**This is some**

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  | ######## Policy and Program Studies Service       |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ### [Findings from the]{.smallcaps}                                   |
|                                                                       |
| **[Field-Focused Study of the]{.smallcaps}**                          |
|                                                                       |
| Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program                     |
|                                                                       |
| ###### Volume II: APPENDICES                                          |
|                                                                       |
| #### 2003                                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+
|                           |                           | ![]          |
|                           |                           | (media/image |
|                           |                           | 1.jpeg){widt |
|                           |                           | h="1.5222222 |
|                           |                           | 222222221in" |
|                           |                           | height       |
|                           |                           | ="1.52222222 |
|                           |                           | 22222221in"} |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+
| **[U.S. Department of     | [Office of the Under      |              |
| Education]{.smallcaps}**  | Secretary]{.smallcaps}    |              |
|                           |                           |              |
| [Doc \#]{.smallcaps}      |                           |              |
+---------------------------+---------------------------+--------------+

Findings from the Field-Focused Study of the

Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program

# Volume II: Appendices

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 2003

**Contents**

**Page**

Volume II

Appendices

**A.** Evaluation Methodology A-1

**B.** Promising Reform Strategies B-1

**C.** Descriptions of the Research-Based Methods or Strategies Being
Used C-1

**D.** Short Summaries of 18 CSRD Schools D-1

**E.** 47-Point Instrument for Assessing Strength of

CSRD Implementation at 18 Schools E-1

**F.** Corroboratory Assessment of CSRD Implementation for

18 Schools in Field-Focused Study F-1

**APPENDIX A**

**Evaluation Methodology**

**Appendix A**

**EVALUATION METHODOLOGY**

This appendix describes the design and methodology that COSMOS
Corporation and its subcontractor The McKenzie Group (COSMOS-TMG)
followed during the first year of the CSRD field-focused study.

Proposed Designed and Rationale

Because the evaluation is investigating directly the potential stimulant
or catalytic role of CSRD by examining more closely the implementation
and educational processes occurring at a given CSRD school, the team
decided to use the *case study method* (e.g., Yin, 1994 and 1998) as the
primary research tool. Investigators assessing a directly comparable
initiative---the scale-up phase of the New American Schools
(NAS)---arrived at the same methodological conclusion, even though NAS
funding levels were higher than CSRD funding. The investigators
described their rationale as follows:

> "The intervention assessed here is highly complex and embedded in
> 'real' schools in 'real' districts. The relationships are so involved
> and dynamic that they argue against an experimental design or
> comparison group approach. The interventions and research questions
> argue instead for a *replicated case-study* approach, with the unit of
> analysis being the implementing school" (Bodilly, 1998, p. 25).
> \[Emphasis added.\]

However, merely selecting the case study method was insufficient to
produce the required results. Specific features of the case study
method---not necessarily present in the NAS study---were incorporated
into the design and data collection plans from the outset of study. The
case studies rely heavily on three methodological tactics: using a
'theoretical' framework (also known as a *logic model*) to track events
within a school; carefully establishing chronological benchmarks in
tracking events; and explicitly addressing rival hypotheses.

Selecting Case Study Sites: CSRD Schools to be Studied

***Goal of Case Study Sample: To Support Both Statistical and Analytic
Generalization***. The sample was drawn in an attempt to satisfy both
types of generalization. Statistical generalization aims at making the
findings from a sample of datapoints generalizable to the universe of
all datapoints. Analytic generalization aims at making the findings from
a study generalizable to a broader theoretical framework.

The goal of the site selection process was to select a representative
sample of CSRD schools by stratifying the universe of schools. The
parameters were selected from among the characteristics that the
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory collects as part of its
CSRD database, including: school type (e.g., elementary, middle, or
high); award cohort; type of geographic area; and region of country. The
final result was a stratified random sample.

***Two-Stage Sampling Procedure***. The desire to have a representative
sample of cases called for a stratified random sample of all schools in
the CSRD program. The desire to support analytic generalization called
for attending to the identity of CSRD models to be studied. These dual
needs led to a two-stage sampling procedure.

The two stages emanated from the observation that the CSRD schools had
adopted over 227 different educational models---far beyond the 17
originally identified by the congressional conferees in the CSRD
legislation---by the time the universe was established in July 2000
(Exhibit A-1). Under these circumstances, drawing any random sample
would not produce the needed pairing of schools implementing the same
CSRD model. However, a critical feature of the distribution of the 227
CSRD models was that a much smaller number of the models (about 10
percent) involved nearly two-thirds of all the 1,799 schools.[^1] In
other words, a small number of CSRD models has been implemented by the
vast majority of the schools, and a large number of the CSRD models has
been implemented by only one, two, or a few schools.[^2]

These circumstances raised the possibility that the first stage of the
sampling procedure might be to split the entire universe of schools into
several portions: Exhibit A-2 shows that a cutoff retaining 50 percent
of the schools only involves 10 CSRD models; retaining 60 percent of the
schools involves only 15 CSRD models; and retaining 67 percent or
two-thirds of all the schools involves 21 models. Exhibit A-3 then shows
the 20 school and geographic features at these different
cutoffs---comparing the aggregate profile of the first (retained)
portion with that of the second (cutoff) portion.

Exhibit A-1

TOP 25 MODELS ADOPTED BY SCHOOLS,

COMPARED TO MODELS IN ORIGINAL CSRD CONGRESSIONAL LANGUAGE

AND 8 NEW AMERICAN SCHOOL (NAS) DESIGNS

(July 2000)

+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Model Name**                | **Rank,        | **Identified  | ** |
|                               | According to** | by Congress.  | Pa |
|                               |                | Co            | rt |
|                               | No. of Schools | nferees**^\*^ | of |
|                               | Adopted        |               | N  |
|                               |                |               | AS |
|                               |                |               | ** |
|                               |                |               | ^\ |
|                               |                |               | *\ |
|                               |                |               | *^ |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
|                               |                |               |    |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Success for All**           | 252            | Yes           | No |
|                               |                |               | ^\ |
|                               |                |               | *\ |
|                               |                |               | *\ |
|                               |                |               | *^ |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| Accelerated Schools           | 123            | Yes^†^        | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Lightspan**                 | 109            | No            | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Direct Instruction**        | 61             | Yes           | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| America's Choice              | 60             | No            | Y  |
|                               |                |               | es |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
|                               |                |               |    |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Coalition of Essential      | 53             | Yes           | No |
| Schools**                     |                |               |    |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **High Schools that Work**    | 52             | Yes           | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Co-NECT**                   | 46             | Yes           | Y  |
|                               |                |               | es |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Core Knowledge**            | 45             | No            | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **HOSTS**                     | 38             | No            | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
|                               |                |               |    |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Effective Schools**         | 36             | No            | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Ventures Initiatives and    | 33             | Yes           | No |
| Focus**                       |                |               |    |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **School Development          | 32             | Yes           | No |
| Program**                     |                |               |    |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Expeditionary Learning      | 29             | Yes           | Y  |
| Outward Bound**               |                |               | es |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Different Ways of Knowing** | 27             | No            | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
|                               |                |               |    |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **AVID**                      | 26             | No            | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Community for Learning**    | 25             | Yes           | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Modern Red School House**   | 25             | Yes           | Y  |
|                               |                |               | es |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Roots and Wings**           | 23             | Yes           | Y  |
|                               |                |               | es |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **DePaul Univ. Ctr for Urban  | 22             | No            | No |
| Ed.**                         |                |               |    |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
|                               |                |               |    |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Middle Start**              | 21             | No            | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Reading Recovery**          | 20             | No            | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **ATLAS Communities**         | 19             | Yes           | Y  |
|                               |                |               | es |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Onward to Excellence II**   | 18             | No            | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+
| **Reading Renaissance**^††^   | 17             | No            | No |
+-------------------------------+----------------+---------------+----+

\* The conferees also named the following four models that were not
among the top 25: Audrey Cohen College, Paideia, Talent Development High
School, and Urban Learning Centers.

\*\* NAS also named the following two models not among the top 25:
Audrey Cohen College and Urban Learning Centers.

\*\*\* NAS supported Roots and Wings and Success for All, but only
explicitly identified the former in its original design.

^†^ Cited as "National Alliance for Restructuring Education" at the time
of the conferees' report.

^††^ Two additional models, Carbo National Reading Styles and DePaul
University School Achievement Structure, are used as the primary model
in 17 schools; Reading Renaissance was included because it is also being
used as a secondary model in 3 schools.

**Exhibit A-2**

**RANKING OF CSRD MODELS IN RELATION TO PERCENT OF SCHOOLS COVERED**

+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| **Rank,     | > **Model Name**  | **\#  | **Cumu | Cumu   |         |
| According   |                   | of    | lative | lative |         |
| to**        |                   | Scho  | \# of  | % of   |         |
|             |                   | ols** | Sch    | All    |         |
| **\# of     |                   |       | ools** | S      |         |
| Schools     |                   |       |        | chools |         |
| Adopted**   |                   |       |        |        |         |
+=============+===================+=======+========+========+=========+
| 1           | > Success for All | 252   | 252    | 14.93  |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 2           | > Accelerated     | 123   | 375    | 22.22  |         |
|             | > Schools         |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 3           | > Lightspan       | 109   | 484    | 28.67  |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 4           | > Direct          | 61    | 545    | 32.29  |         |
|             | > Instruction     |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 5           | > America's       | 60    | 605    | 35.84  |         |
|             | > Choice          |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 6           | > Coalition of    | 53    | 658    | 38.98  |         |
|             | > Essential       |       |        |        |         |
|             | > Schools         |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 7           | > High Schools    | 52    | 710    | 42.06  |         |
|             | > that Work       |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 8           | > Co-NECT         | 46    | 756    | 44.79  |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 9           | > Core Knowledge  | 45    | 801    | 47.45  |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 10          | > HOSTS           | 38    | 839    | 49.70  | About   |
|             |                   |       |        |        | 50%of   |
|             |                   |       |        |        | CSRD    |
|             |                   |       |        |        | Schools |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 11          | > Effective       | 36    | 875    | 51.84  |         |
|             | > Schools         |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 12          | > Ventures        | 33    | 908    | 53.79  |         |
|             | > Initiatives and |       |        |        |         |
|             | > Focus           |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 13          | > School          | 32    | 940    | 55.69  |         |
|             | > Development     |       |        |        |         |
|             | > Program         |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 14          | > Expeditionary   | 29    | 969    | 57.41  |         |
|             | > Learning        |       |        |        |         |
|             | > Outward Bound   |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 15          | > Different Ways  | 27    | 996    | 59.00  | About   |
|             | > of Knowing      |       |        |        | 60% of  |
|             |                   |       |        |        | CSRD    |
|             |                   |       |        |        | Schools |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 16          | > Modern Red      | 25    | 1021   | 60.49  |         |
|             | > School House    |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 17          | > Roots and Wings | 23    | 1044   | 61.85  |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 18          | > Reading         | 20    | 1064   | 63.03  |         |
|             | > Recovery        |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 19          | > ATLAS           | 19    | 1083   | 64.16  |         |
|             | > Communities     |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 20          | > Onward to       | 18    | 1101   | 65.23  |         |
|             | > Excellence II   |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 21          | > Reading         | 17    | 1118   | 66.23  | About   |
|             | > Renaissance     |       |        |        | two     |
|             |                   |       |        |        | -thirds |
|             |                   |       |        |        | of CSRD |
|             |                   |       |        |        | Schools |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 22          | > Carbo National  | 17    | 1135   | 67.24  |         |
|             | > Reading Styles  |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 23          | > First Steps     | 15    | 1150   | 68.13  |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 24          | > Breakthrough to | 15    | 1165   | 69.02  |         |
|             | > Literacy        |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 25          | > Waterford Early | 15    | 1180   | 69.91  |         |
|             | > Reading         |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 26          | > PRSSI           | 15    | 1195   | 70.79  |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 27          | > Northeastern    | 14    | 1209   | 71.62  |         |
|             | > University      |       |        |        |         |
|             | > Interactive     |       |        |        |         |
|             | > Teaching and    |       |        |        |         |
|             | > Learning        |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 28          | > MicroSociety    | 13    | 1222   | 72.39  |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 29          | > Literacy        | 12    | 1234   | 73.10  |         |
|             | > Collaborative   |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| 30          | > Computer        | 11    | 1245   | 73.76  |         |
|             | > Curriculum      |       |        |        |         |
|             | > Corporation     |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| > 31        | > Consortium for  | > 11  | > 1256 | >      |         |
|             | > Reading         |       |        |  74.41 |         |
|             | > Excellence      |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| > 32        | > Early Literacy  | > 11  | > 1267 | >      |         |
|             | > Learning        |       |        |  75.06 |         |
|             | > Initiative      |       |        |        |         |
|             | > (ELLI)          |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+

**(Continued on next page)**

**Exhibit A-2 (Continued)**

+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| > **Rank,   | > **Model Name**  | >     | >      | > Cumu |         |
| > According |                   |  **\# | **Cumu | lative |         |
| > to**      |                   | > of  | lative | > % of |         |
| >           |                   | >     | > \#   | > All  |         |
| > **\# of   |                   |  Scho | > of   | > S    |         |
| > Schools   |                   | ols** | > Sch  | chools |         |
| > Adopted** |                   |       | ools** |        |         |
+=============+===================+=======+========+========+=========+
| > 33        | > National        | > 11  | > 1278 | >      |         |
|             | > Writing Project |       |        |  75.71 |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| > 34        | > Talent          | > 11  | > 1289 | >      |         |
|             | > Development     |       |        |  76.36 |         |
|             | > High School     |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| > 35        | > Strategic       | > 10  | > 1299 | >      |         |
|             | > Teaching and    |       |        |  76.95 |         |
|             | > Reading         |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| > 36        | > Succ            | > 10  | > 1309 | >      |         |
|             | ess-in-the-Making |       |        |  77.55 |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
|             | > Models          | > 379 | > 1688 | >      |         |
|             | > Implemented at  |       |        | 100.00 |         |
|             | > Fewer than 10   |       |        |        |         |
|             | > schools         |       |        |        |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+
| > **Total** | > **214**         | > **1 | > **   | > **10 |         |
|             |                   | 688** | 1688** | 0.00** |         |
+-------------+-------------------+-------+--------+--------+---------+

Source: SEDL Database, July 2000. At that time, 1,799 schools were in
the database, 115 were removed from this total, for the following
reasons: 1) Community for Learning (29 schools), because such a large
portion of them are in one area---Pennsylvania; 2) AVID (26 schools),
because all are in only one area---Texas; 3) DePaul University Center
for Urban Education model (22 schools); 4) DePaul University School
Achievement Structure (17 schools), because all schools are in Chicago;
and 5) Middle Start (21 schools), because all the schools are in only
one area---Michigan. Of the five models, only one (Community for
Learning) appeared in the original congressional conferees' list of 17
models.

The comparison in Exhibit A-3 reveals minor differences in school or
geographic profiles between the retained and cutoff portions. For
example, even the smallest retention (50 percent) shows that the two
portions differ by only a few percentage points on all the school and
geographic features, with differences exceeding three percentage points
for only three of the 20 features: more in the retained portion were in
rural (as opposed to large central city) areas, and in the South (as
opposed to the Midwest). (As the cutoff point is raised to the 60 and 67
percent levels, all differences between the retained portion and the
total universe diminish.) In concluding the first stage of the sampling
procedure, and to reduce the number of models eligible for study, the 50
percent cutoff point was therefore initially selected: All schools had
to be involved with one of the top 10 CSRD models.

When the original evaluation design was presented to the CSRD Technical
Work Group in January 2000, members of the group suggested that a
school's involvement in the top 10 models, being national models, could
be qualitatively different from its involvement with a locally developed
model---i.e., one in which the school itself may be invested or involved
in the development process and not just in the implementation
process.[^3] Lessons about the schoolwide reform process could be
substantially different under this latter condition. As a result,
schools adopting the 10 original models were augmented by schools
falling into an 11th category---"all locally developed models." This
category added another 106 candidate schools to the original number
covered by the top 10 models. The total universe thus became 945.

**Exhibit A-3**

**AGGREGATE PROFILES OF SCHOOLS AT THREE CUTOFF POINTS**

**(COMPARING RETAINED AND CUTOFF PORTIONS)**^1,2^

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 18%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>No. of Schls.</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="4"><blockquote>
<p><strong>School Type</strong><sup>3</sup></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Cohort</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Award Size</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Pov.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Rate</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Title 1 School</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><h2 id="sw">SW</h2></td>
<td colspan="7"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Area Type</strong><sup>4</sup></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="4"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Region</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>E</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>M</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>S</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>C</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>1</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>2</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>1</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>2</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>3</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>4</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>5</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>6</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>7</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>MW</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>NE</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>S</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>W</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Subtotal Retained (50%)</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>839</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>65</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>29</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>71</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$70,162</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>72</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>86</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>65</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>14</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>6</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>15</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>46</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>16</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Cutoff (50%)</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>849</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>62</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>14</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>26</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>74</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$68,780</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>68</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>86</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>65</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>28</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>10</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>7</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>25</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>15</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>42</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Total</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>1688</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>63</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>28</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>72</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$69,471</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>70</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>86</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>65</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>25</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>19</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>6</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>15</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>44</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Subtotal Retained (60%)</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>996</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>63</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>15</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>28</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>72</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$70,037</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>72</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>86</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>64</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>25</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>21</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>14</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>6</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>15</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>46</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Cutoff (40%)</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>692</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>64</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>15</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>10</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>28</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>72</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$68,647</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>67</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>87</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>65</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>26</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>8</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>24</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>16</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>44</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>16</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><h1 id="total">Total</h1></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>1688</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>63</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>28</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>72</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$69,471</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>70</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>86</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>65</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>25</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>19</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>6</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>15</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>44</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Subtotal Retained (67%)</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>1118</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>63</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>14</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>25</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$69,650</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>71</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>87</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>65</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>20</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>19</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>18</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>5</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>15</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>47</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Cutoff (33%)</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>570</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>63</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>15</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>30</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>70</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$69,107</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>68</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>85</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>64</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>28</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>24</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>16</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>8</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>25</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>41</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Total</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>1688</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>63</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>28</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>72</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$69,471</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>70</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>86</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>65</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>25</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>19</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>6</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>15</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>44</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="23"><blockquote>
<p>Note: <sup>1</sup>Excludes AVID (n=26). Models associated with DePaul
University (n=39), Communities for Learning (n=29), Middle Start (n=21)
and<br />
locally developed models (n=106).</p>
<p><sup>2</sup>All entries are percentages, unless otherwise noted.</p>
<p><sup>3</sup>E=Elementary; M=Middle, S=Secondary; and C=Combined grade
levels.</p>
<p><sup>4</sup>1=Large center city; 2=Large town; 3=Mid-size center
city; 4=Rural; 5=Small town; 6=Fringe of large city; 7=Fringe of small
city.</p>
<p>Source: SEDL Database, as of July 2000.</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Given the modified cutoff, the second stage of the procedure then called
for defining a stratified random sample of the retained 50 percent of
schools, augmented by the 106 schools in the "locally developed"
category.

First, the sample was stratified so that two or more schools came from
the same school district; in this way, the evaluation could determine
the influence of contextual conditions involving district policies are
practices. For instance, if two schools in the same district appear to
have similar experiences even though they adopted different models, the
likelihood is greater that district conditions had an influence over the
process. Conversely, if two schools with the same model but in different
districts appeared to have similar experiences, the likelihood is
greater that the common model had an influence over the process. (The
district limitation also reduced the costs of the study by reducing the
travel and labor costs invested into the collection and analysis of
district data.). This stratification reduced the universe from 945 to
569 schools. Exhibit A-4 contains the aggregate profiles of schools in
this stratified sample, compared to schools in the top cutoff category
(using the top ten models, or 50% of the universe), as well as the
entire universe of schools.

Exhibit A-4 reveals some additional differences in school or geographic
profiles between the stratified sample and the first cutoff portion as
well as the total universe. The sample contains:

-   More elementary schools (and fewer combined grade schools);

-   Schools with higher poverty rates;

-   More schools in large and mid-size center cities and fewer in large
    and small towns and rural areas; and

-   More schools in the Northeast (as compared to the West).

From the stratified sample of 569 schools, a final random sample of 108
schools in 54 districts were selected for screening. The schools were
categorized according to characteristics like grade level, cohort, and
model adopted.[^4] The team sorted the schools into 9 groups of 12
schools from 6 districts, so that if a school or district was eliminated
during the screening process, the next set of schools in the group could
be used (rather than drawing a new sample). Exhibit A-4 shows the
characteristics of the schools selected for screening.

**Exhibit A-4**

**AGGREGATE PROFILES OF SCHOOLS AT TWO SAMPLE LEVELS**

**COMPARED TO SCHOOLS IN THE FIRST CUTOFF PORTIONS,**

**AND COMPARED TO THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE**^1,2^

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Sample Level</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>No. of Schls.</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="4"><blockquote>
<p><strong>School Type</strong><sup>3</sup></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Cohort</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Award Size</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Pov.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Rate</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Title 1 School</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>SW</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="7"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Area Type</strong><sup>4</sup></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="4"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Region</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>E</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>M</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>S</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>C</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>1</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>2</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>1</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>2</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>3</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>4</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>5</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>6</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>7</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>MW</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>NE</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>S</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>W</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Sample Selected for Screening</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>108</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>52</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>24</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>8</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>35</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>65</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$71,046</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>73</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>86</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>76</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>45</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>0</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>16</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>5</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>10</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>19</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>21</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>47</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Sample strat. so more than one schools is in each
district</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>569</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>66</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>39</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>61</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$69,785</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>87</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>68</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>36</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>0</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>25</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>14</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>7</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>5</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>21</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>45</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Subtotal Retained (50%) + local models</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>945</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>63</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>14</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>31</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>69</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$70,405</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>72</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>93</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>66</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>14</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>5</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>16</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>44</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>16</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Total</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>1688</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>63</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>28</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>72</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$69,471</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>70</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>86</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>65</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>25</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>19</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>6</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>15</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>44</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="23"><blockquote>
<p>Note: <sup>1</sup>Excludes AVID (n=26). Models associated with DePaul
University (n=39), Communities for Learning (n=29), Middle Start (n=21)
and locally<br />
developed models (n=106).</p>
<p><sup>2</sup>All entries are percentages, unless otherwise noted.</p>
<p><sup>3</sup>E=Elementary; M=Middle, S=Secondary; and C=Combined grade
levels.</p>
<p><sup>4</sup>1=Large center city; 2=Large town; 3=Mid-size center
city; 4=Rural; 5=Small town; 6=Fringe of large city; 7=Fringe of small
city.</p>
<p>Source: SEDL Database, as of July 2000.</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Screening Case Study Sites

Once schools were identified as part of a sample, they were considered
"candidates" but not yet the final sites for the case studies. To become
final, the sites had to satisfy a screening procedure. On October 8,
2000, the program manager for CSRD at the Department of Education sent a
letter to each school principal, district superintendent, and state
school official for the 108 schools, informing them that their schools
had been selected as part of the sample, and that they might be
receiving a phone call from the evaluation team. Following the receipt
of OMB clearance on October 18, 2000, the evaluation team began
screening the candidates.

***Screening for Confirming School Characteristics***. Using a screening
protocol (see Attachment A-1), the evaluation team telephoned the
district contact person for the first set of 18 schools in the remaining
sample. With the district contact's approval, the screener called the
school contact to verify the features listed in the SEDL database,
including the name of the model adopted by the school.

Exhibit A-5 documents the shift between the first set of 18 schools
screened and the final set of schools selected for site visits. The
screening process identified one district where both schools that were
initially selected were no longer using the model identified in the SEDL
database, but appropriate replacements for these schools were identified
within the district. Additional issues affecting the final site
selection are discussed below. The final confirmation of the 18 sites to
be included in the study occurred in late November 2000.

***Issues Affecting Final Site Selection***. Two issues affected the
final site selection of the schools for the evaluation, the inclusion of
locally developed models and the geographic dispersion of the sites.

Initially the team intended to include two schools using locally
developed models in the final sample. According to the database received
by SEDL in July 2000, only about 8 percent of the schools receiving CSRD
funding were using locally developed models, and the evaluation team
believed that the inclusion of two schools using such models would be
representative of the overall sample. Upon further direction from the
Department of Education however, two additional locally developed models
were added to the sample

**Exhibit A-5**

RESULTS OF SCREENING PROCESS THROUGH SELECTION OF SITES

+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > *    |     |         | >         |     |         | > *    |     |
| *First |     |         |  **Second |     |         | *Third |     |
| > 18   |     |         | > School  |     |         | >      |     |
| > S    |     |         | > Co      |     |         | School |     |
| chools |     |         | ntacted** |     |         | >      |     |
| >      |     |         |           |     |         |  Conta |     |
|  Conta |     |         |           |     |         | cted** |     |
| cted** |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
+========+=====+=========+===========+=====+=========+========+=====+
| > **   | >   | > **R   | >         | >   | > **R   | > **   | >   |
| School | **T | eason** |  **School | **T | eason** | School | **T |
| >      | ype | >       | > and**   | ype | >       | >      | ype |
|  and** | >   | >       | >         | >   | >       |  and** | >   |
| >      | and | **Elimi | >         | and | **Elimi | >      | and |
| > **M  | >   | nated** | **Model** | >   | nated** | > **M  | >   |
| odel** |  Re |         |           |  Re |         | odel** |  Re |
|        | gio |         |           | gio |         |        | gio |
|        | n** |         |           | n** |         |        | n** |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | >   | > P     | >         | >   | >       | > **   | > E |
| School | Sec | lanning |  **School |  Co |  School | School | lem |
| > A**\ | ond | > to    | > A**\    | mbi | > no    | >      | ent |
| > L    | ary | >       | > Ac      | ned | >       | A**\*\ | ary |
| ocally | >   |  change | celerated | >   |  longer | >      | >   |
| > dev  | > M | > state | > Schools | > M | > uses  |  Accel | > M |
| eloped | idw | > asse  |           | idw | > Acce  | erated | idw |
|        | est | ssments |           | est | lerated | > S    | est |
|        |     |         |           |     | >       | chools |     |
|        |     |         |           |     | Schools |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | > E | > Lost  | >         | >   |         |        |     |
| School | lem | > d     |  **School | Sec |         |        |     |
| > B**\ | ent | istrict | > B**\*\  | ond |         |        |     |
| > Lig  | ary | > match | > High    | ary |         |        |     |
| htspan | >   |         | > Schools | >   |         |        |     |
|        | > M |         | > that    | >   |         |        |     |
|        | idw |         | > Work    |  So |         |        |     |
|        | est |         |           | uth |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | > E |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| School | lem |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| >      | ent |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| C**\*\ | ary |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| > C    | >   |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| o-Nect | >   |         |           |     |         |        |     |
|        |  So |         |           |     |         |        |     |
|        | uth |         |           |     |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | > E | > ED    | >         | > E | >       | > **   | > E |
| School | lem | > asked |  **School | lem |  School | School | lem |
| > D**\ | ent | > for   | > D**\    | ent | > no    | >      | ent |
| > S    | ary | >       | > Success | ary | >       | D**\*\ | ary |
| uccess | >   | greater | > for All | >   |  longer | >      | >   |
| > for  | >   | > geo   |           | > W | > using |  Roots | > W |
| > All  |  So | graphic |           | est | >       | > and  | est |
|        | uth | > dis   |           |     | Success | >      |     |
|        |     | persion |           |     | > for   |  Wings |     |
|        |     |         |           |     | > All   |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | > E | > Lost  | >         | >   |         |        |     |
| School | lem | > D     |  **School |  Co |         |        |     |
| > E**\ | ent | istrict | > E**\*\  | mbi |         |        |     |
| >      | ary | > match | > Coal.   | ned |         |        |     |
|  Accel | >   |         | > of      | >   |         |        |     |
| erated | > M |         | >         | > M |         |        |     |
| > S    | idw |         | Essential | idw |         |        |     |
| chools | est |         | > Schools | est |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | > E | >       | >         | >   |         |        |     |
| School | lem |  School |  **School | Sec |         |        |     |
| > F**\ | ent | > no    | > F**\*\  | ond |         |        |     |
| > Lig  | ary | >       | > Coal.   | ary |         |        |     |
| htspan | >   |  longer | > of      | >   |         |        |     |
|        | >   | > using | >         | >   |         |        |     |
|        |  So | > Li    | Essential |  So |         |        |     |
|        | uth | ghtspan | > Schools | uth |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | > E |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| School | lem |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| >      | ent |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| G**\*\ | ary |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| > L    | >   |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| ocally | >   |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| > dev  |  So |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| eloped | uth |         |           |     |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | >   | >       | >         | > E |         |        |     |
| School | Sec | Student |  **School | lem |         |        |     |
| > H**\ | ond | > data  | > H**\*\  | ent |         |        |     |
| >      | ary | > a     | > Success | ary |         |        |     |
|  Coal. | >   | ppeared | > for All | >   |         |        |     |
| > of   | > W | > insuf |           | >   |         |        |     |
| > Ess  | est | ficient |           |  So |         |        |     |
| ential |     |         |           | uth |         |        |     |
| > S    |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| chools |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | >   | > ED    | >         | > E |         |        |     |
| School | Mid | > asked |  **School | lem |         |        |     |
| > I**  | dle | > for   | > I**\*\  | ent |         |        |     |
| >      | >   | >       | >         | ary |         |        |     |
| > Core | >   | greater | Lightspan | >   |         |        |     |
| > Kno  |  So | > geo   |           | > M |         |        |     |
| wledge | uth | graphic |           | idw |         |        |     |
|        |     | > dis   |           | est |         |        |     |
|        |     | persion |           |     |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | > E |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| School | lem |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| >      | ent |         |           |     |         |        |     |
|  J**\* | ary |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| >      | >   |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| > S    | >   |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| uccess | Nor |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| > for  | the |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| > All  | ast |         |           |     |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| >      |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
|  \*Ind |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| icates |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| > that |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| >      |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| school |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| > was  |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| > se   |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| lected |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| > for  |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| > case |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| >      |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| study. |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+

**(Continued on next page)**

Exhibit A-5 (Continued)

+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > *    |     |         | >         |     |         | > *    |     |
| *First |     |         |  **Second |     |         | *Third |     |
| > 18   |     |         | > School  |     |         | >      |     |
| > S    |     |         | > Co      |     |         | School |     |
| chools |     |         | ntacted** |     |         | >      |     |
| >      |     |         |           |     |         |  Conta |     |
|  Conta |     |         |           |     |         | cted** |     |
| cted** |     |         |           |     |         |        |     |
+========+=====+=========+===========+=====+=========+========+=====+
| > **   | >   | > **R   | >         | >   | > **R   | > **   | >   |
| School | **T | eason** |  **School | **T | eason** | School | **T |
| >      | ype | >       | > and**   | ype | >       | >      | ype |
|  and** | >   | >       | >         | >   | >       |  and** | >   |
| >      | and | **Elimi | >         | and | **Elimi | >      | and |
| > **M  | >   | nated** | **Model** | >   | nated** | > **M  | >   |
| odel** |  Re |         |           |  Re |         | odel** |  Re |
|        | gio |         |           | gio |         |        | gio |
|        | n** |         |           | n** |         |        | n** |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | >   |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| School |  Co |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| >      | mbi |         |           |     |         |        |     |
|  K**\* | ned |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| >      | >   |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| > L    | >   |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| ocally | Nor |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| > dev  | the |         |           |     |         |        |     |
| eloped | ast |         |           |     |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | >   | > ED    | >         | > E |         |        |     |
| School |  Co | > asked |  **School | lem |         |        |     |
| > L**\ | mbi | > for   | > L**\*\  | ent |         |        |     |
| > High | ned | >       | > Locally | ary |         |        |     |
| > S    | >   | greater | >         | >   |         |        |     |
| chools | >   | > geo   | Developed | > W |         |        |     |
| > that |  So | graphic |           | est |         |        |     |
| > Work | uth | > dis   |           |     |         |        |     |
|        |     | persion |           |     |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | > E | > ED    | >         | > E |         |        |     |
| School | lem | > asked |  **School | lem |         |        |     |
| > M**\ | ent | > for   | > M**\*\  | ent |         |        |     |
| >      | ary | >       | >         | ary |         |        |     |
| Direct | >   | greater | Lightspan | >   |         |        |     |
| >      | >   | > geo   |           | > M |         |        |     |
|  Instr |  So | graphic |           | idw |         |        |     |
| uction | uth | > dis   |           | est |         |        |     |
|        |     | persion |           |     |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | > E | >       | >         | > E |         |        |     |
| School | lem | Student |  **School | lem |         |        |     |
| > N**\ | ent | > data  | > N**\*\  | ent |         |        |     |
| > S    | ary | > a     | > Roots   | ary |         |        |     |
| uccess | >   | ppeared | > and     | >   |         |        |     |
| > for  | > W | > insuf | >         | >   |         |        |     |
| > All  | est | ficient |  Wings^1^ |  So |         |        |     |
|        |     |         |           | uth |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | > E | >       | >         | > E |         |        |     |
| School | lem |  School |  **School | lem |         |        |     |
| > O**\ | ent | > no    | > O\***\  | ent |         |        |     |
| > C    | ary | >       | > C       | ary |         |        |     |
| o-NECT | >   |  longer | o-Nect^2^ | >   |         |        |     |
|        | >   | > using |           | >   |         |        |     |
|        |  So | >       |           |  So |         |        |     |
|        | uth | Co-Nect |           | uth |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | > E | > No    | >         | >   |         |        |     |
| School | lem | > match |  **School | Sec |         |        |     |
| > P**\ | ent | > for   | > P**\*\  | ond |         |        |     |
| > Core | ary | > the   | > High    | ary |         |        |     |
| > Kno  | >   | > model | > Schools | >   |         |        |     |
| wledge | > M |         | > that    | >   |         |        |     |
|        | idw |         | > Work    |  So |         |        |     |
|        | est |         |           | uth |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | > E | > ED    | >         | > E |         |        |     |
| School | lem | > asked |  **School | lem |         |        |     |
| > Q**\ | ent | > for   | > Q**\*\  | ent |         |        |     |
| >      | ary | >       | > Ac      | ary |         |        |     |
| Direct | >   | greater | celerated | >   |         |        |     |
| >      | >   | > geo   | > Schools | > M |         |        |     |
|  Instr |  So | graphic |           | idw |         |        |     |
| uction | uth | > dis   |           | est |         |        |     |
|        |     | persion |           |     |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+
| > **   | > E | > ED    | >         | >   |         |        |     |
| School | lem | > asked |  **School | Sec |         |        |     |
| > R**\ | ent | > for   | > R**\*\  | ond |         |        |     |
| > L    | ary | >       | > Locally | ary |         |        |     |
| ocally | >   | greater | >         | >   |         |        |     |
| > dev  | >   | > geo   | Developed | > M |         |        |     |
| eloped |  So | graphic |           | idw |         |        |     |
|        | uth | > dis   |           | est |         |        |     |
|        |     | persion |           |     |         |        |     |
+--------+-----+---------+-----------+-----+---------+--------+-----+

^1^School identified the model to screeners as Roots and Wings; in fact
school is using Success for All

^2^School originally intended to adopt Co-NECT, but switched to
Success-in-the-Making

\*Indicates that school was selected for case study.

because: 1) Department of Education records indicated that 15 percent of
the models used by CSRD grantees were locally developed; and 2) the
Department expressed interest in learning more about implementation of
these models. For this reason, locally developed models now represent 22
percent of the models being used by schools in the final sample.

Following the first round of screening calls, 12 (or 67 percent) of the
18 schools in the sample were located in the southern United States. The
sample was presented to the Department of Education in early November
2000. ED was concerned with the over-representation of schools from this
region, and asked the evaluation team to identify schools in other
regions. The team conducted additional screening calls and was able to
reduce to eight (or 44 percent) the number schools in South.

Due to other sample constraints (particularly the need for two schools
in the same district, and the need for two or more schools to be using
the same model), the final selection does slightly over-represent
schools in the Midwest and underrepresent schools in the West and
Northeast (see Exhibit A-6). Also over-represented in the final
selection are high schools and schools in large center cities. Middle
schools, schools in rural areas, and schools receiving greater CSRD
funding are underrepresented. Exhibit A-7 provides more detailed
information about the final sample.

Finally, the schools selected for site visits are collectively
implementing six of the top ten models as ranked in Exhibit A-3: Success
for All (1), Accelerated Schools (2), Lightspan (3), Coalition of
Essential Schools (6), High Schools that Work (7), and Co-NECT (8). Two
schools are implementing models outside of the top ten: Roots and Wings
(17) and Success-in-the-Making (also referred to as Computer Curriculum
Corporation (30). Four schools are implementing locally developed
models. Only four of the top ten models are not in use at the schools
selected for case study: Direct Instruction (4), America's Choice (5),
Core Knowledge (9), and HOSTS (10).

Conducting the Site Visits

***Setting the Agenda***. The evaluation design called for two visits to
each school per year, for each of two years. Initially, the team
believed the first visit would occur in the fall of 2000. Due to delays
in obtaining OMB clearance and issues with the sample selection
discussed previously, scheduling of site visits was not able to begin
until late November. Despite the late start, and the difficulty
scheduling visit to schools around winter break, visits to eight of the
districts (16 schools) were completed by the end of January. The visit
to the ninth district was postponed due to testing at the site, and was
conducted in mid-February.

**Exhibit A-6**

**AGGREGATE PROFILES OF SCHOOLS SELECTED FOR SITE VISITS,**

**COMPARED TO SCHOOLS IN STRATIFIED SAMPLES,**

**THE 50% CUTOFF PORTION OF THE UNIVERSE, AND THE TOTAL UNIVERSE**^1,2^

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Sample Level</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>No. of Schls.</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="4"><blockquote>
<p><strong>School Type</strong><sup>3</sup></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Cohort</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Award Size</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Pov.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Rate</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Title 1 School</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td rowspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><strong>SW</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="7"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Area Type</strong><sup>4</sup></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="4"><blockquote>
<p><strong>Region</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>E</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>M</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>S</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>C</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>1</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>2</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>1</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>2</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>3</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>4</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>5</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>6</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>7</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>MW</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>NE</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>S</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>W</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Final Sample Selected for Visits</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>18</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>67</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>0</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>28</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>72</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$63,892</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>78</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>61</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>44</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>0</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>28</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>0</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>0</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>33</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>44</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Sample Selected for Screening</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>108</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>52</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>24</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>8</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>35</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>65</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$71,046</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>73</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>86</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>76</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>45</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>0</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>16</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>5</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>10</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>19</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>21</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>47</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Sample strat. so more than one schools is in each
district</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>569</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>66</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>39</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>61</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$69,785</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>75</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>87</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>68</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>36</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>0</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>25</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>14</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>7</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>5</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>21</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>45</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>Subtotal Retained (50%) + local models</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>945</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>63</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>12</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>14</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>31</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>69</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$70,405</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>72</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>93</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>66</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>14</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>5</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>16</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>44</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>16</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><h1 id="total-1">Total</h1></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>1688</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>63</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>28</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>72</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>$69,471</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>70</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>86</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>65</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>25</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>22</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>19</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>11</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>13</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>6</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>23</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>15</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>44</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>17</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="23"><p>Note: <sup>1</sup>Excludes AVID (n=26). Models
associated with DePaul University (n=39), Communities for Learning
(n=29), Middle Start (n=21) and locally developed models (n=106).</p>
<p><sup>2</sup>All entries are percentages, unless otherwise noted.</p>
<p><sup>3</sup>E=Elementary; M=Middle, S=Secondary; and C=Combined grade
levels.</p>
<p><sup>4</sup>1=Large center city; 2=Large town; 3=Mid-size center
city; 4=Rural; 5=Small town; 6=Fringe of large city; 7=Fringe of small
city.</p>
<p>Source: SEDL Database, as of July 2000.</p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Exhibit A-7**

FINAL SELECTION OF SCHOOLS FOR INCLUSION IN THE CASE STUDIES

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 19%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 18%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th><blockquote>
<p><strong>School Name</strong></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p><strong>CSRD Model</strong></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p><strong>Reg</strong></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p><strong>Type</strong></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p><strong>Cohort</strong></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p><strong>Award Amount($)</strong></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p><strong>Pov. Rate</strong></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p><strong>Title I?</strong></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p><strong>Title I Type</strong></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p><strong>Locale</strong></p>
</blockquote></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School A</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Accelerated Schools</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Midwest</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>1</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>78,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>73</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Targ. Assist.</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Large Central City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School B</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>High Schools That Work</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>South</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Secondary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>50,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>43</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>no</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Small Town</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School C</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Co-NECT</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>South</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>50,157</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>89</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>School wide</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban Fringe of Large City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School D</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Success for All</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>West</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>110220</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>91</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>School wide</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Large Central City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School E</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Coalition of Essential Schools</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Midwest</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Secondary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>1</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>74966</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>79</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>School wide</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Large Central City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School F</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Coalition of Essential Schools</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>South</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Secondary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>50000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>37</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>no</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban Fringe of Large City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School G</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Locally Developed</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>South</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>50,157</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>93</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>School wide</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Urban Fringe of Large City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School H</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Success for All</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>South</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>50,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>77</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>School wide</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Large Central City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School I</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Lightspan</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Midwest</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>75000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>71</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Targ. Assist.</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Mid-size Central City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School J</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Success for All</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Northeast</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>1</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>52,650</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>70</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>School wide</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Mid-size Central City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School K</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Locally Developed</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Northeast</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Combined Grades</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>1</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>52,650</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>92</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>School wide</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Mid-size Central City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School L</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Locally Developed</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>West</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>116,600</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>95</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>School wide</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Large Central City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School M</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Lightspan</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Midwest</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>50000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>93</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>School wide</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Large Central City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School N</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Success for All</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>South</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>50,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>92</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>School wide</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Large Central City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School O</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Success-in-the-Making</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>South</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>50,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>83</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>School wide</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Large Central City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School P</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>High Schools That Work</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>South</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>64,650</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>57</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>no</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Small Town</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School Q</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Accelerated Schools</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Midwest</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Elementary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>2</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>75,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>83</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>yes</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Targ. Assist.</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Mid-size Central City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p><strong>School R</strong></p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Locally Developed</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Midwest</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Secondary</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>1</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>50,000</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>40</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>no</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td></td>
<td><blockquote>
<p>Mid-size Central City</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><blockquote>
<p>Source: SEDL Database, as of July 2000.</p>
</blockquote></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Teams of three evaluators were identified for each site. The lead team
member (generally the most experienced team member), contacted the
district representative to establish an agenda for the visit. During the
first site visit, teams were asked to focus on the first four components
of CSRD (the model, comprehensiveness, professional development, and
measurable goals and benchmarks). The lead team member and the district
representative together identified appropriate personnel for these
interviews. At the district level, it frequently included the
superintendent or deputy superintendent, a professional development or
curriculum coordinator, a Title I and CSRD coordinator, and an
evaluator. The district contact was also informed of the team's need to
gather student achievement data, and requested the opportunity to speak
with the data analyst who compiled those numbers.

Depending on the preference of the district representative, the team
also directly contacted the schools' principals to establish an agenda
while on site (in some instances, the district representative preferred
to make that contact). At the school level, interviews were scheduled
with the principal, assistant principal, any curriculum specialist on
staff, a school-based model coordinator (where appropriate), and when
possible a representative from the model developer. The team also
requested permission to observe several math and reading classes and to
interview teachers.

The teams followed a similar procedure in scheduling the second site
visits, which occurred in April and May. During the second visit, the
teams were asked to focus on the remaining components (staff support,
community and parent involvement, external technical assistance,
evaluation of coordination of resources). In most instances, the team
met again with a district level evaluator, the CSRD coordinator, and a
district level budget person, along with anyone who could answer
questions not addressed during the first site visit. At the school
level, team again asked to observe classrooms, and interview teachers,
the parent liaison, a small group of parents, and the principal.

The site visits were scheduled over a three-day period: one day at the
district office and one day at each school.

***On-site Protocol and Activities***. Members of the site visit team
attended a training seminar conducted by COSMOS Corporation in November
2000. During the training, the teams reviewed the site visit protocol
(see Attachment A-2), and discussed what the evaluation hoped to gain by
the case studies. One important discussion emerged around the possible
differences between the models that schools adopted and the presence of
comprehensive reform. Field teams were reminded that the model was only
one of the nine components of CSRD, and that their task was to collect
evidence of comprehensive schoolwide reform around all nine components.

The site visit protocol addressed each of the nine components of CSRD,
as well as district and state practices and policies related to
schoolwide reform at the school, student performance, and other
contextual conditions that may have impacted the reform efforts at the
school. The protocol was designed to be used as a guide for the field
teams, and not as a survey instrument. In addition, field teams were
instructed to seek a variety of converging evidence to determine why and
how an event occurred, and not simply rely on answers to open ended
questions. The focus of the protocol study is on tracking and document
actual behaviors and events, not just as they might be reported by
respondents to a survey. Other evidence was frequently available in
school site plans, CSRD applications, meeting agendas, newsletters, and
other similar documents.

Teams were also instructed to begin identifying possible rival
explanations for further investigation during subsequent site visits. An
important objective in the case studies was to try to define and test
rival explanations for the observed outcome to the extent possible. The
more hypotheses that were tested and refuted, the greater the confidence
that could be place in any observed relationship between the CSRD effort
and improved student achievement.

While on site, the team conducted interviews (generally 45 minutes to
one hour in length) with those persons identified during the scheduling
process. The team also visited an average of six classrooms at each
school. The teams requested the opportunity to observe classrooms in
varying stages of model implementation (i.e., a classroom where the
model was fully in use, and one where the model was not in use). Team
members utilized a classroom observation form to record observations
during the 45 minute period, and attempted to speak to the teachers
whose classrooms they observed at some point during the visit.

Finally, either while on site, or during a phone interview, the team
requested information from the model developers about the fidelity of
each site to the original model. In nearly all cases, the model
developer was able to provide the team with either a written or verbal
assessment of each schools fidelity.

***Preparing Databases and Summary Reports.*** Following the site
visits, the teams prepared databases of evidence, following the outline
of the CSRD protocol and citing interviews and documents throughout.
These databases were then used to develop summary reports about each
school. The reports were sent to each school and district contact to
review for the accuracy of the data. The reports were then used to guide
the development of this first annual report.

**Attachment A-1**

**Instructions for Screening Schools**

**for Case Study Selection**

**INSTRUCTION FOR SCREENING SCHOOLS**

**FOR CASE STUDY SELECTION**

The purposes of the screening procedure are:

1.  To confirm basic information about the school;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  To determine the availability of student achievement data about the
    school's students; and

2.  To identify any other (*administrative*) conditions that might
    create problems for conducting a case study of the school's
    CSRD-related activities.

Note that the screening procedure should avoid inquiry about other
*educational* conditions at the school that might influence the
selection process. The final set of schools is intended to be a
representative sample of all CSRD schools. Thus, for instance, finding
that the school was having difficulty in implementing the CSRD model is
intended to be an outcome of the final case study---not a reason for not
selecting the school in the first place.

Similarly, the screening procedure is not intended to be an opportunity
for schools or districts to decline to participate in the case studies.
All schools are to be informed that they were chosen randomly from the
entire set of CSRD schools (with the exception of being paired within
the same districts), and that their participation in the case studies is
required as part of their CSRD award \[NEED to confirm this, with
reference to CSRD program in DoED\].

All screening information is to be summarized in the Site Screening Form
accompanying this instruction.

Making Initial Contact

Because there will be two schools chosen in a given district, the case
study team should initially seek contacts with *both* a person in the
district *and* a person in each of the schools who is knowledgeable
about (if not intimately familiar with) the CSRD program (i.e., three
persons for every pair of schools).

For each school, the CSRD database lists at least one such contact
person (either in the school or in its district), who should be
considered the initial person to whom a telephone call should be made.
This person should then be asked to identify the other contact persons,
if they were not already listed in the database. (These persons need not
be the ones who will give final permission for the schools'
participation in the case studies.)

1\. Confirming Existing Information about the School

The screening should begin by confirming several ascriptive
characteristics of the school, as such characteristics appear in the
CSRD database (the data will be provided in tabular form to the case
study teams before the screening process starts):

-   The school's status as an elementary, middle, high, or "mixed" grade
    school;

-   Its CSRD award size and whether it was a Cohort 1 or Cohort 2
    awardee;

-   Its status as a Title I school and as part of Title I schoolwide;

-   Whether it "self-reported" itself as a low-performing school;

-   Whether it is located in the "area type" defined by the database;
    and

-   Whether it adopted the CSRD model listed in the database.

Where discrepancies are uncovered, the school should be reminded that
the CSRD database was derived from the school's own response to a SEDL
questionnaire \[NEED dates for these questionnaires\], just to make sure
that there is an adequate explanation for the discrepancy(ies) (e.g.,
the reality changed after the school submitted the original
questionnaire). Further, in carrying out this part of the screening
inquiry, the existence of discrepancies should not be conveyed as a
reason that the school might be dropped from the case study sample.

The contact person should be asked to forward (e.g., fax) to the team
any written information about the school, covering these and related
characteristics, including a copy of its CSRD application (the
application may be available from the school or the district).

2\. Other Administrative Conditions

The contact person(s) should be asked about any disruptive
administrative conditions that might make a case study infeasible.
Examples might be: 1) sudden or unexpected turnover in key leadership
positions (e.g., principal); 2) a recent and traumatic incident, such as
an act of youth violence, that might have put the school into the public
and media eye; 3) a recent district or court takeover of the school,
putting it into a limbo status.

**SITE SCREENING FORM (attach notes, where needed)**

**1. Contact History:**

Date(s) of Screening Contacts:

**Evaluation Team Member Making Contact:**

**Person(s) Contacted (name, title, and phone number):**

**2. Name and Address of School:**

**3. Information to be Confirmed from SEDL Database:** *circle one; if
no, write note*

*of explanation*

a\. School Status: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (filled out
from database) Confirmed: yes no (note)

b\. CSRD Award Size: (filled out from database) Confirmed: yes no (note)

c\. Receipt of Title I Funds: (filled out from database) Confirmed: yes
no (note)

d\. Low-performing school: (filled out from database) Confirmed: yes no
(note)

e\. Area type: (filled out from database) Confirmed: yes no (note)

f\. CSRD Model adopted: (filled out from database) Confirmed: yes no
(note)

g\. Name of school district: (filled out from database) Confirmed: yes
no (note)

**4. Possible Disruptive Administrative Conditions Making Case Study
Infeasible** (*discuss with note*)

**Attachment A-2**

**Case Study Protocol for**

**CSRD Field-Focused Studies**

**CASE STUDY PROTOCOL FOR**

**CSRD FIELD-FOCUSED STUDY**

**Exhibit 1**

**THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR A CSRD SCHOOL**

**(COSMOS-TMG EVALUATION)**

![](media/image1.wmf)

^1^ Note areas where evidence is weak in preparation for next visit.

^2^ This is a timeline of events. Actual support should appear under
Component 5.

^3^ For example, what were they using prior to this model.

> ^4^ Additional models should be in a related subject area. Models
> covering different subject areas belong under Component 2.

^5^ Actual professional development activities should be described in
Component 3.

^6^ Write this section of the report last. Do not repeat details from
other sections of the report.

> ^7^ Comment on the breadth and depth of the design, and consistency
> with state and district policies, [without]{.underline} describing
> each component. Decide whether the design involved the whole school,
> or was limited to one subject area (like SFA reading).

^8^ The concept of design goes beyond the school improvement plan;
describe more than just the plan.

^9^ This section should describe professional development from the point
of view of the recipient. Comments about external technical assistance
belong in Component 7.

^10^ Include internal techniques like lead teachers and modeling in
classrooms

^11^ Comment on whether CSRD is on top of, or part of, routine
professional development activities and funding.

^12^ Comment on who pays the salary for the internal coach.

> ^13^ Do not comment on the evaluation efforts, or result of any data
> analysis in this section; that belongs under Component 8.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Component 5: Support^14^ within the School**                        |
|                                                                       |
| *The breadth of schoolwide reform demands that teachers,              |
| administrators, and others in the school all support the reform (some |
| of the CSRD models also require evidence of specific forms or levels  |
| of support).*                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| A. What have been the faculty meetings or votes, if any, on the       |
| reform activities, and when did they take place and with what result  |
| (e.g., support or opposition)?                                        |
|                                                                       |
| B. How instrumental has the principal been in leading or              |
| participating in the reform effort (*give examples of specific        |
| initiatives or decisions made by the principal*)? Comment on whether  |
| the principal should be regarded as the leader of the reform effort.  |
|                                                                       |
| C. What changes in school schedules, operations, or procedures have   |
| been made, if any, to accommodate the reform?                         |
|                                                                       |
| D. What evidence is there that real and cherished resources have been |
| called upon to support reform activities (e.g., *Title I dollars have |
| been redirected or staffing patterns have been altered*)?             |
|                                                                       |
| E. Give examples of the "language" of reform at the school---e.g.,    |
| the extent to which administrators and teachers speak about the       |
| overall reform as a permanent change, not passing phase; the          |
| depictment of reform in school announcements, newsletters, and other  |
| outreach documents.                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| F. Comment on the extent to which the responses to the preceding five |
| questions reflect *genuine* support for *genuine* reform.             |
|                                                                       |
| Component 6: Parent and Community Involvement                         |
|                                                                       |
| *Parent and community involvement can lead to support for reform in   |
| at least two important ways: in instructional roles (direct           |
| involvement in the education of the child) and in governance roles    |
| (direct involvement in school decisionmaking).*                       |
|                                                                       |
| A. What is the evidence that, over time, the role and number of       |
| parents and community representatives involved in the education of    |
| the child (e.g., tutoring, providing classroom assistance, working    |
| with the child in doing homework) has changed? Are formal records     |
| kept by the school? \[*Examples of such records would be helpful*.\]  |
|                                                                       |
| B. To what extent have any of the above activities been specifically  |
| geared to the reform effort (e.g., parents have been directed to work |
| on the educational subjects that are of high priority in the reform   |
| activities)?                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

^14^ Include all information about the extent of support in the
discussion of this Component.

> ^15^ Parent involvement on school boards and family support teams
> should be described here.
>
> ^16^ The information about the developer and other outside consultants
> belongs here (include source of support for costs and whether this is
> part of the broad costs of professional development described under
> Component 2, or in a addition to those costs).
>
> ^17^ Describe who decides when external TA is needed.
>
> ^18^ Define Evaluation broadly to include all analytic activities and
> make clear whether formal evaluation methods are being followed.

**References**

COSMOS Corporation and The McKenzie Group, ***Evaluation Design for
Component I and Proposed Substudy***, Bethesda, MD, January 2000.

Herman, Rebecca, et al., ***An Educator's Guide to Schoolwide Reform***,
American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC, 1999.

Yin, Robert K., "Life Histories of Innovations: How New Practices Become
Routinized," ***Public Administration Review***, Jan./Feb. 1981,
41:21-28.

**APPENDIX B**

**Promising Reform Strategies**

**Appendix B**

**PROMISING REFORM STRATEGIES**

The following strategies were identified by the site visit teams during
the course of four site visits to each site over a two-year period. The
strategies represent practices, "programs, and technical
assistance/support strategies" that were useful to the grantees in their
efforts to implement the nine components of CSRD. The strategies were
identified through interviews with school and district personnel,
document reviews, and observations. They are not based on any analysis
of student achievement data.

### Component 1: Research-Based Method

**School K: Stringent Implementation of the Research-Based Method
Believed to Result in Improved Reading Scores**

All of the teachers at School K were fully trained in the use of *SFA*
and fully implemented the program in their reading groups. Classrooms
had all of the *SFA* materials, followed the instructional scope and
sequence religiously, and were in all respects an exemplary model for
SFA. Teachers varied somewhat in their enthusiasm for SFA, but all
worked very hard to make the reading program work. Teachers indicated
they were grounded by one goal---to see their children's reading
performance improve. The first year of implementation was very
difficult, given SFA's prescriptive approach. Teachers persevered,
because they felt the more effective use of instructional time would
ultimately facilitate student learning. This was true for new as well as
more experienced teachers. Teachers in the school supported one-another
and were chiefly responsible for the excellent implementation of the
model. This level of teacher commitment and effective program
implementation is exemplary and yet *SFA* will be replaced in the
2002--03 school year. Teachers credit *SFA* for improvements in student
reading in the primary grades, but *SFA* had only marginal effects in
the upper grades. Teachers in the upper grades were not able to make the
changes they thought were needed to improve their student's performance
because of *SFA*'s rigidity. The entire teaching staff withdrew their
support of *SFA* because this rigidity and they believed the method
developer did not adequately respond to their concerns. This teaching
faculty exemplifies the importance of "buy-in" and collaboration.

School J: Research-Based Method Guiding Scope and Sequence of Lessons in
All Subject Areas

Many teachers have found the structure and sequence required by the
method for lesson development a positive addition to their instructional
capacity. What is learned from developing a specific lesson can be
applied to other areas of instruction. Teachers taught the value of
students self appraisal. This helps the student understand what is
expected and when they have met all of the requirements of a particular
lesson.

Several district policies appear to be instrumental in supporting the
continuation of School J's reform efforts after CSRD. The first is the
reorganization of the central office administration, particularly the
arrangement of the district's schools into three geographic clusters.
Each cluster includes those schools that feed into one of the district's
three high schools. An associate superintendent is responsible for each
cluster and facilitates communication and consistent policies and
practices (e.g., a common teacher evaluation form) across all schools in
the cluster. Teachers and staff within a cluster have opportunities to
participate in professional development at another school in the
cluster, exchange information about best practices (e.g., regarding ways
to enhance parent involvement), and discuss how to coordinate
educational programming among schools in the cluster. Although in its
first year of implementation, the principal notes that the school
receives greater attention from the district due to the cluster
organization and better coordination among schools may help to ease
student transitions and improve student achievement.

**School R: Teacher Teams Provide Students with Cross-Curricular
Authentic Learning Opportunities**

The 9th grade teams at School R provide an opportunity for teachers to
engage in flexible block scheduling, interdisciplinary curriculum, and
team planning. For example, the Freshman teams organized an
Environmental Congress for the entire freshman class, involving all
major subjects:

-- Science -- students learned about environmental issues.

-- Math -- students work on graphing findings.

-- English -- students developed position papers for their proposals\
to the congress, and work on presentation skills.

-- History -- students learned about the political process involved.

The 9-week curriculum culminated in a "Congress" for the entire Freshman
class held in the school auditorium. Candidates were selected from each
team and presented their position papers. Members of the audience (other
Freshman class members, teachers, school and district administrators,
and some parents) were asked to comment or debate the topic, and then
vote on the outcome.

### Component 2: Comprehensive Design

**School G: School Improvement Planning Process Aligns Reform
Initiatives**

In 1999, district staff led workshops to prepare schools for developing
school improvement plans aligned with budgets and needs assessments. The
2000-01 plan has three priorities: improving academic performance,
continuing professional development, and increasing parental involvement
and student attendance. The district seeks to align all reform efforts
with state standards and district goals and is viewed by one state
official as one of the most advanced districts in complying with state
requirements. The district actions were the result of a new state
mandate that all school efforts be integrated into comprehensive school
improvement, reflecting state content standards (e.g., plans must
reflect state standards).

### Component 3: Professional Development

School G: Professional Development Activities and Instructional Practice
Driven by Student Assessment Measure

Extensive teacher professional development in student assessment was one
of the most promising strategies observed at School G. Individual and
disaggregated student data was available for teachers in both reading
and mathematics. Teachers at School G received extensive job imbedded
professional development training on instructional improvement driven by
student assessment measures.

Teachers at School G were using data to not only gain an understanding
of student achievement levels, but also to drive instructional practice.
For example, one kindergarten teacher, who was participating in an
action research project through the local IHE, detailed how during the
2001--02 school year she used pre-test data to guide individual and
classroom reading instruction. Using pre-test data, the teacher was
optimistic in citing individual student gains during the school year,
despite not having received post-test data results. Instead of dreading
the ensuing test results, this teacher was anxiously awaiting
confirmation of what she believed would be an affirmation of her
expectations. Rather than attacking the problem of low level reading
ability with a general increase in the amount of student reading,
teachers at School G gained valuable data-driven professional
development training opportunities that helped teachers target the
skills and subskills necessary for teaching effective reading.

School I: Staff Understanding of Common Planning Period as Professional
Development Opportunity

Staff support for reform at School I, and for the school environment in
general, showed modest increases in 2001--2002, in part because of the
creation of collaborative planning time. The principal reorganized the
schedule to allow teachers the opportunity to meet weekly with others on
their grade level to discuss achievement data and instructional methods.
Teachers commented that this practice, which required no additional
funds to implement, was beginning to dramatically change the culture in
the school.

The planning time was perceived by teachers as a professional
development opportunity, and as a show of respect by the school
administration for their profession. And teachers reported that they
were stepping up to this challenge. According to the teachers, when they
would find time to talk to each other in the past, the conversation
focused on complaints about students or school and district policies.
With the advent of scheduled planning time, the teachers report that the
meetings are used constructively to review data and problem solve
weaknesses, or to bounce ideas about instructional techniques off their
colleagues.

This shift in practice was aided by the district office, who helped the
school staff learn to understand and interpret student achievement data.
Teachers learned the language and skills needed to discuss reading and
math scores, and use each other to create strategies. The addition of
the 4th and 5th grade classes to School I, which brought the school into
the state assessment system, impressed upon teachers the importance of
this shift.

### Component 4: Measurable Benchmarks

School P: Method-Recommended Curriculum Team Aligning Scope and Sequence
to Provide Greater Interdisciplinary Project

The curriculum team, initiated through a HSTW professional development
workshop, was in the process of overhauling School P's curriculum
framework. The team was aligning the sequencing of course topics across
disciplines to provide greater opportunity for across-discipline
projects. The *MSW* technical assistance report and curriculum audit and
the *MSW* standards-based curriculum professional development workshop
assisted the team in designing a curriculum framework that was both
academically enriching and systemically consistent for middle and high
school students. However, the impending school merger interrupted the
enthusiasm and proposed intentions of School P's curriculum team, and by
Spring 2002 it was unclear whether the efforts would continue.

School C: External "Critical Friends" Group Provides Objective
Assessment of Progress Towards Goals and Benchmarks

The Co-NECT *Critical Friends* process is a unique form of assessing
method implementation. Using the *Critical Friends* process, School C
planned an informal (local) critical friends assessment process in
Spring 2002. The purpose of the progress review was to take a "snap
shot" of the school's progress through classroom observations, and to
provide feedback to faculty and staff that would help to guide goal
setting and planning for the 2002--03 academic school year. Data
collected during the progress review would be utilized to enhance
Co-NECT implementation and the SIP of School C. The Co-NECT consultant
and facilitator, the principal, design team members, a HOSTS community
volunteer, and a parent comprised were members of the progress review
team assigned to observe quality teaching, learning, and method
implementation. Due to dangerous weather conditions, the school canceled
the Critical Friends meeting and the site visit team was unable to
observe the process.

### Component 8: Evaluation

**Schools H and N: Clear Scope and Sequence and Quarterly Assessments
Provide Frequent Measures of Student Growth**

The district has developed a scope and sequence system for the major
academic areas derived directly from the state standards. To regularly
measure student progress, the district conducts system wide assessments
every nine weeks in reading, mathematics, science, and social studies,
based on the scope and sequence documents.

To implement the assessment, which is used solely for diagnostic
purposes, the district utilizes a commercially developed system to
analyze results and provide feedback to teachers and administrators. The
system does not contain assessment items that must be used; rather, it
allows the district and teachers to develop and use items that are tied
directly to the scope and sequence.

The system, which is computer based, allows for results to be tabulated
and presented to teachers and administrators in a variety of ways.
Teachers can obtain both individual and class results, as well as item
analyses to determine if there is a pattern to student responses that
calls for adjustment in instruction. Teachers across common grades can
compare results and use the comparison to make adjustments. Generally,
teachers have access only to results for their students, though, in one
school, teachers were allowed access to results for the entire school.

School administrators have access to results for the entire school and
can do item analyses, compare results at grade levels, and design and
provide assistance to teachers and students who are having difficulty.

At the district level, all results are reviewed by district
administrators and used for professional development, adjustments to
scope and sequence, and other educational refinements.

Since the system is Web-based, all users are able to analyze results
from various viewpoints instantaneously.

This is the first year the system has been in place so that results in
terms of improved student performance on the state assessment cannot be
determined.

### Component 5: Staff Support

School F: Internal Collaborative Meetings Foster Inter-curricular
Teaching and Teacher Buy-in to Schoolwide Issues

Two aspects of the CSRD reform process stand out as instrumental in
bringing about the impressive changes that have been made by this
school. The first is the leadership of the principal and assistant
principal of the school. The principal contributed to reform by
empowering staff to take on the reform process and make needed changes.
The assistant principal worked to provide the tools and opportunities
for school staff to take on the challenge and to be effective.

The primary venue for the change process was establishment of the
Critical Friends Groups (CFG's), designed to address both individual
needs of colleagues as well as school wide issues. Over time this
interaction produced an environment of trust among colleagues that
created an environment in which staff were able to take more risks and
become more creative problem solvers. Change in how the entire school
community functions has come about over the past three years directly
because of the extensive buy-in of staff and administrators to make the
reform process and associated strategies work.

The school district has supported CSRD implementation by providing
trainers for the adopted methods who were able to provide extensive
follow-up training at the school site on an ongoing basis. The training
and support provided to School F was praised by teachers and
administrators as effective and has led to a considerable change in the
school\'s class schedule, curriculum offerings, staff organization and
school culture.

### Component 6: Parent and Community Support

School O: Parents and Community Members Participate in School Governance
and Goal Setting

One of the promising practices in School O is the collaboration between
the School Advisory Council, composed of community and staff members,
and the Principals Cabinet which includes two administrators, the magnet
and SIM coordinators and the lead mathematics, science, and reading
teachers. The role of the Advisory Council is to develop the School
Improvement Plan. Based on a review of past progress, they set goals and
objectives related to student achievement, community involvement and
student participation in co-curricular programs. The Principals Advisory
Cabinet develops the specific plans that translate these goals and
objectives into a sequence of strategies within a time frame. They help
to determine what strategies and activities will be employed by whom and
when. This collaboration between the two groups moves the school
improvement plan from paper to reality. The key to the success of this
process lies in close coordination between the two groups so that the
Principal\'s Cabinet fully understands and fully implements the school
improvement plan.

**APPENDIX C**

**Descriptions of the**

**Research-Based Methods or**

**Strategies Being Used**

**Appendix C**

**DESCRIPTIONS OF THE**

**RESEARCH-BASED METHODS OR STRATEGIES BEING USED**

This appendix contains brief descriptions of the research-based methods
in place at the 18 CSRD schools visited as part of the Field-Focused
Study. The descriptions were obtained from *The Catalog of School Reform
Models,* developed and maintained on the website for the Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory (www.nwrel.org). Descriptions of the
locally-developed models are not available through this source but were
obtained from the models' originators (or developers).

*Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 10/20/02*

Accelerated Schools (K - 8)

Accepted for Inclusion 2/1/98\
Re-accepted 11/1/01\
Description Updated 12/1/01

+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Type of       | > entire-school                                  |
| > Model**         |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Founder**     | > Henry Levin, Stanford University               |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Current       | > National Center for Accelerated Schools        |
| > Service         | > Project at the University of Connecticut, and  |
| > Provider**      | > various regional centers                       |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Year          | > 1986                                           |
| > Established**   |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **\# of Schools | > 1,300                                          |
| > Served          |                                                  |
| > (9/1/01)**      |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Level**       | > K - 8                                          |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Primary       | > provide all students with enriched instruction |
| > Goal**          | > based on entire school community's vision of   |
|                   | > learning                                       |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Main          | > gifted-and-talented instruction for all        |
| > Features**      | > students through \"powerful learning\"\        |
|                   | > participatory process for whole-school         |
|                   | > transformation\                                |
|                   | > three guiding principles (unity of purpose,    |
|                   | > empowerment plus responsibility, and building  |
|                   | > on strengths)                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on     | > teachers adapt instructional practices usually |
| > Instruction**   | > reserved for gifted-and-talented children for  |
|                   | > all students                                   |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on     | > governance structure that empowers the whole   |
| > Organi          | > school community to make key decisions based   |
| zation/Staffing** | > on the Inquiry Process                         |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on     | > depends on collective decisions of staff       |
| > Schedule**      |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Subject-Area  | > no                                             |
| > Programs        |                                                  |
| > Provided by     |                                                  |
| > Developer**     |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Parental      | > parent and community involvement is built into |
| > Involvement**   | > participatory governance structure             |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Technology**  | > depends on collective decisions of staff       |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Materials**   | > *Accelerated Schools Resource Guide* plus a    |
|                   | > field guide for each training component        |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+

Origin/Scope

The accelerated schools approach, developed by Henry Levin of Stanford
University, was first implemented in 1986 in two San Francisco Bay Area
elementary schools. The Accelerated Schools Project has now reached over
1,300 schools.

**General Approach**

Many schools serve students in at-risk situations by remediating them,
which all too often involves less challenging curricula and lowered
expectations. Accelerated schools take the opposite approach: they offer
enriched curricula and instructional programs (the kind traditionally
reserved for gifted-and-talented children) to all students. Members of
the school community work together to transform every classroom into a
"powerful learning" environment, where students and teachers are
encouraged to think creatively, explore their interests, and achieve at
high levels.

No single feature makes a school accelerated. Rather, each school
community uses the accelerated schools process and philosophy to
determine its own vision and collaboratively work to achieve its goals.
The philosophy is based on three democratic principles: unity of
purpose, empowerment coupled with responsibility, and building on
strengths.

Transformation into an accelerated school begins with the entire school
community examining its present situation through a process called
taking stock. The school community then forges a shared vision of what
it wants the school to be. By comparing the vision to its present
situation, the school community identifies priority challenge areas.
Then it sets out to address those areas, working through an accelerated
schools governance structure and analyzing problems through an Inquiry
Process. The Inquiry Process is a systematic method that helps school
communities clearly understand problems, find and implement solutions,
and assess results.

Results

Two early small-scale evaluations yielded initial evidence of improved
achievement, school climate, and parent and community involvement in
accelerated schools. A 1993 evaluation comparing an accelerated school
in Texas to a control school revealed that over a two-year period, fifth
grade SRA scores in reading, language arts, and mathematics at the
accelerated school climbed considerably. Over the same period, the
scores of a control school declined (McCarthy & Still, 1993). In the
other study, Metropolitan Achievement Test grade-equivalent reading
scores at an accelerated school improved more than scores in a control
school in four of five grades, although the results for language scores
were mixed (Knight & Stallings, 1995).

More recent studies involving larger numbers of elementary schools have
also demonstrated gains for accelerated schools relative to comparison
schools. In an independent study of eight different reform models in
Memphis, the Accelerated Schools Project was one of three models that
demonstrated statistically significant or nearly significant growth
across all subjects on the TVAAS (Tennessee Value-Added Assessment
System) compared with control schools. In reading, the Accelerated
Schools Project showed the highest gain of any model across the three
years of the study (Ross, Wang, Sanders, Wright, & Stringfield, 1999).
Unpublished data from 34 elementary schools in Ohio that implemented the
Accelerated Schools Project in 1997 or before reveal that accelerated
schools on average showed greater gains from 1997 to 1999 in fourth- and
sixth-grade reading and mathematics on the Ohio Proficiency Test than
the districts in which they were located. For schools starting their
fifth year or beyond in 1997, the advantages were much larger. For
example, 12% more students in these accelerated schools scored
proficient or advanced on the sixth-grade reading test in 1999 than in
1997, compared to a 3% decline for district schools (Report for Ohio
Center, 1999).

Researchers from the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC)
recently completed a five-year study of eight accelerated schools. They
used third-grade reading and mathematics scores from the three years
prior to implementation to predict what scores would have been during
the following five years with no intervention. They then compared these
predictions with actual scores to see if the accelerated schools
approach had any impact. They found little or no impact on test scores
during the first three years of implementation (when the focus was on
reforming school structure and governance), then a gradual increase in
scores during the fourth and fifth years (when substantial changes in
curriculum and instruction were taking place). Average scores in the
fifth year exceeded predicted scores by seven percentile points in
reading and eight in mathematics, a statistically significant amount
(Bloom et al., 2001).

To date, no studies have analyzed the impact of the Accelerated Schools
Project on middle schools.

**Implementation Assistance**

> ***Project Capacity:*** The National Center for the Accelerated
> Schools Project is located at the University of Connecticut. There are
> also 12 regional centers across the country based in universities and
> state departments of education. Across the national and regional
> centers, the Accelerated Schools Project employs 62 full-time and 27
> part-time staff.
>
> ***Faculty Buy-In:*** 90% of the school community (all teaching and
> nonteaching staff plus a representative sample of other school
> community members including parents and district personnel) must agree
> to transform the school into an accelerated school. Students are also
> involved in age-appropriate discussions during the buy-in process.
>
> ***Initial Training:*** For each accelerated school, the National
> Center or a regional center trains a five-member team comprising the
> principal, a designated coach (often from the district office), a
> school staff member who will serve as an internal facilitator, and two
> other school staff members. Training for this team involves an
> intensive five-day summer workshop, two subsequent two-day sessions on
> Inquiry and Powerful Learning, and ongoing mentoring by a center staff
> member. The coach provides two days of training for the entire school
> staff just before the school year begins.
>
> ***Follow-Up Coaching:*** During the first year of implementation, the
> coach provides the equivalent of at least four additional days of
> training for all staff. Coaches also spend 25% of their time
> (generally at least one day per week) supporting the school. In the
> early stages, the coach is more of a trainer, introducing the process
> and guiding school community members through the first steps of
> implementation. In later stages, the coach helps schools evaluate how
> well the model is working, assists in overcoming challenges, and
> continually reinforces the accelerated schools philosophy to keep
> momentum alive. Additionally, an Accelerated Schools Project staff
> member visits the school three times. During the second and third
> years of implementation, the five-member school team receives a total
> of nine more days of training.
>
> ***Networking:*** The National Center and regional centers host an
> annual national conference and regional conferences, publish
> newsletters, support Web sites, and maintain a listserv connecting
> teachers, coaches, and centers via e-mail. Networking opportunities
> also enable accelerated school communities to interact with each other
> on a regular basis.
>
> ***Implementation Review:*** Continual self-evaluation is part of the
> process in accelerated schools. To help schools gather information,
> the National Center has developed a comprehensive assessment tool
> called The Tools for Assessing School Progress.

**Costs**

The Accelerated Schools Project (National Center and regional centers)
charges approximately \$45,000 per year for a Basic Partnership
Agreement (minimum three-year commitment). This fee varies from state to
state depending on subsidies and grants provided to the local regional
center. The agreement includes, in the first year:

> ! training of a five-member team including the coach, the principal,
> and three school staff members (excluding travel expenses)
>
> ! training materials, including five copies of the *Accelerated
> Schools Resource Guide*
>
> ! three site visits by a project staff member
>
> ! technical assistance by phone, fax, and e-mail
>
> ! monthly networking opportunities
>
> ! year-end retreat
>
> ! a subscription to newsletters and the project\'s electronic network

In addition, schools and/or districts must provide release time for the
entire teaching staff for two days of initial training and the
equivalent of four days of additional training during the first year.
They must also schedule weekly meeting time amounting to about 36 hours
per year and cover 25% of the full-time salary and benefits of the coach
(estimated at \$12,000-\$20,000 for a coach external to the school).

Over the next two years schools receive targeted professional
development in key components of the model, on-going technical
assistance, monthly networking opportunities, and one site visit by a
project staff member. Schools may contract with a center for additional
site visits and other services as needed.

**State Standards and Accountability**

The Accelerated Schools Project empowers school communities to determine
their own priorities for improvement. If the school community determines
that aligning instruction with state standards and assessments is a
priority area, then community members address that area by working
through the accelerated schools governance structure and Inquiry
Process.

**Student Populations**

As part of the catalog Web site search mechanism, each model had an
opportunity to apply to be highlighted for its efforts in serving
selected student populations. The five categories were urban, rural,
high poverty, English language learners, and special education. To
qualify for a category, a model had to demonstrate (a) that it included
special training, materials, or components focusing on that student
population, and (b) that it had been implemented in a substantial number
of schools serving that population.

The Accelerated Schools Project is highlighted in all five categories.
It was designed primarily to serve schools with high proportions of
students in at-risk situations. Hundreds of rural and urban schools with
large concentrations of high poverty students have become accelerated
schools. The model provides a process for addressing the unique needs of
each school, often resulting in special efforts such as tutoring,
after-school programs, or connections with social service organizations.
Training includes strategies for instruction and curriculum development
within the context of multicultural classrooms. The accelerated schools
governance model joins special and regular education teachers together
in teams, where they work toward the integration of special and regular
education students.

**Special Considerations**

The accelerated schools process can be a challenging one. Teachers and
administrators must be willing to relinquish hierarchical
decision-making structures, work together, and expend considerable time
and energy to transform a traditional school into an accelerated school.
Founder Henry Levin estimates that this process can take three to five
years. During this time, it is crucial to maintain regular meeting time
and active coaching at the school site.

**Selected Evaluations**

***Developer/Implementer***

Knight, S. L., & Stallings, J. A. (1995). The implementation of the
accelerated school model in an urban elementary school. In R. L.
Allington & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), *No quick fix: Rethinking literacy
programs in America\'s elementary schools* (pp. 236-251). New York:
Teachers College Press.

McCarthy, J., & Still, S. (1993). Hollibrook Accelerated Elementary
School. In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger (Eds.), *Restructuring schooling:
Learning from ongoing efforts* (pp. 63-83). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

Segal, T. (1999). \[Report for Ohio center\]. Unpublished raw data.

***Independent Researchers.***

Bloom, H. S., Ham, S., Melton, L., & O'Brien, J., with Doolittle, F. C.,
& Kagehiro, S. (2001). *Evaluating the Accelerated Schools Approach: A
look at early implementation and impacts on student achievement in eight
elementary schools.* New York: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation.

Ross, S. M., Wang, L. W., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Stringfield,
S. (1999). *Two- and three-year achievement results on the Tennessee
Value-Added Assessment System for restructuring schools in Memphis.*
Memphis: Center for Research in Educational Policy.

**For more information, contact**

Gene Chasin, Director\
National Center for Accelerated Schools Project\
University of Connecticut\
2131 Hillside Road, Unit 3224\
Storrs, CT 06269\
Phone: 860-486-6330

Fax: 860-486-6348\
E-mail: info@acceleratedschools.net\
Web site: http://www.acceleratedschools.net

*Excerpt from description of the Behavioral Modification Model,\* 2000*

**Behavioral Modification Model**

A positive school climate can have substantial positive effects on
reductions in substance abuse, anti-social behavior and school leaving
(e.g., Mayer et all, 1983; Rutter, 1979; and Gottfredsen, 1988; Embry,
1997). There are a number of characteristics of schools and school-based
programs that seem to be critical for both prevention and intervention
success, which can be manipulated in "dose" levels for schools and youth
who need more shown in table form

> ! Promoting high levels of engagement in academic task and literacy
> promotion.
>
> ! Encouraging high levels of praise or attention by teachers and
> school staff for attention to task and academic productivity,
> especially for high- risk children.
>
> ! Engaging in differential attention from adults to other students and
> other behavior (DRO = differential reinforcement of other behavior)
> when a child has minor misbehavior rather than attention to children's
> negative behavior.
>
> ! Using daily group activity rewards for teams or classes rather than
> weekly, monthly or semesterly rewards based on individual points.
>
> ! Encouraging daily, self-monitoring and posting of academic and
> behavioral competencies, including frequently changed public displays
> of work.
>
> ! Setting up structures (antecedent) that "channel" probability of
> positive behavior and reduce "down time" during transitions.
>
> ! Using every day story models to illustrate pro-social behaviors
> being mastered.
>
> ! Using cognitive-behavioral questions and techniques ("Socratic
> methods" or "brain builders") to foster mastery of emotionally charged
> events, as well as during routine times to foster perspective taking
> and prediction skills.
>
> ! Sending home daily positive home notes to student's families for
> positive behavior and achievement, linked to rewards at home, plus
> extensive involvement of pupils in teach of positive skills to
> families.
>
> ! Creating many opportunities for students to hold positions of
> responsibility or job roles each day.
>
> ! Using quick daily response-cost, cognitive mediation and
> over-correction procedures for acts of negative behavior instead of
> delayed consequences, such as referrals to the office or
> high-intensity verbal or physical reprimands.
>
> ! Using a common language of belonging to define the school culture,
> which is used by both adults and pupils.
>
> ! Creating clarity of rules, including quizzes about them for group
> reward.

\*A pseudonym has been assigned to this locally-developed model to
ensure confidentiality.

> ! Encouraging frequent art, music performance, drama and best work
> displays.
>
> ! Fostering intensive use of the same principles and tools throughout
> all areas of the school life --- classroom, lunchroom, recess, bus,
> after school activities, hallways and other venues, explicitly
> designed to carry from year to year.

The PAXIS school system is the first approach to create a full system to
achieve these results using emerging research on prevention from various
projects sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control, the US
Department of Education and other funding sources. The materials being
developed use not only the scientific findings but also the field
feedback to develop a system that is sensitive to the demands of
contemporary schools for successful implementation. The new system also
packs in procedures to improve literacy and achievement, which have been
emerging concurrently to the research on problem behavior. This latter
development is important because of the well-known links to achievement,
verbal fluency and anti-social behavior.

The system is a three-step materials process for staff, children and
families. All staff members receive the same "Successtory" which
provides an engaging story model of how all items fit together. This
same "Successtory" is shared with every family. The result is all
parties can start from the same sheet of music, understanding emotional,
health and academic benefits for children, families and school staff.
The Succestory is a synthesis of anecdotes and research woven to map a
symbolic model of action, showing "coping and overcoming of common
"yes-buts."

Additional support materials are provided for various functions. For
example, there is a guide for leaders in the school, which provides the
details for each "recipe" being implemented. This guide tells the school
leaders what, when, where and how---including how much paper will be
required, who can help with the actions, etc. This guide is accompanied
by a CD-ROM.

Every classroom person receives twelve modules, plus a CD-ROM, which has
additional linked items by developmental level and training support,
linked to the World Wide Web. The modules are given out only as the
school steps through the sequence---keeping down the "two-foot thick
materials" shock down. This modular approach, tied to support materials
for the whole school and families, moves the culture through symbolic
modeling, role plays, behavioral rehearsal, praxis, rituals, monitoring
and celebrations to create successful momentum. The modules are
organized around a sequence of six principles or tenets:

1\) Commend others; 2) Help each other; 3) Find advice and wisdom; 4)
Avoid hurting people; 5) Make amends; and 6) Stick with it.

Volume 1 of the modules assures success in the classroom and main school
functions. Volume 2 makes sure that the success spreads to all the
transitional areas in which so much problem behavior occurs: playground,
lunchroom, buses, home, neighborhood.

Every family receives the main story plus a developmentally appropriate
book on each principle, which is looped into the various modules and
CD-ROMS. The booklets (each 24 pages long) are designed to promote
skills at home and school, that advance academic, social and emotional
competencies. The booklets also promote literacy, based on studies of
emergent literacy. The booklets tie into various protocols at the school
to advance family involvement.

*Excerpt from CES National Website ---
http://www.essentialschools.org/pub/ces_docs/*

*about/about.html*

**About the Coalition of Essential Schools**

**Vision and Principles**

The Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) is a national network of
schools, regional centers, and a national office, working to create
schools where intellectual excitement animates every child\'s face,
where teachers work together to get better at their craft, and where all
children flourish, regardless of their gender, race, or class.

CES schools share a common set of beliefs about the purpose and practice
of schooling, known as the CES Common Principles. Based on decades of
research and practice, the principles call for the creation of:

1.  Personalized instruction to address individual needs and interests

2.  Small schools and classrooms, where teachers and student know each
    other well and work in an atmosphere of trust and high expectations

3.  Multiple assessments based on performance of authentic tasks

4.  Democratic and equitable school policies and practice

5.  Close partnerships with the school\'s community

The Coalition sees school reform as an inescapably local phenomenon, the
outcome of groups of people working together, building a shared vision
and drawing on the community's strengths, history, and local flavor. The
Common Principles are meant to guide the school in setting priorities
and designing practice, as each school develops its own programs, suited
to its particular students, faculty, and community. CES regional centers
and CES National seek to support schools in this work.

**CES National Programs and Services**

CES National, based in Oakland, California, provides national networking
and professional development opportunities, conducts research, and
advocates for public policies which support our vision of education.
Here are our core activities:

> ***Fall Forum.*** Each year, we convene over 2,000 educators,
> policy-makers, parents, and students from around the world to exchange
> ideas and practices.
>
> ***CES University**.* An exciting series of institutes in the areas of
> school design, classroom practice, leadership, and community
> connections, CES University is offered in a number of cities around
> the country in the spring and summer.
>
> ***Horace.*** Our quarterly journal, *Horace* provides \"hands-on\"
> resources and engages readers in examples of best practices from
> around the country.
>
> ***CES National Web Site.*** Including comprehensive links to schools,
> centers, and publications, the site also provides discussion groups
> and an interactive data base where practitioners deliberate together
> and share resources.
>
> ***CES National Affiliation.*** Schools and centers that affiliate
> with CES National lend their voice to the effort to create an
> educational system that promotes personalization, rigor, and equity.
>
> ***Center Director Meetings.*** CES National convenes the network of
> center directors regularly for professional development and sharing of
> ideas.
>
> ***Research.*** CES National runs a variety of research activities,
> including a current partnership with the American Institute for
> Research to study student outcomes in a national sample of CES
> schools, and our annual report of student results, *Principles at
> Work.*
>
> ***Advocacy.*** CES National works with the national media and with
> other educational organizations to promote the creation of an
> environment in which schools designed according to the CES Common
> Principles can thrive.

For those interested in adopting CES as part of a Comprehensive School
Reform Design (CSRD) grant, our regional centers offer extensive
services.

Page last updated: May 15, 2002

*No written materials available; based on descriptions from school
staff.*

**Comprehensive Reform Model\***

The model included the implementation of state standards, which the
school identified as among the first at the state level to embrace
educational quality reform and "significantly different from other state
and national models in that they were more project- and
performance-oriented." Other components of the comprehensive model
included a Freshman Foundation course, intended to help freshman get
prepared for high school, a flexible block schedule, an
interdisciplinary curriculum, whereby teachers of different subjects
would have common planning time, hold daily team meetings, and
coordinate their instructional schedule, the integration of
school-to-work (school-to-career) topics, the integrated use of
technology into the curriculum, especially taking advantage of
individually-assigned laptop computers, and a vision of the school as
having a "global" magnet transcending the four separate magnet programs
at the school.

\*A pseudonym has been assigned to this locally-developed model to
ensure confidentiality.

*Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 10/20/02*

**Co-nect (K - 12)**

Accepted for Inclusion 2/1/98\
Re-accepted 11/1/01\
Description Updated 4/1/02

+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Type of       | > entire-school                                  |
| > Model**         |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Founder**     | > BBN Corporation                                |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Current       | > Co-nect Inc.                                   |
| > Service         |                                                  |
| > Provider**      |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Year          | > 1992                                           |
| > Established**   |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **\# of Schools | > 175                                            |
| > Served          |                                                  |
| > (2/1/02)**      |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Level**       | > K - 12                                         |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Primary       | > improved achievement in core subjects          |
| > Goal**          |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Main          | > design-based assistance for comprehensive K-12 |
| > Features**      | > school reform\                                 |
|                   | > customized on-line/on-site training and        |
|                   | > personal support\                              |
|                   | > project-based learning\                        |
|                   | > peer and progress review programs\             |
|                   | > leadership processes for whole-school          |
|                   | > technology integration                         |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on     | > emphasis on authentic problems, practical      |
| > Instruction**   | > applications, and interdisciplinary projects   |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on     | > organization of school into small learning     |
| > Organi          | > communities ("clusters"); full-time            |
| zation/Staffing** | > facilitator preferred                          |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on     | > flexible block scheduling; common planning     |
| > Schedule**      | > time for teachers                              |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Subject-Area  | > literacy program for elementary schools        |
| > Programs        |                                                  |
| > Provided by     |                                                  |
| > Developer**     |                                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Parental      | > parents are encouraged to be more involved in  |
| > Involvement**   | > their children's learning                      |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Technology**  | > significant investment required; schools need  |
|                   | > computers and Internet access for teachers (at |
|                   | > least) to make the most of the online products |
|                   | > and services; Co-nect does not provide         |
|                   | > equipment                                      |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| > **Materials**   | > Schoolwide Action Priorities (printed kits to  |
|                   | > help schools address schoolwide issues such as |
|                   | > literacy); online resources including          |
|                   | > mini-lessons on teaching strategies, database  |
|                   | > of best practices, facilitated learning        |
|                   | > modules, and searchable selection of           |
|                   | > curriculum projects tied to a custom-built     |
|                   | > state standards database                       |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+

**Origin/Scope**

Co-nect was founded in 1992 by members of the Educational Technologies
Group at BBN Corporation. As of winter 2002, there were 175 Co-nect
schools.

**General Approach**

Co-nect helps schools work through a structured process of school
improvement, the ultimate focus of which is high quality teaching and
learning. The model features a nationwide staff of teaching
professionals who work directly with teachers and administrators within
schools and districts. Co-nect's training and consulting services are
supported by a suite of diagnostic tools, on-line learning modules, and
other teaching resources, including a library of best practices. This
combination has been designed to help schools meet adequate yearly
progress goals through sound, sustainable classroom practices.

Co-nect offers comprehensive schoolwide and districtwide
capacity-building programs that include planning for continuous
improvement, data-driven decision making, alignment strategies such as
curriculum mapping, technology integration, benchmarking, and leadership
training. In addition, Co-nect provides specialized content in
project-based learning, authentic assessment, and literacy (for
elementary schools). For example, Co-nect consultants help teachers
working in interdisciplinary teams to guide students through
challenging, engaging projects that align with state and local
standards.

Co-nect schools are encouraged to have computers in every classroom,
with internet capability, thereby enabling client schools to access all
of the available on-line resources.

**Results**

A national study conducted by independent researchers from Boston
College compared achievement gains in 24 Co-nect schools across the
country with gains in demographically similar schools in the same
districts. Positive changes occurred in most of the Co-nect schools, and
four of the schools had consistently higher gains than their comparison
schools. Overall, however, the researchers concluded that "the Co-nect
design was associated with similar changes in test scores as were the
comparison schools" (Russel & Robinson, 2000).

An independent study conducted by researchers at the University of
Memphis and University of Tennessee found that four Co-nect schools in
Memphis showed stronger achievement gains across all subject areas over
a three-year period (1995-98) on the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment
System than control schools. Across all subjects (reading, language,
mathematics, science, and social studies), Co-nect schools' 1995-98
change was 14.2 points higher than that of control schools on a
Cumulative Percent of Norm scale (where a score of 100 indicates that a
school has made the expected gain for the year). While not statistically
significant, this advantage was depicted by the researchers as a
"moderately large effect size" (Ross, Sanders, Stringfield, Wang, &
Wright, 1999). A follow-up analysis showed that these Co-nect schools
maintained "noticeably higher" gain scores than control schools through
1999 (Ross, Sanders, & Wright, 2000). Two schools that began using
Co-nect in 1997 had not shown a similar advantage, however.

A third study of Memphis schools compared five Co-nect schools to four
control schools during 1999-2000 on classroom teaching, computer usage,
school climate, and student achievement, among other variables.
Classrooms in Co-nect schools were characterized by greater use of
technology, sustained writing, project-based learning, independent
inquiry, and cooperative learning than classrooms in control schools.
Co-nect schools were also found to have more positive school climates.
Three of the five Co-nect schools were rated as higher-implementing by
the district office. From 1998 to 2000, these three schools showed
greater gains in student achievement than state and district schools
(Ross & Lowther, 2000).

According to a study conducted by the evaluation office of the
Cincinnati Public Schools, the six Co-nect schools in the district
showed an improvement in student performance from 1996 to 1999 that
exceeded district changes over the same period (Lewis & Bartz, 1999).
The researchers calculated T-scores for the Ohio Proficiency Test in
grades four and six in such a way that the district score each year
stayed at 50. The Co-nect schools' scores improved from 45.9 in 1996 to
49.8 in 1999. Although they didn't calculate statistical significance
because of small sample sizes, the researchers characterized this as a
"meaningful improvement."

Data from other school districts around the country also show student
performance improving in Co-nect schools. For example, from 1999 to
2001, the six Co-nect elementary schools in southern Florida
demonstrated higher achievement gains than the state as a whole on the
Florida Comprehensive Achievement Tests. In reading, the percentage of
fourth-grade students in Co-nect schools scoring at the proficient level
or higher increased from 44 percent in 1999 to 64 percent in 2001. Over
the same period, the average score statewide increased from 52 percent
to 61 percent. In mathematics, scores in Co-nect schools increased from
42 percent to 67 percent, again considerably greater than the statewide
increase.

**Implementation Assistance**

> ***Project Capacity:*** Co-nect\'s headquarters is in Arlington,
> Massachusetts. Co-nect currently has 108 full-time employees, with a
> small majority based in the field.
>
> ***Faculty Buy-In:*** Co-nect provides an informational orientation
> and buy-in process leading to a faculty vote. Co-nect strongly
> recommends at least a 75 percent vote in favor to proceed with
> adoption.
>
> ***Initial Training:*** Prior to implementation, the school principal
> attends a two-and-a-half-day Principal Summit in Massachusetts, and
> the school facilitator attends the weeklong School Facilitator
> Institute, also in Massachusetts.
>
> ***Follow-Up Coaching:*** Local school consultants conduct training
> workshops throughout the year and work directly with teams and
> individuals in the schools. All faculty members attend at least three
> days of training annually. Members of the instructional leadership
> team have an additional day, and small groups of teachers attend
> specialized sessions. All told, Co-nect consultants spend about two
> days per month on-site. Telephone and e-mail support are also provided
> by school consultants, area managers in the field, and headquarters
> staff, in addition to online curriculum and technical support.
>
> ***Networking:*** The Co-nect Exchange, the organization's Web site,
> delivers professional training for teachers and leaders and supports
> the growth of a collaborative professional community among
> participating schools. The Exchange offers telecollaborative projects,
> curriculum resources, online training modules, and discussion areas.
> Co-nect Peer Review is a national school visitation program. Co-nect
> also offers an annual conference for teachers and administrators.
>
> ***Implementation Review:*** Co-nect closely monitors and regularly
> reviews the progress of implementation efforts through a series of
> annual school progress reviews.

**Costs**

A number of factors determine the cost of a standard three-year
implementation, including the size and location of the school and the
number of other Co-nect schools in the area. Typically, the cost is
\$65,000 per year for three years. This figure assumes a school with up
to 40 faculty members, partnering with at least four other schools in
the same region. It covers the following services:

> -- Customized professional development, including workshops for
> principals,\
> the school design team, and the full faculty

-- Frequent visits by regional Co-nect school consultants to work
directly with\
school faculty members, conduct customized training, and model best
teaching practices

-- Customized assistance with initial data gathering, analysis, and
planning\
during the first few months of implementation

In addition, each school must support a full-time school-based
facilitator (typically a faculty member) to assist with the change
process. The school must provide high-speed classroom Internet access
for all teachers (at least by the end of the first year of
implementation) to take advantage of online training and resources.
Finally, the school must commit to full participation in Co-nect's
national conference, the Critical Friends process, training workshops,
and other key activities.

**State Standards and Accountability**

A significant amount of the professional development work Co-nect does
in schools revolves around standards. Co-nect consultants help teachers
identify priorities and map effective strategies that address standards
and speak to students' interests. Curriculum mapping helps teachers
understand the detail and scope of what is being taught across subject
areas and grade levels, and it creates opportunities for
cross-grade/cross-discipline teaching and sharing.

Additionally, Co-nect has compiled an online standards database that
includes standards from all 32 states where the model has been adopted,
as well as selected local and national standards. The standards database
ties directly into the online ProjectBuilder, thus helping teachers
create projects aligned to standards. Co-nect also maintains a database
of existing projects. In the summer of 2002, this database will be tied
into the standards database, enabling teachers to tailor projects
developed in other states to their own state and local standards.

**Student Populations**

As part of the catalog Web site search mechanism, each model had an
opportunity to apply to be highlighted for its efforts in serving
selected student populations. The five categories were urban, rural,
high poverty, English language learners, and special education. To
qualify for a category, a model had to demonstrate (a) that it included
special training, materials, or components focusing on that student
population, and (b) that it had been implemented in a substantial number
of schools serving that population.

Co-nect is highlighted in four categories: urban, rural, high poverty,
and special education. Most Co-nect schools are inner city schools with
large numbers of students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch. To
address the needs of these schools, Co-nect promotes the sensible use of
technology to help offset the effects of the "digital divide." The model
also offers strategies to ensure a safe and nurturing environment for
all students. Rural schools can take advantage of Co-nect's distance
learning opportunities: the Co-nect Exchange (Web site) and
videoconferencing facilities. As for special education, Co-nect supports
flexible grouping strategies for students and teaming of regular and
special education teachers.

**Special Considerations**

Technology requirements include computers and high-speed Internet access
for all staff.

Selected Evaluations

***Developer/Implementer***

Lewis, J. L., & Bartz, M. (1999). *New American Schools designs: An
analysis of program results in district schools.* Cincinnati, OH:
Cincinnati Public Schools.

***Independent Researchers***

Ross, S. M., & Lowther, D. L. (2000). *Impacts of the Co-nect school
reform design on classroom instruction, school climate, and student
achievement in inner-city schools.* Memphis, TN: University of Memphis,
Center for Research in Educational Policy.

Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., Stringfield, S., Wang, L. W., & Wright, S.
(1999). *Two- and three-year achievement results on the Tennessee
value-added assessment system for restructuring schools in Memphis.*
Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational
Policy.

Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., & Wright, S. (2000). *Value-added
achievement results for two cohorts of Co-nect schools in Memphis:
1995-1999 outcomes.* Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for
Research in Educational Policy.

Russel, M., & Robinson, R. (2000). *Co-nect retrospectives outcomes
study.* Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, Center for the Study of
Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy.

**For more information, contact**

Co-nect

37 Broadway

Arlington, MA 02474\
Phone: 617-995-3100 or 877-7CONECT\
Fax: 617-955-3103\
E-mail: info@co-nect.net\
Web site: http://www.co-nect.net

*Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 10/20/02*

**High Schools That Work (9 - 12)**

Accepted for Inclusion 2/1/98\
Re-accepted 8/1/01\
Description Updated 12/1/01

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Type of | > entire-school                                        |
| > Model**   |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| >           | > Southern Regional Education Board in Atlanta,        |
| **Founder** | > Georgia                                              |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Current | > SREB                                                 |
| > Service   |                                                        |
| >           |                                                        |
|  Provider** |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Year    | > 1987                                                 |
| > Es        |                                                        |
| tablished** |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| > **\# of   | > 1,320                                                |
| > Schools   |                                                        |
| > Served    |                                                        |
| >           |                                                        |
|  (9/1/01)** |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Level** | > 9 - 12                                               |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Primary | > to increase the achievement of all students with     |
| > Goal**    | > special emphasis on career-bound students by         |
|             | > blending the content of traditional college prep     |
|             | > studies with quality vocational and technical        |
|             | > studies                                              |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Main    | > upgraded academic core\                              |
| >           | > common planning time for teachers to integrate       |
|  Features** | > instruction\                                         |
|             | > higher standards/expectations                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact  | > sites are expected to end low-level courses for all  |
| > on        | > students, increase the use of engaging instructional |
| > In        | > strategies, and provide extra help to all students   |
| struction** |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact  | > sites develop a guidance and advisement system and   |
| > on        | > align with middle schools and postsecondary          |
| > O         | > institutions; more teachers work together; faculties |
| rganization | > form focus teams                                     |
| /Staffing** |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact  | > use of larger blocks of instructional time           |
| > on        |                                                        |
| >           |                                                        |
|  Schedule** |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| > **S       | > no; however, consultants provide subject-specific    |
| ubject-Area | > workshops customized to school needs                 |
| > Programs  |                                                        |
| > Provided  |                                                        |
| > by        |                                                        |
| >           |                                                        |
| Developer** |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| >           | > parents are expected to help their children select a |
|  **Parental | > four-year program of study that reflects HSTW        |
| > In        | > principles                                           |
| volvement** |                                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| > **T       | > sites are expected to have access to the Internet    |
| echnology** | > and e-mail                                           |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| > **        | > specific materials are suggested to guide schools in |
| Materials** | > making changes                                       |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

**Origin/Scope**

High Schools That Work (HSTW) is an initiative of the Southern Regional
Education Board (SREB) State Vocational Education Consortium that began
in 1987. More than 1,300 schools are members of the HSTW network.

**General Approach**

High Schools That Work is a whole-school, research- and assessment-based
reform effort that offers a framework of goals and key practices for
improving the academic, technical, and intellectual achievement of all
high school students. HSTW blends traditional college-preparatory
content with quality technical/vocational studies. It provides technical
assistance and staff development focused on techniques and strategies
such as teamwork, applied learning, and project-based instruction. It
also provides a nationally recognized yardstick for measuring program
effectiveness: the HSTW Assessment, a test based upon the National
Assessment of Educational Progress.

HSTW promotes a changed school environment as a context for implementing
10 key practices: (1) high expectations; (2) challenging vocational
studies; (3) increasing access to academic studies; (4) a program of
study that includes four years of English, three of math, and three of
science; (5) work-based learning; (6) collaboration among academic and
vocational teachers; (7) students actively engaged; (8) an
individualized advising system; (9) extra help; and (10) keeping score
(using assessment and evaluation data to foster continuous improvement).
HSTW sets high expectations, identifies a recommended curriculum to meet
the expectations, and sets student performance goals benchmarked to the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Three main ideas lay the foundation for HSTW:

-- Academic and vocational teachers, principals, and counselors work\
together to establish unity of vision, a common process for
reorganizing\
the school, and a plan for doing so.

-- Teachers and school leaders are empowered to accomplish their goals\
when they share expertise and learn from each other.

-- Assessment, evaluation, and feedback should drive the process and\
implementation of reform.

The HSTW framework builds support and collaboration among school and
district leaders, teachers, students, and families for raising
expectations for a more challenging and meaningful high school program
of study. SREB and its partners assist high schools in customizing the
HSTW framework into action plans for creating more personalized learning
environments leading to improved student motivation and performance.

**Results**

All sites are required to participate in the HSTW Assessment. Based on
the curriculum frameworks for the National Assessment of Educational
Progress, the assessment involves achievement tests in reading,
mathematics, and science for 12th grade students about to complete a
vocational or technical concentration.

The 260 HSTW sites that participated in the assessment in 1994 and 1996
showed significant improvement in mean reading and mathematics scores:
from 264 to 273 in reading, and from 281 to 285 in mathematics (on a
scale of 1 to 500). The percentage of career-bound students meeting the
HSTW performance goal (279 in reading and 295 in mathematics) increased
from 33 percent to 43 percent in reading and from 34 percent to 44
percent in mathematics. Career-bound students who completed the
recommended HSTW curriculum or completed intellectually challenging
assignments scored higher than career-bound students who did not. The 18
HSTW schools that participated in an advanced integrated learning
network, which provided time for academic and vocational teams to do
collaborative planning, made more progress over the two-year period than
all HSTW sites (Bottoms, 1997).

The 1996 and 1998 HSTW Assessment results were analyzed in separate
studies by two external evaluators: MPR Associates, Inc., and the
Research Triangle Institute. MPR researchers reported that the average
gain in achievement at the 424 HSTW schools that participated in both
assessments was 4 points in reading, 13 points in mathematics, and 9
points in science. They also found that when schools increase the number
of students completing the HSTW curriculum by 10 percentage points, they
are likely to see a gain in achievement scores of 10 to 20 points. Other
factors, such as increased belief among teachers in students' capacity
to complete challenging courses, increased collaboration among academic
and vocational teachers, and increased guidance and advisement, were
also associated with higher achievement gains (Kaufman, Bradby, &
Teitelbaum, 2000).

The Research Triangle Institute study (Frome, 2001) involved 393 schools
that had collected student test scores and student and teacher survey
data in 1996 and 1998. This study reported that (a) the percentage of
students completing a rigorous program of study, (b) the level of
implementation of key HSTW practices, and (c) the percentage of students
reaching HSTW achievement goals in reading, mathematics, and science had
all risen significantly over the two-year period. The study also found
that schools with larger increases in the percentage of seniors who
completed the HSTW program of study in each academic area had larger
increases in the percentage of students who met the achievement goals.
Finally, an increase in the use of best instructional practices since
beginning HSTW was positively related to an increase in the number of
students meeting the reading achievement goal.

Information collected through internal case studies, technical
assistance visits, and annual progress reports suggests that when sites
make progress in implementing the key practices, they tend to get the
following results: improved achievement and higher attendance,
graduation, retention, and postsecondary attendance rates. Likewise,
dropout rates and discipline referrals tend to decline (Bottoms & HSTW
staff, 1996-2000).

Implementation Assistance

> ***Project Capacity:*** HSTW has 26 member states, as well as many
> other sites nationwide that implement the program. HSTW staff members
> provide services (technical assistance, staff development, and
> assessment) from SREB headquarters in Atlanta. Member states designate
> a coordinator for HSTW sites and encourage networking of HSTW experts
> within the state. In addition, each HSTW site designates a coordinator
> for activities at the local level. Site coordinators may be full- or
> part-time or receive stipends for their responsibilities. Typical
> sites include a stipend within their budget for this position.
>
> ***Faculty Buy-In:*** In HSTW member states, sites must receive
> approval to join HSTW from the SREB and the state department of
> education. Sites must also demonstrate that (1) the majority of
> faculty are committed to supporting the HSTW framework; (2) they will
> conduct at least a five-year school improvement plan as detailed by
> the HSTW program; and (3) they will participate in the HSTW assessment
> program. Sites in non-member states must also demonstrate that two
> thirds of the faculty are committed to supporting the HSTW framework.
>
> ***Initial Training:*** Training includes a two-day site development
> workshop for the whole faculty; a technical assistance visit to
> establish a baseline for implementation; a minimum of four days of
> whole-school staff development focused on instructional needs; and a
> three-day retreat for system/school leaders. Schools in member states
> may also participate in state-led HSTW workshops, and all sites are
> encouraged to participate in national, subject-specific conferences.
>
> ***Follow-Up Coaching:*** Sites receive follow-up visits addressing
> the site action plan. SREB and state departments of education (in
> member states) broker customized technical assistance and training
> services. In year one, sites receive a three-day team technical
> assistance visit. In years two and three, sites receive assistance in
> using data to update their action plans, plus additional customized
> assistance and training. For schools receiving CSRD grants, first,
> second, and third-year contracts specify services and expectations.
>
> ***Networking:*** HSTW holds an annual national staff development
> conference, provides teleconferences that link developing schools with
> successful ones, and publishes a quarterly newsletter and a national
> leadership forum for state policy-makers. New sites are continuously
> encouraged to visit more mature sites and share information via a
> listserv managed by SREB. Other publications aimed at increasing the
> effectiveness of HSTW sites are also available. General information is
> available on the SREB Web site.
>
> ***Implementation Review:*** SREB collects information from technical
> assistance visits, a biennial assessment, a teacher survey report, and
> annual progress reports submitted by schools. Schools monitor
> implementation by analysis of data and use of the Benchmarks for New
> and Mature HSTW Sites.

**Costs**

Three years of HSTW implementation costs \$25,000-\$35,000 per year.
These costs include services such as a site development conference,
planning, technical assistance visits, staff and curriculum development,
training and resource materials, team conference registration, the
assessment package, and an evaluative study. Other expenses include
funds for stipends and substitute teachers, new kinds of curriculum
materials, and travel expenses for state, regional or national training.

**State Standards and Accountability**

Sites are expected to align curriculum with state and national
standards, and to develop K-12 curriculum maps and pacing guides that
are to be reflected in planning of instructional activities. HSTW
provides a facilitator to assist faculty in the process of aligning
curriculum to state and national standards.

**Student Populations**

As part of the catalog Web site search mechanism, each model had an
opportunity to apply to be highlighted for its efforts in serving
selected student populations. The five categories were urban, rural,
high poverty, English language learners, and special education. To
qualify for a category, a model had to demonstrate (a) that it included
special training, materials, or components focusing on that student
population, and (b) that it had been implemented in a substantial number
of schools serving that population.

HSTW is highlighted in two categories, urban and high poverty. The model
serves many urban schools and schools in high poverty areas. HSTW
training includes specific strategies shown by research to be successful
in urban settings. Additionally, the model provides extra help
(tutoring) and guidance for students.

**Special Considerations**

HSTW requires that sites work to replace the general track, raise
graduation requirements, participate in the HSTW assessment program,
develop a site action plan, and use assessment data to update their
action plan.

**Selected Evaluations**

***Developer/Implementer***

Bottoms, G. (1997, June). *The 1996 High Schools That Work assessment:
Good news, bad news and hope* (Research Brief No. 1). Atlanta: Southern
Regional Educational Board. (Other HSTW Research Briefs provide
additional analysis of 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000 assessments.)

Bottoms, G., & HSTW Staff. (1996-2000). *Case studies* (including high
schools in DE, GA, KY, MA, NC, SC, TX, and WV). Atlanta: Southern
Regional Education Board.

***Independent Researchers***

Kaufman, P., Bradby, D., & Teitelbaum, P. (2000). *High Schools That
Work and whole school reform: Raising academic achievement of vocational
completers through the reform of school practice.* Berkeley, CA:
University of California at Berkeley, National Center for Research in
Vocational Education.

Frome, P. (2001). *High Schools That Work: Findings from the 1996 and
1998 assessments.* Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle
Institute.

**For more information, contact**

Scott Warren, Director of CSRD

Southern Regional Education Board

592 Tenth Street NW

Atlanta, GA 30318

Phone: 404-875-9211

Fax: 404-872-1477

E-mail: scott.warren@sreb.org

Web site: http://www.sreb.org

*Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 10/20/02*

**Lightspan Achieve Now (K - 6)**

Accepted for Inclusion 9/1/98\
Description Written 10/1/98\
Costs, Number of Schools, Sample Sites, and Contact Information Updated
5/1/01

+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| > **Type of    | > other                                             |
| > Model**      |                                                     |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| > **Founder**  | > Lightspan Partnership                             |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| > **Current    | > same as founder                                   |
| > Service      |                                                     |
| > Provider**   |                                                     |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| > **Year       | > 1993                                              |
| >              |                                                     |
|  Established** |                                                     |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| > **\# of      | > 2,841                                             |
| > Schools      |                                                     |
| > Served       |                                                     |
| > (5/1/01)**   |                                                     |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| > **Level**    | > K - 6                                             |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| > **Primary    | > to increase time-on-task, promote family          |
| > Goal**       | > involvement in homework, and facilitate mastery   |
|                | > learning and teaching                             |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| > **Main       | > standards-based learning games that support       |
| > Features**   | > retention and encourage practice for mastery\     |
|                | > family participation in academic lives of         |
|                | > children\                                         |
|                | > PlayStation® game console loaned to families to   |
|                | > attach to television\                             |
|                | > ongoing professional development for teachers and |
|                | > staff, and workshops for families                 |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on  | > standards-based teaching and learning in class    |
| >              | > and at home; increased time-on-task; frequent     |
|  Instruction** | > monitoring of student progress                    |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on  | > must assign a Lightspan coordinator for each      |
| > Organizat    | > site; family involvement liaison (staff or        |
| ion/Staffing** | > volunteer) desirable                              |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on  | > time required for planning and professional       |
| > Schedule**   | > development                                       |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| >              | > yes (reading, language arts, mathematics)         |
| **Subject-Area |                                                     |
| > Programs     |                                                     |
| > Provided by  |                                                     |
| > Developer**  |                                                     |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| > **Parental   | > program supports learning at home and two-way     |
| >              | > communication between school and home             |
|  Involvement** |                                                     |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| >              | > CDs, multi-media computers, digital multiplayers, |
| **Technology** | > Internet                                          |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| >              | > 35 CDs for K-2, 36 CDs for 3-4, and 34 CDs for    |
|  **Materials** | > 5-6; teacher guides for each CD; progress charts; |
|                | > content correlations; assessment program          |
+----------------+-----------------------------------------------------+

**Origin/Scope**

The Lightspan Partnership Inc. was founded in 1993. Lightspan Achieve
Now was implemented in 16 schools in 1995-96. As of May 2001, 2,841
schools, serving students from a wide range of economic backgrounds, had
used the model in classrooms and homes.

**General Approach**

Schools and classrooms committed to an aligned instructional program in
reading, language arts, and mathematics use Lightspan Achieve Now to
increase each student's engaged time-on-task, promote family involvement
in homework, and create a learning environment designed around mastery
learning and teaching.

The foundation of Lightspan is family involvement and increased learning
through after school use of instructional video games, aligned with the
school's curriculum, that teach critical targeted skills and strategies.
Lightspan is centered around discipline-grounded, standards-based,
curriculum-driven, interactive technologies. In addition, Internet
activities facilitate communications, enhance family involvement, and
make learning fun.

When a school signs on to use Lightspan, an overall plan aligns
achievement goals; teachers, families, and staff are trained; and an
Education Partnership Consultant from the national staff is assigned to
help align the curriculum to the Lightspan program. When the correlation
is completed, teachers start to use Lightspan in the classroom and as a
homework replacement tool. Students are assessed and grouped
accordingly, and then regrouped, if needed. The classroom teacher
introduces a Lightspan game in the classroom. The teacher might then
send the game home for students to complete over the next few weeks with
their families. Families are trained so they understand their role and
make the necessary commitment to support their child in completing
homework.

**Results**

To date, no large-scale, systematic evaluations comparing student
achievement in Lightspan schools with that in control schools have been
published. However, Lightspan has contracted with nationally known
researchers to conduct a rigorous three-year analysis of 22 Lightspan
schools, focusing on student achievement and other variables. The study
will employ an experimental design and incorporate multiple measures.

Preliminary results from these and other smaller-scale evaluations and
case studies have yielded evidence of improved academic achievement in
vocabulary development, reading comprehension, mathematics problem
solving, and academic growth during summer programs. At Lansdowne
Elementary School in Baltimore County, Maryland, 34 percent of students
in grades K-2 moved from below grade level performance to performance at
or above grade level versus movement of just 13 percent of students in a
matched school, as measured by various standardized tests. In Mesa
Public Schools (Arizona) during the 1997-98 school year, grade one and
grade three students learning English as a second language showed
significant gains over a control group. Students in three Title I
schools in Wichita, Kansas, were compared to peers from three matched
Title I schools within the district. Results from the Metropolitan
Achievement Test, 7th Edition, showed reliable gains for the Lightspan
group at all grades tested.

RMC Research surveyed over 2,000 families and 269 teachers over two
years to measure Lightspan's impact on learning time, family involvement
in homework, and student engagement and motivation. Eighty-eight percent
of families reported that students spent 30 minutes or more per day on
Lightspan homework. Seventy-two percent reported that time on Lightspan
replaced time typically spent on non-educational television and video
games. Sixty-six percent reported spending 30 minutes or more per day
with their children using Lightspan. Sixty percent reported that total
time spent with their children on schoolwork increased with Lightspan.
Over 90 percent of teachers reported finding Lightspan useful for
providing practice and reinforcement, encouraging cooperative learning,
and meeting the needs of individual students.

**Implementation Assistance**

> ***Project Capacity:*** Headquartered in San Diego, California,
> Lightspan has over 40 Education Partnership Consultants throughout the
> country. This field staff is augmented by a headquarters team of
> three, a fully staffed Product Support desk, and a staff of curriculum
> experts who produce teachers' guides and national and state
> correlations.
>
> ***Faculty Buy-In:*** No formal vote is required for schools to start
> using Lightspan. Schoolwide buy-in is achieved as a collaborative
> process involving the principal as instructional leader, an assigned
> site coordinator (usually the assistant principal), the family
> involvement coordinator, and grade-level curriculum liaisons.
>
> ***Initial Training:*** Training begins with identifying school needs
> and reviewing the school action plan. It includes site coordinator
> training, curriculum training for grade level liaisons and classroom
> teachers including product exploration, an introduction to family
> involvement, and implementation strategies discussion. Additionally,
> families are trained before the program is sent home.
>
> ***Follow-Up Coaching:*** During the first year of implementation, the
> Education Partnership Consultant will model integration techniques,
> assist schools in setting up the home use portion of the program, and
> develop a plan for follow-on Family Involvement Workshops. Finally,
> the consultant, in collaboration with school staff, conducts regular
> program review activities to ensure successful implementation.
>
> ***Networking:*** This is facilitated through regular professional
> development events held year-round, throughout the country. Additional
> networking opportunities are provided through the FLASH newsletter and
> The Lightspan Network Web site.
>
> ***Implementation Review:*** Continual self-evaluation is built into
> the implementation process. All schools participate in the
> Self-Evaluation Process using tools developed for this purpose by RMC
> Corporation. Most schools also participate in School-Based Action
> Research using the Action Research Toolkit developed for this purpose
> by Interactive, Inc.

**Costs**

Lightspan is packaged in grade clusters: K-2, 3-4, and 5-6. Schools must
buy an Achieve Now school package, teacher licenses, and student
licenses for each grade cluster. A minimum of nine professional
development visits is needed in order to ensure a successful Lightspan
implementation.

A \$2,000 school package must be purchased in a school's initial order
and can only be purchased once per site. This package includes one set
of site materials, one Lightspan Desktop Professional Development CD for
coordinator training, three on-site professional development visits, and
access to the Partner Line for 12 months (\$500 per year succeeding the
initial 12 months). A \$2,650 teacher license must be purchased for each
teacher using the program. The license includes one grade cluster
curriculum license, one set of curriculum support and assessment
materials, one Lightspan Desktop Professional Development Series, and
one on-site professional development visit. Finally, a \$600 student
license must be purchased for each student who will use the program at
home. If the program is used in an after-school, summer-school, or
computer-lab setting, a student license is required for each school
computer or PlayStation rather than for each student.

Optional on-line resources are available, including eduTest@School
(\$2,500 per year subscription), eduTest@SchoolPlus (\$4,650 per year
subscription), and The Lightspan Network (\$3,000 per year
subscription).

**State Standards and Accountability**

(*We soon will be providing information on the model's support for
schools' efforts to meet standards.*)

**Student Populations**

Lightspan Achieve Now is designed to increase learning opportunities and
enhance achievement for all students. It has been successfully
implemented in schools with high numbers of at-risk students, including
Title I and ESL students. The content is full-motion video, completely
audio supported, with contextual help. Written materials for families
are also available in Spanish.

**Special Considerations**

Lightspan Achieve Now is a flexible instructional tool. Changes in
teachers' classroom practice are incremental and based on needs
identified in the school improvement plan. Lightspan is designed to be
woven into classroom practice and assigned homework.

**Selected Evaluations**

***Developer/Implementer***

Baltimore County School District. (1997). \[Lansdowne Elementary
School\]. Unpublished raw data.

Caldwell County School District. (1997). \[Gamewell Middle School\].
Unpublished raw data.

Duncanville Independent School District. (1997). \[Central Elementary
School\]. Unpublished raw data.

Laurens County School District #56. (1997). \[Clinton Elementary
School\]. Unpublished raw data.

***Independent Researchers***

Blanchard, J. (1998). *Eisenhower Elementary School, Mesa Unified School
District, Mesa, Arizona.* Unpublished manuscript, Arizona State
University, Tempe.

Godin, K. (1996-97). *Lightspan evaluation research.* (Available from
RMC Research Corporation, Portsmouth, NH).

Shakeshaft, C. (1998). *The Lightspan Partnership, Inc. and the
home-school connection in Adams County School District 50, Westminster,
Colorado.* Unpublished manuscript, Hofstra University, Department of
Administration, Policy & Literacy, Hempstead, NY.

**For more information, contact**

Bernice Stafford\
Lightspan Achieve Now\
10140 Campus Point Drive\
San Diego, CA 92121\
Phone: 888-425-5543, ext. 8563\
Fax: 858-824-8001\
E-mail: bstafford@lightspan.com\
Web site: http://www.lightspan.com

*Excerpt from "A Teacher's Guide to the \[Performance Tasks Model\*\]",
1996*

**Performance Tasks**

Performance Tasks build on earlier content knowledge, process skills,
and work habits and are strategically placed in the lesson or unit to
enhance learning as the student "pulls it all together." Such
performance tasks are not "add-ons" at the end of instruction. They are
both an integral part of the learning and an opportunity to assess the
quality of student performance. When the goal of teaching and learning
is knowing and using, the performance-based classroom emerges.

Performance tasks range from short activities taking only a few minutes
to projects culminating in polished products for audiences in and
outside of the classroom. In the beginning, most performance tasks
should fall on the short end of the continuum. Teachers find that many
activities they are already doing can be shaped into
performance-learning tasks.

Two initial concerns of teachers moving toward performance-based
classrooms include the amount of time needed for performance tasks and
the subjectivity traditionally associated with teacher assessment and
assigning "grades."

**Time**

The initial move to any new method involves an investment in time. The
development of performance- assessment tasks is no exception. With a
little practice, however, teachers find that they can easily and quickly
develop performance tasks and assessment lists. This process is further
simplified as teachers and schools begin to collect and maintain lists
of generic tasks and assessments that teachers can adapt for individual
lessons. Teachers find assessment lists a more efficient way of
providing feedback to students than traditional methods, thus saving
time in the long run. Finally, as students work with performance
assessment, the quality of their work improves, reducing the time
teachers must spend assessing and grading student work.

**Examples of Performance Tasks**

Performance tasks should be interesting to the student and well
connected to the important content, process skills, and work habits of
the curriculum. Sometimes students can help in constructing these tasks
and assessment lists. The following are three performance tasks that
call for graphs:

**! (Upper Level) Middle or High School**

> (Provide the students with a copy of a speeding ticket that shows how
> the fine is determined.) Say to students: "How is the fine for
> speeding in our state determined?\
> Make a graph that shows teenagers in our town how much it will cost
> them if they are\
> caught speeding. Excellent graphs will be displayed in the Driver's
> Education\
> classroom."

**! Elementary School**

> (At several specified times during the school day, students observe
> and count, for a set\
> length of time, the number of cars and other vehicles going through an
> intersection\
> near the school.) Say to students: "The police department is
> considering a traffic light\
> or a crossing guard at the intersection near your school. Your help is
> needed to make\
> graphs that show how many vehicles go through that intersection at
> certain times of\
> the day. Excellent graphs will be sent to the Chief of Police."
>
> **! Primary School**
>
> (In view of the class, place 10 caterpillars in a box. Place a
> flashlight at one end,\
> while darkening the other by folding over the box top.) Say to
> students: "Do\
> caterpillars move more to the light or more to the dark? Make a graph
> that shows how\
> many caterpillars move to the light and how many move to the dark part
> of the box.\
> Your graphs will be displayed at Open House."

**Performance Task Assessment Lists**

Performance task assessment lists are assessment tools that provide the
structure students need to work more independently and to encourage them
to pay attention to the quality of their work. Assessment lists also
enable the teacher to efficiently provide students with information on
the strengths and weaknesses of their work. In creating performance task
assessment lists, teachers focus on what students need to know and be
able to do. One result is that teachers can more consistently and fairly
evaluate and grade student work. Information from performance task
assessment lists also helps students set learning goals and thus helps
teachers focus subsequent instruction. Parents can also use assessment
lists to monitor their student\'s work in school and to help their
children check their own work at home.

*Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 10/20/02*

**Roots & Wings (PreK - 6)**

Accepted for Inclusion 2/1/98\
Re-accepted 8/1/01\
Description Updated 9/1/01

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| # Type of Model  | > entire-school                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Founder**    | > Robert Slavin, Nancy Madden, and a team of      |
|                  | > developers from Johns Hopkins University        |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Current      | > Success for All Foundation                      |
| > Service        |                                                   |
| > Provider**     |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Year         | > 1993                                            |
| > Established**  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **\# of        | > 1,800 schools use Success for All; 200 of these |
| > Schools Served | > have added Roots & Wings components             |
| > (6/1/01)**     |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Level**      | > PreK - 6                                        |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Primary      | > to ensure that all children learn to read,      |
| > Goal**         | > acquire basic skills in other subjects areas,   |
|                  | > and build problem solving and critical thinking |
|                  | > skills                                          |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Main         | > research-based curricula in four subjects\      |
| > Features**     | > integrated science and social studies program\  |
|                  | > cooperative learning\                           |
|                  | > one-to-one tutoring\                            |
|                  | > family support team                             |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on    | > prescribed curriculum in the areas of literacy, |
| > Instruction**  | > math, and social and scientific problem solving |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on    | > building advisory committee; full-time          |
| > Organiz        | > facilitator; family support team; one-to-one    |
| ation/Staffing** | > tutoring                                        |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on    | > 90-minute reading periods; 75 minutes daily for |
| > Schedule**     | > primary math, 60 for intermediate math          |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Subject-Area | > yes (reading, math, science, social studies)    |
| > Programs       |                                                   |
| > Provided by    |                                                   |
| > Developer**    |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Parental     | > family support team works to increase           |
| > Involvement**  | > school-home connections                         |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Technology** | > none required                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Materials**  | > detailed curriculum materials, teachers         |
|                  | > manuals, and other materials provided for all   |
|                  | > core subjects                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

**Origin/Scope**

Roots & Wings, created in 1993 by Robert Slavin, Nancy Madden, and a
team of developers at Johns Hopkins University, is a comprehensive,
whole-school reform model designed to boost the basic skills achievement
of all students while building problem solving skills, creativity, and
critical thinking. As of June 2001, Success for All, the reading
component of Roots & Wings, was operating in 1,800 schools. Some 200 of
these schools have added the math, science, and/or social studies
components that constitute Roots & Wings.

**General Approach**

The purpose of Roots & Wings is to create well-structured curricular and
instructional approaches for all core academic subjects, prekindergarten
to grade six, based on well-evaluated components and well-researched
principles of instruction, assessment, classroom management, motivation,
and professional development. Roots & Wings builds on the Success for
All program, initiated in 1987, which provides research-based curricula
for students in reading, writing, and language arts; one-to-one tutoring
for primary grade students struggling in reading; and extensive family
support services (see description of Success for All). To these, Roots &
Wings adds MathWings and WorldLab. MathWings is based on the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) standards, which emphasize
problem solving, reasoning, real-world applications, and communication.
Students work in mixed ability groups, progressing from concrete
experience with manipulatives to a more abstract understanding of
mathematical concepts. Many MathWings units use works of literature to
help students explore concepts in meaningful contexts.

WorldLab is an integrated approach to social studies and science for
grades one through five which emphasizes group simulations and
investigations of real-world problems. For example, students pretend to
be citizens of a town struggling with environmental issues. This
simulation leads them to investigate real problems in their own
communities. WorldLab is designed to build on knowledge and skills
students are learning in language arts and mathematics classes. Physical
education, music, and visual arts are used to enhance WorldLab
simulations and investigations.

Each school has one full-time facilitator to help implement the program,
a family support team to foster community and parent involvement, and a
building advisory team to evaluate the entire school climate and advise
the principal on general direction and goals.

**Results**

Success for All, the reading/language arts component of Roots & Wings,
has been evaluated extensively, with statistically significant positive
results for program students compared to control students across many
studies. (See the description of Success for All for more details.)

Research on the entire Roots & Wings model is neither as extensive nor
as rigorous as that on Success for All. However, available data do show
positive trends for selected Roots & Wings schools. Over the first three
years of implementation (1993-96), the four pilot Roots & Wings schools
in Maryland demonstrated substantially greater gains in third and fifth
grade on the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP) in
all six subjects tested (reading, writing, language, math, science, and
social studies) than schools statewide. After implementation declined
over the next two years (the result of reductions in funding and the
resignation of a supportive superintendent), scores leveled off. Still,
over the five year period, model schools showed greater gains than
schools statewide on every measure except fifth-grade language (Slavin &
Madden, 2000). Twelve other Roots & Wings schools in five other states
have outgained schools statewide on state mathematics tests (Madden,
Slavin, & Simons, 2000).

In a study of restructuring schools in Memphis, Tennessee, researchers
reported that schools that adopted school reform models, including Roots
& Wings, demonstrated greater gains on the Tennessee Value-Added
Assessment System (TVAAS) than non-restructuring schools. Roots & Wings
was one of two models overall that showed statistically significant
effects compared to non-restructuring schools (Ross et al., 2001).

**Implementation Assistance**

> ***Project Capacity:*** The Success for All Foundation, located in
> Baltimore, is the national headquarters for Roots & Wings. There are
> also 20 regional centers throughout the U.S. Overall, the foundation
> employs about 240 full-time trainers, including 180 reading trainers,
> 20 MathWings trainers, 5 WorldLab trainers, 20 family support
> trainers, and 15 middle school trainers. There are also 10 part-time
> trainers.
>
> ***Faculty Buy-In:*** At least 80% of a school's professional staff
> must vote on a secret ballot to adopt the program.
>
> ***Initial Training:*** For each component (Success for All,
> MathWings, and WorldLab), all teachers receive detailed manuals
> supplemented by three days of training at the beginning of the school
> year provided by Roots & Wings trainers. Schools often phase in the
> three components, starting with Success for All in year one, followed
> by MathWings in year two and WorldLab in year three.
>
> ***Follow-Up Coaching:*** As noted in the Success for All description,
> trainers provide at least 26 person-days of on-site assistance over
> the first year of implementation for that component. Follow-up support
> for the other components is comparable. Trainers make presentations,
> lead discussions, visit classrooms, and work with the building
> facilitator. The facilitator also organizes informal sessions to allow
> teachers to share problems, suggest changes, and discuss individual
> children.
>
> ***Networking:*** Conferences are held annually for principals and
> facilitators to network with those from other schools, receive program
> updates, and share problem-solving strategies. In many parts of the
> country, schools are joining forces with each other to create local
> support networks, and in some cases experienced schools are becoming
> mentors for new schools. Roots & Wings produces an annual newsletter
> for all its schools, and its Web site contains general program
> information and research articles.
>
> ***Implementation Review:*** As mentioned in the Success for All
> description, two trainers make three 2-day visits to assess the extent
> of implementation of that component. (These 12 person-days are part of
> the 26 for that component). Implementation visits continue at a lower
> level after the first year (8 person-days in year 2, and 6 person-days
> each year thereafter). The same review schedule holds for MathWings
> and WorldLab as these components are phased in. The review process
> involves interviewing staff, observing classes, examining data, and
> writing a summary of their findings. Trainers also use these
> opportunities to coach staff and consult with the facilitator.

**Costs**

Sample costs for a school of 500 students (preK-5) typically range from
\$75,000 to \$80,000 for each of three years, as reading, math, and
social studies/science are phased in. These estimates include training,
materials, and follow-up visits (including travel costs). Actual costs,
which depend on school size, location, specific needs (such as
bilingual, ESL, or year-round training), and number of schools
collaborating in training, are calculated for individual schools.
Schools also must cover the costs of a full-time facilitator and staff
time for attending training sessions. Typically, the program is funded
by reallocating a school's current Title I monies, often supplemented by
other federal or state funds, such as CSRD funds.

**State Standards and Accountability**

Roots & Wings curricula have been matched with state standards and
assessments for almost all states. Further, modifications to the program
have been made to match state standards, assessments, and response forms
for many states. Documents showing the alignment of Success for All with
state standards and assessments can be obtained from the Success for All
Foundation.

**Student Populations**

As part of the catalog Web site search mechanism, each model had an
opportunity to apply to be highlighted for its efforts in serving
selected student populations. The five categories were urban, rural,
high poverty, English language learners, and special education. To
qualify for a category, a model had to demonstrate (a) that it included
special training, materials, or components focusing on that student
population and (b) that it had been implemented in a substantial number
of schools serving that population.

Roots & Wings is highlighted in all five categories. It has been
implemented in many schools serving each population. The family support
team and the promotion of links with social service organizations help
support disadvantaged students and families. Provisions for distance
learning and joint service to multiple schools (with consequent fee
reductions) facilitate implementation in rural schools. Success for All,
the reading program, offers numerous components designed to address the
needs of urban students, English Language Learners, and special
education students. See the description of Success for All for more
details.

**Special Considerations**

Teachers must be willing to use detailed curricular materials. The
inclusion of students with learning problems in regular classrooms is
encouraged to the extent possible. Applications for a given school year
must be filed before May 1 of the preceding school year.

**Selected Evaluations**

***Developer/Implementer***

Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Simons, K. (2000). *MathWings: Effects
on student performance* (Report No. 39). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at
Risk.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2000). Roots & Wings: Effects of
whole-school reform on student achievement. *Journal of Education for
Students Placed At Risk, 5*(1&2), 109-136.

(See the Success for All description for additional research on that
component of the design.)

***Independent Researchers***

Bodilly, S., with Purnell, S., Ramsey, K., & Keith, S. J. (1998).
*Lessons from New American Schools Development Corporation's
demonstration phase.* Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Ross, S. M., Wang, L. W., Alberg, M., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., &
Stringfield, S. (2001, April). *Fourth-year achievement results on the
Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System for restructuring schools in
Memphis.* Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Seattle.

**For more information, contact**

Roots & Wings\
Success For All Foundation\
200 West Towsontown Boulevard\
Baltimore, MD 21204\
Phone: 800-548-4998\
Fax: 410-324-4444\
E-mail: sfainfo@successforall.net

Web site: http://www.successforall.net

*Excerpt from "CSRD Executive Summary: \[Special Literacy Model\]\* as a
CSRD Provider Program," 1999*

**Special Literacy Model**

**Research Base**

The Project was developed with several theoretical understandings in
mind. The following core understandings in learning to read as related
to reading as language support theoretical perspectives of the Project.

1.  Reading is a construction of meaning from text. It is an active,
    cognitive, and affective process. Reading is an interactive process
    between text and reader with the ultimate purpose for the reader to
    construct meaning (Pearson, Roehler, Dole & Duffy, 1990; Rosenblatt,
    1938/1976, 1978).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Background knowledge and prior experience are critical to the
    reading process. The importance of prior knowledge in reading has
    been documented by Anderson and Pearson (1984) and Rumelhart (1980).
    The more students engage in reading and writing, the more their
    prior knowledge increases and thereby strengthens their ability to
    construct meaning when they read (Allington & Cunningham, 1996;
    Sweet, 1993). In addition, learning concepts of print enhances
    one\'s engagement in the reading process (Clay, 1972).

4.  Social interaction is essential in learning to read. Vygotsky (1978)
    emphasizes the importance of social interactions in the learning
    process. A Vygotskian perspective emphasizes the notion of the zone
    of proximal development, building on social interactions that
    support learning with a more knowledgeable other to
    intrapsychological learning which is internalized within the
    learner. Bruner (1975) elaborates on this concept through his
    description of scaffolding.

5.  Reading and writing develop together. Reading and constructive
    processes (Pearson & Tierney, 1984; Squire, 1983). Acknowledgment of
    the reciprocity between reading and writing is critical to good
    first teaching. Writing slows down the reading process (Clay, 1991).
    The most effective literacy programs include both reading and
    writing for developing literacy acquisition.

The Project is based on reliable research and promotes a balanced
literacy approach addressing reading and writing through effective,
research-based instructional strategies and proven methods for student
learning and teaching, and school management which include, but are not
limited to the following:

-- Reading aloud to children (Adams, 1990; Clark, 1976; Cochran-Smith,
1984; Cohen, 1968; Durkin, 1966; Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; Goodman, Y.,
1984; Green & Harker, 1982; Hiebert, 1983; Ninio, 1980; Pappas & Brown,
1987; Schickedanz, 1978; Wells, 1986)

-- Phonological and phonemic awareness (Adams, 1990; Beck & Juel, 1995;
Juel, 1991; Mann 1986; Moustafa, 1995, 1997; Morias, Bertelson, Cary, &
Alegria, 1986; Pearson, 1991; Tumner, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988; Winner,
Landerl, Linortner, & Hummer, 1991)

\* A pseudonym has been assigned to this locally developed model to
ensure confidentiality.

-- Phonics (Adams, 1990; Cunningham, 1990; Freepon & Dahl, 1991; Kasten
& Clar, 1989; Ribowsky, 1985; Stice & Bertrand, 1990; Sweet, 1993;
Weaver, Gillmeister-Krause, & Vento-Zogby, 1996)

-- Shared writing (Allen, 1976), interactive writing, and process
writing (Graves, 1976) leading to independent writing

-- Shared reading (Holdaway, 1979; Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; Martinez &
Roser, 1985; Pappas & Brown, 1987; Rowe, 1987; Snow, 1983; Sulzby, 1985;
Teale & Sulzby, 1986)

-- Guided reading (Clay, 1991A, 1991B; Fountas & Pinnell, 1996;
Holdaway, 1979; Lyons, Pinnell, & DeFord, 1993; McKenzie, 1986; Meek,
1988; Routman, 1991; Wong, Groth, & O'Flahavan, 1994).

**Evaluation**

Evaluation of the Project at has been documented through numerous
individual action research projects directly related to student literacy
achievement. Analysis of these classroom inquiries over a three-year
period indicate that when teacher researchers compared high-progress,
average-progress and low-progress students' literacy growth,

82% of the students (N=103) who made the greatest gains were identified
as low-progress students. The reports further document that 100% of all
students made literacy gains on one or more of the assessment measures
used in each classroom inquiry. The effectiveness of this professional
development model for comprehensive school reform is determined by the
positive impact on student achievement.

Evaluation of the professional development model has been documented
through qualitative as well as quantitative measures. Evidence of the
training of the statewide effort is documented in the K-3 Leadership
Initiative in Reading and Mathematics Executive Summary to the Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education (Elliott & Simoneaux, 1998).

*Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 10/20/02*

**Success for All (PreK - 8)**

Accepted for Inclusion 2/1/98\
Re-accepted 8/1/01\
Description Updated 9/1/01

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| # Type of Model  | > entire-school                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Founder**    | > Robert Slavin, Nancy Madden, and a team of      |
|                  | > developers from Johns Hopkins University        |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Current      | > Success for All Foundation                      |
| > Service        |                                                   |
| > Provider**     |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Year         | > 1987                                            |
| > Established**  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **\# of        | > 1,800                                           |
| > Schools Served |                                                   |
| > (6/1/01)**     |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Level**      | > PreK - 8                                        |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Primary      | > ensuring that all children learn to read        |
| > Goal**         |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Main         | > schoolwide reading curriculum\                  |
| > Features**     | > cooperative learning\                           |
|                  | > grouping by reading level (reviewed by          |
|                  | > assessment every 8 weeks)\                      |
|                  | > tutoring for students in need of extra          |
|                  | > assistance\                                     |
|                  | > family support team                             |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on    | > in reading classes --- prescribed curriculum,   |
| > Instruction**  | > cooperative learning; other subjects not        |
|                  | > affected (see Roots & Wings for a description   |
|                  | > of other curricular components that can be      |
|                  | > added)                                          |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on    | > building advisory committee; full-time          |
| > Organiz        | > facilitator; family support team; tutors        |
| ation/Staffing** |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on    | > daily 90-minute reading periods; tutoring       |
| > Schedule**     |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Subject-Area | > yes (reading)                                   |
| > Programs       |                                                   |
| > Provided by    |                                                   |
| > Developer**    |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Parental     | > family support team works to increase parental  |
| > Involvement**  | > involvement                                     |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Technology** | > none required                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| > **Materials**  | > detailed curriculum materials, teachers         |
|                  | > manuals, and other materials provided           |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

**Origin/Scope**

Success for All was founded by Robert Slavin, Nancy Madden, and a team
of developers from Johns Hopkins University. It is now disseminated by
the nonprofit Success for All Foundation in Baltimore, directed by the
founders. The model was first implemented in an elementary school in
Baltimore in 1987. The following year it expanded to 6 schools (5 in
Baltimore and 1 in Philadelphia). By June 2001, it had grown to 1,800
schools.

**General Approach**

Success for All restructures elementary schools (usually high poverty
Title I schools) to ensure that every child learns to read in the early
grades. The idea is to prevent reading problems from appearing in the
first place and to intervene swiftly and intensively if problems do
appear.

Success for All prescribes specific curricula and instructional
strategies for teaching reading, including shared story reading,
listening comprehension, vocabulary building, sound blending exercises,
and writing activities. Teachers are provided with detailed materials
for use in the classroom. Students often work cooperatively, reading to
each other and discussing story content and structure. From second
through sixth grade, students use basals or novels (but not workbooks).
All students are required to spend 20 minutes at home each evening
reading books of their choice.

Students are grouped according to reading level for one 90-minute
reading period per day. The rest of the day they are assigned to regular
age-grouped classes. Every eight weeks, teachers assess student progress
using formal measures of reading comprehension as well as observation
and judgment. The assessments determine changes in the composition of
the reading groups and help identify students in need of extra
assistance. Those students receive one-on-one tutoring for 20 minutes
per day at times other than regular reading or math periods. First
graders get priority for tutoring. Tutors are generally certified
teachers, though well-qualified paraprofessionals may tutor children
with less severe reading problems.

Because parental involvement is considered essential to student success,
each Success for All school forms a Family Support Team, which
encourages parents to read to their children, involves parents in school
activities, and intervenes when problems at home interfere with a
child's progress in school. The operation of Success for All is
coordinated at each school by a full-time facilitator who helps plan the
program and coach teachers. Finally, an advisory committee composed of
the principal, facilitator, teacher and parent representatives, and
family support staff meets regularly to review the progress of the
program.

**Results**

From the beginning there has been a strong focus in Success for All on
research and evaluation. Numerous studies conducted by developers and
others have compared scores on standardized reading tests (specifically,
the Durrell Oral Reading Scale and several scales from the Woodcock
Reading Mastery Test) for students in Success for All schools and
control schools. For example, in one study (Madden et al., 1993),
students at the first five Success for All schools outperformed students
at control schools by statistically significant margins in every grade.
By third grade, the advantage for Success for All students translated
into a grade equivalent difference of more than eight months. For
students in the lowest 25% of their cohorts, the effects were even
greater. Several other studies (Dianda & Flaherty, 1995; Slavin &
Madden, 1999a) have reported that English language learners in Success
for All elementary schools outperform those in control schools.

Results have been similar for all but a handful of studies following the
same research design. When the results of all these studies are combined
(involving thousands of students), statistically significant positive
effects are found for Success for All cohorts at every grade level. By
fifth grade, Success for All cohorts score more than a year higher on
reading measures than control groups (Slavin & Madden, 1999b).

According to a recent study (Borman & Hewes, 2000), these benefits for
students appear to persist beyond participation in the program. Students
who attended Success for All elementary schools outscored control
students by a statistically significant margin on the eighth-grade
CTBS/4 reading and mathematics tests and were less likely to be referred
to special education during their middle school years.

The impact of Success for All has also been measured using statewide
assessments. In Indiana, first and second grade students at two Success
for All schools scored higher on the statewide ISTEP test than control
students. There was little difference, however, in the scores of third
graders on the test (Ross, Smith, & Casey, 1997). More recently, the
performance of all 111 Success for All schools in Texas was compared to
all other schools in Texas on TAAS, Texas's statewide assessment
(Hurley, Chamberlain, Slavin, & Madden, 2000). TAAS reading scores for
grades three, four, and five were averaged for all Success for All
schools, which were divided into cohorts depending on the year of
implementation. Gains for each cohort from the year prior to
implementation to 1998 were compared to gains for the state as a whole
over the same period. Each Success for All cohort outgained the
statewide cohort by at least 4 percentage points. Overall, Success for
All schools outgained other schools by 5.9 percentage points, a
statistically significant difference.

Success for All recently developed a middle school model, but no
evaluations of this model have been completed.

**Implementation Assistance**

> ***Project Capacity:*** The Success for All Foundation, located in
> Baltimore, is the model's national headquarters. There are also 20
> regional centers throughout the U.S. Overall, the foundation employs
> about 240 full-time trainers, including 180 reading trainers, 20
> family support trainers, and 15 middle school trainers. The other 25
> trainers focus on the mathematics, science, and social studies
> components of Roots & Wings. (See the description of Roots & Wings for
> more details.) There are also 10 part-time trainers.
>
> ***Faculty Buy-In:*** At least 80% of a school's professional staff
> must vote on a secret ballot to adopt the program.
>
> ***Initial Training:*** In the spring prior to implementation, the
> school's principal and designated building facilitator attend a
> week-long training session in their region. In August, project staff
> members visit the school for three days of intensive training for the
> full school staff, plus a fourth day for tutors.
>
> ***Follow-Up Coaching:*** Over the first year of implementation,
> trainers provide at least 26 person-days of on-site assistance to
> introduce new components of the program, coach teachers, and work with
> the building facilitator. Over time, the facilitator (a full-time
> position) assumes most of the coaching and problem-solving
> responsibilities.
>
> ***Networking:*** Success for All supports a Web site, publishes a
> newsletter, and hosts an annual national conference.
>
> ***Implementation Review:*** Three times during the first year, two
> trainers visit each school for two days to assess the extent of
> implementation. The trainers interview staff, observe classes, examine
> data, and write a summary of their findings. They also use these
> opportunities to coach staff and consult with the facilitator. (These
> 12 person-days are part of the 26 mentioned above.) Implementation
> visits continue at a lower level after the first year (8 person-days
> in year 2, and 6 person-days each year thereafter).

**Costs**

Sample costs for a school of 500 students (preK-5) typically range from
\$75,000 to \$80,000 for year one, \$30,000 to \$35,000 for year two,
and \$23,000 to \$25,000 for year three. These estimates include
training, materials, and follow-up visits (including travel costs).
Actual costs, which depend on school size, location, specific needs
(such as bilingual, ESL, or year-round training), and number of schools
collaborating in training, are calculated for individual schools.
Schools also must cover the costs of a full-time facilitator, staff time
for attending training sessions, and travel expenses for the principal
and facilitator to attend the spring training session. Typically, the
program is funded by reallocating a school's current Title I monies,
often supplemented by other federal or state funds, such as
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) or Reading Excellence
Act funds.

**State Standards and Accountability**

Success for All curricula have been matched with state standards and
assessments for almost all states. Further, modifications to the program
have been made to match state standards, assessments, and response forms
for many states. Documents showing the alignment of Success for All with
state standards/assessments can be obtained from the Success for All
Foundation.

**Student Populations**

As part of the catalog Web site search mechanism, each model had an
opportunity to apply to be highlighted for its efforts in serving
selected student populations. The five categories were urban, rural,
high poverty, English language learners, and special education. To
qualify for a category, a model had to demonstrate (a) that it included
special training, materials, or components focusing on that student
population and (b) that it had been implemented in a substantial number
of schools serving that population.

Success for All is highlighted in all five categories. Although designed
primarily for inner city schools serving large numbers of disadvantaged
students, it has been implemented in many rural schools as well. It
offers a number of features for students in each category:

***Urban:*** specific curricular materials, such as multicultural
materials

***High Poverty:*** tutoring, family support team, and promotion of
links with social service organizations

***Rural:*** provisions for distance learning and joint service to
multiple schools (with consequent fee reductions)

***English Language Learners:*** Éxito Para Todos, a Spanish adaptation
of the program for use in bilingual programs; additional materials
(e.g., vocabulary guides and picture cards) and training in strategies
(e.g., total physical response) that support English as a Second
Language instruction through the sixth grade

***Special Education:*** a firm policy to keep students with reading
problems out of special education, through grouping, tutoring, and other
early intervention efforts (students who are identified as learning
disabled are included in regular classrooms to the extent possible)

**Special Considerations**

Reading teachers must be willing to use detailed Success for All
materials. The inclusion of students with learning problems in regular
classrooms is encouraged to the extent possible. Applications for a
given school year must be filed before May 1 of the preceding school
year.

**Selected Evaluations**

***Developer/Implementer***

Hurley, E., Chamberlain, A., Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2001,
June). Effects of Success for All on TAAS reading scores: A Texas
statewide evaluation. *Phi Delta Kappan,* 750-756.

Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B.
A. (1993). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring
program for inner-city elementary schools. *American Educational
Research Journal, 30,* 123-148.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. (1999a). Effects of bilingual and English as
a Second Language adaptations of Success for All on the reading
achievement of students acquiring English. *Journal of Education for
Students Placed At Risk, 4*(4), 393-416.

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. (1999b). *Success for All/Roots & Wings:
Summary of research on achievement outcomes.* Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at
Risk.

***Independent Researchers***

Borman, G. D., & Hewes, G. M. (2001). *The long-term effects and
cost-effectiveness of Success for All.* Unpublished manuscript.

Dianda, M. R., & Flaherty, J. F. (1995, April). *Effects of Success for
All on the reading achievement of first graders in California bilingual
programs.* Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, J. P. (1997). Preventing early
school failure: Impacts of Success for All on standardized test
outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. *Journal
of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2*(1), 29-53.

Stringfield, S., Millsap, M. A., Herman, R., Yoder, N., Brigham, N.,
Nesselfodt, P., Schaffer, E., Karweit, N., Levin, M., & Stevens, R.
(1997). *Urban and suburban/rural special strategies for educating
disadvantaged children: Final report.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.

For more information, contact

Success For All Foundation

200 West Towsontown Boulevard

Baltimore, MD 21204-5200

Phone: 800-548-4998

Fax: 410-324-4444

E-mail: sfainfo@successforall.net

Web site: http://www.successforall.net

*Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 10/20/02*

**Success-in-the-Making (K - 9)**

Accepted for Inclusion 1/1/99\
Description Written 3/1/99

+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| #             | > other                                              |
| Type of Model |                                                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Founder** | > Patrick Suppes and Mario Zanotti of Stanford       |
|               | > University and NCS Learn                           |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Current   | > NCS Learn                                          |
| > Service     |                                                      |
| > Provider**  |                                                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Year      | > 1967                                               |
| >             |                                                      |
| Established** |                                                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| > **\# of     | > 16,000 schools have used SuccessMaker software     |
| > Schools     |                                                      |
| > Served      |                                                      |
| > (1/1/99)**  |                                                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Level**   | > K - 9                                              |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Primary   | > increased achievement in reading, language arts,   |
| > Goal**      | > and mathematics                                    |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Main      | > computer-assisted instruction designed to meet     |
| > Features**  | > individual learning needs\                         |
|               | > mastery learning model\                            |
|               | > balanced instruction focusing on basic skills and  |
|               | > higher-order learning processes\                   |
|               | > multiple types of assessment and reporting         |
|               | > embedded in the software                           |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on | > data derived from students' use of software can    |
| >             | > inform regular classroom instruction               |
| Instruction** |                                                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on | > site coordinator is recommended                    |
| > Organizati  |                                                      |
| on/Staffing** |                                                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Impact on | > at least one hour per student per week in both     |
| > Schedule**  | > mathematics and reading instruction                |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| > *           | > yes (reading, language arts, mathematics)          |
| *Subject-Area |                                                      |
| > Programs    |                                                      |
| > Provided by |                                                      |
| > Developer** |                                                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Parental  | > student progress reports and portfolios are shared |
| >             | > with parents                                       |
| Involvement** |                                                      |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| > *           | > stand-alone computers and peer-to-peer, LAN, and   |
| *Technology** | > WAN networks; cable and Internet capabilities for  |
|               | > at-home learning                                   |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+
| >             | > over 5,000 hours of instructional material         |
| **Materials** | > including software, authentic literature,          |
|               | > multimedia, activities, projects, and other        |
|               | > resources; teacher guides                          |
+---------------+------------------------------------------------------+

**Origin/Scope**

The Success-in-the-Making approach was developed in 1967 by Patrick
Suppes of Stanford University, and Mario Zanotti, a nationally renowned
psychometrist, based on the belief that the use of technology in the
classroom can accelerate student learning. Software based on the
developers' approach has served more than 2 million students in 16,000
schools across the country.

**General Approach**

The core of Success-in-the-Making is the NCS Learn SuccessMaker®
software, which provides computer-assisted instruction in reading,
language arts, and mathematics from kindergarten through ninth grade.
SuccessMaker adapts curriculum content for each user, evaluates student
responses on problems and activities, and offers a management system for
monitoring student progress.

Based on the mastery learning model, the software automatically
determines each student's path through the material. Students are able
to complete increasingly more difficult work, as measured by embedded
assessments aligned to external testing objectives and state standards.

Consultants work with local educational leaders to develop
implementation plans based on district and site goals. Typically,
students complete individualized instruction several times a week;
teachers then add individual or collaborative lessons and activities
relating to classroom learning to achieve greater curriculum
integration.

Data derived from student work can help teachers plan and improve both
computer-assisted and regular classroom instruction. For example,
reports show areas where students are having difficulty so that teachers
can coach students in small groups. Data also can furnish information
for program guidance at the school and district levels.

As part of the model's options, teachers can offer authentic literature,
writing tools and process instruction, and open-ended tools-based
mathematics for all levels. Schools can also provide Spanish-English
bilingual and ESL content for various levels and components.

**Results**

Using SuccessMaker software to support student learning, multiple
schools have documented gains in student achievement in reading and
mathematics, as evidenced by standardized tests and state proficiency
exams. For example, 13 schools in New York's District Six were selected
to implement the model, based on low performance on the third-grade
state-mandated reading test. After implementation, post-test results
showed a higher percentage of these third-grade students reaching or
exceeding the State Reference Point than third-graders districtwide. In
Landisville, Pennsylvania, longitudinal data on over 500 students using
the math software, tracked from third to sixth grade, showed the mean
percentile of the group rising from the 70th percentile in third grade
to the 80th percentile in sixth grade, as measured by the California
Achievement Test. The percentage of students in the lowest quartile
dropped from 12 percent to 6 percent, and the percentage of students in
the top quartile increased from 41 percent to 59 percent. In Fort Worth,
Texas, students using the software for one year at three schools with
schoolwide Title I projects showed significant gains on the Texas
Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). The mean gain from 1996 to 1997
for grades four and five was 8.0 Texas Learning Index units. Similar
gains were reported for reading.

Additionally, survey results from multiple school sites indicate that
students involved in Success-in-the-Making demonstrate an increase in
self-esteem and a more positive attitude toward learning.

**Implementation Assistance**

> ***Project Capacity:*** This model is offered through four regional
> offices located across the United States, with 130 consultants
> providing professional development. Consultants also can prepare
> district staff to train teachers and support local programs through
> EdPro certification courses offered several times a year.
>
> ***Faculty Buy-In:*** Consultants encourage school and district
> processes that include teachers in selecting the program and making
> decisions on program options.
>
> ***Initial Training:*** Orientation and planning activities involving
> administrators or other leaders take a minimum of one day. Initial
> training for all teachers and instructional staff involved with the
> model generally includes three days to introduce content, tools, and
> basic management system functions; show participants self-help
> resources; and discuss initial program implementation issues, such as
> enrollment and scheduling.
>
> ***Follow-Up Coaching:*** Assistance in generating and interpreting
> reports is a standard follow-up component. Several days of site
> support are recommended each year for informal coaching and training.
> Consultants model new ways to teach --- including multimedia teacher
> presentations and interactive group activities using technology ---
> and share classroom and laboratory/center management techniques.
>
> ***Networking:*** Toll free numbers to reach consultants and technical
> support, e-mail addresses, program newsletters, and events for EdPro
> "graduates" help educators stay informed. Seminars enable schools to
> share information. Teachers and administrators also can communicate
> and collaborate through an educational Web site.
>
> ***Implementation Review:*** Model guidelines suggest a quarterly
> review of implementation, including review of summarizing reports.
> This review is usually conducted with the site administrator or
> governance group.

**Costs**

Costs vary depending on the size of the model due to volume discount
pricing and the amount of professional development desired. Costs for a
typical elementary school with computers in the classrooms range from
\$362 to \$602 per student for a three-year program (or \$121 to \$201
per student per year). Lower costs are possible if schools have a
computer laboratory, which can serve larger numbers of students for a
given number of computers. Release time and budget for substitutes for
two to three days of initial training at the beginning of the program
and for new teachers in subsequent years also needs to be included.

**State Standards and Accountability**

(*We soon will be providing information on the model's support for
schools' efforts to meet standards.*)

**Student Populations**

The program provides instruction for diverse learning needs, including
mainstream, gifted, special education, ESL, Spanish-English bilingual,
and at-risk populations. Adaptive devices serve students who have
difficulty using standard computer equipment.

**Special Considerations**

Helping administrators and teachers learn new ways of delivering and
assessing instruction requires ongoing professional development and site
support. Each school is advised to plan for a minimum of 15 days of
professional development over a three-year period.

**Selected Evaluations**

***Developer/Implementer***

1997-98 Duval County CCC implementation overview and summary of
findings. (1998). Sunnyvale, CA: CCC Research and Measurement
Department.

Zanotti, M. (1997). *Fort Worth Title I, 1996-97.* Sunnyvale, CA: CCC
Research and Measurement Department.

Zanotti, M. (1998). *Southfield Public Schools evaluation summary August
1997.* Sunnyvale, CA: CCC Research and Measurement Department.

Zanotti, M., & Smith, N. (1995). *Effectiveness of the CCC CAI Program:
Philadelphia Parochial Schools global evaluation for 1994-95.*
Sunnyvale, CA: CCC Research and Measurement Department.

***Independent Researchers***

Community School District Six Integrated Technology Reading Support
Project: First year evaluation report 1995-96. (1996). New York: Metis
Associates.

Laub, C. M., & Wildasin, R. L. (1998). *Student achievement in
mathematics and the use of computer-based instruction in the Hempfield
School District.* Landisville, PA: Hempfield School District.

Second year evaluation report 1996-97. (1998). New York: Metis
Associates.

Underwood, J., with Cavendish, S., Dowling, S., Fogelman, K., & Lawson,
T. (1994). *Integrated learning systems in U.K. Schools: Final report.*
Leicester, UK: Leicester University, School of Education.

**For more information, contact**

JD Dyas\
NCS Learn\
5421 East Williams Boulevard, Suite 151\
Tucson, AZ 85711\
Phone: 888-627-5327\
Fax: 520-615-7601\
E-mail: paul.dyas@ncslearn.com\
Web site:
[[http://www.ncslearn.com]{.underline}](http://www.ncslearn.com/)

**APPENDIX D**

**Short Summaries of 18 CSRD Schools**

School A

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1).* **School A** began
investigating *Accelerated Schools (AS)* during 1996-97 and 1997-98. In
June 1998, 97 percent of the faculty voted to adopt the research method,
starting with 1998-99. That year, the school failed to receive CSRD
funding, which then began in 1999-00, which was the second year of its
use of *AS*. School A also uses *Lightspan* to supplement its reading
instruction in grades 1-3, with one grade starting in 1999-00 and full
coverage planned for 2002-03.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. Support within the school has been
very high. Although 60 percent of the students were either ESL or
identified as having learning problems, all students were integrated in
the regular classrooms, working on the same content with a team of
teachers. One of the most salient features of the school's success in
implementing *AS* was the leadership of the principal and the buy-in of
the staff. The principal and teachers developed a collaborative process
of problem solving and shared decisionmaking that is believed to be
central to the success others have noticed at the school.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. **School A**'s
principal has played a major role in leading the reform effort. Besides
providing vision and rallying the staff to focus on the improvement
effort, the principal provided the time and training needed to fully
implement *AS*, and the method became the focal point for all of the
reform efforts of the school. The principal also was instrumental in
finding resources to insure full implementation.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. The focus of the school's reform
was to bring all students up to grade level before they proceeded to
middle school. The entire school staff underwent extensive *AS*
professional development, and a training-of-trainers model also helped
to institutionalize the method. But the strategies for reaching the
goals can be stated in a general manner. Interviews, classroom
observation, and documents all make clear that the staff understand and
strongly support the reform process, including some familiarity with
CSRD's nine components.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. The *AS* National
Center has provided extensive onsite training and assistance. In fact,
the principal believes that the school has now progressed beyond the
basic level and has expressed concern over the National Center's ability
to serve the advanced needs of the school. As of May 2002, she was still
negotiating over the type, amount, and cost of services for the 2002-03
school year. Using Title I and CSRD funds, the school also has continued
to receive external support from two consultants in reading and writing.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. The school instituted some changes in school operations immediately
upon adopting *AS*. All teachers became members of "cadres," cadre
members were assigned roles within the group, and release time was
provided for cadre working groups and leaders. As of May 2002, the
cadres and inquiry process were institutionalized at the school. The
cadre groups also served as "families," with the school divided into
three such families that served as "schools-within-school."

The school also altered its daily class schedule in 2001-02 as a further
adaptation to *AS*. Finally, the school created an internal coach
position, as required by *AS*. The coach was responsible for conducting
inservice training, observing classes, and occasionally serving as a
substitute to allow teachers to attend training or workshop meetings.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. The school
carried out a number of activities to gain parental support and
participation. School events have been well attended, and parents have
expressed familiarity with *AS* when questioned. Parents come to
parent-teacher conferences twice a year, and these are scheduled from 3
to 9 p.m., also splitting time between the school and the district
office to give parents a choice of location. Many parents volunteer at
the school, serving in capacities from classroom assistants to
fundraisers. From Spring 2000 to Spring 2001, volunteer hours rose from
1,506 to 3,495, and the site visit team observed that most classes had a
parent assistant. The school conducts parent surveys, and the responses
have included many positive comments about the school.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. By 2001-02, *AS* was being used
throughout the school, with 100 percent of the teachers implementing the
method in their classrooms. In all classrooms visited, the site visit
team saw the use of higher-level thinking techniques, including
questioning strategies, as well as evidence of student teaming and
cooperative learning. During 2001-02, teachers received additional
training in the Powerful Learning component of *AS*, and on how to
address the "multiple intelligences" of students. School A continued to
be ready for and wanting even more advanced inquiry method training.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. During 1999-00, the entire
school received extensive training in the *AS* philosophy. For 2000-01,
the staff received training in "Powerful Learning." For 2000-01, the
staff received further training in successful reading strategies for LEP
students. In addition to this extensive support, the school had four
"banking time" days---regular school days with no students in
attendance. A good deal of the PD has occurred within and been driven by
the school's cadres and families, making PD at the school highly
focused. Every teacher interviewed agreed that the quality of PD at the
school was outstanding. In May 2002, the principal noted that formal PD
activities would have to be reduced in 2002-03 due to district-wide
budget cuts. However, teachers believe they can train and support
themselves in sustaining the effort.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. While teachers
indicate they work harder at this school than they did at others, they
also have had time to prepare, reflect, and collaborate during the
school day as well as after hours. Once a month, each family has two
hours of planning time, and the cadres meet regularly. Teachers feel
their hard work is appreciated by the school administration in tangible
ways and that their efforts are paying off in improved student learning.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. Beginning with
2001-02, the district no longer set district-wide school proficiency
levels. Rather, each school was required to prepare a 2001-04
Educational Plan that addresses the state-mandated proficiency levels by
grade and subject. The Plan also was to incorporate the plans for
federal, state, and other funds received by the school.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions).* The district has
provided CSRD support and also has undertaken several compatible
initiatives, such as having the school develop benchmarks related to the
state assessments standards. Initially, however, the principal and many
teachers indicated that they received little support from the district
and got even less recognition for what they had accomplished. The school
was not adversely affected by the districts shift to neighborhood
schools for 2000-01.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The school has been
designated as "in need of improvement" in the state's accountability
system, meaning that the school has not met the state's benchmarks.
Every year, the school has successfully contested this designation
because of its high proportion of special students. The state has
declared **School A** to be an exemplary CSRD site.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. Through its cadres, the school has
developed a systematic process for analyzing student achievement data.
In addition, the school surveyed the staff using the *Comprehensive
School Reform Implementation Survey* developed by the district. The
school also has used the *AS* project school evaluation questionnaire.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. The
internal coach position was only partially funded by CSRD funds, and the
principal believed she would be able to absorb the costs within her
budget after CSRD was to end. School A appears to have coordinated its
Title I, bilingual education, and other external and internal funds in
implementing the research methods (*AS* and *Lightspan*). By 2001-02, ED
had identified School A as a "promising" CSRD site, the state had
nominated the school for CSRD exemplary status, and the school was
serving as a model for area schools implementing *AS*. The site visit
team believes strongly that School A will sustain comprehensive reform
and implementation of *AS* well beyond the final year of the CSRD grant
(2001-02).

**School B**

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School B** adopted *High
Schools That Work (HSTW)* as its CSRD research-based method in 1999-00.
*HSTW* required the school to implement an extensive array of activities
and therefore served as a framework for reform. An important aspect of
*HSTW* is the required involvement of all school members, including
students and parents. Another important aspect is a shift to block
scheduling. However, in spring 2001, the faculty voted to postpone the
shift, indicating a significant change in the level of support for
*HSTW*. The shift may have been related to reports from others'
experiences with block scheduling, including a state report showing that
non-block schools had slightly larger increases in verbal SAT scores.
**School B** also has implemented a "school-within-a-school" curriculum
in its health occupations program, which complements several of the nine
key *HSTW* practices.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. Initially, nearly 1/3 of the staff
either quit or retired when it became clear that reform was about to
occur, and replacing them also was a problem due to a teacher shortage.
During implementation, teachers indicated that 8 teachers (15 percent of
the teachers) had not been involved in the reform efforts. The principal
believed that about 2/3 of the faculty were truly involved in the
reform, but the school continued to struggle with the remaining
teachers. In the spring of 2001, however, the external trainers observed
that support for the reform effort appeared to be fading---especially
support for the block periods---and that some teachers were no longer
using *HSTW* strategies in their classrooms. By 2001-02, although all
teachers had been involved in some *HSTW* training, a teacher's
questionnaire showed that 24 of 52 responses were positive and 21 were
negative toward reform.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. The principal was
instrumental in securing support and understanding for method during the
adoption and initial implementation process. She shifted funds to allow
as many teachers as possible to participate in training and professional
development opportunities related to the method. However, beginning in
Spring 2001, the principal faced resistance by staff to block schedule
(a key component of *HSTW*) as opposition by a few department heads and
a critical report released by the state. Nevertheless, the principal's
leadership skills were instrumental in securing her position as the
principal for the newly merged high school in 2003--04.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. **School B** had started reform
before implementing *HSTW*. For instance, in the fall of 1998 and a year
prior to the CSRD grant, **School B** changed the scheduling for all of
its 9th graders to a block schedule for the four core courses. The
scheduling was called a "school-within-a-school." The reform method and
the comprehensive plan appear to be well understood by faculty,
students, and parents.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. In addition to
the professional development that has been provided, the developer has
made two technical review site visits per year and has held monthly
phone conferences with mentor site leaders. The CSRD site coordinator
appears to have a good working relationship with the *HSTW* contact. The
coordinator reported three concrete changes attributable to the external
support: increased use of project-based learning; constant reminders to
raise the bar; and increased class offerings by a local university.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. As part of the design of *HSTW*, by 2001-02, most of the "basic-"
and "remedial-"level courses had been dropped, and most vocational
students were intermingled with academically-bound students. However,
implementation of the desired block scheduling has halted. Although
School P (which has had an entire year under a fully blocked schedule)
will be merging with **School B** in the fall of 2002, the future of the
block scheduling is unknown.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. When the school
decided to consider adopting a school reform method, the faculty was
inundated with input from students, parents, and community members, and
the faculty created a committee with some of these persons as members.
During the implementation years, parental involvement was addressed
through advisement meetings held at an evening event. Parent/student
shadowing also gives parents the opportunity to observe the performance
and behavior of their children. Despite other specific reports of
positive experiences with parental and community involvement, the staff
and administration reported that involvement was limited to a core group
of parents, and the school had difficulty recruiting parent
participation beyond that group.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. According to the *HSTW* trainers, the
school's implementation has been at a fairly high level. For instance,
*HSTW* instructional practices, such as asking students to talk about
what they know on a topic, having students work in teams and groups, and
avoiding the lecture method, have been implemented in nearly all of the
school's classrooms. Paired reading and other desirable chair
arrangements also were observed in the classrooms.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. During 1999-00, the first
year of the CSRD grant, all staff participated in five days of
*HSTW*-related professional development. In 2000-01, 24 teachers
participated in the *HSTW* three-day summer conference. *HSTW*
professional development directly addresses CSRD components 1,2,3,5,6,
and 7. To increase the value of the professional development, each
teacher attending an off-site event was required to bring back something
to share with the rest of the faculty. The principal noted that teachers
making *HSTW* presentations before their peers seemed to be proud of
their contribution, and teachers also reported sharing their information
with their peers, even meeting before or after school to share
strategies. Also, as a 2001 co-recipient (with the local feeder middle
school) of a *Making Schools Work (MSW)* grant, the school receives
additional professional development that is related to the *HSTW*
efforts.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. No other forms
of support were identified.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. The school's
leadership team has identified *HSTW* benchmarks, indicators, and
evidence for the three-year CSRD period and reviews and revises these
process benchmarks annually. The team also has been involved in
collecting benchmark data, and **School B**'s school improvement plan
also has process goals and objectives, such as making schoolwide
observations and setting goals for teacher and student attendance.
Overall, the plan has six goals and an average of nine objectives for
each. The benchmarks also include extensive coverage of student
performance on state and district assessments as well as meeting other
graduation requirements. Curriculum audit teams related to the *MSW*
grant also have conducted assessments and made recommendations to
**School B** regarding the attainment of its goals and benchmarks. The
school also has adopted a new culture of achievement that recognizes
high-performing students with tangible rewards, such as being sponsored
to go to a local amusement park.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions).* The district has
provided staff support for CSRD implementation as well as supplemental
funds for the professional development related to reform. In November
2001, voters approved new funds to renovate school buildings, and the
school board also voted to merge the district's two high schools
starting in 2003-04. **School B**'s principal was selected to become the
principal of the merged school. Details of the merger have still not
been worked out, and uncertainty over staff assignments and other key
issues may shift attention from student achievement to school
reorganization.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. No state assessment
or policy issues have arisen that appear related to the reform. The
state has provided routine support for CSRD administration and also is
sponsoring the CSRD evaluation cite in the next item.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. The state is conducting its own
evaluation through a contract with two research firms. The evaluation
calls for collecting data from a variety of sources, including classroom
observations.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. The
CSRD site coordinator is paid from the core budget, not CSRD, as almost
all of the grant was used for professional development. In addition,
some (small amounts) of Title II and other state and local funds for
professional development are used. Besides these two examples, there has
been no clear evidence that funds have been redirected or converged to
support reform. As one result, there appear to be no funding streams
available to continue the school's relationship with *HSTW* following
the ending of CSRD.

**School C**

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. The principal reviewed the
district's set of acceptable models and selected *Co-NECT* to recommend
to **School C**'s faculty. The school had adopted Accelerated Schools 12
years earlier and therefore had some elements of reform and of Co-NECT
(e.g., participatory management structure and orientation toward reform)
already in place. CSRD participation began in the summer of 1999.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. Faculty voted unanimously to adopt
Co-NECT, but the high turnover rate among faculty members meant the
support had to be continually regenerated.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. The principal had
started whole school reform in 1989 by implementing Accelerated Schools.
The principal has supported the CSRD research-based strategy and uses
CSRD to show that reform is part of a national movement, not just a
principal's initiative.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. **School C**'s School Improvement
Plan (SIP) for 2001-02 lists several other instructional programs being
used at the school, but Co-NECT is recognized as the only comprehensive
reform strategy. The SIP is aligned with the district's goals, and
district plans had been required by the state, starting in 1998-99, to
be aligned with state standards. However, a Co-NECT implementation plan
also exists and provides guidance to the faculty.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. The developer
supports an on-site consultant who works with the school's Co-NECT
facilitator and guides many activities, including making substantive
presentations at all-school assemblies.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. The school has changed its internal structure, reorganizing
according to "small communities," establishing a technology
infrastructure, following a "looping" pattern for teachers and students,
and having a design team to implement Co-NECT.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. Few parents are
involved in school activities, and this is the first challenge mentioned
by the school's faculty. Parent involvement is impeded by the school's
isolation due to geographic features and possibly by the fact that many
of the students are from families with two working parents.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. Some teachers believe that Co-NECT
competes with their efforts to raise student achievement scores,
impeding Co-NECT implementation. Teacher turnover has been nearly 33
percent during the first two years of CSRD, making retraining a constant
activity. Student turnover also has been high, but no data were
available.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. Professional development
includes training on comprehensive planning in relation to the SIP, also
showing school staff how to interpret student achievement data as part
of the planning process. Most of the ongoing professional development,
occurring on official professional days, appears to be used for Co-NECT
training. However, professional development requirements are not tied to
teacher recertification, and so teachers have less incentive to continue
their professional development.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. Teachers have
a common planning period to facilitate cooperative learning.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. The research-based
method includes process and outcome benchmarks, which the school
monitors.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions)*. District
revenues, derived from the sales tax and in turn dependent on the
tourist industry, will be lower during 2002-03, affecting schools by as
yet an unpredictable amount. District funds also are being depleted by a
new state mandate to increase employee benefits, and the school's share
of Title I also will be affected by the district's opening of a new
Title I school.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The state requires
that each school (and, in turn, each district) have a single improvement
plan that specifically links all funded activities from various sources
to goals, objectives, benchmarks, and strategies.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. There is no formal external evaluation,
but evaluation is integral to the SIP and Co-NECT processes.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9).* The SIP
embraces the use of funds from all funding sources as part of an
integrated resource allocation plan. The district's Title I staff
assists schools in preparing the SIP and showing how Title I and other
funds are coordinated within the plan. However, the SIP for 2001-02
still failed to capture all sources of funds and had other problems of
redundancy.

School D

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School D** chose the
*MathWings (MW)* program of *Roots & Wings* for grades 1-5 and *Success
for All (SFA)*, English language version only, for grades pre-K through
6 as its CSRD method. (CSRD funds supported MW.) The school had no other
reform methods, even though the district was promoting *Open Court* in
reading and *SAXON* in mathematics. The school began using a new social
studies textbook for grades 4-6 in 2001-02 because the state intended to
begin testing on social studies the following year.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. The staff had voted to adopt SFA in
1997, and its positive experience with SFA starting in 1997-98 led to
over 80 percent of the school's 25 teachers voting to adopt MW in 1999.
In the early years of SFA, a few teachers left the school because they
were reportedly not happy with the reading curriculum and strategies.
However, by 2000-01, most staff were supportive of both programs.
According to some teachers, the enthusiasm of the principal was
necessary to start the reform process, but teachers soon began to see
the success of the efforts in improved student achievement.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. The principal was a
critical part of the reform efforts at the school. Besides being very
supportive of adopting SFA and MW, the principal also identified funding
mechanisms that allowed staff to be paid stipends to attend weekly
grade-level and twice monthly component meetings. She also provided a
\$30 incentive (from state funds) for teachers to make home visits.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. **School D**'s end-of-year report
annually covered its activities and progress in regard to each of the
CSRD components. In addition, the district required every school to
develop a plan to improve performance on the district's "vital signs"
and "puzzle pieces." Many of the puzzle pieces directly paralleled the
CSRD components. In addition to describing the activities the school was
to undertake, the plan also specified the lead responsibility for each
activity, the start and end dates, and the source of funding. Further,
many of the strategies and actions in the plan, such as professional
development and parent-teacher compacts, were specifically tied to MW.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. The developer
offered extensive training for SFA (three days' inservice) when it began
in 1997-98 and for MW (two days' inservice) in its first year. The
training focused on curriculum and instructional techniques and not on
any other component of reform. For MW, the developer customized the
training by only introducing a few units of the program at the outset
and then returning several times over the school year to conduct
implementation visits and continue training on the later units. All
staff indicated a high level of satisfaction with the external
developer's training. Teachers commented that the external provider was
always available to answer questions.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. The school fully implemented SFA's recommended 90-minute block
schedule, also assessing and regrouping students every eight weeks. MW
fell within the 90-minute pattern as well. The MW program also organized
students into teams, with the high-performing teams receiving
certificates or other small rewards as recognition. For 2000-01 and
2001-02, **School D** had a full-time facilitator for SFA and a
half-time facilitator for MW (which had been a full-time assignment for
the first year). These two staff members provided ongoing training to
all teachers, including model teaching, one-on-one tutoring, and
assistance in assessing and placing students.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. Both SFA and MW
require parents' involvement in home instructional activities. Besides
teachers' home visits to advise parents, **School D** also held monthly
parent nights that were moderately successful in bringing parents to the
school, especially if food was served or students were performing.
According to the principal, expecting parents to participate during the
school day was unrealistic, and in 2000-01 only a few parent
participated. Some parents also did not speak English, posing a further
barrier. For 2001-02, the school received about \$50,000 in state funds
to facilitate parent involvement and support and hired an outreach
worker. Community involvement expanded in 2000-01, with a local church
adopting the school and 26 volunteers coming from the church to assist
teachers one to two times per week and tutoring a total of 54 students.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. Teachers and the principal reported
that all teachers were using SFA and MW. In 2000-01, some teachers were
in their first year and therefore just learning to use MW. Overall, the
school appeared to be implementing the program well, for a score of 4 on
the 5-point scale. As for fidelity, the external developer noted that on
most SFA items, the school was "mechanically implementing" the program.
The school had made some modifications to RW with the assistance from
the external developer and also worked with the developer to improve the
coordination between reading and listening comprehension.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. Virtually all professional
development was linked to MW. The SFA facilitator stated that **School
D** also used the results of the eight-week assessment students to "help
teachers" direct their attention to professional development needs. The
school did not keep authoritative records of the staff's professional
development activities. However, the principal estimated that the school
offered more than 40 hours of professional development each, and that
about 70 percent of the staff participated at this level.

Because all other schools in the district were using district-promoted
reading and mathematics curricula, these other schools were able to
participate in district-sponsored professional development. **School D**
had to organize its own professional development because it had adopted
SFA and MW. According to the principal, this isolated the school and its
staff from the district in some ways, although it also helped to create
a more cohesive environment because all training activities took place
as a group, and the teachers had to rely more heavily on each other.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. (See stipends
to attend meetings and for home visits, under Item 3 above.) **School
D** also received \$26,000 in 1999-2000 under the state's performance
program (API).

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. All schools were
expected to reach the benchmarks set forth by the district's "vital
signs" by 2001, which specified quantitative targets for various facets
of student performance (e.g., reading readiness, attendance, reading and
mathematics proficiency). Although each school was at a different
starting point, the goal for every school was the same. Implementation
reviews by the external developer and an annual survey of teachers were
used to measure fidelity and extent of implementation of RW.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions).* The district
played a major role in selecting the CSRD schools, and its strategic
plan adopted in February 1998 under a new superintendent has been a
driving force behind **School D**'s reform efforts.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The state is still
revising its assessments to make them standards-based, and this may
affect district and school actions in the future. Also, the state began
to implement new promotion and retention policies, focusing attention on
interventions for students at-risk of retention.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. As part of **School D**'s evaluation
plan, the district contracted with a consultant to conduct surveys and
data review but then turned evaluation responsibilities to the school
for 2001-02. The district posed the results of the statement assessment,
distributing student-specific reports to each teacher and covering two
years of data to indicate the change in the student's performance.
Overall, student achievement scores were rising, with only 79 students
reading at grade level in 1997-98 and 291 at grade level in the spring
2001 assessment.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. Rather
than having separate plans for each federal and state program, the
district required each school to develop a single plan, also providing
training to the school staff. CSRD's funds were therefore augmented with
funds from other sources. The scope of **School D**'s annual improvement
plan, which covered a full range of activities and also linked each
activity to a specific funding source, suggests that resources were
being used in a convergent manner. For 2001-02, the district moved to
complete site-based budgeting for all schools, but the principal felt
that no funds were left over after covering the costs of teachers and
supplies. Given this budget reality, **School D** is concerned about
finding a way to continue the reform method. Moreover, the SFA reading
curriculum was not subjected to state review and the school will not be
able to use state funds for SFA once CSRD funding ends.

School E

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School E** was selected as a
high school, although the site visits later determined that it also was
connected to a middle school. Beginning in 2001--2002, the high school
separated from the middle school to become an independent charter high
school. The high school adopted the *Coalition of Essential Schools
(CES)* as its CSRD research-based method. The high school also has
adopted or investigated other educational models that are consistent
with CSRD and CES.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. The high school faculty had identified
CES as the method of choice as part of its CSRD award, which started in
1998-99. During 2001-02, the staff have devoted more time to the other
methods than to CES. Staff have decided to focus future grant money on a
new method---the Minnesota New Country School---which is consistent with
but different from CES.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. School E operated
with a high level of autonomy while connected to the middle school. As
an independent charter school, School E is administered democratically
by the nine faculty members, with no formal principal. In Spring 2002,
division among staff about the governance and mission of the school
threatened progress toward reform goals.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. The school appears not to have had
any vision for comprehensive school reform, probably due to its
pre-occupation with its own survival, restructuring, and transition to
becoming a charter school. For instance, the school considered applying
for another CSRD grant in January 2002 because it is a new school.
Though the school found other resources to support new reform method and
did not seek CSRD funding, this intent, along with other field
observations, raises questions about the comprehensiveness and extent of
reform under the school's original CSRD award.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. The school has
not had contact with the CES developer (and has made no payments for
services) for the past two years, although school staff have attended
annual CES meetings. The developer therefore has been unable to provide
an estimate for the fidelity of implementation. One senior teacher
attending the Nov. 2000 annual conference believed that the school was
implementing the best CES practices as described at the conference.
Further, the staff claim that CES's nine principles continue to shape
the school's approach to learning, emphasizing low student-teacher
ratios, project-based learning, and student responsibility and mastery.
The staff would like to receive more support from external
organizations, but CES has not been mentioned as one of them.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. **School E** was a combined middle and high school (grades 6-12)
when applying for the CSRD award. Beginning in 2001-02, the high school,
which had 168 students, separated from the middle school and opened as a
charter school at a new location, with an enrollment of 130 students.
School staff spent the summer of 2001 moving to a new building,
recruiting, and dealing with a few troubled students. In fall 2001, the
school experienced student discipline as a major problem, as well as
funding shortages because it had yet to receive its expected state
charter school grant or its Title I grant. In addition, two key staff
who had helped to envision the charter school unexpectedly took other
jobs at the start of the school year. By January 2002, the school had
removed three disruptive students and had received the grant funding it
expected.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. Active parent
involvement had led to the initial recommendation in December 2000 for
the high school to separate from the middle school. Currently, however,
there has been virtually no parent involvement, even on the part of the
four families involved in shaping the charter school. At the same time,
the school has developed formal partnerships with a few community-based
organizations.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. CES-like practices are being
implemented to only a mixed extent in the classrooms. For instance, some
teachers were using an integrated curriculum and attempting to use the
teacher-as-coach and student-as-worker philosophy, but others were
teaching in the more traditional mode.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. The CES developer did
provide professional development in the first year of the CSRD award.
Since then, however, professional development has been limited. The high
school staff did not participate in the internal schoolwide professional
development provided over the 18 months prior to 2001-02, and none of
the professional development has been provided by CES specialists.
Currently, professional development sessions are being used to address
more mundane administrative issues, such as discipline during lunch.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. The school
closes early two days a month for staff meetings. However, the limited
district and state support for professional development raises questions
about how it will be financed in the future.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. Previously, the
school used student achievement benchmarks that were part of its school
accountability reports. However, since becoming a charter school, the
school's goals and benchmarks are not clear. Further, there have been no
CSRD implementation benchmarks or timelines.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions)*. In the spring of
2001, the school board overrode the school's own recommendation to close
after three years, opting for the charter school alternative. The
district has only provided professional development and technical
assistance on an "as-needed" basis. Significant professional development
resources have been decentralized to the schools. At the same time, the
district is adopting high-stakes assessments for 12th grade graduation.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The school has
placed in the lowest category in the state's accountability system and
is still under sanctions and at risk of being closed by the district.
State revenue caps, along with declining enrollments but increasing
costs, have caused every school to cut educational programs.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. An external evaluator was active during
the first two CSRD years, but the evaluator's report was submitted to an
earlier CSRD facilitator, and the evaluator's work has had no impact on
the school.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9).* Any
previous pattern of coordinating funds cannot be applied to the new
charter school. The new school's budget for 2001-02 has been
underfunded, and how coordination, if any, is working has been unclear.

**School F**

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School F** uses the ten
principles of ***Coalition of Essential Schools***, along with a
multiplicity of other methods (e.g., ***High Schools that Work*** and an
NSF Urban Systemic Initiative award), all embraced within an overarching
school-to-career framework whereby students identify possible career
pathways that then define needed student portfolios and research
projects. The school is a large urban high school that receives no Title
I funds.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. At **School F**, reform efforts had
been ongoing prior to 1998. In March 1998, 100 percent of the faculty
voted to adopt the CES principles, and the CSRD award then started in
March 1999. At the outset, only about 50 percent of the faculty
volunteered to participate in some aspect of the effort, but the
proportion has steadily increased since then. In April 2001, the faculty
decided to apply for membership with CES. Only after membership has been
attained will a CES external team visit the school.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. The principal and
assistant principal have been instrumental in leading the reform
efforts. They have provided faculty with resources to hold collaboration
meetings during school hours (e.g., substitute teachers), and have
provided opportunities for 14 staff to attend leadership training so
that they could serve as coaches (facilitators) for the collaboration
sessions.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. The overall design, also reflected
in the school's improvement plan, encompasses all nine CSRD components,
although parental involvement receives less attention than the other
components. The faculty collaboration groups and other action research
teams serve as planning and coordinating processes that link the
components to each other and to a vision for school-wide reform. Faculty
understanding of the overall mission is high and also assessed annually
in several surveys.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. CES provided
week-long training described under professional development. One school
administrator rated the training to be of great benefit to the school.
Training on other methods also has been provided by developers
associated with those other methods. However, no assessment on the
fidelity of use of CES has been made to date.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations, and Extent of
Implementation (Component 1)*. In September 2000, the school started a
two-year HSTW award and began using a new block schedule, calling for
90-minute classes. The new schedule also was in keeping with the guiding
principles of CES, providing extra assistance to students to meet state
standards, make-up classes, participate in AP courses, and take
electives. Starting in 2001-02, the school organized itself into three
academies to create smaller learning environments, with two new
academies scheduled to start over the following two years.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. The school has
successfully engaged parents and community members to serve on key
committees, including the school improvement team. However, gaining more
extensive parental involvement remains a difficult task, especially
because of the blue-collar nature of the school's community.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. All classrooms appear to be using
aspects of the various reform methods. Most of the faculty are engaged
in a collaboration group that meets monthly to share ideas on curriculum
and instruction and that is central to the overarching school-to-career
framework.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. The collaborative groups
and action teams are the main method for delivering professional
development. The collaborative groups now engage 145 of the 200 staff,
with a separate Annenberg grant having been used to train 14 coaches to
facilitate the collaborative sessions. Training has been offered in
relation to the specific methods that the school has adopted, including
CES and HSTW, but also other specific methods in use at the school. For
instance, a week-long CES course has proved very helpful in developing a
common vision, adjusting to the new schedule, and developing plans of
action.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. Staff members
reported conducting peer visits to the classes of fellow collaboration
team members, as well as reviewing and sharing lesson plans. The
collaborative groups have provided teachers the opportunity to learn
about areas where they should target instruction, based on feedback from
other teachers in other subject areas. For example, one science teacher
noted that students were having difficulty with measurement during
laboratory experiments. Discussion of this item in the collaborative
groups led to a move by math teachers to focus on measurement in
subsequent lesson plans.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. The school
improvement plan has specific timelines and goals that are revised
annually. School F has not met the minimum standard in reading on state
assessments, but did so in both mathematics and writing. The reading
performance may be related to the fact that 90 percent of the students
are Hispanic, although the scores do not include special education or
Limited English Proficient students. The state's new report card system
will add further visibility to the school's performance and pressure it
to improve.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The district has
provided considerable support in the form of training and technical
assistance for the methods and practices related to CSRD, although there
is not clear coordination among the district's evaluation office, CSRD
administrative office, or Title I office. The training and technical
assistance has primarily been related to *HSTW* and the school-to-career
framework; a district staff person provides the training and hosts
monthly coordination meetings for School F with other participating
schools in the district.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. State resources are
used for inservice related to the state's standards and assessment
efforts. The state's new report card system also will have a serious
impact on individual schools.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. The district evaluation office
administers a survey to monitor progress and impact, but no external
evaluation is in progress. The survey only received a 60 percent
response by December 2001, and the district is still trying to obtain
the responses from the other 40 percent. The district effort does not
include any analysis of student achievement data.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. The
school has had a long history of coordinating various sources of
external funds. The school is endeavoring to identify new sources of
funds to replace the CSRD monies, which have largely been used to
support the collaborative groups by providing teacher substitute days
and stipends. The district also has adopted the school-to-career
concept, and School F may be viewed as a model for other schools,
especially in its use of collaborative groups and action teams.

**School G**

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. The *Special Literacy Model
(SLM)* is locally-developed and is being implemented at a number of
schools in the area. SLM is based on academic research on early
literacy. **School G**, with about 250 K-6 students, also is using three
other methods as part of the reform process, most oriented toward
language learning.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. The principal cites the overwhelming
support of the staff, partially due to the collaborative process used to
select SLM, rather than being dictated by some higher organizational
level. Along the way, professional development choices also were part of
the self-selection process and are therefore more widely accepted. The
school's small size, collaborative management style, and history of
reform all lead to strong support for reform.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. The current
principal began in 2000-01 and is enthusiastic about SLM, extending it
to grades 4-6 and adding a math literacy component with a staffed
computer laboratory, all supported through CSRD.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. The comprehensiveness of the
reform effort may be reflected by the current principal's view that
"literacy means more than language. It includes math, science, and
computers, as well as reading." SLM includes all CSRD components and is
aligned with the state's standards. The district-initiated school
improvement planning (SIP) process has played a central role in
establishing the comprehensiveness of the reform effort. Every faculty
member signs a page in the plan to indicate an understanding of his or
her role in implementing the plan.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. The developer is
located at an IHE, 80 miles from **School G**, and comes to the school
once or twice a year for inservice sessions. There also is a project
liaison for schools in the region that are using SLM who also visits the
school twice a month. The developer rates **School G**'s fidelity as
high.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. **School G** was in the process of implementing reform---teacher
teams, cross-grade planning groups, and whole-school professional
development sessions---prior to CSRD.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. The principal
requires parents to come to the school to pick up and sign for report
cards, personally greeting every parent and keeping the school open from
7a.m. to 7p.m. Other activities also are deliberately schedule for
evening hours. Parents appear to be more aware of their children's
learning than prior to CSRD, even if they cannot identify specific
methods.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. SLM was first implemented in
1999--2000 (the first year of CSRD funding), beginning with a two-week
summer institute for two teachers at a regional IHE. By 2001--2002, all
teachers in the school were involved in some aspect of the SLM method,
through participation in common planning period meetings, sharing
teaching strategies, developing cross-curricular lesson plans and
attending the summer institute.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. Central to the reform
method is the inservice education course credit at the local IHE and the
presence of both the IHE service director and an on-site facilitator to
assist in implementing SLM. Nearly all of **School G**'s teachers
participate in SLM-related professional development events. The
overwhelming majority of professional development is related to
comprehensive school reform and is results-based (linking student
achievement to professional development). Twice a month professional
development in math also is presented by a math specialist.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. The principal
and teachers share a common planning period three times a week. Teachers
receive stipends to meet before and after school hours to participate in
benchmarking and planning, and students also receive rewards and
recognition.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. The benchmarking
plan, covering both process and outcome measures and including all
grades, is central to reform (illustrative example shows both input and
outcome). Evaluation is a self-assessment process, part of the
year-round SIP, rather than an external evaluation. The SIP process
calls for extensive data collection and review---parent surveys, student
achievement, and focus group findings. School G's school performance
score (based on several tests) declined from 1998-99 to 1999-00 from
63.2 to 54.2 percent. However, it improved dramatically to 75.5 in the
fall of 2001, recognized by the state as "exemplary academic growth,"
even though the school remains below the state average.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions)*. In 1999, district
staff led workshops to prepare schools for developing school improvement
plans aligned with budgets and needs assessments. The 2000-01 plan has
three priorities: improving academic performance, continuing
professional development, and increasing parental involvement and
student attendance. The district seeks to align all reform efforts with
state standards and district goals and is viewed by one state official
as one of the most advanced districts in complying with state
requirements. However, the district also has had a serious fiscal
shortfall.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The state adopted a
new accountability and testing process, causing some shift from a
student- to a test-taking-orientation. The state also has mandated that
all school efforts be integrated into comprehensive school improvement,
reflecting state content standards (e.g., plans must reflect state
standards).

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. There is no formal external evaluation,
but evaluation is integral to the SIP process.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. CSRD
funds go almost entirely for professional development. Title I also is a
major funding source. The principal is confident that new grant monies
also will support the needed activities in the future.

**School H**

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School H** adopted the
reading component of *Success for All (SFA)* as its CSRD method. In
1997-98, the district had asked all schools to choose from among the
methods endorsed by the New American Schools (NAS), and the school's
principal established a committee to review these methods.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. While no (NAS) method completely
aligned with the state testing system, more than 85 percent of the
faculty voted to adopt SFA (after visiting one or two other schools
where SFA was being used), because it worked with both phonics and whole
language, called for skill-level grouping, allowed for accountability,
and required 90-minute reading blocks. In all, even after the November
2001 decision to cease using SFA, there appeared to be genuine support
for reform by the staff. Even though teachers were reluctant to abandon
SFA because they believed SFA made them better teachers, the teachers
remained concerned that **School H** was one of the only schools not
following the district-developed curriculum and could perform poorly on
the district's new interim assessments.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. Faculty reported
that the principal and CIC had played a central role in the
implementation of SFA. Besides rearranging classroom schedules and
providing staff with additional planning time, the principal also
visited classrooms regularly to show support and encourage teachers in
their use of SFA.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. **School H** had a school
improvement plan (SIP) with a comprehensive set of goals and strategies,
such as improved attendance; increased technology use; increased
parental involvement; and other specific topics. As a result, the SIP
generally aligned with CSRD's components, but the match was not perfect.
In general, the operation of the school appeared consistent with both
the SIP and its original CSRD application. The comprehensiveness of the
reform effort appeared to be widely understood, even though no one
referenced the SIP in interviews.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. Between the fall
of 1998 and the spring of 2001, the developer made implementation visits
twice a year. Opinions differed, however, regarding the quality or
importance of the assistance: a district administrator claimed that the
school and district staff often had more knowledge of SFA than did the
facilitator (attributing it to demands on SFA due to expansion), but the
CIC stated that the technical assistance was key to the success of the
SFA implementation. Apart from the SFA developer, a local university
provided student teachers who supported the reform effort by tutoring
students identified as requiring extra assistance based on SFA and state
assessments.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. Besides calling for a 90-minute block and the grouping of students
by reading level across classes and grades, SFA also required the
appointment of a full-time facilitator, a family support team, and
one-to-one tutoring for students needing extra attention. In addition,
the principal ensured that other authorized school staff, including
special education teachers, were trained in SFA (avoiding conflict with
the union by only using classified teaching faculty, and not calling on
librarians or other staff with more restrictive contracts). With the
additional trained staff, the principal was able to reduce class size
during the SFA period, thus reflecting another change in school
operations.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. Staff members
reported an increase in parental involvement in spending time with their
children reading each night. This involvement was documented by reading
logs kept by the students. A core group of about 30 parents attended
monthly meetings, and for larger family night affairs about 100-150
parents attended. A "breakfast club" also was geared specifically to the
reform efforts. Despite these activities, the staff nevertheless
believed that parent involvement in school activities had declined by
the spring of 2002---e.g., only 3--5 parents were participating in the
breakfast club by that time. Community and business sponsors provided
incentives to students making the honor roll and donated clothing for
students to meet the school's uniform policy.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. SFA was first implemented during the
1998-99 school year, and all classrooms were then using SFA during
2000-01. The developer rated **School H**'s fidelity in using SFA as
high. The principal and instructional coordinator said that a major
advantage of SFA was that it put all teachers on the same page, aligning
reading instruction throughout the school. Prior to SFA, such
instruction had varied among classrooms, both in the time devoted and in
the content of the instruction. Teachers agreed that SFA had made them
all better teachers of reading.

However, in November 2001 the school voted to shift from SFA to the
district-developed reading curriculum. The school retained the 90-minute
block, and in January 2002 the school officially stopped implementing
SFA, although SFA materials and instructional strategies continued to be
used. The main reason for the transition was the school's goal in
aligning its program with the state assessment. The use of the
district-developed curriculum each day and the decision to stop using
SFA suggests that the school was not convinced that SFA would fully
prepare students for the state assessment, even though the SFA
Foundation had informed the district that SFA was aligned with the state
assessment. In addition, the district developed a set of content
standards that clearly identified the skills to be mastered by students
each week. While SFA covered the same topics, their sequence was
different from that of the district's standards, and the school believed
that these differences would negatively affect student performance on
the state assessments and on the district's newly-developed quarterly
assessments. Teachers also are accountable for their "homeroom" students
even though, in the SFA groupings, these students may not be in the
teachers' classes.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. The staff initially
received an extensive 2-day training related to SFA, followed by a
refresher course during the year. SFA training and instructional
practices carried over to other subjects, although teachers reported
that the training was constantly shifting in response to issues raised
by the teachers. District-supported professional development also
shifted from being delivered centrally in 1997-98 to school-based
professional development by 1999-2000. By that time, the district only
provided training to campus instructional coordinators (CICs) who, in
turn, provided training to the rest of the school staff. The CIC in
**School H** also was the SFA coordinator. The professional developed
focused directly on reform related topics, such as getting teachers to
use the standards, accessing and using various resources, and delivering
specific reading, mathematics, science, or technology content.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. By
reorganizing time schedules, the principal created the opportunity for
an expanded grade-level collaboration meeting, held during alternate
Wednesdays for 90 minutes. During this time, teachers took the lead in
coordinating the training by grade level and also planned their work in
a more coordinated fashion. According to the SFA instructional
facilitator, these meetings were critical to the initial success of SFA
at **School H**.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 3)*. The SIP sets out
objectives over a five-year period but is an annual document that only
describes activities and timelines for the upcoming school year.
Further, not all objectives in the SIP are easily measurable, and there
is no routine assessment to serve as feedback to determine whether the
goals have been achieved or not. The principal stated that the overall
goal of the school was to attain the "exemplary" (highest) rating in the
state's ranking system for schools. In 2001-02, it had received a
"recognized" rating. Beginning in 2001-02, the school began using data
from the district's nine-week assessments (aligned with the state
assessments) to monitor student achievement and progress toward meeting
state goals.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions).* The district
played a major role in **School H**'s reform activities. First, the
district led to the school to adopt SFA, also supplementing the school's
CSRD award to support SFA's implementation. Later, the district informed
schools they would no longer receive the supplemental funding if they
wanted to continued using SFA, because an analysis had shown that
students performed comparably whether they had used SFA or the
district's own reading curriculum (which did not involve the same level
of costs as SFA). In August 2001, the district also released content
standards that provided teachers with a detailed guide to the skills
that students were expected to learn each week. The guidance was
intended to be aligned with the state assessments. In addition, the
district instituted an interim assessment system, testing students in
their mastery of these skills every nine weeks. The assessment is used
solely for diagnostic purposes, with the district using a
computer-based, commercial system to analyze results. The feedback then
helps teachers to select the needed scope and sequence to remedy
deficiencies.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The state's
assessment system has been a heavy influence over district actions
because the assessment scores are widely disseminated and, along with a
well-defined system of state sanctions and rewards, generates great
pressure on schools to perform well on the state assessment.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. The school had no formal evaluation plan
in place, and the only feedback was contained in the implementation
reports by the SFA facilitator.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. The
district and school coordinated funds in relation to the school's SIP.
The funds included state, Title I, and other federal funds. CSRD was an
additional funding source for school reform that was already underway,
as the decision to adopt SFA preceded the school's application for CSRD
funding. With regard to SFA, despite the transition to the district
curriculum and the ending of support for the external SFA developer
after 2000-01, all teachers interviewed indicated that they intended to
continue using SFA-related classroom management techniques and
questioning strategies.

**School I**

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School I** adopted
*Lightspan Achieve Now* as its CSRD method. The goal was to enrich
reading and math instruction in the school and encourage greater
involvement of parents in their children's education at home. The school
also was a math and science magnet school, with teachers expected to
teach science at least 45 minutes a day, and the school expanded from
being K-3 in 2000-01 to K-5 in 2001-02. The school also was using other
reform methods, especially *Literacy Collaborative (LC)* that provided a
comprehensive approach to literacy instruction in the primary grades,
and *Reading Recovery* for a limited number of first grade students who
continued to struggle with reading. Finally, the school benefits from
having small class sizes, with no classroom having more than 20
students.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. The principal advocated for the method
and made key decisions, such as foregoing the purchase of additional
*Lightspan* materials in favor of partially funding the salary of a
pre-school teacher in CSRD's third year. The staff appears to have
voiced little support for *Lightspan*, resulting in mixed implementation
experiences as described later under Item 8.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. The principal
indicated that she, in consultation with the assistant principal,
represented the leadership core and was the primary decisionmaker for
the school. However, the principal announced that she would retire at
the end of the 2001-02 school year.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. For 2001-02, the school had two
schoolwide plans. One covered student achievement goals, and the other
summarized a variety of school initiatives. However, neither plan
offered a comprehensive picture or design for the nine CSRD components.
The absence of such a plan appears to have resulted in a non-alignment
of school elements and lack of comprehensive reform. For instance,
*Lightspan* was not aligned with the school curriculum or performance
standards. In addition, teachers did not share a unified vision of the
school, as late as the fall of 2002. Teachers described the school as
having a "split focus" and a mission that was "way too broad."

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. The developer
conducted a one-day inservice for all teachers in 1999-00 and made one
site visit in 2000-01. However, *Lightspan* was not used widely in the
school during those two years. Because of a shortfall of funds, the
school discontinued its relationship with the *Lightspan* developer in
2001-02, relying on the training and support of the one teacher who had
implemented the method and the assistant principal who also served as
the technology coordinator. With their assistance the 1st grade teachers
implemented *Lightspan* in January 2002, and most of the 1st grade
parents were given an orientation.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. Student were regrouped into heterogeneous and homogeneous groups
for *LC.* However, this did not appreciably change school operations and
there appear not to have been any other changes accompanying the reform
initiatives. Neither were there any changes in the organizational or
governance structures for the school.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. Involving parents
was a struggle for **School I** , and the assistant principal served
half-time as a parent coordinator. However, two specific changes
occurred in the fall of 2001. The first was the creation of the school's
own Parent-Teacher Organization, previously shared with a neighboring
elementary school. The second was a decline in parent volunteers.
However, by the spring of 2002, the principal and assistant principal
noted that parent involvement had begun to increase again, most likely
as the result of the PTO and the school's focus on "one-to-one"
conferencing with parents.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. The school began implementing
*Lightspan in 1997-98*, one year before its start of the CSRD grant.
With CSRD, **School I** increased the number of PlayStations from
"several" to 90 units by 2001-02---enough to place stations in all K-2
classrooms and send stations home to all eligible 1st graders (about 80
percent of the 1st grade students' parents came to training and signed
the necessary permission slip). The majority of the CSRD funds, however,
were used to support half the salary of the assistant principal, to
serve as a parent coordinator. *Lightspan* in 2000-01 was not used in
the way envisioned. Only one of the 2nd grade teachers integrated the
units into her lessons and used their assessments. Another teacher that
had helped to pilot *Lightspan* in 1997-98 admitted that she did not use
it at all, and the other 2nd grade teachers only used the program as an
enrichment activity and only because "they have to." Teachers also cited
difficulties in getting parents to come for training and in students
returning the CDS in a timely fashion. However, by 2001-02, the decision
to deploy *Lightspan* in the 1st grade had led to improved
implementation, with the 1st grade teachers expressing enthusiasm for
the program, 80 percent of the students using the stations at home and
regularly checking out the CDS, and the program integrated into the 1st
grade "centers." Nevertheless, because these experiences were largely
limited to the 1st grade and most teachers were either not using
*Lightspan* or using it as a supplemental activity for students who
finished in-class assignments early, the program was judged only to be
partially implemented. The developer provided no formal assessment of
the fidelity of the implementation.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. The general consensus by
the school's staff was that there are five inservice days each year, an
amount that has not changed since CSRD. The professional development was
to be related directly to the student achievement and parental
involvement goals outlined in the school improvement plan. However, a
number of teachers suggested that the effectiveness of the professional
development was minimal. A small amount of continuing education (six
units every 5 years) was required by the district but not defined and
its impact considered insignificant. During CSRD's first two years,
teachers commented that the school's inservice training was aligned, but
too many topics were covered, and the focus was too broad.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. During the
first two CSRD years, teachers complained they had insufficient planning
time. They also wanted more time for collaborative planning, to learn
from one another. In response, during 2001-02, **School I** freed time
for such collaboration. Every Monday, the specialist teachers oversee
all children having a reading session so that the other teachers can
meet by grade level, share ideas, examine achievement data, and develop
plans for improving scores. The school's administration cited this
change as a significant factor in increasing implementation, enhancing
the professionalism of the school's relatively young staff, and
improving school performance.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. **School I** had no
implementation benchmarks for school reform or even for *Lightspan*.
Although the school has student achievement goals, the district
assessment tool was still changing from 2000-01 to 2001-02, and neither
the district nor the state had incentives or punitive measures in place
for school performance on their assessments.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The district has
been influential in a number of ways. It recruited **School I** into
CSRD, helped the school to implement *LC* and the various initiatives,
and also helped to integrate the many components. The district also
provided achievement data to each school in the fall of 2001,
disaggregated by child, and the district representative helped
**School** to analyze the data and develop a schoolwide plan. The
district also provides math and reading objectives to the schools and
has been working on aligning its criterion-referenced test with those
objectives. Finally, the district has helped schools in preparing for
the state assessments and understanding how to use the assessments to
improve instruction. District budget cuts led to the elimination of its
evaluation unit three years ago and also have negatively impacted the
school's budget.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The main state
influence has been the severe budget cuts affecting all districts and
schools in the state.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. The school had no formal evaluation plan
in place, either for *Lightspan* or its overall comprehensive reform
effort.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. Since
one of the objectives for *Lightspan* was to increase parental
involvement, funds budgeted for a parent coordinator and parent
education, including the use of some Title I funds (\$11,000) were
aligned. At the same time, the school prides itself on its
entrepreneurship and ability to obtain grants from the community and
other external sources, but it has no plan describing the integration of
all the resources in a comprehensive manner. Some interviewees suggest
that the grants hinder, rather than facilitate comprehensive school
reform. According to one district representative, "the school has bought
solutions before analyzing their problems." At the same time, the
principal says she tries to coordinate all programs to meet the single
goal of the school, which is to close the achievement gap between high
and low performers.

The prospect for sustaining comprehensive reform and the use of
*Lightspan* is unclear. Although **School I**'s reform efforts could be
described as unfocused and somewhat random, teachers and administrators
expressed hope by the spring of 2002 that improvement had begun to
occur. They pointed to the successful implementation of the 1st grade
use of *Lightspan*, in the absence of external support, as an indication
that the effort could continue, although the preferences of the new
principal for 2002-03 were unknown.

The school has continued to use *LC* which also is coordinated with
*RR*, receiving extensive external assistance annually from the
developer and having a trained *LC* coordinator, with a second teacher
being trained. By the spring of 2002, the school believed that *LC* was
starting to pay dividends, with student achievement beginning to
improve. At that time, teachers also expressed strong support for the
method and indicated that it was bringing a focus and new energy to the
school.

School J

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School J** chose a locally
developed reform practice (called *Performance Tasks, PT*, for the
purposes of this report. *PT* is an approach to teaching and learning
that embeds performance tasks, but not a specific curriculum, in
day-to-day instruction in a variety of subjects and across all grades.
The tasks are available via a Web site, for teachers to select and use.
Although tasks are available for all subjects, more are available for
core literacy and writing than the other subjects. The collection of
tasks is continually expanded, as teachers and staff may create new
tasks for editing and approval. (The reviewers judge whether a task
meets district and state standards.) The tasks are to be examples of
real-life experiences ("authentic"), enabling students to acquire
content knowledge, good work habits, and thinking and communication
skills. Examples include: organizing a healthy luncheon, guiding
classmates on a trip, keeping a science journal, interviewing family
members to write a biographical profile of a grandparent, and assessing
classroom lighting to advise school staff on ways to conserve energy.
Use of the tasks as culminating activities often requires teachers to do
"backward planning." Students build portfolios and their own
self-assessments and carry them onto the next grade, providing a sense
of accomplishment and ownership over their work.

**School J** also had other complementary research-based methods,
including an earlier Carnegie Corporation's Middle Grade School
Initiative, the TERK math program, and the Character Counts program. In
addition, a new superintendent hired as **School J** was entering its
second CSRD year (2000-01) had all schools adopt IFL's nine principles
of learning. All of the various methods appear consistent with *PT*.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. More than 80 percent of the teachers
and staff voted to implement *PT.* Prior to the start of CSRD (1999-00),
several of the teachers had visited other regional schools where the
method was already been being used, and they also learned that these
schools' test scores had improved after their implementation of *PT*. By
2001-02, the major support for the method came from the core steering
committee. Other persons providing strong support have been the home
school coordinator and the community liaison. The staff seem dedicated
to the school and the children's academic achievement, and the school
has had a very low teacher turnover rate.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. The principal is a
legendary figure in the school district and became a "community hero."
Brought to the district to make radical changes, she reportedly "turned
the school around." Central office staff and teachers tell stories about
how she freed the school from the harassment of drug peddlers and
created a safe environment for children. She was a leader in the
decision to select *PT* but planned to retire in June 2002. By spring
2002, a new principal had not been named.

*4. Comprehensiveness* (Component 2). *PT* includes all nine CSRD
components, although not all have been successfully implemented by
**School J**. The school has a core steering committee managing the
implementation and integration of reform components, and the district
staff also supported the school's reform efforts, facilitating efforts
to synchronize the school's actions with the CSRD components (however,
the school's strategic improvement plan does not address the
components). Most teachers have indicated their support for the reform
effort and believe it can make a difference in student learning and
performance.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. External support
has been provided by the developer of *PT* in the first year and then by
a consultant who worked with the developer in years-2 and -3. An
external evaluator also has provided assistance, for instance by
developing a new assessment and student form to give feedback to
teachers on their implementation of *PT*. During the first year, the
developer provided a total of 40 hours of training to **School J**'s
staff. For the first time in 2001-02, the external consultant's training
emphasized the development of new performance tasks, and all teachers in
training were to develop a task. By fall 2001, 13 tasks developed by
**School J** had been included in the *PT* database, and another 15 were
in their final stages of review and likely to be accepted. By the end of
the third CSRD year, the developer believed that the school's staff had
still not received training on several key concepts related to *PT*, and
without additional funds might not receive this training.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. No such changes accompanied the reform efforts at School J.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. Parental
involvement has proven difficult, especially because parents previously
at home have been required to return to work as part of welfare reform.
Parents not speaking English well also have been reluctant to become
involved in school activities. At the same time, the home-school
coordinator stated that she saw a steady increase in the number of
parents volunteering in classrooms, serving on field trips, assisting
teachers, and assisting with afterschool and summer programs. Logs show
the participation of over 200 parents during 2000-01, with a high number
sign-ups for workshops for parents during the same year. However, it is
notable that no parents were members of the core steering committee. The
school improvement plan requires a school improvement team, which
includes two parents. Logs of the parent advisory group show attendance
from 15 to 25 members.

Local businesses and community agencies have been vital in providing
support to the school, including transportation, mentors, teaching
interns, and community roundtables. The school also received support
from one businessman who solicited a donation of \$25,000 for new
computers, donated a laser printer, also taught a junior achievement
class at the school, and is urging local government to provide
additional resources, such as a playground for **School J**.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. In the first CSRD year, about half of
**School J**'s teachers were trained to use *PT*. The following year,
all but three of the teachers were trained. By the third year, *PT* was
being implemented to some extent in all classrooms. However, teachers
are given considerable discretion on how and when to use the method, and
assessing the true extent of implementation is difficult. Further,
mathematics teachers believe there is an insufficient number of
performance tasks related to that subject to make the method useful. Two
new teachers stated that the complexity of the method made it
overwhelming for them as beginning teachers. At the same time, classroom
observations showed that the language of the method was evident in both
teachers' and students' conversations and revealed other numerous
indicators of *PT* in place. According to the external consultant,
fidelity appears to medium; she estimated it would take five years for
staff to fully implement the method with full fidelity.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. Professional development
was provided both by the developer and the district staff. In the second
CSRD year, two and one-half days were devoted to *PT* training. In the
first two years of CSRD, most of the district's professional development
did not appear to be tailored to school reform, although by the third
year and with the IFL program having been adopted, the focus increased.
Some training in the third year was conducted after hours. Teacher
responses to the quality and organization of the professional
development has been mixed, with the afterschool requirements considered
demanding but with other teachers reporting greatly increased use of the
computer or comfort with it. In addition, those most experienced in the
method have served as mentors, or "scouts" to the other teachers.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. No other forms
of support were identified.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. Classroom
implementation of *PT* has been appraised through classroom visitations
by members of the school's core committee. Performance goals for the
school have been presented through 2001-2002 in the school improvement
plan and the CSRD progress report. As an illustrative benchmark, reading
goals at all grade levels and on all tests were to improve by 10
percent. The *PT* also emphasizes assessment as an integral part of
school improvement efforts, so that benchmarks for reform are assessed
on an annual basis.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions).* The district has
supported **School J**'s reform efforts, especially since 2000-01, when
the new superintendent took office. The support also derives from the
superintendent's concomitant adoption of the IFL professional
development model, districtwide, as well as the making of balanced
literacy a priority in all schools.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The state's main
role has been in the assessment area, where a new assessment was put
into place in 2000-01. However, the results will not be used to identify
schools "in need" until the fall 2003. In the meanwhile, the school is
one of the state's 28 "priority schools," and the state has assigned a
"critical friend" to the school as well as extra funds for additional
staff support.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. The school has had an external evaluator
who also has provided training on understanding state standards,
performance measures, portfolios, portfolio assessments, and mastery
tests. The district evaluation person has assisted the school staff in
interpreting state assessment data, and test results have been used to
identify children for summer school, Saturday academies, and tutoring.
Schools are required to discuss test results with parents two times each
year.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*.
Multiple external sources were used to support *PT*, but after CSRD
ends, the sustainability of the reform is in question. First, Title I
funds may be used in the future. Second, the associate principal is
being considered for the principalship and, if selected, his support for
*PT* is likely to help the school sustain its reform efforts. He readily
admitted, however, that only some components of the *PT* method may
endure.

School K

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School K** was designated by
the state as a school in need of improvement in March 1998. Such schools
are required by the state to select a proven method in their effort to
meet state performance standards. This led the district to exposing the
school's staff to SFA and submitting a CSRD application in the fall of
1998. **School K** adopted SFA (roots for grades K-1, and wings for
grades 2-6) in 1999-2000. No other models are in use. The staff also
decided not to start math component of SFA until reading was fully
implemented.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5).* At **School K**, 80 percent of the
faculty and support personnel voted (by show of hands) to implement SFA.
The district also may have encouraged the adoption, as **School K**
appears not to have had any other options.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. A new principal
started in 2000-01 and enthusiastically supports SFA, even though it had
started under the previous principal.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. The school improvement plan, also
considered a school reform plan, addresses all of the CSRD components. A
steering committee manages the implementation and integration of reform
components. Classroom observations and discussions with teachers appear
to confirm that the staff understand the breadth of the reform strategy.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. The developer has
provided extensive training and technical assistance, starting with the
training in August 1999 and also including the Family Support Team (see
item 7).

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. SFA requires a 90-minute block and also the regrouping of students
every 8 weeks (however, students in grades 5 and 6 do not get regrouped
to primary grades). **School K** also has another 90-minute block for
English/language arts, following the district curriculum but using many
SFA techniques. **School K** started as a K-3 school in 1999-2000.
During 2000-01 it was renovated and expanded, and by 2001-02 it was a
K-6 school.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. A home-school
coordinator offers parent training, and the school strongly encourages
home reading. Training sessions are flexible and multiple, and parents
are encouraged to bring children to PTA meetings, where meals are
served. About 100 parents are available for once-a-month volunteering of
some kind. Despite records, there is no clear evidence of change in the
levels of parent involvement. A Family Support Team carries out the
functions of the former Student Assistance Team, using case management
techniques for individual students.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. SFA is in place each day with all
students, deserving a ranking of 4 out of a 5-point scale. **School
K**'s Title I reading specialist became the full-time program
facilitator for SFA, in addition to other paraprofessionals who provide
tutoring services to students.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. Half of the faculty
participated in a five-day workshop in August 1999. Trainers made 23
person-visits during 1999-2000, and new teachers also received training.
Training was repeated in August 2000, and all had received refreshers by
May 2001. Teachers also participated in district training, but offerings
did not necessarily focus on reform. The district also provided training
on using school profile data and preparing for the state assessment.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. No other forms
of support were identified.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. The school assessed
progress toward reform goals every year, reporting progress and
revisions in the school improvement plan and CSRD end-of-year reports.
Progress toward goals in reading, problem solving, and writing were
measured by student performance on state assessments and SFA-developed
assessments. School K's students showed gains in 2000-01 compared to the
previous year, on the Stanford 9 assessment, also equaling or exceeding
the district average in all grades except grade 5. However, its grades
4-6 only started in 2001-02.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The district
sends each school the results of state and district assessments.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The state played a
significant role in the reform effort at School K by identifying the
school as in need of improvement. The state provided the school with an
accountability grant, and required the school to select a proven reform
method and apply for a CSRD grant.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. For grades 4-6, teachers and students
have complained about the rigidity of SFA and voiced pleasure at
cancellations of the 90-minute reading period. SFA trainers believe that
the needed flexibility does exist, but there has been no follow-up
training to address this issue, and it is still unresolved.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. Title I
funds are expected to be used to continue SFA support after CSRD funding
ends. However continuation also depends on improved student performance
as well as SFA's response to teachers' concerns.

School L

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School L** chose to
implement a locally-developed method, the *Behavioral Modification
(BEH)* method. The method consists of a behavioral protocol,
climate-setting strategies, and instructional approaches:
cognitive-behavioral instruction, individual and class evaluation of
daily and weekly progress in reading and mathematics, and classroom
management using the "Classroom Behavioral Game. Students are organized
into teams, given jobs, walk in "model lines" and use "model voices,"
and are asked to monitor classroom behavior. Other elements of the
program include having students graph their own academic performance. In
addition to this CSRD method, **School L** adopted *Open Court* for
reading and *SAXON* for mathematics, based on the district's
preferences. Because BEH was not a curriculum, the method was highly
compatible with both of these other methods. In addition, **School L**
implemented a violence prevention programs called *Second Step*. **\
**

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. The teachers on the school leadership
team voted to adopt BEH in the summer of 1999, but no vote was taken
with the rest of the staff. The principal reported that everyone
supported the decision to create order in the classroom so that
instruction could take place. A new principal was assigned for
1999-2000, when BEH was first implemented, and this principal also was
very supportive of the method.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. The principal was
the main force for coordinating and leading reform. The principal
provided incentives for teachers---e.g., teachers successful in getting
five parents to back-to-school night received \$100 in supplies. The
principal also encouraged model teaching and participation in
professional development. This principal then retired after 2000-01, and
the new principal was not convinced that students believed in the
method, so support for BEH practices may have started to wane.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. Reform at **School L** included
attention to all nine CSRD components. The plan for reform was part of a
district-mandated plan, with a set of determinants of progress called
"vital signs"---absolute (not relative) benchmarks for student
performance. The plan then identified the activities to be undertaken to
attain these vital signs. The plan also identified the person leading
the activity, the start and end dates, and the source of funds.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. Both the district
and school report that the method developer has provided consistent and
strong assistance since the inception of the program. The developer
helped **School L** select its CSRD model and assisted this school as
well as others in its CSRD applications. After the award, the developer
acted as a technical assistant and training provider, also visiting
classrooms three to four times each year and serving as a facilitator at
the staff retreats. In addition, the developer invited the principals of
the schools implementing BEH to a catered dinner at her home a few times
each year.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. BEH directly affecting classroom operations. In addition, the
school started a site council. However, no other changes in school
operations were noted.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. Report cards were
not mailed home, so parents and teachers met face-to-face, at school,
the home, or a local restaurant. About 90 percent of the parents
attended these conferences. The school also sponsored a variety of other
events to attract parent attendance, but few parents were involved in
classroom activities and parents on the school leadership team were
often absent. Despite all these efforts, the method developer stated
that the "school community (including parents) is disengaged from the
school."

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. **School L** started implementing BEH
in October 1999, with a phased plan. By spring 2001, the principal
indicated that about half of the teachers were implementing the method.
With one exception, most of the classroom observations revealed that
teachers were implementing BEH. Comments from the staff indicated that
about 70 percent of the staff were using the method as intended, but
that there were some staff members who could benefit from additional
training. By spring 2002, implementation was beginning to falter,
perhaps because of a change in school leadership. Further, there was
little evidence that instructional components were understood by staff
or used in the classroom. Overall, implementation progress was judged as
a "3," or still in the piloting stage. The method developer reported
that **School L** was implementing the method with fidelity, when
implementation occurred.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. All staff members were
required to attend three days of inservice training on BEH in August
1999, followed by retreats in May 2000 and Spring 2001. CSRD funds paid
for the expenses. At least four of the professional development events,
involving a total of nine days in 1999-2000, were related to BEH. The
district also required 18 hours of professional development annually,
providing assistance on both the reading and mathematics curricula used
by the school. All teachers interviewed said they believed the
professional development was beneficial and sufficient to meet their
needs in implementing reform.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. Teachers also
met on a bi-weekly basis, once to discuss staff issues and once to
discuss curriculum topics. Teachers recorded 60 grade level meetings
during 2000-01. The school also had a resource teacher who helped
facilitate meetings of the leadership team---a school site council that
had, as part of its responsibilities, assistance in implementing and
monitoring the school improvement program.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. The district
adopted a strategic plan in 1998 that set school goals for 2001. These
goals pertained to student performance and were cast in absolute terms
(e.g., 95 percent student attendance), applied to all schools even
though they might have been at different starting points, and were
posted in classrooms and in public hallways. Other benchmarks for
implementing BEH were stated in the CSRD application and were monitored
by the external developer. According to teachers and administrators, the
most direct evidence of the success of the reform effort was the greatly
improved behavior of the students. In 1998-99, the school had the
highest suspension rate of any elementary school in the district, and
attendance was only 93-94 percent. Since that time, the number of
suspensions have dropped substantially and attendance has increased by 2
percentage points.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions).* The district
played a major role in selecting the CSRD schools, and its strategic
plan adopted in February 1998 under a new superintendent has been a
driving force behind **School L**'s reform efforts. The district also
provided monetary incentives to teachers were students' test scores
improved, and for performance during 1999-2000, each teacher at **School
L** received \$570.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The basic driving
force behind reform at the school and district was the need to improve
performance on the state assessment. However, the state was in the
process of revising its assessments to make them standards-based,
leading schools to refine their curricula further.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. The contract with the external developer
also called for an external evaluation by another staff person. However,
the evaluator made few observations during 2000-01, and by fall 2001 no
report had been produced. The district annually prepared color-coded
charts depicting state assessment results, although the data analysis
was not entirely consistent with district goals (e.g., defining "below
grade level" as scoring in the 0-24 percentile on the SAT-9).

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. The
district planning process brought all dollars into a single reform
effort. A possible threat to sustainability was the principal's
retirement. Funds to replace CSRD were still being sought, as BEH is not
a scripted instructional method and requires a certain level of
professional development and monitoring to be sustained.

School M

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School M** used CSRD to
adopt *Lightspan (LT)*, starting with its 3rd grade in 1999-2000 and
then in its 3-5th grades in 2000-01. In this research-based strategy,
parents and students sign contracts to vouch for home-use of a
PlayStation computer and to borrow software from the school. The school
also has PlayStations in the classrooms, so that lessons are taught at
school and the home PlayStations can be used for homework exercises. The
PlayStations are returned to the school at the end of the school year.
After the original principal resigned, however, LT was not being used in
classrooms or at home during 2001-02.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. The original principal recruited staff
who were supportive of LT. However, with his departure staff support for
LT has diminished. The new principal notes the lack of data on increased
parent involvement, which might have provided some support for
continuing the method.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. The original
principal took over in 1997-98, hired over 80 percent of the current
staff, and was highly supportive of LT. He believed that parental
involvement with students at home was the key difference between high-
and low-performing students. He guided the implementation process
through the first two CSRD years (1999-2000 and 2000-2001), but by the
spring of the second year, he abruptly resigned from the school. Since
then, the school has had an interim principal (April-August 2001) and a
permanent replacement (August 2001-present). The new principal and staff
do not appear to have LT as one of their priorities.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. The school's original three-year
site plan included LT but did not cover reform components more broadly.
Starting in August 2000, the district revised the school improvement
plan and its process, so that the plan is more comprehensive and more
aligned with state and district standards. The school only completed its
initial revised plan in June 2001, so that the new process and
provisions have not yet had a chance to have clear effects.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. The developer (TA
provider) has provided extensive on-site support. During the first year,
the support was not as consistent as in the second year, when a new
person served as the TA provider. The TA provider rated **School M**'s
use of Lightspan as among one of the highest among the more than two
dozen schools he had worked with, especially in the high rates of home
deployment.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. Changes in the internal organizational structure were not
encountered during any of the site visits. During 2001-02, and as a
result of state budget cutbacks, **School M**'s busing pattern and
school day shifted substantially, so that students were only starting
their school day at 9:30 a.m.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. Parents had to
sign a contract for home deployment, and about 90 families did so in
2000-01. However, after the original principal resigned, deployment has
been discontinued, and parent interest in the annual school events
associated with LT has diminished.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. Even during 2000-01, when LT was
supposed to be fully deployed in three grades, classroom observations
showed that implementation was not occurring in several of the
classrooms.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. All grade 3-5 teachers and
some staff received LT training during 2000-2001. Additional on-site
training has been provided by the LT developer. Teachers will need
additional training if LT is to be continued during 2001-2002. The
district provides 3-4 additional professional development days, but
there has been no coordination to assure that these days are related
either to LT or to reform more generally.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. The school has
some control over its whole budget and can direct resources to
professional development. However, the professional development
priorities of the new principal are unknown.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. The district
collects a broad variety of student performance data and makes these
data available to the school. These data have mainly been used as part
of the self-evaluation of LT described below.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The district gave
**School M** a Quality Performance Award for its performance during
1999-2000, reflecting better than average gains in its accountability
system. For the same year, however, the state placed **School M** in its
lowest underperforming category and started providing the school with
compensatory funds. There is no clear explanation for the discrepancy in
the two ratings, especially since the district and state assessments are
said to be correlated. **School M** also was transitioning from a K-6 to
a K-7 and then a K-8 school. Further, due to the poor performance of a
nearby K-8 school on the state assessments (in fact, the nearby school
shared the same school building as **School M**), the schools will merge
in some fashion starting in 2002-03. The pattern of staff retention and
overlap were unknown.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The state's
placement of **School M** in its lowest underperforming category reduced
the morale and esteem of the school and its staff.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. The school was conducting its own
self-evaluation of LT. Data were collected and results analyzed by May
2001, but this was too late to become part of the revised school
improvement plan. The evaluation findings did suggest that LT students
outperformed comparison students in the state assessment.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. The
original principal appears to have converged resources around LT, its
coordinator, computer equipment, and the other resources needed for
implementation. However, the present principal does not appear at all
committed to LT or its continuation.

**School N**

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School N** voted to adopt
*Success for All (SFA)* during the 1997-98 school year, when every
teacher spent time observing classrooms at schools already implementing
*SFA* and 98 percent of the faculty voted to adopt *SFA*. In addition to
*SFA*, **School N** also used *Accelerated Reader* as a supplement to
*SFA* and a reading program focused specifically on skills addressed by
the state assessment. **School N** also had been using *Everyday
Mathematics* until 1999-00, when it started using a local program for
all schools, based on a specific textbook that the district believed was
better aligned with the state assessment.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. The faculty was strongly supportive of
*SFA* at the outset. The model was one of several New American Schools'
models that was strongly encouraged by the district superintendent, and
some teachers commented that *SFA* was the best of the "choices that
were given." However, once the faculty decided to implement the program,
they "wanted to do it right." Although the school had some carryover
funds, 2001-2002 was the first year of implementation after the CSRD
award had ended, and teachers expressed mixed reactions about whether
they would favor continuing the program during 2002-03. Teachers also
expressed concern that they did not have many of their own students
during the 90-minute reading block and yet the district was holding
teachers accountable for ensuring that their students could read at
grade level. Finally, in 1999-00 the principal was forced to discontinue
the practice of assigning the non-traditional classroom teachers due to
labor union issues, losing six teachers who had been working during the
block and leading to reduction of teachers' support for *SFA*.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. According to staff
and faculty, the principal and her administrative assistant were
important participants in the implementation process. The principal also
had led the school in making its initial adoption decision, later
adapted the school's schedule and staffing patterns to meet the needs of
the reform effort, and defined other resources needed to support the
effort.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. All 9 elements of comprehensive
reform were present in the school. In 2001, the district designed a new
format for the school improvement plan, tied directly to the state
assessment and used in 2001-02. The plan sets goals, but the strategies
for reaching the goals can be stated in a general manner.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. *SFA*
facilitators provided extensive training and conducted site visits twice
a year through 2000-01 and once in 2001-02. During these visits,
observations and interviews were conducted, followed by a discussion of
strengths and areas of need. This process was conducted in a supportive,
nurturing manner, and the more experienced *SFA* teachers indicated that
the assistance was beneficial because it brought an objective
perspective to the work they were conducting. Although the support was
of high quality, as external support receded during 2001-02, questions
regarding the level of training available for new teachers began to
arise.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. Starting in 1999-00, when *SFA* was implemented throughout the
school, the principal rearranged the schedule to allow for a schoolwide
90-minute block. The principal also arranged instruction periods for
other subjects to correspond by grade level, in turn allowing for
corresponding planning time by grade level. In addition, the librarian,
resource teacher, physical education instructor, music teacher, and
other teachers all were trained in the *SFA* curriculum, allowing a
slightly reduced average class-size during the reading block.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. Overall, despite
significant efforts, parents interviewed in the spring of 2002 indicated
that parental involvement had declined during the past few years. The
school had developed a variety of programs to increase parental
involvement---focused directly on the reform efforts at the school---but
in 2001-02 the school had to drop its parent coordinator to save money.
Support of school activities by business or community groups was minimal
and did not change much during the reform period.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. Implementation began in 1998-99. Full
implementation, affecting the entire school, did not occur until a year
later. CSRD support then continued for a third year, 2000-01. By that
time, all classrooms appeared to be using *SFA* during the designated
time, although some teachers had to cut off important and thoughtful
discussions in order to remain on the strict time schedule set by *SFA*.
Until 2000-01, reading and mathematics were the main focus of
implementation; district-mandated quarterly-assessments led the school
to placing greater emphasis on science and social studies during
2001-02.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. Prior to 1997-98, PD was
coordinated centrally. Starting in 1998-99, the PD model was modified to
a trainer-of trainers model so that PD would increasingly take place at
the individual schools. Teachers received a considerable amount of PD
support for *SFA*. However, the priorities for PD in general went beyond
any single method and reflected a combination of district- and
school-level goals for improving teaching and learning. District
offerings related to comprehensive reform and the contents of the School
Improvement Plan. Although PD requirements increased during this time
(to 12 hours?), some professional development was to be completed on
personal time, without stipends.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. The
grade-level planning period appears to be an important source of support
for the staff.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. The main benchmarks
have been contained in the school improvement plan. However, the plan
sets goals and objective for a 5-year period but only contains timelines
for implementation for the immediate school year. For the school, the
principal stated that the goal was to attain the "exemplary" (highest)
level of achievement in the state's ranking system. For 2000-01, the
school achieved a "recognized" (second highest) status.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions).* The district
played a major role in the CSRD implementation. First, the original
district superintendent required all schools adopt one of the models
from the New American Schools initiative. Second, a later superintendent
who assumed office in 1999, decided not to support these models, instead
favoring a district-developed curriculum that was assumed to be better
aligned with the state assessment. Third, in August 2001, the district
released new content standards that provided teachers with a detailed
guide to the skills that students were expected to learn each week.
Fourth, the district started high-stakes accountability, holding
teachers responsible for their students reading at grade level, which
was not compatible with the cross-age grouping promoted by *SFA*. This
accountability further diluted support for *SFA* because teachers did
not have sufficient time with their own students during *SFA*'s
90-minute blocks. The same district-mandated quarterly assessments led
the school to place greater emphasis on science and social studies in
2001-02.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The state also has
had a high-stakes assessment in place for some time. This has led to
alignment of district curricula, the school improvement plans, and
professional development practices. For 2000-01, the school achieved
"recognized" status (the second highest ranking) in the state assessment
system. Overall, district and state policies have driven **School N**'s
reform more than has CSRD.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. There has been no evaluation of the
process of reform except for the implementation reports completed by
*SFA*.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. To
implement the instructional changes identified in the SIP, the district
and school coordinated funding, although they relied exclusively on
Title I and CSRD. Most of the funds received by the school from the
district office had already been budgeted for specific activities. The
principal was skeptical about whether the school would continue to
implement CSRD without any new funding, and the staff indicated that the
school would not be implementing *SFA* in 2002-03 even if funding were
available.

School O

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School O**, a pre-K-5
school, started using SIM in grades 1-4 during 1996-97---prior to the
CSRD award. The award permitted the school to expand its use of SIM to
kindergarten and the 5th grade. This pattern is different from the
school's original CSRD application, which called for adopting Co-NECT;
but after the school received a low ranking in the state's
accountability system in 1996-97, the district encouraged the school not
to use CSRD to start a new research-based method but to expand its
then-current one. In 2000-01, the school also began transitioning away
from SFA, which had been adopted in 1996-97, to the district's
comprehensive reading curriculum.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. At **School O**, 93 percent of the
faculty voted in a secret ballot to expand the use of SIM. At the same
time, the faculty also had previously voted to adopt Co-NECT, and to
coincide with the district directive, also had voted in 2000-01 to
abandon its use of SFA.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. The principal
created a leadership "cabinet," consisting of the lead teachers in math,
science, and reading, the coordinator for the magnet project, the SIM
coordinator and media specialist, the counselor, and the assistant
principal. The cabinet meets with the principal weekly to plan and
review progress on all school reform efforts, including SIM.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. The school improvement plan refers
to a number of reform components, mainly the use of the research-based
method, aligned professional development, and parent involvement. The
plan is produced through deliberations by a school advisory council. The
breadth of the planning process and SIM appear to provide a unifying
plan of action throughout the school.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. The developer has
provided constant and welcomed technical assistance since the school
started using SIM in 1997.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. Teachers and students were required to adjust their daily schedules
to allow for 40 minutes of computer instruction (20 for reading and 20
for math) per day. Some teachers attempted to accommodate this change by
continuously rotating students through the software program throughout
the entire school day. Students had to learn to work with their peers in
order to catch-up to the teacher-directed instruction upon finishing the
computer work.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. Obtaining parent
involvement has been a constant challenge. Babysitters are provided to
parents during PTA and school improvement team meetings, and meals also
may be served.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. Implementation scale-up has been
completed. Teachers are required to use SIM math software for a minimum
of 20 minutes a day and also SIM reading software for another 20
minutes. SIM developers recommend that students spend 25-35 hours of
computer time per year to make greater achievement gains, and teachers
have had to incorporate computer time into their classroom routines as
well. In 2000-01, the staff voted to drop the mandatory daily use of the
software, instead allowing teachers to integrate the software into their
lessons plans more flexibly. Classroom observations have shown varied
implementation patterns, with some classrooms not using SIM at all. SIM
use appears especially to decline during the weeks prior to state tests.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. Professional development
has emphasized the district's comprehensive reading program. New staff
also received SIM training, and existing staff received some refresher
training. The SIM developers also provide a lot of on-site training.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. Staff receive
stipends to attend Saturday trainings on curriculum goals, instructional
strategies and magnet school topics.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. The SIM software
includes collecting data on the progress being made by individual
students, but these data were not being reviewed as frequently by
teachers in 2001-02 as in the past. District-mandated benchmark testing
(every nine weeks) as part of the comprehensive reading program are
possibly receiving greater priority.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The district has
emphasized student achievement and school improvement efforts. Once
assigned to schools, principals can choose to maintain or replace any
element of a school's instructional program, however. CSRD may be being
used as another program and not as a catalyst for reform.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The state has
started its own accountability system. Since **School O**'s initial low
rating in 1996-97, its state rating had improved sufficiently that, by
the fall of 2001, it was no longer in the "jeopardized" category. In
addition, from 1999-2000 to 2000-01, significantly improved performance
on writing tests has been reported.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. The district will be conducting an
impact assessment during 2001-2002, as part of its broader plan to
evaluate all CSRD research methods. No other evaluation activities in
relation to CSRD appear to have been in place at **School O**.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. The
school has successfully coordinated its available federal resources and
directed them coherently toward reform activities. The extent of
integration with the internal school funds is unknown.

School P

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School P** adopted *High
Schools That Work (HSTW)*, a comprehensive method that combines
traditional academic content with vocational courses and that promotes 9
key practices. A state-funded *Tech Prep* grant was a complementary
method aligned with HSTW and considered a component of HSTW's
professional development plan. Likewise, *INTECH* was a small state
grant providing hardware, software, and teacher training to integrate
technology into the classroom, one of HSTW's strategies.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. The staff had no input into the
original principal's decision to adopt HSTW. However, a second principal
worked hard to engage the staff in the reform efforts, and a year later
most faculty were supportive. For instance, the faculty voted nearly
unanimously to shift to a 4X4 block schedule, starting in the fall of
2001.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. The initial
principal was reform-minded and research-driven and identified HSTW
prior to the CSRD grant. The principal then oversaw HSTW's initial
implementation year (1999-2000). However, the principal resigned in
2000. A new principal, hired in late August 2000, learned the reform
process and made a concerted effort to include everyone in the adoption
and implementation efforts. This principal then left the school at the
end of 2001-02.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. The implementation of HSTW was
accompanied by a comprehensive design covering all of the CSRD
components. By exposing teacher leaders to extensive HSTW training and
creating opportunities for sharing this training with other teachers,
the comprehensiveness of the plan has become well understood and also
implemented throughout the school.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. The district has
contracted with the HSTW developer for a variety of annual services
during the CSRD award period, including on-site and technical review
visits, monthly telephone conferences, and an HSTW assessment. Some of
these activities also should continue after the third CSRD year, as the
school has budgeted \$10,000 for 2002-03 to cover the developer's
services. These funds come from a grant for *Making Schools Work*, which
started in the final CSRD year and is another method developed by the
HSTW developer.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. Besides adopting a 4X4 block schedule in 2001-02, **School P** also
installed a teacher advisement program (Wednesday club) whereby students
met at least every two week with the same teacher throughout high
school, developing a plan tailored to the student's interests and
strengths. In addition, HSTW also involves an active role by a school
leadership team.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. Parent
involvement has been difficult to achieve at **School P**. For instance,
since implementing HSTW, the school attempted to form a parent advisory
group, but without success. Little to no change has occurred in
volunteer time or parental involvement in reform.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. Implementation of HSTW took place
over a three-year period (1999-2000 to 2001-2002). Much of the initial
year was spent on needed professional development, and only by the third
year did the school implement the 4X4 block schedule recommended by
HSTW. By the fall of 2001, the site visit team gave **School P** the
highest implementation rating (a "5") on the Bodilly scale. The HSTW
representative indicated that, based on her observations, **School P**'s
fidelity to the original method was "high."

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. According to HSTW
leadership team members, the structure of professional development has
changed drastically at **School P**. Prior to HSTW, the activities were
uncoordinated and did not follow an identified strategy. Since CSRD, the
activities have become well-orchestrated and directed, with all of the
CSRD funds being devoted to professional development, including stipends
for the teachers, fees for the external developer, teacher replacement
costs, and travel and conference fees. During 1999-2000, the faculty
averaged 8.1 staff development days, compared to a district average of
7.3 days. About 75 percent of the teachers have taken more than the
required professional development, with teachers teaming with teachers
being a primary HSTW strategy. In CSRD's third year, **School P**'s
staff also received additional professional development in relation to
helping students transition from middle to high school.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. No other forms
of support were identified.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. The school has a
formal benchmark document that is continually monitored and updated and
that includes comprehensive, schoolwide indicators of quality (e.g.,
reading comprehensiveness) that are monitored by the school and can
become the basis for remedial action by the faculty. The benchmarks
include both outcome measures and organizational and curriculum
strategies.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The district
provided additional funds for professional development related to HSTW.
A potential negative factor has been political and social conflict
involving **School P**, and the superintendent also resigned
precipitously at the end of 2000-01. In November 2001, voters approved a
tax referendum to renovate existing school buildings, and shortly
thereafter, the board voted to merge **School P** with the district's
other high school, for 2003-04. How teaching staffs are to be merged,
and with what support for reform, has yet to be decided.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The state has
developed an end-of-course assessment that will eventually replace the
state graduation test requirement. The state has also increased the
academic graduation requirements for students completing vocational high
school programs. School P added a math course (money management) to
provide additional opportunities for its vocational students to meet
these requirements. The state is also conducting its own evaluation of
CSRD (see next item).

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. The leadership team and the HSTW's
procedures provide ongoing and formative evaluation. including the
review of student achievement data and the results of school climate and
teacher surveys. In addition, the state is conducting its own evaluation
through a contract with two research firms. The evaluation calls for
collecting data from a variety of sources, including classroom
observations.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. The
school coordinates use of federal and state funds, and the CSRD on-site
coordinator is paid from the school's core budget.

School Q

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School Q** has been
implementing a district-sponsored comprehensive approach to literacy
instruction since 1995-96. Starting in 1997-98 (prior to CSRD), the
staff were interested in implementing a comprehensive method matching
the school's philosophy, and the school also later applied for a CSRD
award, adopting *Accelerated Schools (AS)*. The CSRD-supported
research-based strategy sets a framework for whole-school reform by
advocating specific school improvement processes and practices, but the
strategy does not specify any particular curriculum. Included in the
strategy are: the involvement of entire school staff and collaboration
in setting class schedules and curricula, flexible student groupings,
and also parent involvement. To complement AS, **School Q** uses a
district-sponsored comprehensive approach to literacy instruction. The
approach is closely aligned with AS.

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. Nearly all the teachers agreed to
implement AS as a way to organize their reform efforts, to enable
students to improve their performance on the state assessments.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. The school
principal has been a strong supporter of the research-based strategy and
of school reform, has worked to developed a compatible school vision,
has been in place for several years, and has continually identified
funds and other resources to support the reform efforts (e.g.,
professional development monies and time for teacher collaboration---see
items 9 and 10). Principal also has established leadership team,
consisting of cadre leaders and others, to discuss schoolwide issues;
goal is to have team ensure continuation of reform and avoid reform
being dependent on a single key person.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. The comprehensiveness of the
reform effort is reflected both in the school improvement plan and in
the agenda being followed by a reorganization of the school and its
governance elements (see response to item 6 below).

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. A local
university is affiliated with the national developer and routinely
provides technical assistance to the school's staff in using AS. Since
1999-2000, the center representative has visited the school every six
weeks, and the school's staff has attended university-based training
three times a year. The Center claims that this level of assistance is
greater than that provided by the national developer.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. The school has changed its internal structure, creating teaching
cadres, coaches, instructional teams within the classrooms, and an
integrated standing committee, as recommended by the research-based
strategy. All have received professional development to know their tasks
and provide training to other school staff.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. The grant
supports half of a full-time parent coordinator, and parents participate
in governance and educational activities, but parent involvement still
remains lower than desired by the research-based strategy. At the same
time, parents do participate in school governance and decisionmaking
(e.g., serving on the school steering committee), participate in
classrooms, and are part of formal parent-teacher teams.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. The school has implemented all
aspects of AS, including the organizing of the cadres. The TA provider
believes more attention needs to be given to school climate and parent
involvement, and implementation is only beginning to affect classroom
instruction. Barriers include a high rate of turnover among the teachers
during the past two years (about 40 percent each year). However, some of
the turnover may have been because teachers did not want to make the
changes associated with the research-based strategy.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. Professional development
covers specific instructional and pedagogical practices consistent with
AS. The professional development includes helping the cadres to
undertake a detailed analysis of student performance and also focuses on
achieving a unity of purpose within the school. Despite financial
cutbacks, the district also supports three sessions annually to focus on
districtwide issues such as district testing plans. Overall, much of the
professional development is oriented toward reform issues and building
staff cohesiveness.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. The formation
of the cadres, and the time set aside for them to work together,
represents a form of support for the staff (e.g., weekly meetings with
teachers of the same grade). The school also has early dismissal days
and a two-day retreat in August of each year.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. The research-based
method includes monitoring both process and outcome measures, which is
followed by the school. **School Q** also is subject to a considerable
amount of testing, using both state and district tools. Both have
targeted performance levels for the school, and because the school was
able to convince the district and state to provide test scores
disaggregated by classroom, the test data also have been useful in
suggesting strategies for improving student performance.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions).* The district
administers the state assessments and its own CRT. The district believes
that the state assessments are about two-thirds aligned with district's
standards.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The district budget
had been reduced because of cuts in state funding. Starting in
1999-2000, the district reduced its support for all professional
development and evaluation activities (which can still be conducted
within the schools' budgets). The district's budget may again be in
deficit for FY2001-02, causing new cutbacks in school budgets.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. Teachers complain that annual shifts in
district's CRT content disrupt cadres' work, because of potential
nonalignment of educational practices and assessment priorities.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. The
school orchestrates Title I, local budget, and CSRD funds to support
reform activities (each source of funds covers different types of
activities, but all are complementary). The principal hopes that the
formation of a leadership team will make the reform efforts less
dependent on any single individual and therefore serve as a mechanism
for sustaining reform.

School R

*1. Research-based Method (Component 1)*. **School R** proposed a
multi-faceted, comprehensive, and customized---hence locally developed
method---for CSRD. One component, the use of the state's graduation
standards, was described as "substantiated in research"and therefore met
the research-based criterion. The standards specify a series of "high"
standards, representing a "profile of learning," and students complete a
standard when they complete the classroom assignment for that standard.
**School R** aligned its curricula with these standards, as well as with
school-to-work indicators and lifework plans, and these all became key
components of a method for whole school reform. Other components
included a freshman foundation course, flexible block scheduling, an
interdisciplinary curriculum, and a technology component---the use of
individually-assigned laptop computers as part of a separate *Laptop
Computer Project* which started with the 9th grade in 1998-99.**\
**

*2. Staff Support (Component 5)*. Staff support for reform began strong,
with possibly 80 members serving on six subcommittees during the
planning process, but gradually diminished over the years. Some
teachers---e.g., the mathematics department---appeared not to be
involved in the reform activities at all. The four-period block schedule
has been retained on an annual basis, based on a favorable faculty vote
each year.

*3. Leadership Role of the Principal (Component 5)*. The initial
principal who supported the entire effort had been in place for four
years but departed after the first year of implementation (1997-98). The
following three years, **School R** had three different principals. The
first two offered no particular support for reform, and its activities
diminished. As a result, the faculty, with exceptions, had no drive to
continue pushing for CSRD. The current principal started in 2001-02 and
is now in his second year at the school.

*4. Comprehensiveness (Component 2)*. The breadth of **School R**'s
comprehensive reform, in principle, reflected all of the other eight
CSRD components. However, the actual documentation for the design did
not appear in any single place. The school improvement plan, for
instance, only lists benchmarks and does not identify the interventions
or strategies aimed at achieving the benchmarks. Even the original CSRD
application was short and did not provide a coherent picture. Staff
understanding of the design probably peaked during the planning years,
and since then teacher and staff turnover have further aggravated the
situation. Currently, rather than being based on any coherent vision,
**School R**'s CSRD-funded activities appear to be supported as a series
of isolated activities.

*5. Support from an External Developer (Component 7)*. Because the CSRD
research-based method was truly locally developed, **School R** received
no external technical assistance after having consulted a variety of
external parties during the planning period. The laptop project also had
no external assistance. During 2001-02, **School R** \$15,000 in CSRD
funds to support a consultant to help implement the small learning
communities initiative to be implemented during the following year.

*6. Reorganization of the School Day or School Operations (Component
1)*. **School R** adopted a four-period block schedule in its initial
year of reform, and this schedule has been retained to this day. The
schedule allows teachers to have a common (and lengthy) planning period.
Also, reform involved the creation of a "freshman foundations" course
and some interdisciplinary teaching---e.g., reading a Civil War book for
both social studies and English---but this course was among the
discontinued reform activities after the initial startup year.

*7. Parental and Community Involvement (Component 6)*. From interviews,
whether parent involvement increased or not was unclear. However, from
the 1999-2000 student survey, 30 percent of the students reported that
their family often or frequently came to school for meetings---an
increase of 9 percent over the previous year. **School R** also had a
number of partnerships with the business community. Firms donated funds,
and one firm provided nine mentors, across all subjects, who were
available three times a week. Businesses were accustomed to working with
**School R**, but this was likely to have been a result of its magnets,
not because of any comprehensive reform model.

*8. Implementation (Component 1)*. Planning for reform began as early as
1994-95 and continued through the next two years under the leadership of
a formal redesign committee of 17 persons, with a vision covering "total
school reform." During these years, the staff visited other schools,
held focus groups with parents and students, and received external
assistance. Implementation began with the 9th grade in 1997-98---a year
before the first CSRD year (the CSRD application was only submitted in
October 1998). During the next three years, however, most of the reform
activities were discontinued, in part due to a turnover in principals.
CSRD funds were underspent, and implementation restarted in 2001-02,
focusing on 9th grade teams, block scheduling (which had not been
dropped), and "my action plan" (MAP) career development planning.
Because **School R** totally customized the research-based method, there
were no criteria against which to assess fidelity. Moreover, in the
meanwhile the district had mandated that, for 2001-02, the school to
plan for a small learning communities initiative---in which students
choose one of four "houses" for their entire high school career---to be
implemented in 2002-2003.

*9. Professional Development (Component 3)*. Each teacher completes a
professional development plan, linking the planned professional
development to district and state standards and goals. A three-member
committee reviews the plan to assure its alignment with the school
improvement plan. Because **School R**'s reform was not tied to any of
these standards, goals, or plans, there also was no evidence of any link
between professional development and CSRD reform. The school typically
provides 20 hours of professional development per year, with the
district adding another 3-4 days.

*10. Other Forms of Support for the Staff (Component 5)*. The MAP
curriculum was developed with a small group of teachers during the
summer of 2001. The teachers received a CSRD-funded stipend for their
work.

*11. Measurable Goals and Benchmarks (Component 4)*. The school
improvement plan is a three-year plan that has explicit benchmarks for
five student achievement subjects: reading, writing, mathematics,
technology, and cooperation. The principal indicated that various
entities, such as school counselors, helped to track the benchmarks, but
the data do not appear to be tracked in a coordinated fashion. The
district tracks and issues detailed summary reports of school
performance, including the results of teacher, parent, and student
surveys. In 2001-02, **School R** received a quality performance rating
of 2.6 on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high). The score was mid-range and
required neither prescriptive measures nor cash awards, which are part
of the district's accountability system.

*12. District Influences (Other External Conditions).* The district
helped **School R** to develop its CSRD application. District school
assessment and accountability policies also have been important but have
not greatly affected **School R** because of its mid-range ranking.

*13. State Influences (Other External Conditions)*. The state played an
active role, helping to recruit **School R** into CSRD in the first
place and then supporting annual meetings of CSRD schools and conducting
annual monitoring visits to schools. Because of **School R**'s underuse
of its CSRD funds, the state approved a no-cost extension that
effectively put the school into the second rather than the first cohort
of CSRD awards. Cutbacks in state funding had minor effects on the
school in 2001-02 but threatened to have a more severe impact in
2002-03.

*14. Evaluation (Component 8)*. An external evaluator had been
monitoring progress for a few years, but the CSRD method adopted in the
fall of 2001 had no evaluation component.

*15. Convergence of Resources and Sustainability (Component 9)*. A
separate reference to CSRD funds did not appear in the school budget,
and school funds supported the CSRD coordinator role. To this extent,
some convergence of funds may have occurred. However, the lack of a
comprehensive or coherent vision or plan appears to make both the issues
of convergence and sustainability moot.

**APPENDIX E**

**47-Point Instrument for**

**Assessing Strength of CSRD Implementation at 18 Schools**

**Appendix E**

**47-Point Instrument for**

**Assessing Strength of CSRD Implementation at 18 Schools**

+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| > |                                               | > |   |   |   |   | > *   |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   | *Scor |
| * |                                               | * |   |   |   |   | e\*** |
| * |                                               | * |   |   |   |   |       |
| C |                                               | M |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               | e |   |   |   |   |       |
| m |                                               | a |   |   |   |   |       |
| p |                                               | s |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               | u |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               | r |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               | e |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               | * |   |   |   |   |       |
| t |                                               | * |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+===+===============================================+===+===+===+===+===+=======+
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| 1 |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| . |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| R |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| r |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| c |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| h |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| - |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| B |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| d |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| M |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| h |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| d |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| r |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| S |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| r |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| g |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| y |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 1.1 Implementation Score (adjusted Bodilly  | > | > | > | > | > | > 1-5 |
|   | > Scale):                                     |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 1.2 Percentage of classrooms using that     | > |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   | > should have been using:                     |   |   |   |   |   |  0.0- |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   | > 1.0 |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | % |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 1.3 Fidelity rating by developer or         | > |   |   |   |   | > 3   |
|   | > consultant (high, medium, low, defined as   |   |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   | > follows:                                    | H |   |   |   |   | > 2   |
|   | >                                             | i |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   | > *high:* developer/consultant considers      | g |   |   |   |   | > 1   |
|   | > school to be among the best seen            | h |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | >                                             | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > medium: developer/consultant considers      | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > school to be using method in\               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > acceptable manner                           | M |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | >                                             | e |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > *low:* developer/consultant has major       | d |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > complaints about school's use of method     | i |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | u |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | m |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | L |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | o |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | w |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | #### Total Possible Score for Component 1     |   |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   | **9** |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| 2 |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| . |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| C |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| m |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| p |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| r |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| h |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| i |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| v |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| D |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| i |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| g |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| : |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 2.1 Existence of written design or plan:    | > |   |   | > |   | > 1   |
|   | > name it and give its date                   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   | n |   |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   | o |   |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > Name:                                       | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | >                                             |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > Date:                                       | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 2.2 Contents of plan (yes/no to each item): | > |   |   | > |   | > 1   |
|   | >                                             |   |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   | > 2.2.1 Inclusion of needs assessment or      | y |   |   | n |   | > 1   |
|   | > other performance *data*;                   | e |   |   | o |   | >     |
|   | >                                             | s |   |   | > |   | > 1   |
|   | > 2.2.2 Reference to specific financial       | > |   |   | > |   | >     |
|   | > resources                                   | > |   |   |   |   | > 1   |
|   | >                                             |   |   |   | n |   | >     |
|   | > 2.2.3 Indication of strategic use of        | y |   |   | o |   | > 1   |
|   | > financial resources                         | e |   |   | > |   | >     |
|   | >                                             | s |   |   | > |   | > 1   |
|   | > 2.2.4 Statement of quantitative performance | > |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   | > goals                                       | > |   |   | n |   | > 1   |
|   | >                                             |   |   |   | o |   |       |
|   | > 2.2.5 Discussion of specific curricula      | y |   |   | > |   |       |
|   | >                                             | e |   |   | > |   |       |
|   | > 2.2.6 Discussion of assessment tools        | s |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | >                                             | > |   |   | n |   |       |
|   | > 2.2.7 Discussion of professional            | > |   |   | o |   |       |
|   | > development                                 |   |   |   | > |   |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   | > |   |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   | n |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   | o |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   | > |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   | > |   |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   | n |   |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   | o |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   | > |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   | > |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   | n |   |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   | o |   |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 2.3 Breadth of plan in covering all school  | > |   |   |   |   | > 3   |
|   | > operations (including, implicitly, all      |   |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   | > other CSRD components) (high, medium, low,  | h |   |   |   |   | > 2   |
|   | > defined as follow):                         | i |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   | >                                             | g |   |   |   |   | > 1   |
|   | > *high:* covers all CSRD components (whether | h |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > implicitly or explicitly)                   | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | >                                             | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > *medium:* covers four or five components,   |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > but not all                                 | m |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | >                                             | e |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > *low:* covers one to three components only  | d |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > (also name them)                            | i |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | u |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | m |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | l |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | o |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | w |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | #### Total Possible Score for Component 2     |   |   |   |   |   | > *   |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   | *11** |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| \ |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| y |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| = |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| 1 |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| d |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| = |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| 0 |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| ( |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| C |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| i |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| u |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| d |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| ) |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+

+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
| > |                                               | > |   |   |    | > *   |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    | *Scor |
| * |                                               | * |   |   |    | e\*** |
| * |                                               | * |   |   |    |       |
| C |                                               | M |   |   |    |       |
| o |                                               | e |   |   |    |       |
| m |                                               | a |   |   |    |       |
| p |                                               | s |   |   |    |       |
| o |                                               | u |   |   |    |       |
| n |                                               | r |   |   |    |       |
| e |                                               | e |   |   |    |       |
| n |                                               | * |   |   |    |       |
| t |                                               | * |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
+===+===============================================+===+===+===+====+=======+
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| 3 |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| . |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| P |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| r |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| f |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| i |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| l |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| D |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| v |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| l |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| p |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| m |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| : |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | > 3.1 Strong content focus \[???\]:           | > |   |   | >  | > 1   |
|   |                                               |   |   |   | no |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | > 3.2 Range of PD days required or taken by   | > | > |   | >  | > 7+  |
|   | > average teacher per year:                   |   |   |   | 1- | > =3  |
|   |                                               | 7 | 4 |   | -3 | >     |
|   |                                               | + | - |   |    | > 4 - |
|   |                                               |   | - |   |    | > 6   |
|   |                                               |   | 6 |   |    | > =2  |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    | >     |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    | > 1 - |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    | > 3   |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    | > =1  |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | > 3.3 Evidence that preceding estimate        | > |   |   | >  | >     |
|   | > excludes traditional teacher set-up (in the |   |   |   | no |  Make |
|   | > fall) and teacher clean-up (in the spring)  | y |   |   |    | >     |
|   | > days:                                       | e |   |   |    |  part |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |    | > of  |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    | > 3.2 |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    | >     |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    | total |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | > 3.4 Evidence of collective participation of | > |   |   | >  | > 1   |
|   | > groups of teachers from the same school     |   |   |   | no |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | > 3.5 Evidence of some PD taking place in the | > |   |   | >  | > 1   |
|   | > teacher's classroom---e.g.,\                |   |   |   | no |       |
|   | > mentoring                                   | y |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | > 3.6 Explicit guidance to align PD with      | > |   |   | >  | > 1   |
|   | > standards, curriculum, or assessment tools  |   |   |   | no |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | ##### Total Possible Score for Component 3    |   |   |   |    | >     |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    | **7** |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| 4 |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| . |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| M |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| u |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| r |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| b |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| l |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| G |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| l |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| d |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| B |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| c |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| h |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| m |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| r |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| k |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| : |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | > 4.1 Number of academic subjects covered:    | > |   |   |    | > 4+  |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    | > = 3 |
|   |                                               | N |   |   |    | >     |
|   |                                               | o |   |   |    | > 2-3 |
|   |                                               | . |   |   |    | > =2  |
|   |                                               | : |   |   |    | >     |
|   |                                               | > |   |   |    | > 0-1 |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    | > =1  |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | > 4.2 Number of grades covered and total no.  | > |   |   |    | >     |
|   | > of grades in the school:                    |   |   |   |    |  0.0- |
|   |                                               | N |   |   |    | > 1.0 |
|   |                                               | o |   |   |    | > (%) |
|   |                                               | . |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | : |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | N |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | o |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | . |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | : |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | \ |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | _ |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | ##### Total Possible Score for Component 4    |   |   |   |    | >     |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    | **4** |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| 5 |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| . |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| S |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| u |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| p |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| p |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| r |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| w |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| i |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| h |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| i |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| h |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| c |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| h |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| l |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| : |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | > 5.1 Existence of formal faculty votes on    | > |   |   | >  | > 1   |
|   | > reform or research-based method             |   |   |   | no |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | > 5.2 Formal faculty vote(s) on reform or     | > |   |   | >  | > 1   |
|   | > research based method show 75%\             |   |   |   | no |       |
|   | > support                                     | y |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | > 5.3 Interviewees voice strong support or    | > |   |   | >  | > 1   |
|   | > enthusiasm                                  |   |   |   | no |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | > 5.4 Two or more interviewees voice dissent  | > |   |   | >  | > 1   |
|   | > or indicate lack of use                     |   |   |   | no |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
|   | ##### Total Possible Score for Component 5    |   |   |   |    | >     |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    | **4** |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| \ |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| y |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| = |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| 1 |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| d |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| = |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| 0 |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| ( |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| C |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| i |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| u |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| d |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| ) |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+----+-------+

+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| > |                                               | > |   |   |   |   | > *   |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   | *Scor |
| * |                                               | * |   |   |   |   | e\*** |
| * |                                               | * |   |   |   |   |       |
| C |                                               | M |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               | e |   |   |   |   |       |
| m |                                               | a |   |   |   |   |       |
| p |                                               | s |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               | u |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               | r |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               | e |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               | * |   |   |   |   |       |
| t |                                               | * |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+===+===============================================+===+===+===+===+===+=======+
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| 6 |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| . |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| P |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| r |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| d |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| C |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| m |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| m |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| u |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| i |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| y |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| I |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| v |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| l |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| v |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| m |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 6.1 Emergence of new forms of parent        | > |   |   | > |   | > 3 - |
|   | > involvement during CSRD years:              |   |   |   |   |   | > 4   |
|   |                                               | y |   |   | n |   | > =1  |
|   |                                               | e |   |   | o |   | >     |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |   |   | > 0 - |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   | > 2   |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   | > =0  |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 6.1.1 Special parent events                 | > |   |   | > |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   | n |   |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   | o |   |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 6.1.2 Programs or opportunities for parents | > |   |   | > |   |       |
|   | > in instructional roles                      |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   | n |   |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   | o |   |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 6.1.3 Parent advisory or other committees   | > |   |   | > |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | y |   |   | n |   |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   | o |   |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 6.2 Level of parental involvement (high,    | > |   |   |   |   | > h   |
|   | > medium, or low, defined as\                 |   |   |   |   |   | igh=2 |
|   | > follows):                                   | H |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   | >                                             | i |   |   |   |   | > med |
|   | > *high:* you've observed parents in the      | g |   |   |   |   | ium=1 |
|   | > school and interviewees voice strong or\    | h |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   | > satisfactory level of parental involvement  | > |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   | > in school activities                        | > |   |   |   |   | low=0 |
|   | >                                             |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > *medium:* school get traditional level of   | m |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > parental involvement (e.g., 10%\            | e |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > attendance)                                 | d |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | >                                             | i |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > *low:* no evidence of parental involvement  | u |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > beyond a handful of parents and\            | m |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > interviewees voice low levels of            | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > participation                               | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | l |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | o |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | w |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 6.3 Evidence of at leave least one          | > |   |   | > |   | > 1   |
|   | > community organization and one\             |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > school/community event or program           | y |   |   | n |   |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   | o |   |       |
|   |                                               | s |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | #### Total Possible Score for Component 6     |   |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   | **4** |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| 7 |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| . |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| E |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| x |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| r |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| l |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| T |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| c |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| h |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| i |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| c |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| l |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| S |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| u |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| p |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| p |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| r |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| d |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| A |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| i |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| c |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 7.1 Developer support and assistance (high, | > |   |   |   |   | > h   |
|   | > medium, or low, defined as follows):        |   |   |   |   |   | igh=3 |
|   | >                                             | h |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   | > *high:* all 3 CSRD years plus during year   | i |   |   |   |   | > med |
|   | > after CSRD                                  | g |   |   |   |   | ium=2 |
|   | >                                             | h |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   | > *medium:* at least two of these four years  | > |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   | >                                             | > |   |   |   |   | low=1 |
|   | > *low:* one or none of these four years      |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | m |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | e |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | d |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | i |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | u |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | m |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | > |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | l |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | o |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               | w |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | > 7.2 Other external (but non-district)       | > |   |   | > |   | > 1   |
|   | > support and assistance                      |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | >                                             | y |   |   | n |   |       |
|   | > *yes:* evidence for a specific source and   | e |   |   | o |   |       |
|   | > function on two or more occasions           | s |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | >                                             |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > no: no such evidence (evidence can be       |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > documentation, interviewee mentions,\       |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   | > or direct observation)                      |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
|   | #### Total Possible Score for Component 7     |   |   |   |   |   | >     |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   | **4** |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| \ |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| y |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| s |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| = |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| 1 |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| a |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| d |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| = |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| 0 |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| > |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
|   |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| ( |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| C |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| o |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| t |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| i |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| n |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| u |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| e |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| d |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| ) |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
| * |                                               |   |   |   |   |   |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-------+

+---+-----------------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-------+
| > |                                               | >   |   |    | > *   |
|   |                                               |  ** |   |    | *Scor |
| * |                                               | Mea |   |    | e\*** |
| * |                                               | sur |   |    |       |
| C |                                               | e** |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| m |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| p |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| t |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |     |   |    |       |
+===+===============================================+=====+===+====+=======+
| > |                                               |     |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| 8 |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| . |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |     |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| E |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| v |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| l |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| u |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| t |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| i |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |     |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| S |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| t |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| r |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| t |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| g |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| i |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| s |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| : |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |     |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-------+
|   | > 8.1 Existence of a written evaluation plan  | >   |   | >  | > 1   |
|   |                                               | yes |   | no |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-------+
|   | > 8.2 Evidence of written evaluation findings | >   |   | >  | > 1   |
|   | > (could even be a memo)                      | yes |   | no |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-------+
|   | #### Total Possible Score for Component 8     |     |   |    | >     |
|   |                                               |     |   |    | **2** |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-------+
| > |                                               |     |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| 9 |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| . |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |     |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| C |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| r |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| d |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| i |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| t |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| i |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |     |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| f |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |     |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| R |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| s |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| u |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| r |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| c |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| s |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |     |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-------+
|   | > 9.1 Evidence of some coordination of funds  | >   |   | >  | > 1   |
|   | > from different external (e.g.\              | yes |   | no |       |
|   | > federal) sources                            |     |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-------+
|   | > 9.2 Evidence of some coordination of        | >   |   | >  | > 1   |
|   | > external and local funds (i.e. core\        | yes |   | no |       |
|   | > building)                                   |     |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-------+
|   | #### Total Possible Score for Component 9     |     |   |    | >     |
|   |                                               |     |   |    | **2** |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-------+
| # |                                               |     |   |    | > *   |
| # |                                               |     |   |    | *47** |
| # |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| # |                                               |     |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| T |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| t |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| l |                                               |     |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| { |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| # |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| t |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| t |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| l |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| - |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| 2 |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| } |                                               |     |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-------+
| > |                                               |     |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| \ |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| * |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |     |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| y |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| e |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| s |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| = |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| 1 |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |     |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| a |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| d |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| > |                                               |     |   |    |       |
|   |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| n |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| o |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| = |                                               |     |   |    |       |
| 0 |                                               |     |   |    |       |
+---+-----------------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-------+

**APPENDIX F**

**Corroboratory Assessment of CSRD Implementation**

**For 18 Schools in Field-Focused Study**

**Appendix F**

**CORROBORATORY ASSESSMENT OF CSRD IMPLEMENTATION**

**FOR 18 SCHOOLS IN FIELD-FOCUSED STUDY**

**Lowest Group (little or no central method or other signs of CSRD)**

***School R***: Did not implement CSRD during 1998-2001 period, during
which school had three different principals (a fourth principal ended
service in 1997-98, after having served for four years and supported the
initial reform efforts). School R had started reform activities in
1997-98 (prior to CSRD) and then implemented a weak version of CSRD
during 2001-2002. Thus, during assessment period, had virtually no
dosage.

***School E***: Had implemented Coalition of Essential Schools in
1998-99, but by 2001-02, staff were devoting more time to other methods.
School was originally attached to a middle school, then separated in
2001-02 and asked by the board to operate as a charter school (school
had recommended that it close). The school has been pre-occupied by
restructuring and appears not to have had any vision for comprehensive
reform. Professional development is limited and disconnected, and there
has been no external support.

**Low-Middle Group (CSRD dosage limited to some grades, some years,**

**and some resistance)**

***School M***: Adopted Lightspan in its 3rd grade for 1999-2000 and the
3rd-5th grades for 2000-01 (first two CSRD years). However, the method
was not used throughout these grades (with some evidence of strong
resistance by some senior teachers), and there was little evidence of
any use of Lightspan during 2001-02. There were few other signs of CSRD
reform besides Lightspan, and the original principal abruptly left the
school in the spring of 2001.

***School I***: Began implementing Lightspan in 1997-98, one year before
CSRD. By 2001-02, the most intensive implementation was in the 1st grade
(the school had expanded from K-3 to K-6 that year). The school had two
schoolwide plans, neither offering a comprehensive picture or design.
Teachers did not share a unified vision, describing a "split focus" and
a mission that was "way too broad." The school also has been using other
reform methods, especially in literacy, but has been negatively affected
by district and state budget cuts

***School O***: Voted to adopt Co-NECT, but district encouraged
expansion of SIM, which had started in 1996-97 (prior to CSRD) because
of the school's low performance on state accountability tests in 1996-97
(performance had improved by 2000-01). The school improvement plan
provides a unifying plan of action, but CSRD may be a program, not a
catalyst for reform. In 2000-01, school also transitioned from SFA
(adopted in 1996-97) to district's reading curriculum. SIM use is uneven
and declines in weeks prior to state tests.

\[***O*** is not ranked higher because of the multiplicity of methods,
either considered or implemented, the noncentrality of CSRD, and the
unevenness of SIM implementation.\]

**Middle Group (CSRD implemented, but unevenly or without strong staff
or district support)**

***School K***: Designated by state as in need of improvement in March
1998 and therefore required to adopt a proven method, the School started
SFA in 1999-2000. SFA is in place, but faculty in grades 4-6 have
complained about SFA's rigidity and voiced pleasure at cancellations of
90-minute block. School reform plan addresses all CSRD components. The
school started as a K-3 school in 1999-2000 but after renovation became
a K-6 school by 2001-02.

***School N***: Based on district initiative, 98 percent of faculty
voted to adopt SFA, which started in 1998-99, with full implementation
during the next two CSRD years. Teachers concerned about continuing SFA
in 2002-03 because of state accountability system (e.g,, teachers are
accountable for homeroom students even though they may be regrouped
under SFA). In 2001, district designed new format for school improvement
plan, covering goals but only citing strategies in a general manner.

***School B***: Started implementing reform a year before CSRD (1998-99)
and then vigorously pursued comprehensive method (HSTW) during the next
two years. However, by spring 2001 support for reform appeared to be
fading, with faculty voting to avoid shift to block scheduling (a key
feature of HSTW)---possibly because of a state report showing that
non-block schools had slightly larger increases in verbal SAT scores.
District's plan to merge two high schools for 2003-04, with School B's
principal to be the principal of the merged school.

***School H***: Voted to adopt SFA in 1997-98 and implemented it in
1998-99 (the first CSRD year); by 2000-01, all classrooms were using
SFA, and the developer rated fidelity high. The school also had a
comprehensive school improvement plan that appeared to be widely
understood and aligned with CSRD's components. However, the staff
decided to stop using SFA in Nov. 2001, reflecting lack of district
support and concern that the school could perform poorly on district and
state assessments by not using the district's reading curriculum.

\[***H*** could be ranked lower because the initial adoption was related
to a district, not school initiative, and because of the transition away
from SFA.\]

***School J***: Over 80 percent of faculty voted to implement
Performance Tasks, a locally developed method. By CSRD's third year
(2001-02), PT was being implemented to some extent in all classrooms,
but exact use of method and tasks depend on teacher and academic
subject. School has a core steering committee managing and integrating
all reform components, and district staff also has been supportive.
However, principal who led all of the school's efforts retired in June
2002.

\[***J*** is not ranked higher because of the lack of rigor in
implementing the method and the thin-ness with which the tasks cover
certain subjects---e.g., mathematics.\]

**High-Middle Group (CSRD implemented with full staff support and
district alignment, at least during first two or even three CSRD years;
some conflicts with other priorities)**

***School C***: Implemented Co-NECT in 1999-00, based on unanimous
faculty vote. School had adopted Accelerated Schools 12 years earlier
and already had a participatory management structure and an orientation
toward reform. School Improvement Plan (SIP) is aligned with district
and state goals and standards. The plan embraces all funding sources as
part of an integrated plan. Strong principal support, but some teachers
fear that Co-NECT competes with their efforts to raise achievement
scores, and teacher turnover has been high.

***School D***: Positive experience with SFA starting in 1997-98 led to
choosing and implementing MathWings in 1999-00, with over 80 percent of
faculty voting support. District's strategic plan and requirement for
school improvement dovetails with CSRD's comprehensiveness, although
district was promoting its own curriculum in mathematics and reading,
and the school could not take advantage of district-supported
professional development. Alignment of SFA and MW methods with state's
standards and assessments may be questioned.

\[***D*** is ranked higher than ***C*** because of strong district
planning and principal support.\]

**Highest Group (CSRD implemented with full and ongoing staff and
support and district alignment)**

***School L***: Started implementing Behavioral Modification, a locally
developed method, in 1999-2000, with support from principal and school
leadership team. By the third year, possibly 70 percent of staff were
using the method. However, principal retired in 2000-01, and support for
BEH practices may wane. District-mandated strategic plan embraced all
nine CSRD components, with plan identifying desired activities and not
just goals. BEH is highly compatible with district's curriculum
preferences.

***School F***: Reform efforts had been going on prior to 1998, when 100
percent of faculty voted to adopt Coalition of Essential Schools, which
started under CSRD in March 1999. In September 2000, school started
two-year award for High Schools That Work, implementing block schedule
that also was in keeping with CES's guiding principles. School
improvement plan embraces all CSRD components, and collaborative groups
and action teams work together toward a vision for school-wide reform.

***School G***: Was in process of implementing teacher teams,
cross-grade planning groups, and whole-school professional development
prior to CSRD. Enthusiastically adopted locally developed literacy
model. School's small size, collaborative management style, and history
of reform all lead to strong reform support. District-initiated school
improvement plan has played central role in establishing reform
comprehensiveness, with faculty members signing plan to indicate their
understanding of it.

\[***G*** is ranked higher than ***F*** because of strength of alignment
with and support from district.\]

***School Q***: Had been using a district-sponsored literacy instruction
since 1995-96, showed interest in adopting a comprehensive method in
1997-98 (prior to CSRD), and then implemented Accelerated
Schools---compatible with ongoing curriculum. School improvement plan,
school reorganization, and changes in school governance all show the
comprehensiveness of the reform, with teaching cadres and an integrated
standing committee, which should make ongoing reform efforts less
dependent on any single individual.

\[***Q*** is ranked higher than ***G*** because of comprehensiveness of
AS, compared to locally developed literacy model.\]

***School P***: School implemented High Schools That Work, later
complemented with Making Schools Work (from the same developer), and
linking middle and high school reform efforts. Implementation and
fidelity both rated high. Only questionable conditions involve political
and social conflict, presence of three principals, and turnover of
superintendent during the CSRD award period. In addition, school is to
be merged into the only other high school in the district, starting in
2003-04, and merger plans and conditions have not been clarified.

\[***P*** is ranked higher than ***Q*** because of comprehensiveness of
HSTW, even compared to AS.\]

***School A***: School began investigating Accelerated Schools in
1996-97, and 97 percent voted to start implementation in 1998-99. Staff
strongly supports reform, showing familiarity with CSRD's components.
Teachers are members of cadres, and principal and teachers use
collaborative problem-solving process and shared decisionmaking believed
to be central to success. Parent participation has been high. School
appears to be an advanced AS site and has been recognized by state and
CSRD as a model CSRD site.

[^1]: ^?^All data are from the "Database of Schools Awarded CSRD Funds
    to Implement Comprehensive Reform Models" (SEDL database), as of
    July 2000.

[^2]: ^?^Furthermore, except for the large number of schools involved
    with the first two models, the full arraying of all 227 models
    revealed a steadily declining histogram according to the number of
    schools per model, with no particular gaps, bumps, or
    irregularities.

[^3]: ^?^Such involvement by the school will be used as the operational
    definition of a "locally developed" model.

[^4]: The evaluation team encountered some difficulty in finding pairs
    of schools within the same district that were adopting different
    models, particularly without overrepresenting the Success for All
    model (the top model selected) and underrepresenting some of the
    less popular model.