POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE 

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS 

Longitudinal Assessment of Comprehensive School Reform Program 

Implementation and Outcomes 

First Year Report

The Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program provides both a framework and the 

funding to enable schools to change their organization and practices so all students can achieve 

high standards. In 1998, Congress appropriated $145 million for the Comprehensive School 

Reform Demonstration (CSRD) program as a way to encourage schools to integrate local, state, 

and federal resources into a comprehensive effort that would better meet student learning needs. 

Like Title I schoolwide programs, CSRD was intended to help schools use multiple sources of 

funds and integrate programs while allowing flexibility and enhancing accountability for student 

learning. Its unique aspect was the expectation that schools would collaborate with expert 

partners to implement whole-school reform models that had a strong research base and a 

successful replication record. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 

2002, CSR became a fully authorized program and is no longer a demonstration program. 

Further, NCLB describes 11 components of comprehensive school reform and, some argue, 

focuses on the underlying processes that facilitate the kinds of changes needed in order for 

schools to ensure that all students learn rather than specific whole-school reform models. 

Evaluation Questions 

The Longitudinal Assessment of Comprehensive School Reform Implementation and 

Outcomes (LACIO) responds to the NCLB Act’s requirement for an evaluation of the federal 

Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program. The legislation sets two broad goals for the 

evaluation: first, to evaluate the implementation and outcomes achieved by schools after three 

years of implementing comprehensive school reforms and, second, to assess the effectiveness of 

comprehensive school reform in schools with diverse characteristics. In order to address these 

requirements, the study focuses on the targeting of CSR program funds; the implementation of 

CSR in schools, districts and states; the conditions at the state and district level that influence 

implementation of CSR in schools; and the relationship between CSR implementation and 

student achievement outcomes. 

This first year report focuses on the implementation of school reform activities and the 

targeting of CSR program funds. The report presents data collected from a random sample of 400 

CSR schools that received funding in 2002 and 400 non-CSR schools with similar demographic 

and achievement characteristics. It draws from three data sources—school-level surveys of 

principals and teachers, the National School Level State Assessment Score Database, and the 

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data (CCD). The data were 

collected in spring 2003, at the end of the first year of CSR implementation (2002-03) in the 

sample schools. 

Key Study Findings 

Two key findings emerged from the first year of this evaluation. 

First, although both CSR and non-CSR schools are engaged in reform, reform in CSR 

schools is more likely to include adoption of models and other activities closely associated 
with research-based models. CSR schools, as compared with non-CSR schools, were more 

likely to implement the following components: 

• Adopt externally developed strategies that have been replicated. CSR schools 

were more likely to identify a specific reform model (85 percent of CSR schools 

vs. 49 percent of non-CSR schools) and to report using evidence from research 

that the reform model chosen improves student achievement (42 percent vs. 26 

percent). 

• Provide more continuous professional development opportunities. CSR schools 

were more likely to offer professional development activities for all teachers (90 

percent vs. 73 percent) and allocate over 10 days to teacher professional 

development (56 percent vs. 39 percent). 

• Include measurable goals for student performance associated with the reform 

model (57 percent vs. 41 percent). 

• Reflect support from staff by including a formal vote by teachers for the reform 

model (82 percent vs. 55 percent). 

• Provide support for staff by receiving on-site consulting relevant to the reform 

(85 percent vs. 57 percent). 

• Evaluate the reform. CSR schools were more likely to include the requirements 

of the reform model in the scope and content of evaluation (66 percent vs. 42 

percent) and assess the utility of external assistance (41 percent vs. 30 percent). 

The second key finding is that CSR funds are strongly targeted to high-poverty 

schools and low-performing schools, and schools receiving CSR funds are lower 

performing than are other schools with similar demographic characteristics at the time 

they receive awards.

• CSR funds were strongly targeted to high-poverty schools and to those with 

high concentrations of minority students. Almost half (45 percent) of CSR 

schools had poverty rates of at least 75 percent, nearly three times greater than 

the percentage of all schools in this highest-poverty group (16 percent) and 

close to double the percentage of Title I schools (26 percent) 

• At the time of funding, CSR schools were significantly more likely to report 

that they were identified as a low-performing school according to the criteria 

used in their state (46 percent) than were the non-CSR schools (28 percent). 

• When CSR schools received their funding they were also more likely to have 

received state sanctions due to low performance (11 percent vs. 3 percent). 

• CSR schools had lower baseline achievement scores than did Title I 

schoolwides in reading and mathematics at most grade levels (elementary, 

middle, and high school) at the time the awards were made. 
Conclusion 

Both CSR schools and non-CSR schools report that they are implementing many 

components of comprehensive school reform. However, CSR schools appear more likely to 

include adoption of models and other activities more closely associated with research-based 

models. With CSR funds, the schools were more likely to adopt models, focus professional 

development, and track student performance than were non-CSR schools. Furthermore, states 

and districts seem to have targeted CSR funds to those schools that have the greatest need to 

change practices in order to support high achievement for all students. 

This report did not measure the quality of implementation, and subsequent reports from this 

evaluation will examine this issue. One such question is whether the use of CSR funds 

accelerates reform in the lowest performing schools. In subsequent years, the evaluation will 

provide information about whether CSR schools implement reform components more thoroughly 

than do non-CSR schools.