Principals' Strategies for School Improvement and Perception of Supports in Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools

• In Event: Sheraton Roundtable Session Three
  In Roundtable Session: Improving Low-Performing Schools Through Accountability Policy Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (Table 2)

Abstract

In the context of school accountability systems, local education leaders should be able to use information regarding school performance to enact organizational and instructional changes that are intended to stimulate improvement. Under ESSA, states have developed increasingly complex accountability systems with multiple measures and varied ways of evaluating school performance, while also providing districts and schools with more flexibility regarding how they will address low performance. Increased complexity and flexibility mean that school and district leaders must weigh more information and make strategic decisions about which accountability measures to prioritize, what improvement strategies to use in response to accountability results, and how to provide supports that increase chances for success. In this study, we examine whether school leaders in CSI schools in three states (California, Florida, and Ohio) report different levels of support from their states and districts compared to non-CSI schools and whether principals in CSI schools have different priorities for school improvement or make different decisions with respect to the types of interventions used to improve student outcomes compared to non-CSI schools.

Methods – In each of the three states, we administered a survey to all CSI schools and a sample of other relatively low-performing non-CSI schools to determine whether responses of CSI school principals differ from non-CSI school principals regarding their perceptions of support and decision-making regarding school improvement. Survey administration was completed in July 2022 with approximately 2,000 respondents across three states and a response rate of 60%.

To compare survey responses of principals in CSI and non-CSI schools, we will first develop propensity score weights to balance covariates among CSI and non-CSI schools. We will then use regression analysis to estimate the difference between CSI and non-CSI schools using the weights.

Results –The results of this study will demonstrate the extent to which principals of CSI school report different experiences related to school improvement compared to principals of non-CSI schools. For example, we will determine whether principals in CSI schools report more frequent use of data, more frequent use of evidence-based interventions, more active support from the state or district, or faced different challenges, relative to principals in non-CSI schools. If CSI schools do have different experiences – including having different perceptions regarding the supports they receive and having different priorities for school improvement –these factors could be relevant causal mechanisms that explain potential differences in student outcomes in CSI and non-CSI schools.

Significance – The intent of accountability policies is to change the behavior of adults in schools in ways that ultimately improve student outcomes. Thus, it is of substantial policy interest to determine if leaders of CSI schools do indeed report different practices than their counterparts in non-CSI schools, shedding light on one of the most critical assumptions embedded in accountability policy.

Authors

• Drew Atchison, American Institutes for Research
  Presenting Author

• Elaine Yang, American Institutes for Research
  Non-Presenting Author

• Steven Hurlburt, American Institutes for Research
  Presenting Author