Module 5: Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) and Additional Targeted Support and Improvement (ATSI) Schools
Evaluating State Accountability Systems Under ESEA
This webpage is part of the Evaluating State Accountability Systems Under ESEA tool, which is designed to help state educational agency (SEA) staff reflect on how the state’s accountability system achieves its intended purposes and build confidence in the state’s accountability system design decisions and implementation activities. Please visit the tool landing page to learn more about this tool and how to navigate these modules.
All states have developed or revised their state’s accountability system in response to requirements in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). A state’s accountability system includes multiple indicators, each of which illuminates a different facet of school performance or quality. States must identify all schools with one or more low-performing subgroups, based on performance across all indicators, for targeted support and improvement (TSI) based on consistently underperforming subgroups and additional targeted support and improvement (ATSI).
Results across accountability indicators drive school identification in various ways. Module 2: State’s System of Annual Meaningful Differentiation (AMD) addresses how indicator results drive annual differentiation of schools through summative ratings or individual indicator results. This module addresses how indicator results drive the identification of TSI and ATSI schools.
States vary in their approach to identifying TSI schools based on consistently underperforming subgroups. TSI schools are generally identified based on consistent under-performance across multiple years and must be identified annually. There are some areas for state-level discretion with regard to identification of TSI schools; for example, states have flexibility in how they prioritize indicators. By weighting some indicators more than others or varying cut scores for identification, states may vary the types and number of schools identified for TSI. Please note that TSI exit criteria are determined by districts.
ATSI schools must be identified using the same methodology the state uses to identify the lowest-performing 5% of Title I schools for comprehensive support and improvement (CSI). However, a state can choose to identify these schools from among all schools or from among those schools identified as TSI. In addition, each state determines the criteria by which schools may exit ATSI status as long as those exit criteria ensure continued progress to improve student academic achievement and school success.
The overall approach to TSI and ATSI identification should reflect the state’s theory of action and overall intended outcomes. To clarify the state’s theory of action, see Module 1: Theory of Action.
This module includes three sets of self-reflection prompts that are intended to address the following concepts for the TSI and ATSI school-identification component within the larger state’s accountability system. These three steps are not intended to be discrete; instead, they are intended to work together to help you answer questions in the next sections of this module.
Table 5: TSI and ATSI Schools
|Section||What is it?||Why is it important?||How should it be used?|
|Articulate the Rationale Behind the TSI and ATSI School Identification Methodologies||A description of why the TSI and ATSI identification methodologies are designed the way they are||It is important to develop a message that can be used for multiple audiences to describe the “what” and “why” behind TSI and ATSI identification to communicate effectively about school identification.||The rationale asks you to describe the expected policy objective, behavioral intent, and expected results associated with TSI and ATSI identification. This rationale can be used as a point of comparison for examining the results of school identification and will help you understand where the rationale may be misunderstood.|
|Consider Stakeholder Perceptions of the Rationale for Identifying TSI and ATSI Schools||A reflection on whether stakeholders understand the rationale behind the TSI and ATSI identification methodology that can help identify possible areas that may be misinterpreted or misunderstood by the public||Determining what assumptions or connections require more clarification can help minimize the public’s misunderstanding and help prioritize resources to support communication efforts.||The stakeholder perceptions section asks you to think about your rationale as an outsider. To what degree will stakeholders understand this rationale? How public is its supporting documentation? How might people interpret, use, or misinterpret school identification? This may help you identify what areas may need additional explanation and determine whether additional communication is necessary.|
|Assess Confidence in Operations and Results of Identifying TSI||Based on your rationale and potential risk, an examination of your level of confidence that TSI and ATSI design decisions are sound and evidence supports your assumptions||Determining your overall confidence in the results and presentation of the TSI and ATSI methodology can help you determine where to collect evidence, make system revisions, or develop outreach materials.||The confidence in operations and results section will assist you in identifying potential evidence that can help confirm your rationale regarding how state and local report cards are designed and delivered. Determining your overall confidence in the results and presentation of the TSI and ATSI methodology can help you determine where to collect evidence, make system revisions, or develop outreach materials.|
To get started, click on the link below: