Welcome!
Thank you for reading the March issue of the TSI newsletter. We hope that this is a source of information and support for schools identified for targeted support and improvement (TSI) and additional targeted support and improvement (ATSI). In this edition you can read about addressing the identification of resource inequities in the TSI/ATSI addendum, math resources for exceptional education teachers and information about a WIDA webinar on aligning curriculums.
Addressing the Identification of Resource Inequities in the TSI/ATSI Addendum
One area of opportunity within the improvement planning process for schools identified for TSI, including additional targeted support and improvement (ATSI), is identifying and addressing resource inequities. While many schools provide thoughtful strategies for addressing needs, many could strengthen their planning by developing a robust process for identifying actual inequities.
The TSI/ATSI Addendum outlines three distinct elements of the identification process: a description of the process used to review resources, identification of inequities and an explanation of how those inequities will be addressed. In practice, many responses emphasize only the final step. Others discuss resources in general terms without explicitly considering people, time and money as separate but interconnected levers. To meet expectations, each of these components must be addressed explicitly and coherently.
First, schools should clearly describe the process used to review resource allocation and use. This goes beyond stating that data was reviewed. Strong responses name the structures and routines used to conduct the analysis. For example, schools might reference leadership team meetings, professional learning communities' (PLCs') discussions, budget reviews or scheduling audits. Also, they should indicate what data sources were used, such as staffing assignments, master schedules, intervention rosters or expenditure reports. The goal is to demonstrate that the review was systematic, collaborative and grounded in evidence rather than informal or assumed.
Second, schools must identify specific resource inequities that may contribute to underperformance. This requires moving from general statements to precise observations. For people, this might include disproportionate assignment of novice teachers to high-need student groups or limited access to specialized staff. For time, inequities may appear in the master schedule, such as reduced intervention time for certain student populations or inconsistent access to Tier I, Tier II or Tier III supports. For money, inequities might involve how funds are allocated across programs, materials or supports, including whether targeted funds are reaching the intended student groups. The key is to explicitly connect the inequity to the identified area of need rather than listing resources broadly.
Finally, schools should explain how identified inequities will be addressed in a way that is actionable and aligned to the broader improvement plan. This includes naming specific adjustments – such as reallocating staff, redesigning schedules or repurposing funds – and clarifying how those changes will improve access and outcomes for identified student groups. Strong responses also indicate how the effectiveness of these changes will be monitored over time.
It is important to remember that the comprehensive school improvement plan, including the TSI/ATSI Addendum, is a living document. Schools are not locked into their initial responses. As teams continue to analyze data and refine their work, this section can and should be revisited.
Strengthening the clarity of the process, sharpening the identification of inequities and tightening the alignment between need and response will not only improve the plan’s alignment to the rubric, but also will increase the likelihood that resources are being used in ways that directly support improved student outcomes.
Featured Spotlight School: Farristown Middle School
Farristown Middle School in Madison County offers a clear example of how strong culture and intentional systems can drive academic growth and student engagement. Serving approximately 450 students in grades 6-8, the school is grounded in two priorities: a positive school culture and high-level academics. This focus is reflected in both daily practices and outcomes.
A key strength at Farristown Middle School is the alignment between instruction and intervention. Teachers deliver grade-level content while using tiered structures to address learning gaps. Dedicated intervention time, tutoring during and after school and collaborative PLCs ensure student needs are identified and addressed. Staff have also developed student-friendly learning targets and emphasized engagement strategies such as Kagan structures and Building Thinking Classrooms to deepen understanding.
The school also prioritizes relationships and student support. Daily team check-ins, restorative practices and a refined behavior system known as SUCCESS provide consistent support for social-emotional and behavioral needs. Strong partnerships with families and the community extend these supports beyond the classroom.
Farristown Middle School has shown consistent growth, including a 7% increase in Proficient/Distinguished students in math and performance above other middle schools in the district. Their work demonstrates that when culture and systems are aligned, sustained improvement is achievable.
Whether you prefer an on-site tour or a virtual discussion, you'll find the contact information for arranging your experience on each Spotlight School's story card. For general inquiries about the Spotlight Schools program, please use the contact details in this newsletter.
|
