CSI vs. TSI: How New York Identifies Schools for Improvement

New York State sorts its schools into a ladder of support models every year, and two of the most-discussed rungs are Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) and Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI). The short answer: CSI is the most intensive model in the state’s continuum and brings the most support directly from the State Education Department, while TSI is a narrower identification that is generally triggered by the performance of one or more student subgroups rather than by a schoolwide determination.

Both labels come from New York’s school accountability system under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Both are determined annually from multiple measures of student performance — not from a single test score or a single year of data — and both are published on the New York State School Report Card website.

Two rungs on the same ladder

New York’s accountability system uses what the State Education Department describes as a “scaffolded continuum” of support models, ranging from least to most intensive. The four models named in the state’s support model explainer are Local Support and Improvement (LSI), Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI), Additional Targeted Support and Improvement (ATSI), and Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI).

Two additional statuses sit alongside those four. Potential Targeted Support and Improvement (PTSI) is described by NYSED as a subgroup status under the LSI support model, and Receivership is a model a school may be identified for after at least three consecutive years of CSI identification, according to the state’s 2025–26 Accountability Status Report Guide.

Under federal law, New York must identify an appropriate support model every year for every school serving grades K–12. Those identifications rest on multiple measures, including assessment results and other indicators of student achievement, rather than on any single metric. Schools that do not meet the criteria for required state- or district-led support are identified for LSI.

CSI vs. TSI at a glance

The practical difference follows from that table. A TSI identification points to a specific group of students whose results need attention; a CSI identification points to the school as a whole. Because the continuum is designed so that more significant needs unlock more intensive support, CSI sits at the end that involves the greatest state involvement, while TSI is a step above baseline district-led support.

How the identification process works

1. The federal requirement sets the schedule. New York is federally required to identify a support model for every school serving grades K–12 each year, based on multiple measures of student performance.
2. The state makes determinations annually. According to NYSED’s 2025–26 guide, accountability status determinations are made for every school and district based on performance from the previous year. That means a determination labeled for one school year reflects the prior year’s results.
3. Preliminary results go to districts first. Preliminary determinations are shared with districts and charter schools in the fall.
4. Final results are published in the spring. Final determinations are published later in the spring on the New York State School Report Card website.
5. Schools that do not meet the criteria for required support are identified for LSI. LSI is the baseline, district-led end of the continuum.
6. Cut points decide where a school lands. NYSED’s annual status report guide includes a section on indicator-level cut points — the thresholds applied to each accountability indicator. The specific values are published in that guide rather than fixed permanently, so families checking a particular year should read the guide that matches the determination they are looking at.

An illustrative path through the continuum

The following scenario is invented to show how the labels relate to one another. It does not describe any real school, and it does not use real cut points or thresholds.

Imagine a middle school whose overall results are not low enough to trigger a schoolwide identification, but where one group of students — say, students with disabilities, or English language learners — has lagged for several years. That pattern could produce a TSI identification, because the concern is concentrated in a subgroup rather than spread across the whole school. If that subgroup’s performance were as low as the lowest-performing schools the state flags, the school could move to ATSI, which NYSED places between TSI and CSI on the continuum. If instead the school’s results across all students fell to the level the state uses to flag the most significant needs, the school could be identified for CSI — the model that brings the most support from the State and, after at least three consecutive years, the possibility of Receivership.

The point of the example is not the sequence itself but the logic: TSI and ATSI are about who is struggling within a school, while CSI is about the school as a whole.

What the labels do — and do not — tell you

An accountability status is a classification produced by applying thresholds to data. That makes it useful for triggering support, and limited as a description of a school.

• It is a threshold, not a score. Schools just above and just below a cut point can look very similar in practice, but end up with different labels.
• It reflects a specific measurement window. Determinations are made annually from the previous year’s performance, so a label describes a period rather than a permanent condition.
• Subgroup-based labels depend on group size. Because TSI and ATSI hinge on subgroup results, how many students are in a group matters. NYSED’s accountability documentation describes the group-size and reporting rules that apply; readers should consult that documentation rather than assume a subgroup was or was not counted.
• Identification is not a verdict on school quality. The continuum is a support mechanism. A CSI or TSI label means a school meets criteria for additional support, not that the state has rated it against other schools.
• Year-to-year comparisons need care. Before comparing a school’s status across years, check whether the criteria or cut points changed, and whether the same grades, subgroups, and indicators were included in both years.

Questions parents can ask

• What is my school’s current accountability status, and which year’s performance does it reflect?
• If the school is identified for TSI or ATSI, which subgroup or subgroups were identified, and what does the school’s plan do for them?
• If the school is identified for CSI, what does the improvement plan include, and how can families take part in it?
• Is the support being led by the district or by the State Education Department?
• Where can I read the final determination myself? (Final determinations are published on the New York State School Report Card website.)
• Has the school’s status changed from the previous year, and if so, what changed — the results, the criteria, or both?

Sources, dates, and limits

This article draws on two NYSED publications: the department’s public explainer on support model identifications, which describes the continuum and the multiple-measure approach, and the 2025–26 Accountability Status Report Guide, which describes how determinations are made and released and lists PTSI and Receivership alongside the four main models. Both were retrieved and checked on October 14, 2026.

The data period referenced here is the 2025–26 school year preliminary accountability status determinations, which NYSED states are based on performance from the previous year. The article does not reproduce the numeric cut points used to place schools in each model; those values appear in NYSED’s annual guide and should be read there for the specific year in question. Where this article describes how TSI and ATSI generally work within the federal ESSA framework, that description reflects the stable structure of the framework rather than a specific published threshold, and readers should confirm current-year criteria against NYSED’s documentation.

NYFERA is an independent reference project. It is not affiliated with, and does not speak for, the New York State Education Department or any school district.