                                                              
| Longitudinal Assessment of Comprehensive School Reform |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Maryellen Rogusky |
| Thursday, 02 February 2006 01:59 |
|
In 1998, Congress appropriated $145 million for the Comprehensive school reform Demonstration (CSRD) program. It was designed not as an add-on to be placed on top of already existing programs and efforts but as a way to encourage schools to integrate local, state, and federal resources into a comprehensive effort that would better meet student learning needs. Like schoolwide Title I programs, CSRD was intended to help schools use multiple sources of funds and integrate programs while allowing flexibility and enhancing accountability for student learning. Its unique aspect was the expectation that schools would collaborate with expert partners to implement whole-school reform models that had a strong research base and a successful replication record. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2002, CSR became a fully authorized program and is no longer a demonstration program. Further, NCLB described 11 components of comprehensive school reform, and, some argue, focused less on models than on the underlying processes that facilitate the kinds of changes needed in order for schools to ensure that all students learn. Described in the No Child Left Behind Act
Study Purpose The Longitudinal Assessment of Comprehensive School Reform Implementation and Outcomes (LACIO) responds to the NCLB Act’s requirement for an evaluation of the federal Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program. The legislation stipulates two broad goals for the evaluation: first, to evaluate the implementation and outcomes achieved by schools after three years of implementing comprehensive school reforms and, second, to assess the effectiveness of comprehensive school reform in schools with diverse characteristics. In order to address these requirements, the study focused on four evaluation questions:
First-Year Findings The first year of the evaluation has yielded information with implications for federal Policy. The implications relate to two key findings:
The sample of 400 represents 36 percent of the approximately 1,100 schools reported to receive CSR funds for the calendar year 2002. As a random sample, it does not mirror the universe on all characteristics. The distribution of the sample across locale and school level were comparable to the distributions of the universe, while reading and mathematics scores were slightly higher for the CSR sample. Similarly, the non-CSR schools, which were required to be in the same districts as the sample schools and with no current or past CSR funding, had slightly higher baseline achievement levels. These comparison schools represent the best available matches given these requirements. Further, analyses of achievement outcomes will control for variables such as achievement and poverty level, among others. Implementation of School Reform Activities in CSR Schools and Other Schools Both CSR and non-CSR schools reported they were implementing specific activities that prior research indicates are associated with reform. However, as discussed below, the CSR schools differed from the non-CSR schools in their implementation of components directly related to selecting, implementing and evaluating models for reform. Further, CSR funding seems to contribute to Building Capacity for ongoing reform, with schools reporting more school activity that reflects coherence and cohesiveness during the first year of implementation (2002-03) compared with the previous year. School Improvement Plans Nearly all schools in the sample (CSR and non-CSR schools) reported they had formal comprehensive plans for school reform. Principals at both CSR and non-CSR schools indicated these plans included components similar to the 11 CSR components, although CSR schools were more likely to report seeking research evidence about a proposed reform and adopting a reform created outside of the school. Teachers and school administrators were involved in selecting the reform model or approach being implemented, both at CSR schools and non-CSR schools. However, the school board and the district central office played a more significant role in selecting reform at non-CSR schools than at CSR schools, indicating more “top-down” requirements for changes in practice in non-CSR schools. One third of CSR schools reported that the district central office was one of several entities responsible for selecting the reform, compared with 57 percent of non-CSR schools, which reported this method. Non-CSR schools reported that school board members were involved in the decision at a higher rate than did CSR schools (24 percent for non-CSR schools compared with 15 percent of CSR schools). Further, state or district mandates were more likely to contribute to the selection of reform at non-CSR schools (60 percent) than at CSR schools (31 percent). U.S. Department of Education Rod Paige Secretary Office of the Deputy Secretary Eugene Hickok Deputy Secretary Policy and Program Studies Service Alan Ginsburg Director Policy and Analytic Studies Division David Goodwin Director |