The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) offers states increased flexibility in how they identify, rank, label, and support underperforming schools. Initial reviews of state ESSA plans, however, suggest that identification and labeling policies have remained relatively unchanged. In this study, we analyze all state ESSA plans to systematically determine how states’ identified Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools and the criteria they set for those schools to exit CSI status. We describe our findings through the theory of institutional isomorphism, noting the many ways states responded similarly to ESSA. We close by considering what the lack of innovation in response to ESSA flexibility might mean for the future of educational policy and the implications for schools identified as underperforming.
AldemanC.HyslopA.MarchitelloM.O’Neal SchiessJ.PenningtonK. (2017). An independent review of ESSA state plans. Bellwether Education Partners. https://tinyurl.com/2kgmgcem
4.
AronsonB.MurphyK. M.SaultzA. (2016). Under pressure in Atlanta: School accountability and special education practices during the cheating scandal. Teachers College Record, 118(14), 1–26.
5.
BowenG. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
6.
BradshawC. P.MitchellM. M.LeafP. J. (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300709334798
7.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. SAGE.
8.
BrownC. G. (2017). From ESEA to ESSA: Progress or regress? In HessF. M.EdenM. (Eds.), The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): What it means for schools, systems, and states (pp. 153–169). Harvard Education Press.
9.
ChuY. (2019). What are they talking about when they talk about equity? A content analysis of equity principles and provisions in each state Every Student Succeeds Act plans. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27, 158. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4558
10.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L.DiazR. A. (2004). Do school accountability systems make it more difficult for low-performing schools to attract and retain high-quality teachers?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(2), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20003
11.
Cook-HarveyC. M.Darling-HammondL.LamL.MercerC.RocM. (2016). Equity and ESSA: Leveraging educational opportunity through the Every Student Succeeds Act. Learning Policy Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606773.pdf
12.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). SAGE.
13.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2017). Understanding federally required education policy needs assessments and maximizing their impact. Author.
DeeT. (2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus (NBER Working Paper No. 17990). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://tinyurl.com/zxtrw66m
17.
Delaware Department of Education. (2019). Delaware’s consolidated state plan. Author. https://tinyurl.com/4yv4k4fr
18.
DiamondJ. B.SpillaneJ. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00375.x
19.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
20.
District of Columbia Office of the Superintendent. (2017). District of Columbia consolidated state plan. Author.
21.
EdmondsR. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–24.
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, P.L. 114-95, 114, Stat. 1177 (2015).
24.
Executive Office of the President. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act: A progress report on elementary and secondary education. Author. https://tinyurl.com/xzw7ds2z
25.
FalabellaA. (2014). The performing school: The effects of market & accountability policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(70), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n70.2014
26.
FalabellaA. (2020). The ethics of competition: Accountability policy enactment in Chilean schools’ everyday life. Journal of Education Policy, 35(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2019.1635272
27.
FiglioD. N.RouseC. E. (2006). Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools?Journal of Public Economics, 90(1–2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.08.005
28.
FirestoneW. A.SchorrR. Y.MonfilsL. F. (2004). The ambiguity of teaching to the test: Standards, assessment, and educational reform. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29.
FischerC.FishmanB.DedeC.EisenkraftA.FruminK.FosterB.LawrenzF.LevyA. J.McCoyA. (2018). Investigating the relationships between school context, teacher professional development, teaching practices, and student achievement in response to a nationwide science reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72, 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.011
30.
FlórezM. T.RozasT. (2020). Accountability from a social justice perspective: Criticism and proposals. Journal of Educational Change, 21(1), 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09361-3
31.
FreyB. (2018). Document analysis. In Frey’sB. (Ed.) The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (Vols. 1–4). SAGE.
32.
FusarelliL. D.KowalskiT.PetersenG. J. (2011). Distributive leadership, civic engagement, and deliberative democracy as vehicles for school improvement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10, 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700670903342392
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
GreanyT.HighamR. (2018). Hierarchy, markets and networks. Analysing the self-improving school-led system: Agenda in England and the implications for schools. UCL Institute of Education Press.
37.
HanushekE. A.RaymondM. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20091
38.
Hawaii Department of Education. (2017). Hawaii’s consolidated state plan. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/i578hkxx
39.
HeiligJ. V.Darling-HammondL. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75–110. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708317689
40.
HittD. H.MeyersC. V. (2018). Beyond turnaround: A synthesis of relevant frameworks for leaders of sustained improvement in previously low-performing schools. School Leadership & Management, 38(1), 4–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1374943
41.
HoxbyC. (2005, Summer). Inadequate yearly progress: Unlocking the secrets of NCLB. Education Next, 5(3), 46–51.
42.
HsiehH.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
43.
HutchinsonJ. (2016). School inspection in England: Is there room to improve?EPI.
44.
HyslopA. (2018). Analysis: Even with newfound power under ESSA, states will not see equal success when it comes to education—And will need serious help to raise the floor. The 74 Million. https://tinyurl.com/yehwdfrb
IshimaruA. M. (2020). Just schools: Building equitable collaborations with families and communities. Teachers College Press.
49.
KhalifaM. A.GoodenM. A.DavisJ. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
50.
KimJ. S.SundermanG. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Education Researcher, 34(8), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034008003
51.
KrippendorfK. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE.
52.
LaddH. C.GlennieE. J. (2001). A replication of Jay Greene’s voucher effect study using North Carolina data. In Carnoy’sM. (Ed.), Do school vouchers improve student performance?Economic Policy Institute.
LyonsS.D’BrotJ.LandlE. (2017). State systems of identification and support under ESSA: A focus on designing and revising systems of school identification. Council for Chief State School Officers. https://tinyurl.com/vkwxjcbh
55.
MannaP. (2010). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. CQ.
56.
MarionS. (2019). Being innovative under ESSA’s innovative assessment demonstration authority. National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. https://tinyurl.com/ewa3szyr
57.
MarshL. T.NogueraP. (2018). Beyond stigma and stereotypes: An ethnographic study on the effects of school-imposed labeling on Black males in an urban charter school. The Urban Review, 50, 447–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0441-x
58.
Maryland State Department of Education. (2018). Maryland’s consolidated state plan. Author. https://tinyurl.com/2gw2z4vs
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
62.
MeyersC. V.VanGronigenB. A. (2021). Planning for what? An analysis of root cause quality and content in school improvement plans. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(4), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2020-0156
63.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. SAGE.
64.
MintropH.MacLellanA. M. (2002). School improvement plans in elementary and middle schools on probation. Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1086/499704
65.
MintropH.MacLellanA. M.QuinteroM. F. (2001). School improvement plans in schools on probation: A comparative content analysis across three accountability systems. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969299
66.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2019). Missouri’s consolidated state plan. Author. https://tinyurl.com/z2uotxmj
67.
MonkD. H. (2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. The Future of Children, 17(1), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2007.0009
68.
Munoz-ChereauB.GonzálezA.MeyersC. V. (2020). How are the ‘losers’ of the school accountability system constructed in Chile, USA, and England?Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1851593
69.
Munoz-ChereauB.ThomasS. (2016). Educational effectiveness in Chilean secondary education: Comparing different “value added” approaches to evaluate schools. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 23(1), 26–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1066307
70.
MurphyJ.MeyersC. V. (2008). Turning around failing schools: Leadership lessons from the organizational sciences. SAGE.
OzgaJ. (2016). Trust in numbers? Digital education governance and the inspection process. European Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904115616629
79.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.
80.
PenuelW.MeyerE.ValladaresM. R. (2016). Making the most of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)—Helping states focus on school equity, quality and climate. National Education Policy Center. Author. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED578780.pdf
81.
PetersonP. E.WestM. R. (2003). No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability. Brookings Institution Press.
82.
PlacierM. L. (1993). The semantics of state policy making: The case of “at risk.”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(4), 380–395. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164536
RebackR. (2008). Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6), 1394–1415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.05.003
85.
SaldañaJ. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.
86.
SawG.SchneiderB.FrankK.ChenI.KeeslerV.MartineauJ. (2017). The impact of being labeled as a persistently lowest achieving school: Regression discontinuity evidence on consequential school labeling. American Journal of Education, 123(4), 585–613. https://doi.org/10.1086/692665
87.
ShentonA. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
SunM.SaultzA.YeY. (2017). Federal policy and the teacher labor market: Exploring the effects of NCLB school accountability on teacher turnover. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2016.1242506
VanGronigenB. A.MeyersC. V.BrandtW. C. (2020, November). Helping every student succeed? State education agency roles and responsibilities for improving underperforming schools [Paper Presentation]. Annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration. (Virtual).
West Virginia Department of Education. (2018). West Virginia’s consolidated state plan. Author. https://tinyurl.com/3c5klp2w
95.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2017). Wisconsin’s consolidated state plan. Author. https://tinyurl.com/1x08y6zg
96.
ZinsJ. E.EliasM. J. (2007). Social and emotional learning: Promoting the development of all students. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17(2–3), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410701413152
