5Essentials

Product or Programme · All products and programmes
Evidence · 21 claims (21 for) · 11 studies (8 associational, 1 review, 1 qualitative, 1 design), q2 · 0 of 11 report an effect size · 20 claims rest on one study

Description

A school-improvement measurement framework developed by the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research that organizes school survey profiles around five domains and their related measures.

Components

• Essential supports framework for educational technology use in schools: A theory developed and tested in a previous Consortium report on educational technology availability and use in Chicago's public schools, holding that teacher assignment and student use of technology depend on factors beyond hardware and software availability. The brief states, "Chief among these were the professional development opportunities in technology for teachers and the professional community within the school supporting technology use," plus technology support staff and, most important, principal leadership for technology use. The Grow analysis applies this framework and finds its Grow findings "very similar" to the earlier technology findings. (John Q. Easton (2004))
• Five essential supports framework for urban school improvement: The Consortium's organizing framework for Chicago school improvement, based on broad research on urban school improvement. It "posits that improvements in student learning require effective school leadership, parental involvement, professional development and collaboration among teachers, a climate focused on student learning, and quality instructional programs." This report examines the fourth support, a student-centered learning climate, encompassing school safety and order, teachers' personal concern for students, and expectations for serious academic work, and synthesizes findings on four of the five supports as they relate to the city's lowest-performing schools. (Sebring et al. (1996))
• Five essential supports framework for organizing school improvement self-analysis: The report organizes survey results according to five essential supports for student learning: School Leadership; Parent and Community Partnerships; Student-Centered Learning Climate; Professional Development and Collaboration; and Quality Instructional Program. Each support involves a number of best practices, and for most practices one or two scales from student or teacher responses summarize the state of the practice in a school. The framework was deliberately tailored so individualized school reports could serve as a companion to a district self-analysis guide. (Sebring et al. (1995))
• Five essential organizational supports for improving student learning: The article reports a Chicago framework in which schools effective at improving student learning have strong organizational structures across five areas: "leadership, professional capacity, partnerships with parents and community, learning climate, and instruction." The framework treats the school as an organization whose supports, not just individual teacher skill, set the stage for instructional effectiveness and improvement in mathematics and reading. (Elaine Allensworth (2012))
• Five Essential Supports framework for organizing school improvement conditions: The report organizes all school survey profiles around five domains: school leadership, parent and community partnerships, student-centered learning climate, professional capacity, and quality of the instructional program. These five domains are frequently referred to as the Essential Supports for Student Learning, and the report states that schools strong in these supports are more likely to improve academically while weak schools are more likely to be non-improving. It emphasizes that it is the systemic blending of initiatives that makes a material difference in student learning, so profiles should be read in relation to one another. (Luppescu et al. (2001))
• Five Essential Supports for School Improvement (5Es) framework: The 5Es is a framework developed by the Consortium on Chicago School Research detailing what school leaders should attend to when improving schools. The article states it was "First developed in the mid-1990s" and that consortium studies "continued to elaborate the Five Essential Supports for School Improvement (5Es)". It still guides improvement efforts in Chicago and has been adopted by many other districts, functioning as a system-level map of the conditions school leaders must manage. (Sharon Greenberg et al. (2024))
• The Five Essential Supports framework organizes school climate measurement into five key components of student learning: The report organizes its school measures under an 'Overview of the Five Essential Supports and Corresponding Consortium Profiles and Measures' diagram listing five 'ESSENTIAL SUPPORTS' key components: School Leadership, Parent and Community Partnerships, Student-Centered Learning Climate, Professional Capacity, and Quality Instructional Program. Each support is subdivided into named measures such as Teacher-Principal Trust, Safety, Professional Community, and Quality of Student Discussion. Some measures are marked as applying only to elementary ('E') or high school ('H') teachers and students. (Luppescu et al. (2005))
• Five Essential Supports framework for organizing school improvement measures: The Consortium's framework holds that five domains—school leadership, parent and community partnerships, a student-centered learning climate, professional capacity, and quality of the instructional program—are "frequently referred to as the Essential Supports for Student Learning in improving student achievement." The report uses these supports as the organizing structure for school survey profiles, with each support described by a set of related measures such as trust, program coherence, and professional development. (Luppescu et al. (2003))
• School survey profiles comparing a school to demographically similar schools and system trends over time: The report's display format charts a school's score on each measure across five survey years alongside two reference trends. It "compares your school both to other schools that are demographically similar to yours, and to the Chicago public school system as a whole," with a gray box marking the middle two-thirds of schools and a star locating the school's standing. Time-trend data show whether reform efforts are improving, and trend bands distinguish somewhat from substantially above- or below-average reports. (Luppescu et al. (2003))

Claims

• Teachers' Grow use is strongly influenced by technology professional development, their own use of technology, and principal support for Grow [+M]
• Principal support for Grow predicts teacher Grow use above and beyond teacher demographics and technology factors [+M]
• Schools high on both personalism and academic press show substantially higher student academic engagement than schools high on either alone [+M]
• The Charting Reform surveys reached 266 elementary schools and 40 high schools in Chicago in Spring 1994 [+W]
• Teacher views of Local School Council contribution differ sharply between top and bottom quartile schools [+W]
• Students' reports of parental support for learning are far higher in top quartile schools, where two-thirds report moderate or very supportive parents [+W]
• Principal leadership regard is nearly unanimous in top quartile schools but low for about 40 percent of teachers in bottom quartile schools [+W]
• Most students, even in bottom quartile schools, report feeling mostly safe at school [+W]
• Teacher influence over school decisions is minimal or limited for most teachers in bottom quartile schools but extensive or moderate for most in top quartile schools [+W]
• Chicago school organizational supports (leadership, professional capacity, parent involvement) improved across eras, but instructional quality did not, and student-reported teacher support declined after 2005 [+W] — (also cited [~W])
• The five essential supports matter in combination: strength on clusters of supports, not isolated domains, predicts improvement [+W]
• Family voices contributed to differentiating strong and weak organizational conditions across all essentials, not only Involved Families [+W]
• Press And Personalism Together Related Achievement Gains [+M]
• Instructional Program Coherence Facilitates Improvement [+M]
• Chicago Public Schools improved dramatically between 1987 and 2017, with the biggest gains among students of color and low-income students [+M]
• Over two decades, Chicago teachers reported increasing program coherence and higher trust in their principals [+M]
• Teachers whose leaders prioritized at least one organizational capacity lever reported greater confidence and satisfaction with Skyline materials [+M]
• School leaders allocated resources to expand organizational capacity around adoption and implementation of the Skyline ELA curriculum in grades K-2 [+M]
• Student-reported safety and classroom behavior are more positive in top-quartile schools, and students feel less safe outside school than inside [+W]
• Teacher-parent interaction and trust are lower in bottom-quartile schools, and even top-rated schools show limited very strong trust [+W]
• Teacher-reported trust and influence vary sharply between top- and bottom-quartile schools on leadership measures [+W]
• Schools strong in the five essential supports are more likely to improve academically [+M]
• Principals in improving schools actively reach out to teachers, parents, and community leaders and coordinate programs strategically [+W]
• Program Coherence Facilitates Improvement Initiatives [+M]

Related Products and Programmes

-

Key Sources

• John Q. Easton, Stuart Luppescu. (2004). Teacher and Principal Responses to the Grow Network: A Preliminary Evaluation of Use in Chicago Public Elementary Schools. Consortium on Chicago School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/teacher-and-principal-responses-grow-network-preliminary-evaluation-use-chicago-public
• Sebring, P. B., Bryk, A. S., Roderick, M., Camburn, E., Luppescu, S., Thum, Y. M., Smith, B., & Kahne, J. (1996). Charting Reform in Chicago: The Students Speak. Consortium on Chicago School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/charting-reform-chicago-students-speak
• Sebring, P. A., Bryk, A. S., Luppescu, S., & Thum, Y. M. (1995). Charting Reform in Prairie School: Results of Student and Teacher Surveys. Consortium on Chicago School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/charting-reform-prairie-school-results-student-and-teacher-surveys
• Elaine Allensworth. (2012). Want to Improve Teaching? Create Collaborative, Supportive Schools. American Educator, Fall 2012. http://www.annenberginstitute.org/VUE
• Luppescu, S., Hart, H., Nagaoka, J., Easton, J. Q., & Sweeney, R. E. (2001). Pablo Neruda High School: Improving Chicago's Schools, 2001 Survey Report. Consortium on Chicago School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/improving-chicagos-schools-pablo-neruda-high-school
• Sharon Greenberg & Anthony S. Bryk. (2024). Change that matters: Progress made by Chicago Public Schools shows that successful change takes time, focus, and patience. Kappan, V105 N6. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/change-that-matters
• Luppescu, S., & Hart, H. (2005). Improving Chicago's Schools 2005 Survey Report: Details of Student and Teacher Responses. Consortium on Chicago School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/improving-chicagos-schools-sample-high-school-details-2005
• Luppescu, S., Hart, H., Jennings, S., & Dean, M. (2003). Torvalds Improving Chicago's Schools: 2003 Survey Report. Consortium on Chicago School Research. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/improving-chicagos-schools-torvalds
• Luppescu, S., Hart, H., Jennings, S., & Dean, M. (2003). Torvalds Improving Chicago's Schools: 2003 Survey Report. Consortium on Chicago School Research. http://www.consortium-chicago.org

Page metadata

Field	Value
type	product
id	5essentials
title	5Essentials
description	A school-improvement measurement framework developed by the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research that organizes school survey profiles around five domains and their related measures.
status	review
moved_from	design/school-survey-profile-demographic-comparison-trend-format, theory/ccsr-five-essential-supports-framework, theory/essential-supports-educational-technology-use-framework, theory/five-essential-supports-5es-framework, theory/five-essential-supports-ccsr-survey-framework, theory/five-essential-supports-school-improvement, theory/five-essential-supports-school-learning-framework, theory/five-essential-supports-student-learning-framework, theory/five-organizational-supports-school-improvement
product_kind	framework
generated	by process:sweep-kinds on 2026-10-10
trust	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources	8 — john-q-easton-2004, sebring-1996, sebring-1995, elaine-allensworth-2012, luppescu-2001, sharon-greenberg-anthony-s-bryk-2024, luppescu-2005, luppescu-2003

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.