ESSA Planning Requirements

Related Resources

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires states to identify schools for Comprehensive (CS), Targeted (TS), or Additional Targeted (A-TS) Support and Improvement. Additionally, ESSA requires that identified schools develop and implement an improvement plan that addresses the reasons for the school’s identification and will result in improvement of student outcomes. Plan development, approval, and monitoring vary by identification categories.

The ESSA Improvement Plan Rubric is used to approve UIP's submitted by schools identified for Comprehensive Support and Improvement.

Webinar: ESSA Planning Requirements

Planning Requirements for Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools

CS plans must:

Be developed by the LEA in partnership with stakeholders, including the principal, other school leaders, teacher and parents of the school.
Be informed by student performance on accountability indicators. In Colorado, this currently refers to performance indicators on the School Performance Frameworks (i.e., English language arts and math achievement and growth, science achievement, and postsecondary workforce readiness).
Include evidence-based interventions.
Be based on a school-level needs assessment.
Address resource inequities.
Be approved by the school, LEA, and CDE.

CS Plan Submission and Approval Process and Monitoring:

CS plans should be documented within the school’s Unified Improvement Plan (UIP) and submitted through the Online UIP System.
The timeline for CS plan submission follows the typical UIP submission process: January for schools on the accountability clock (i.e., Priority Improvement, Turnaround) and April for all other schools. Any schools identified as CS that submit their UIPs in January, even if they have a Performance or Improvement plan type, will be reviewed and provided feedback by April 1.
CDE will use the ESSA CS plan embedded within the Quality Criteria to approve plans.
Once plans are approved, CDE is required to monitor implementation of and periodically review CS plans.
Once identified, schools will remain CS for three years.
Schools may exit this category after the third year, if they no longer meet the identification criteria for the year in which the school was identified and they not re-identified in the fourth year.
CDE has been and will continue to work with stakeholders to determine what actions will be necessary for any schools that do not meet the exit criteria.

Planning Requirements for Targeted and Additional Targeted Support and Improvement Schools

TS plans must:

Be developed by schools in partnership with stakeholders, including the principal, other school leaders, teachers and parents.
Be informed by student performance for identified disaggregated student group(s) on each accountability indicator that resulted in the school’s identification as TS.
Include evidence-based interventions to address areas of need.
For Additional TS schools only, address resource inequities.

TS Plan Approval and Monitoring:

The LEA determines the number of years a school can be identified for targeted support and improvement before taking additional action. LEAs are responsible for determining what that additional action should be.
LEAs are responsible for approving and monitoring TS plans. LEAs have the option to create their own document, however, Colorado’s UIP provides a convenient mechanism for capturing the specific ESSA requirements as it aligns well with required plan components. The UIP Quality Criteria includes TS requirements if LEAs choose to document TS plans within the UIP.

Crosswalk of ESSA School Improvement Planning Requirements within the UIP Process

Crosswalk of ESSA Planning requirements and UIP connection. Please see the bullets in the sections titled: Planning Requirements for Comprehensive Support and Improvement Schools and Planning Requirements for Targeted and Additional Targeted Support and Improvement Schools at http://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/essaplanningrequirements for an accessible version of this information

Evidence-Based Interventions

Evidence-Based Interventions (EBI) are practices or programs that have proven to be effective in leading to a particular outcome. The kind of evidence described in ESSA has generally been produced through formal studies and research. Under ESSA, there are four levels of evidence:

Evidence Tiers and Definitions

Tier 1: Strong Evidence -- Supported by one or more well-designed and well-implemented randomized control experimental studies
Tier 2: Moderate Evidence -- Supported by one or more well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental studies.
Tier 3: Promising Evidence -- Supported by one or more well-designed and well-implemented correlational studies (with statistical controls for selection bias).
Tier 4: Demonstrates a Rationale -- Practices that have a well-defined logic model or theory of action, are supported by research, and have some effort underway by an SEA, LEA or outside research organization to determine their effectiveness.

ESSA requires CS and TS plans to have strong, moderate, or promising evidence (Tiers 1- 3 of the above table) to support them. To ensure the best fit, selected strategies must also demonstrate an alignment to the contextual fit framework proposed by Horner, Blitz and Ross[1]:

Applicability (have a demonstrated record of effectiveness with the population being served)
Need (student and school system priorities)
Precision (clear definition of the proposed intervention)
Efficiency (reasonable adoption period, sustainable after grant period)
Skills (staff have the ability or will be trained to implement the strategy)
Cultural relevance (the intervention and its outcomes are valued by stakeholders)
Resources (time, funding, materials, staff)
Organizational support (district and school leaders are invested and involved)

EBI Resources

Gauging Strength of Evidence Using Clearinghouses

When exploring EBI resources, consider the strength of evidence. Each clearinghouse takes a slightly different approach to rating quality of research methodology and findings. For example, the What Works Clearinghouse uses a rating system of pluses (++) and minuses (- -) to signify statistical significance of findings and positive results (favorability). In contrast, the Blueprints Programs clearinghouse uses a rating system of “promising,” and “model” to signify strength of evidence. Always keep in mind that the best possible evidence-backing for a program, practice, or intervention is an experimental study, meeting ESSA Level I evidence.

Resources	Example Research Areas	Types of Studies Included	Information Provided
What Works Clearinghouse (Institute for Educational Science)	Academic Interventions Behavioral Management At-Risk Interventions Teacher Effectiveness Dropout Prevention	Experimental (RCTs) Quasi-Experimental	Intervention report and evidence snapshot pages provide sample size, setting, and student demographic breakdowns for each intervention.
Evidence for ESSA (Johns Hopkins University Center for Research and Reform in Education (CCRE))	Math and reading programs organized by two grade bands: elementary and middle/high school Categorizes interventions for whole class and struggling students	Experimental (RCTs) Quasi-Experimental Correlational	Provides estimated strength of research in alignment with ESSA Levels, as well as estimated cost of program, grades studied, student groups studied, and communities studied (e.g., urban, rural).
Results First Clearinghouse (PEW Charitable Trust)	Academic Interventions Behavioral Management Dropout Prevention Performance Management School Climate and Culture Extended Learning Time	Experimental (RTCs) Quasi-Experimental	This resource provides a one-stop-shop for accessing quality-rated research from a variety of existing clearinghouse, such as What Works, Social Programs That Works, etc. Color-codes studies according to strength of impact
Social Programs That Work (Laura and John Arnold Foundation)	Academic Interventions Dropout Prevention Tutoring Programs At-Risk Interventions School-Wide Reform	Experimental (RTCs)	Includes only high quality experimental studies. Provides summary of program evaluation methods, key findings, and takeaways.
Middle School Matters (George W. Bush Institute, The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risks)	Academic Interventions Behavioral Management Dropout Prevention Performance Management School Climate and Culture Extended Learning Time	Experimental (RCTs) Quasi-Experimental Correlational	Provides specific strategies grounded in research for school leaders and teachers. Synthesizes principles of evidence-based practices in a field guide covering grades 6, 7, and 8.
Campbell Collaboration	Behavioral Management Student Self-Regulation Dropout Prevention Bullying Prevention Family Engagement Tutoring Programs Schoolwide Strategies	Experimental (RCTs) Quasi-Experimental Meta-Studies	Provides systematic reviews and plain language summaries of research, summarizing all available high-quality evidence on a specific topic or question.
Blueprints Programs (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development)	Academic Interventions Behavioral Management Student Self-Regulation Dropout Prevention Bullying Prevention Family Engagement Tutoring Programs	Experimental (RTCs) Quasi-Experimental	Distinguishes between "model" programs and "promising" programs, based on evidence strength. Enables users to drill down to specific interventions, providing filters for program focus, target population, population specifics, and risk/protective factors.
National Center on Intensive Intervention	Academic Screening Tools Behavioral Screening Tools Progress Monitoring Tools Levels of Intervention and Evidence Academic Interventions Behavioral Interventions	Experimental (RCTs) Quasi-Experimental Correlational	Provides research quality ratings of RTI screening, progress monitoring, and academic intervention tools.
Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) (Institute of Educational Sciences)	Academic Interventions Behavioral Management Student Self-Regulation Dropout Prevention Bullying Prevention Family Engagement Tutoring Programs	Experimental (RCTs) Quasi-Experimental Meta-Studies Qualitative	ERIC is a free, online library of education research, providing abstracts of research studies and some full-text documents.

Resources for Comprehensive Support Schools and Targeted Support Schools

Funds for CS and TS schools are available through CDE’s ESSA Application for School Improvement Funds (EASI). These funds are designed to enhance LEAs’ and schools’ ability to meet the ESSA requirements (e.g., stakeholder engagement, improvement plan, and implementation of evidence-based interventions) in a way that directly benefits students.

[1] Horner, R., Blitz, C., Ross, S. (June 2014) Investing in what works issue brief: The role of contextual fit when implementing evidence-based interventions. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes of Research.