the local level, with the goal of better supporting CSI schools.

Author

• Russel Potter, Arizona Department of Education