District outlines state identification process for underperforming schools; district stresses coaching and tutoring supports
Loading...
Summary
At the Dec. 17 Savannah‑Chatham County Board of Education meeting, district staff explained Georgia’s CSI/TSI/ATSI identification process, described district‑level coaching and tutoring interventions, and provided per‑school allocation amounts for identified schools.
At an informal Dec. 17 meeting of the Savannah‑Chatham County Board of Education, district staff gave the board a detailed briefing on Georgia Department of Education school identification categories — comprehensive support and improvement (CSI), targeted support and improvement (TSI) and additional targeted support (ATSI) — and described how the district is using targeted coaching and tutoring to try to move schools off those lists.
A district presenter explained that CSI uses a staged, multi‑component process tied to content mastery, progress/closing gaps and readiness and that CSI identification is determined on a three‑year cycle. "Comprehensive support and improvement is what CSI" the presenter said, asking that acronyms be spelled out for public materials. The presenter added that, for high schools, a 4‑year adjusted cohort graduation rate below 67% will automatically trigger CSI identification under state rules.
District leadership emphasized local interventions meant to accelerate improvement. "We have identified specific interventions around strong instructional leadership coaching, as well as teaching coaching, using high dosage tutoring," said a district leader describing the differentiated support plan, which also includes frequent classroom observation, principal coaching and targeted instructional resources.
Board members pushed for detail on the consequences of repeated designation. A district official said the state has not finalized specific sanctions but listed possible actions that the state or authorizers could take after prolonged underperformance, including continued interventions, removal of personnel, charter or state operation of a school, full reconstitution of staff, or other restructuring measures.
Funding for identified schools was addressed later in the meeting. District staff stated the current allocations are $150,000 for CSI tier‑4 schools, $75,000 for CSI schools, $75,000 for ATSI schools and $50,000 for TSI schools and offered to provide the underlying allocation formula to the board.
Board members and district staff cautioned that identification is relative to statewide performance. "This performance ... is relative to other schools in the state," one board member said, noting local gains could be offset if other districts improve faster.
The presentation concluded with an emphasis on data‑driven monitoring: the district uses MAP universal screeners, DRC Beacon benchmarks, and quarterly 45‑day principal plans to track subgroup progress and adjust interventions in real time. District leaders said they are coordinating state and district site visits to present consistent feedback to principals.
The board asked for follow up details about allocation formulas and more granular evidence behind observation percentages; district staff committed to providing that information.
The briefing did not include formal votes; it was an informational presentation under the meeting’s informal agenda.
