1 

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Issue Brief: Student Support Teams

January 2017

Introduction

In 2014–15, the high school graduation rate reached a record high of 83 percent (U.S. Department of 

Education 2016). Despite the gains, over half a million students still drop out of high school each year 

(U.S. Department of Education 2015). High schools have adopted various strategies designed to keep 

students who are at risk of not graduating in school and on track for earning the credits required to 

graduate. “At-risk” students are defined as those failing to achieve basic proficiency in key subjects or 

exhibiting behaviors that can lead to failure and/or dropping out of school. Dropout prevention 

strategies are diverse; they vary in type of program, services offered, frequency, intensity, and duration 

of contact with target students. 

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) sponsored the National Survey on High School 

Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students Graduate (HSS), which aimed to provide descriptive 

information on the prevalence and characteristics of dropout prevention strategies for at-risk students. 

The survey collected data in the 2014–15 school year from a nationally representative sample of 2,142 

public high schools that focused on 13 specific high school improvement strategies1 identified by a panel 

of external experts and senior Department officials. This brief on student support teams is the third in a 

series of briefs being released this year with key findings about the high school improvement strategies.

Definition of Student Support Teams

The HSS defined student support teams (SST) as a team of high school staff dedicated to identifying and 

supporting students who exhibit academic or behavioral problems by providing early systematic 

assistance to students and to connect them to appropriate interventions and supports. This strategy had 

its origins in efforts to identify and then serve students who had a disability and required special 

education and related services, but it can have a broader purpose of focusing on students who are at 

risk of dropping out of school. Student support teams can be used to provide support to specific

students who are struggling in school, or they can be implemented as a schoolwide strategy for all 

students. High schools can offer different supports through SSTs that may include monitoring student 

progress, developing intervention plans, referring students to intervention services (e.g., reading or 

math specialist, counseling, intensive case management), and implementing increasing tiers of schoolbased intervention services. Some student supports2 identified in the HSS have a more rigorous 

evidence base, and those are discussed in the next section.

 

1 The survey examined 13 strategies designed to improve high school outcomes for at-risk students. These strategies are: (1) 

academic support classes, (2) academic tutoring, (3) accelerated academic programs, (4) career-themed curriculum, (5) case 

manager, (6) competency-based advancement, (7) credit recovery, (8) early warning systems, (9) mentoring, (10) middle to 

high school transitions, (11) personalized learning plans, (12) social services, and (13) student support teams. See 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports-high-school.html for the series of briefs. 2 See Exhibit 3 and the Appendix (survey question 81) for the specific supports examined in the survey.
2 

Research on Student Support Teams

Student support teams can take on different roles and responsibilities for supporting the needs of 

students at risk of dropping out of high school. While SSTs as a whole have not been studied rigorously 

as an individual strategy, there is evidence on the efficacy of monitoring student progress and 

implementing increasing tiers of school-based intervention services. That research is summarized briefly 

below. 

Monitoring student progress. Research has identified early indicators of student progress such as

attendance, behavior, and course performance — the ABCs — as powerful predictors of high school 

completion (Bruce et al. 2011). An Institute of Education Sciences practice guide identified moderate 

evidence associated with the use of ABCs and recommended that educators use ABC data to 

prevent students from dropping out of high school (Dynarski et al. 2008). This research has informed 

the type of data that student support teams can use to identify at-risk students, monitor student

progress, and provide the necessary supports to keep students on track. 

Increasing tiers of school-based intervention services. Tailoring interventions to students through

tiers of services, sometimes referred to as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) or

Response to Intervention (RTI), is a framework used in schools to provide research-based academic 

and behavioral instruction and intervention in increasing frequency and intensity (Kamil et al. 2008). 

One quasi-experimental study found that PBIS reduced problem behaviors in high schools (Flannery, 

Fenning, Kato, and McIntosh 2014). Another quasi-experimental study found there were benefits to 

using the RTI framework as it improved the reading outcomes for struggling high school students

(Englert and Mariage 1991).

Survey Findings on Student Support Teams

This brief describes the prevalence of student support teams as a high school dropout prevention 

strategy. This brief does not measure the effectiveness of the strategy but instead describes the kinds of 

schools that offer SSTs and the different approaches to SST implementation. This analysis included an 

examination of four school characteristics: (1) size, (2) poverty, (3) locale, and (4) graduation rate. Only 

statistically significant differences within a school characteristic (at p < .05) are discussed; nonstatistically significant differences are not reported. School characteristics were defined in the following 

ways: 

School size. School size categories consisted of small schools (fewer than 500 students), medium 

schools (500–1,199 students), and large schools (1,200 or more students) based on 2013–14 

Common Core of Data (CCD) student enrollment data. 

School poverty. Poverty levels were based on 2013–14 free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) and total 

CCD school enrollment data. The poverty categories were low-poverty schools (below 35 percent 

students with FRPL), medium-poverty schools (35–49 percent with FRPL), and high-poverty schools 

(50 percent or more with FRPL).

School locale. School locale included three mutually exclusive locales from the CCD: rural schools, 

suburban/town schools, and city schools.
3

Graduation rate. School classification by graduation rate consisted of three categories: low

graduation rate (67 percent or lower graduation rate), medium graduation rate (68 to 89 percent 

graduation rate), and high graduation rate (90 percent or higher graduation rate).

Summary of Key Findings

• In 2014–15, nearly three quarters of all high schools nationwide (71 percent) had student

support teams to assist at least some students. The prevalence of student support teams varied

by school locale and size, with city schools more likely than suburban or rural schools to have

student support teams and large schools more likely than small schools to have student support

teams.

• About one out of every six high school students received direct assistance through a student

support team (17 percent).

• Student support teams primarily identified students in need of assistance on the basis of

academic performance (92 percent), behavior challenges (85 percent), or attendance issues 

(82 percent), although staff referrals were also used (74 percent).

• The most commonly reported supports were monitoring student progress (94 percent) and

creating tailored intervention plans for students (90 percent). Student support teams often

referred students to intervention services such as reading or math specialists or case managers

(78 percent) and provided increasing tiers of school-based intervention services (73 percent).

What was the prevalence of student support teams and what type of schools had such teams? 

In 2014–15, nearly three-quarters of all high schools (71 percent) had SSTs to assist some or all students

in a school. The prevalence of student support teams varied by locale and school size (Exhibit 1). There 

were no statistical differences by school poverty or graduation rates. 

Exhibit 1. Percentage of high schools that offered student support teams 

by school locale and size, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: In 2014─15, 71 percent of all high schools had student support teams. 

*p < .05.

NOTE: The asterisk is placed on one case per comparison. Differences across school characteristics with two 

categories were based on comparisons between the two groups. Differences across school characteristics with three 

categories were based on goodness-of-fit across all three categories. 

Unweighted n = 1,925. 

SOURCE: HSS survey of high school administrators, 2015 (Question 75).
4 

Differences by school size. Large schools were more likely than small schools (85 percent versus 

66 percent) to have SSTs.

Differences by school locale. The majority of schools in each locale had SSTs, although city 

schools (81 percent) were more likely than suburban (74 percent) or rural schools (61 percent)

to have SSTs. 

How many students received assistance through student support teams? 

In 2014–15, an estimated one out of every six high school students nationwide (17 percent) received

assistance from an SST even though three quarters of all students (78 percent) attended a high school 

that offered SSTs, suggesting that while SSTs are in the majority of schools, extra direct assistance is not 

offered to all students in those schools.

How did high schools target students for inclusion in a student support team? 

High schools most frequently reported targeting students for inclusion in SSTs based on poor academic 

performance (92 percent), discipline issues (85 percent), attendance problems (82 percent), or staff 

referrals (74 percent) (Exhibit 2). 

Exhibit 2. Student subgroups or needs that high schools targeted for inclusion 

in a student support team, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: In 2014─15, 92 percent of high schools that had student support teams targeted students performing below 

standards for student support team assistance. 

NOTE: Respondents were able to mark “other” and specify categories that were not listed in the survey question. Three 

percent wrote in special education/IEP. When at least 1 percent provided the same response to the “other” category, the 

HSS included the response category. 

Unweighted n = 1,354. 

SOURCE: HSS survey of high school administrators, 2015 (Question 77).

What do student support teams do? 

High schools implemented their SSTs in several ways. The most commonly reported supports SSTs 

provided were monitoring student progress (94 percent), followed by creating tailored intervention 

plans for students (90 percent), referring students to intervention services such as reading or math 

1% 

3% 

17% 

18% 

23% 

27% 

74% 

82% 

85% 

92% 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All students

Special education/IEPs

Particular grade level

Performing above standards

Reentry students

English language learners

Referred by staff

Attendance issues

Discipline issues

Performing below standards
5

specialists or case managers (78 percent), and providing increasing tiers of school-based intervention 

services (73 percent) (Exhibit 3). The prevalence of these supports varied by school size, locale, and 

graduation rate; there were no statistical differences by school poverty.

Exhibit 3. Percentage of high schools reporting the types of supports provided by their 

student support teams, by school characteristics, 2014–15

Supports

All schools 

that 

offered Large Small City Suburban Rural

Low 

grad

High 

grad

Monitor student 

progress

94% 95% 94% 94% 95% 94% 94% 95%

Student intervention 

plans

90% 91% 89% 93%* 91% 86% 95%* 88%

Referrals to intervention 

services

78% 84%* 74% 77% 79% 78% 73%* 81%

Increasing tiers of 

school-based 

intervention services

73% 77%* 70% 75% 75% 68% 71% 73%

Exhibit reads: Among high schools that had a student support team in 2014─15, 94 percent monitored student progress; 

differences in the proportion of support teams in large and small schools that monitored student progress were not 

significant (95 percent compared with 94 percent).

*p < .05.

NOTE: The asterisk is placed on one case per comparison. Differences across school characteristics with two categories were 

based on comparisons between the two groups. Differences across school characteristics with three categories were based 

on goodness-of-fit across all three categories. 

Unweighted n = 1,362.

SOURCE: HSS survey of high school administrators, 2015 (Question 81).

Differences by school size. Large high schools were more likely than small high schools to refer 

students to intervention services (84 percent versus 74 percent) and to provide increasing tiers 

of school-based intervention services (77 percent versus 70 percent).

Differences by school locale. The proportion of schools with SSTs that created student 

intervention plans was highest in city schools (93 percent), followed by suburban schools (91 

percent) and rural schools (86 percent). 

Differences by graduation rate. Low-graduation-rate schools were more likely than highgraduation-rate schools to create student intervention plans (95 percent versus 88 percent) but 

less likely to refer students to intervention services (73 percent versus 81 percent). 

Which high school staff were members of a student support team? 

SSTs most often included school administrators (89 percent), regular classroom teachers (87 percent), 

school counselors (85 percent), and special education teachers (80 percent). Other staff involved in

student support teams were school psychologists (47 percent), intervention specialists (44 percent), and 

social workers (42 percent).

How often did student support teams meet?

There was considerable variation in how often SSTs met. The majority of SSTs met weekly (37 percent) 

or monthly (25 percent). Some reported meeting every other week (18 percent) or less than once a 
6 

month (13 percent). Fewer reported meeting daily (4 percent). Meeting frequency varied by school 

locale and graduation rate (Exhibit 4). 

Exhibit 4. Percentage of high schools reporting the frequency with which student support teams meet, 

by locale and graduation rate, 2014–15

Frequency

All schools 

that offered City Suburban Rural

Low 

graduation

High 

graduation

Daily 4% 5% 3% 3% 6%* 2%

Weekly 37% 44%* 40% 26% 46%* 34%

Every other week 18% 17% 17% 20% 17% 18%

Once a month 25% 21%* 23% 31% 20% 26%

Less than once a month 13% 10% 13% 15% 8%* 16%

Exhibit reads: Among high schools that had a student support team in 2014–15, 4 percent reported that teams met daily; 

differences in the proportion of support teams that met daily in city, suburban, and rural schools were not significant 

(5 percent, 3 percent, and 3 percent, respectively). 

*p < .05. 

NOTE: The asterisk is placed on one case per comparison. Differences across school characteristics with two categories were 

based on comparisons between the two groups. Differences across school characteristics with three categories were based on 

goodness-of-fit across all three categories.

Unweighted n = 1,355. 

SOURCE: HSS survey of high school administrators, 2015 (Question 82).

Differences by school locale. SSTs in city schools were more likely to meet weekly than SSTs in 

rural schools (44 percent versus 26 percent). SSTs in rural schools were more likely to meet once 

a month than SSTs in city schools (31 percent versus 21 percent).

Differences by graduation rate. SSTs in low-graduation-rate schools were more likely to meet 

on a weekly basis compared with SSTs in high-graduation-rate schools (46 percent versus 34 

percent). SSTs in low-graduation-rate high schools were also more likely to meet on a daily basis 

compared with SSTs in high-graduation-rate high schools (6 percent versus 2 percent). A greater 

percentage of SSTs in high-graduation-rate than low-graduation-rate schools met less than once 

a month (16 percent versus 8 percent).

How common is it to have more than one student support team? How are they organized? 

Two-fifths of high schools with SSTs reported having more than one team to provide support to all 

students identified as needing assistance (40 percent). The number of support teams varied by school 

size and locale.

Differences by school size. Large high schools (52 percent) were more likely than small schools 

(33 percent) to have more than one SST. 

Differences by school locale. City schools (47 percent) were more likely to have more than one 

SST than suburban schools (42 percent) or rural schools (32 percent).

High schools with more than one SST organized the teams to assist students in various ways. The 

majority (58 percent) reported the organization of SSTs was based on specific student needs, such as 
7 

those who are behind academically or exhibit behavioral problems. Almost half (46 percent) of the 

schools with more than one support team reported organizing teams by the type of intervention 

provided (academic or behavioral). Schools also organized teams by grade level (37 percent) and across 

grades (37 percent). 

Methodology

The National Survey on High School Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students Graduate was a survey 

of 13 high school strategies that are designed to improve graduation rates among students at risk of 

dropping out and was administered in the 2014–15 school year. The 13 strategies are: (1) academic 

support classes, (2) academic tutoring, (3) accelerated academic programs, (4) career-themed 

curriculum, (5) case manager, (6) competency-based advancement, (7) credit recovery, (8) early warning 

systems, (9) mentoring, (10) middle to high school transitions, (11) personalized learning plans, (12) 

social services, and (13) student support teams.

The purpose of the survey was to inform education practitioners and policymakers about the 

prevalence, characteristics, and students served by these strategies in U.S. public high schools. The 

descriptive study did not measure the effectiveness of particular strategies but instead examined 

implementation factors in high schools across the country. The study team identified the 13 strategies 

and designed survey items for each strategy with input from a panel of external experts in the field and 

senior Department officials. 

The researchers selected a nationally representative sample of high schools3 using a random sampling 

approach, stratifying high schools based on graduation rate (from EDFacts)

4 and locale code (from NCES 

2013–14 Common Core of Data). The survey collected data from high school principals (or designees 

knowledgeable about programs and strategies) at sampled schools. The survey response rate was 

90 percent. The survey responses, after cleaning and processing, were analyzed in SAS and Stata using 

descriptive techniques that apply the appropriate statistical population weights to account for 

stratification by graduation rate and locale. 

Results reported in this brief reflect the full survey sample unless otherwise noted and are 

representative of U.S. public high schools nationwide. References in the text to differences between 

 

3

 All U.S. public high schools providing instruction to 12th grade students in the fall of 2010 were included in the sampling 

frame unless (1) the lowest offered grade was 11th grade or higher, (2) there were fewer than five students in grades 9 

through 12, (3) the percentage of students enrolled in grades 9 through 12 was under 20 percent of the total school 

enrollment and the total number of students in grades 9 through 12 was fewer than 20, or (4) the school name contained 

one of nine keywords indicating juvenile detention center or hospital. Of the 103,813 total schools listed in the 2010–11 CCD, 

22,447 high schools met the criteria to be included in the sampling frame. 4

 There were 3,302 schools without graduation rate information in the EDFacts public use data set. The researchers used an 

imputation approach to assign these schools to either the high- or low-graduation-rate stratum. The imputation process 

began by examining the distribution of the High/Low graduation rate classification for the 19,145 schools by sampling locale.

The percentage of schools classified as high graduation rate was calculated separately for each locale sampling stratum; 

68.4 percent of rural schools were classified as high graduation rate, 63.0 percent of suburban schools were classified as high 

graduation rate, and 41.0 percent of city schools were classified as high graduation rate. The research team randomly 

assigned each of the 3,302 schools with unknown graduation rates to the high graduation rate stratum with probability 

68.4 if the school was classified as rural, with probability 63.0 if the school was classified as suburban, and with probability 

41.0 if the school was classified as urban. The sample size was adjusted upwards to account for potential misclassification 

due to this method. In analysis, the researchers used the restricted-use EDFacts data and graduation rates published on 

school and district websites to fill in this missing data.
8

subgroups based on sample data refer only to differences that are statistically significant using a 

significance level of 0.05. 

References

Dynarski, M., L. Clarke, B. Cobb, J. Finn, R. Rumberger, and J. Smink. 2008. Dropout Prevention: A 

Practice Guide (NCEE 2008-4025). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. 

Englert, C. S., and T. V. Mariage. 1991. “Making Students Partners in the Comprehension Process: 

Organizing the Reading ‘Posse.’” Learning Disability Quarterly 14(2): 123–38.

Flannery, K. B., P. Fenning, M. M. Kato, and K. McIntosh. 2014. “Effects of School-wide Positive 

Behavioral Interventions and Supports and Fidelity of Implementation on Problem Behavior in High 

Schools.” School Psychology Quarterly 29: 111-124.

Kamil, M. L., G. D. Borman, J. Dole, C. C. Kral, T. Salinger, and J. Torgesen. 2008. Improving Adolescent 

Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention Practices: A Practice Guide (NCEE 2008–4027). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for 

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 

2016. “Table 1. Public High School 4-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR).” 

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2014-15.asp. 

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 

2015. “Table 219.57. Population of 15- to 24-Year Olds Enrolled in Grades 10 through 12, Number 

Who Dropped Out (Event Dropouts), Percentage Who Dropped Out (Event Dropout Rate), and 

Percentage Distribution, by Selected Characteristics: 2014.” 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_219.57.asp.
9 

Appendix: Student Support Teams (Survey Excerpt)

National Survey on High School Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students Graduate

75. In the 2014-15 school year, does your school have student support teams?

(Please select only one)

{Only allow one selection} Yes No

 

77. Are any of the following subsets of students targeted for receiving a

student support team?

(Check all that apply)

Students with attendance issues (e.g., truancy) 

Students with discipline or behavioral issues 

Students performing below standards or grade level 

Students performing above standards or grade level 

Students in a particular grade level, regardless of performance 

Students recommended by high school staff (e.g., counselor or teacher) 

Reentry students 

English Language Learners 

Other

(Please Specify________________)



This section asks about Student Support Teams. For the purposes of this survey, a student support 

team is team of staff to support students who exhibit behavior or performance problems—an 

academic and/or behavioral intervention used to provide early, systematic assistance to students 

who are having difficulty in school (may be offered in a multi-tiered system of supports).
10

78. Does your school have more than one student support team? 

Please select only one.

{Only allow one selection} Yes No

 

79. How are your student support teams organized?

(Check all that apply)

By grade level 

Across grades 

By type of student need (e.g., behavior versus academic problem) 

By type of academic or behavioral intervention 

Convenience 

Other

(Please specify: ____________________)



80. Who is included on student support teams?

(Check all that apply)

Regular classroom teachers 

Special education teachers 

Intervention specialists (not a classroom or special education teacher) 

Instructional coaches 

School counselors 

School psychologists 

School administrators 

Social workers 

School nurse 

Other

(Please specify: ____________________)


11

81. What services do the student support teams provide?

(Check all that apply)

Implement increasing tiers of school-based intervention services 

Develop student intervention plans 

Monitor student progress 

Referrals to intervention services (e.g., reading or math specialist, counseling, 

intensive case management) 

Other

(Please specify: ____________________)



82. On average, how often do student support teams meet?

(Please select only one)

{Only allow one selection}

Daily 

Weekly 

Every other week 

Once a month 

Less frequently than once a month 

I don’t know 

The full survey is available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports-highschool.html