The recent NAEP results show that the gap between the highest and lowest performing students continues to grow. The message from this is clear: our education system needs to do more to ensure all students have access to equitable learning opportunities. One critical piece of this work is identifying and supporting the improvement of the schools producing the lowest student outcomes.

Yet it’s clear that states are falling short in supporting districts for school improvement: less than 42% of schools identified for comprehensive supports had improvement plans that met all the requirements of the underlying Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and 1 in 5 plans included strategies known to be ineffective, Sen. Patty Murray said during this week’s hearing on the nomination of Linda McMahon to be U.S. secretary of education. Alarmingly, McMahon, when asked how she would implement ESSA to maintain federal guardrails in support of school improvement, said that although she had read the law, “I want to study it further and get back to you.”

Less than 42% of schools identified for comprehensive supports had improvement plans that met all the requirements of the underlying Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and 1 in 5 plans included strategies known to be ineffective

Thankfully, there are federal resources to help. just before the change in administration, the U.S. Department of Education recently released comprehensive guidance on school improvement, highlighting best practices while reinforcing state obligations to provide robust technical assistance and conduct thorough resource allocation reviews. In alignment with joint feedback we provided on the draft guidance in October, it provides clear direction on several crucial areas of school improvement including school identification processes, improvement planning requirements, state support mechanisms, exit criteria, and the strategic use of school improvement funds. And the guidance’s clear, actionable Q&A format makes it particularly valuable for advocates working to strengthen state-level policies and practices.

EdTrust’s Analysis of State Accountability Systems

We found that half of states aren’t using identification criteria for Targeted Support and Intervention (TSI) schools as an early warning system for Additional Targeted Support and Improvement (ATSI) status, those with persistent low performance with one or more student groups. Doing so helps ensure that schools are providing all students with access to high-quality learning opportunities, identifying schools with persistently low-performing individual student groups, even if they are doing well on average. This identification draws public attention to the needs of specific student groups and unlocks access to additional supports and resources designed to improve student outcomes. In alignment with EdTrust’s principles for equitable accountability systems, the guidance underscores the importance of using TSI as an early warning system provides clear examples of how states are doing this.

What Does the Guidance Say?

The guidance underscores the importance of both identifying and addressing resource inequities as a part of the school improvement process. It provides specific recommendations for defining ambiguous terms around which districts qualify for state-led resource allocation reviews and the need to consider resources beyond funding. Recent research shows that school improvement plans regularly fail to consider resource inequities, in part due to a lack of district capacity and state support and oversight, despite the need to mobilize the right combination resources if student outcomes are to improve. Importantly, the guidance pushes states to take a more active role in helping districts and schools address these inequities, rather than leaving them to solve these challenges independently.

It also includes detailed recommendations and links to external resources on how districts can address school-level resource inequities, touching on critical areas such as funding distribution, access to effective educators, advanced coursework opportunities, early learning programs, and support staff.

Finally, the guidance recommends numerous ways the states can better support schools and districts throughout the school improvement process. This includes consolidating funding applications for school improvement funds into a single application for all state-distributed funding and combining funding submissions with the submission of school improvement plans. Together these can lead to a more coherent planning process that allows schools and districts to consider how they can strategically use all of their resources, not just supplemental school improvement funds to better serve the students and schools with the most need.

Other strong state support recommendations include providing strong improvement plan templates and identifying evidence-based interventions that align with state priorities, while continuing to reinforce state monitoring and reporting requirements that can help ensure identified schools are improving and getting adequate support. Such supports ensure schools are adopting practices proven to improve student outcomes and identify when schools may need additional help with implementation or reevaluate their improvement strategies.

What Can State Advocates Do?

State advocates can take immediate action by reviewing both our accountability report and the federal guidance to consider specific areas where your state can strengthen its approach to school improvement. These resources offer concrete starting points for engaging state education agency leaders in substantive discussions about strengthening school improvement frameworks and implementation strategies. By leveraging these tools, advocates can help drive the development of more equitable, sustainable school improvement practices that create lasting positive change for all students.