We report on comprehensive school reform (CSR) reform in 48 schools over 6 consecutive years. In 1998, a total of 24 schools received CSR awards to improve student achievement. Control schools were carefully matched on 26 demographic variables to form a comparison group. Students’ average performance, as represented in publicly available school report card data, increased across the combined sample of CSR and non-CSR schools in nontrivial ways. CSR and non-CSR schools, however, were not differentiated on the basis of a discriminant analysis function both in terms of achievement (Stanford 9) and demographic variables. To examine effects over time, a mixed-design multiple analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) test was performed for third- through ninth-grade scores for each performance level on the Stanford 9 achievement test (reading, language, and math). In all three performance areas, the mean NCE scores for CSR and non-CSR schools had significant within-subject effects for all 6 years. However, there were no between-subjects effects in any performance areas for CSR or non-CSR schools. The combined gains for CSR and non-CSR schools across time were notable; average math performance increased 1.0 standard deviation. Mean scores in reading and language also increased (.62 and .11, respectively), with language performance the least malleable area.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmreinA. L., and BerlinerD. (2002, March 28). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (18). Retrieved October 4, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18
2.
AverchH., CarrollS., DonaldsonT., KieslingH., and PincusJ. (1974). How effective is schooling? A critical review of research. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
3.
BloomH. (2002, May 21–22). Longitudinal analysis of the accelerated model. Paper presented at the Network of Researchers’ Meeting, Washington, DC.
4.
BormanG. D., and D'AgostinoJ. V. (1996). Title I and student achievement: A meta-analysis of federal evaluation results. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 309—326.
5.
BormanG., HewesG., RachubaL., and BrownS. (2002). Comprehensive school reform and student achievement: A meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
6.
BormanG. D., StringfieldS. C., and SlavinR. E. (Eds.). (2001). Litle I: Compensatory education at the crossroads. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
BrookoverW., BeadieC., FloodP., SchweitzerJ., and WisenbakerJ. (1979). School social systems and student achievement: Schools can make a difference. New York: Praeger.
8.
CimbriczS. (2002). State-mandated testing and teachers’ beliefs and practices. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2), Retrieved November 23, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/eppa/v10n2.html
9.
CohenM. (1983). Instructional, management, and social conditions in effective schools. In OddenA., and WebbL.D. (Eds.), School finance and school improvement: Linkages in the 1980s (pp. 17—50). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
10.
ColemanJ., CampbellE., HobsonC., McPartlandJ., MoodA., and WeinfieldF.. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11.
D'AgostinoJ. V., BormanG. D., HedgesL. V., and WongK. K. (1998). Longitudinal achievement and Chapter 1 coordination in high-poverty schools: A multi-level analysis of the Prospects data. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 3, 401—420.
12.
D'AgostinoJ. V., and StokerG. L. (2002). Teachers’ perceptions of Title I program improvement and accountability. In WongK., and WangM. (Eds.), Efficiency, accountability, and equity issues in Title I School Wide Program Implementation (pp. 243—257). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
13.
TrustEducation. (1999). Dispelling the myth: High poverty schools exceeding expectations. Education Trust in Cooperation with the Council of Chief State School Officers and the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 24, 2002, from http://www.edtrust.org/documents/dispell.pdf
14.
FirestoneW., MayrowetzD., and FairmanJ. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 95—113.
15.
GoodT., BiddleB., and BrophyJ. (1975). Teachers make a difference. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
16.
GoodT., and BrophyJ. (1986). School effects. In and and WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 570—604). New York: Macmillan.
17.
GrantS. (2001). An uncertain lever: Exploring the influence of state-level testing on teaching social studies. Teachers College Record, 103, 398—426.
18.
HaneyW., and MadausG. (1989). Searching for alternatives to standardized tests: Why's, what's, and withers. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 683—687.
19.
HessR., ShipmanV., BrophyJ., and BearR. (1969). The cognitive environments of urban preschool children: Follow-up phase. Report to the Children's Bureau, Social Security Administration, HEW, Washington, DC.
20.
JencksC., SmithM., AcklandH., BaneM., CohenD., and GintisH.. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
21.
KlitgaardR., and HallG. (1974). Are there unusually effective schools?Journal of Human Resources, 74, 90—106.
22.
LinnR. L., and HaugC. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 29—36.
23.
McCormack-LarkinM., and KritekW. J. (1983). Educational Leadership, 40, 16—21.
24.
PurkyS., and SmithM. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427—452.
25.
RosenholtzS. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.
26.
RossS. M., AlbergM., and NunneryJ. (1998). Selection and evaluation of locally developed versus externally developed schoolwide projects. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis.
27.
RothsteinR. (2002, April 10). Lessons: Schools, accountability, and a sheaf of fuzzy math. The New York Times. Retrieved April 10, 2002, from http://www.nytimes.com
28.
RowanB., BossertS., and DwyerD. (1983). Research on effective schools: A cautionary note. Educational Researcher, 12(4), 24—31.
29.
RutterM., MaughanB., MortimoreP., OustonJ., and SmithA. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
SmithM. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8—11.
31.
StakeR., and RuggD. (1991). Impact on the classroom. In and and StakeR. (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation: Volume 1 effects of mandated assessment on teaching (pp. xix–xxii). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
32.
StringfieldS., MillsapM. A., HermanR., YoderN., BrighamN., and NesselrodtP.. (1997). Urban and suburban/rural special strategies for educating disadvantaged children. Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
33.
TeddlieC., KirbyP., and StringfieldS. (1993). Schools make a difference. New York: Teachers College Press.
34.
WeberG. (1971). Inner-city children can be taught to read: Four successful schools. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
35.
WongK. K., and MeyerS. J. (1998). Title I schoolwide programs: A synthesis of findings from recent evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 115—136.
