You are here
ESSA Planning Requirements
- ESSA Methods and Criteria for Identification of Schools for Support and Improvement
- ESSA Planning Requirements
- ESSA Application for School Improvement (EASI)
- ESSA Improvement Plan Rubric - Updated September 2019
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.
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
Evidence-Based Interventions (EBI)
Evidence in education is continually evolving and expanding. Driven by growing K-12 research and requirements in federal education law, specifically the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), use of evidence-based practices among teachers, school leaders, and district personnel has become more common over recent decades. Evidence-based practices, and specifically evidence-based interventions (EBIs) as defined by ESSA, are crucial to improving student outcomes and closing gaps in student achievement.
ESSA defines an evidence-based intervention as an activity, strategy, or intervention that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes.
NEW! Recorded in December 2019, Federal Programs Unit staff --Senior Consultant Jeremy Meredith and Research Analyst Mary Shen—define “EBI”, discuss “levels of evidence” under ESSA, and step through three key contextual fit considerations when selecting EBIs.
Why are EBIs important?
- ESSA requires that at least one Level 1-3 EBI be incorporated into improvement plans where state set-aside funds for school improvement are used (e.g., funds or supports accessed via EASI application).
- ESSA also requires schools identified for Comprehensive Support or Targeted Support and Improvement to implement at least one EBI, Levels 1-4 in their improvement plans.
- It is a matter of equity to seek out and leverage strategies that have been shown to reliably improve students’ outcomes-- particularly for historically underserved students – where the EBI was designed for and its impact has been studied with the student populations to be served with the EBI.
ESSA Levels of Evidence
ESSA outlines four levels of evidence: (1) strong, (2) moderate, (3) promising, and (4) demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings (ESSA, Section 8101(21)(A)).
ESSA requires the use of at least one Level 1-3 EBI where Title I, Section 1003 school improvement funds are used (ESSA Section 8101(21)(A)). This requirement applies to both CDE-offered services and district initiatives supported by 1003 funds. Also, ESSA requires that schools identified as either Comprehensive Support (CS) or Targeted Support (TS) include at least one Level 1-4 EBI in their improvement plans (ESSA Section 1111(d)(1)(B)(ii) and Section 1111 (d)(2)(B)(ii)). More information on ESSA identification and planning requirements is provided here.
Levels 1-3 evidence must demonstrate a statistically significant and positive (favorable) effect of the intervention on a student outcome or other relevant outcome, and should not be contested by evidence from equally rigorous studies. Figure A provides more information on ESSA levels of evidence:
Figure A: ESSA Levels of Evidence
|Evidence Level||Study Design|
|(1) Strong Evidence||
Supported by an experimental or randomized control trial (RTC) study.
Experimental or RCT studies divide participants randomly into separate groups to measure the causal impact of an intervention on the “experiment” group compared to the “control” group. The experiment group receives the intervention, whereas the control group receives status-quo supports or another intervention.
|(2) Moderate Evidence||
Supported by at least one quasi-experimental study.Quasi-experimental studies also divide study participants into “experiment” and “control” groups, but they are not randomly assigned, often times due to ethical or practical constraints. However, through careful planning and rigorous data analysis, inferences can still be made about the causal effect of an intervention.
|(3) Promising Evidence||
Supported by at least one correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias.Correlational studies are conducted to identify non-causal associations or relationship between variables, such as whether participation in an intervention is associated with improved academic outcomes.
|(4) Evidence that Demonstrates a Rationale||
Supported by relevant research or an evaluation which suggests that the intervention is likely to improve a student outcome or other relevant outcome.Level 4 evidence provides LEAs with flexibility to develop or select new, promising approaches that are not yet supported by high-quality research on long-term impact.
Selecting EBIs – Key Considerations
When exploring available EBIs, three considerations –and related questions—are especially important; they address strength of evidence, fit of the intervention, and capacity to implement. These considerations should guide the effort to find solutions to local challenges.
The below CDE resources are topic- or grant-specific, but provide helpful information for selecting EBIs.
Exploring EBIs: Introduction to Research Clearinghouses - This web page outlines considerations for assessing evidence strength and provides a list of available research clearinghouses to explore evidence-based solutions in an easy, accessible way
Selecting EBIs: Using Contextual Fit to Choose the Right EBI for Your Context - While strength of evidence is necessary, it is not sufficient for identifying solutions that align with local contexts. This web page summarizes key considerations regarding fit and capacity and offers links to tools that can help guide thoughtful selection.
- Major Improvement Strategy Evidence Guides - The CDE Improvement Planning Team has assembled several Major Improvement Strategy (MIS) Evidence Guides. These resources outline what evidence says are the key components of MISs.
- CDE Advisory List of Providers -This resource provides a list of providers who have submitted information to CDE about their service, product, or intervention, and have demonstrated some level of evidence for positive impact.
- CDE List of Educational Service Providers: Diagnostic Review - This resource provides a list of providers who have submitted information to CDE about their diagnostic services, which have demonstrated some level of evidence-basis.
- Read ACT Advisory List - The READ Act requires the Department to identify quality reading instructional programs and professional development programs for use by local education agencies. This page includes information about providers and programs that have been identified through a review process.
 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.
Nazanin Mohajeri-Nelson, Ph.D.
Send an email to Nazanin
Title I School Improvement Coordinator
Send an email to Laura
ESEA Senior Consultant, Title II
Send an email to Jeremy