An analysis of federal data has revealed a significant increase in the number of students attending schools designated for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) between the 2019-20 and 2022-23 academic years. This trend, detailed in a recent report, indicates a shifting landscape in federal school improvement initiatives and raises questions about the effectiveness and implementation of support systems for struggling educational institutions. The findings suggest that a substantial portion of this growth is attributed to schools transitioning from other improvement categories, particularly those needing Additional Targeted Support and Improvement (ATSI).
The report, released on March 18, 2026, by K12 Dive and authored by Kara Arundel, draws upon data collected by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). The analysis underscores the complex nature of identifying and supporting schools facing academic challenges, highlighting the intricate pathways schools navigate within federal accountability frameworks.
Understanding School Improvement Designations
Federal education law, primarily the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), mandates that states identify and provide support to schools that are not meeting performance targets. Two key categories of intervention are CSI and ATSI schools. CSI schools are typically those performing in the bottom 5% of all Title I schools in the state, or those with graduation rates below 67%. ATSI schools, on the other hand, are identified when specific student subgroups (such as students with disabilities, English learners, or those from low-income backgrounds) fail to meet state-determined targets for academic achievement, graduation rates, or other indicators.
The recent analysis indicates a growing proportion of students are now within the CSI designation. This rise is largely a consequence of schools failing to exit ATSI status within the timeframe set by their respective states. When a school does not demonstrate sufficient progress to move out of ATSI status, it can be subsequently reclassified as a CSI school, thereby increasing the overall CSI student population. This cascade effect suggests that the interventions provided to ATSI schools may not always be sufficient or timely enough to prevent further escalation of improvement needs.
A Shifting Landscape of School Support
The period under review, 2019-20 to 2022-23, was marked by unprecedented disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This disruption led to widespread waivers from federal accountability requirements for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 academic years. States were granted the flexibility to decide whether to count these years toward the state-determined number of years required for a school to exit improvement status. This decision-making power by states introduced a degree of variability in how quickly schools could move through improvement cycles.
The GAO report highlights that a significant percentage of schools initially identified for CSI in 2019-20 had managed to exit this status by 2022-23. Specifically, 46% of these schools achieved this milestone. However, the analysis also reveals disparities in the ability to exit improvement status. Larger and medium-sized schools appeared to have a higher likelihood of exiting CSI compared to their smaller counterparts. Conversely, schools with a greater proportion of students from low-income families faced greater challenges in meeting the criteria for exiting CSI. This finding aligns with broader research that often links socioeconomic factors to educational outcomes and the resources available to support struggling schools.
The pathway to exiting CSI status is multifaceted. Beyond meeting general state criteria, schools must also demonstrate consistent progress in student outcomes. The report implies that the criteria for exiting ATSI status, if not met, directly contribute to the pool of CSI schools, underscoring the critical importance of effective ATSI interventions.
Factors Influencing CSI Identification
The GAO’s comprehensive analysis identified several key factors that correlated with an increased likelihood of a school being designated as a CSI school. While state approaches to identifying and supporting school improvements vary, common threads emerged from the data.
One significant factor identified was the student-teacher ratio. Schools with higher student-teacher ratios demonstrated an increased probability of being labeled as CSI schools. Specifically, the study indicated that a student-teacher ratio with an additional five students per teacher was linked to a 2% increase in the odds of a school being identified for CSI. This suggests that larger class sizes may strain resources and impact the individualized attention students receive, potentially hindering academic progress.
Furthermore, the percentage of students from certain demographic groups also played a role. Schools with higher percentages of students who are English learners, students with disabilities, and students from low-income backgrounds were more likely to be identified for CSI. This finding reinforces the federal government’s commitment to addressing achievement gaps among vulnerable student populations.
Geographic location and school size also emerged as influential factors. Suburban schools were found to be less likely to be identified as CSI schools when compared to urban schools. This disparity could be attributed to a range of factors, including differences in funding, resource allocation, and the concentration of specific student populations. Similarly, large schools exhibited lower odds of being identified for CSI than small schools. This might suggest that larger schools, potentially with more diverse resources and specialized staff, are better equipped to manage and address improvement needs.
Strategies for Exiting CSI Status
The report also sheds light on strategies that have proven effective for schools aiming to exit CSI status. While the specific interventions are tailored by states, the study identified six key strategies that were commonly employed by schools that successfully moved out of CSI. These strategies often involve a combination of data-driven instruction, targeted academic interventions, professional development for educators, and enhanced family and community engagement.
Schools that have exited CSI status often demonstrate a commitment to:
- Data-Driven Decision Making: Utilizing student performance data to identify specific areas of weakness and tailor instructional approaches accordingly. This involves frequent assessment and analysis to monitor student progress and adjust teaching strategies in real-time.
- Targeted Academic Interventions: Implementing specialized programs and support systems for students who are struggling in core academic areas. This can include tutoring, small-group instruction, and the use of research-based intervention curricula.
- Enhanced Professional Development: Providing educators with ongoing training and support focused on effective instructional practices, classroom management, and strategies for supporting diverse learners. This often includes peer coaching and opportunities for collaborative learning among teachers.
- Strong Leadership and School Culture: Fostering a positive and supportive school environment where all stakeholders are committed to student success. Effective school leaders play a crucial role in setting a clear vision, motivating staff, and allocating resources strategically.
- Family and Community Engagement: Building strong partnerships with parents and the wider community to create a unified support system for students. This can involve regular communication, parent workshops, and opportunities for community involvement in school activities.
- Curriculum Alignment and Rigor: Ensuring that the curriculum is aligned with state standards and provides rigorous learning experiences for all students. This includes a focus on critical thinking, problem-solving, and college and career readiness.
Financial Investment and Future Implications
The federal government allocates substantial resources to support schools identified for improvement. In fiscal year 2024, an estimated $1.29 billion in Title I funds was earmarked to assist schools designated for support and improvement. These funds are intended to enable schools to develop and implement comprehensive plans aimed at improving student outcomes.
The GAO’s analysis is part of a larger series of reports requested by Congress to provide insights into federal school improvement efforts. The methodology for this particular report involved an extensive review of federal data, including data from the Urban Institute’s Model Estimates of Poverty in Schools. Researchers also conducted in-depth interviews with state-level education officials from Georgia, Ohio, and Virginia, as well as educators from eight school districts and 14 individual schools within those states. This multi-faceted approach aimed to provide a robust and nuanced understanding of the challenges and successes associated with school improvement initiatives. The research phase for this report spanned from October 2024 to March 2026.
The increasing number of students in CSI schools underscores the persistent challenges in ensuring equitable educational opportunities for all students. While federal funding and accountability frameworks are in place, the analysis suggests that ongoing evaluation and refinement of support strategies are necessary. The disparities observed in exiting improvement status, particularly concerning socioeconomic factors and school demographics, highlight the need for targeted interventions that address the root causes of academic underperformance. As states continue to navigate the complexities of ESSA implementation, the findings from this GAO report provide critical data for informing policy decisions and resource allocation aimed at elevating the performance of all schools. The long-term implications of these trends will undoubtedly shape the future of educational equity and student success across the nation.
