ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, Charleston, WV.
THIS DIGEST WAS CREATED BY ERIC, THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER.FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ERIC, CONTACT ACCESS ERIC 1-800-LET-ERIC
In fall 1997, Congress approved $150 million to implement provenmodels and strategies for "whole-school restructuring." From thisfederal Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) programmoney, $120 million is earmarked for competitive grants to schoolsthat receive Title I funds to provide academic support and learningopportunities for children from low-income families. Non-Title Ischools may apply for $25 million in funding. Through CSRD, schoolsreceive at least $50,000 for the first year, with two additional yearsof funding, to implement and assess comprehensive school reform (HouseRes. 2264). 
This Digest explains CSRD and what it might mean to rural schools. Thedigest examines research about whole-school reform and what ruraleducators can expect. 
LEGISLATIVE OVERVIEW
For more than three decades, the main tool for raising educationalperformance nationwide has been the 1965 Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act (ESEA), more specifically, Title I. CSRD's relationshipto ESEA-Title I could be important to rural areas, which tend to haverelatively high percentages of impoverished children. 
Changes in 1988 and 1994 broadened Title I by supporting "schoolwide"projects, enrichment programs for "all" students in schools with amajority of Title I students. The assumption is that the mosteffective reform involves the entire school, not individuals orclassrooms. The 1997 legislation encourages schools to reexamine howand how well they operate as a whole. 
Congress left it to states and school districts to distribute CSRDfunds. But it did encourage states to fund regions, including ruralcommunities, as well as schools with different grade levels (U.S.Department of Education, 1998). CSRD provides financial resources thatenable rural educators to select from a marketplace of programs whoseconsultants have developed research-based products in pilot schoolsnationwide. The legislation lays out criteria for CSRD efforts, butalso gives states and schools wide latitude in determining whichstrategies to fund, including "home-grown" models (EducationCommission of the States, 1998). 
In October, 1998, Congress provided another year of CSRD funding: $120million under Title I and $25 million under the Fund for theImprovement of Education. These funds will support the continuation ofgrants for schools' second year of CSRD (United States House, 1998). 
The 1998 CSRD funding reflects Congress' recognition that smallschools (especially in rural areas) may be in a better position toimplement reforms if they collaborate with other small schools. Theminimum award may be granted to individual schools or to schoolconsortia that serve up to 500 students (United States House, 1998). 
Congress also budgeted $10 million for research into well-designedfield studies on the impact of various comprehensive school reformmodels on student achievement. Some funding is to be used to designcompetitions for developing new school reform models, particularly formiddle and high schools (United States House, 1998). 
Congress also wanted to assure that all schools, particularly ruralschools, can implement the reform plan of their choice. It set aside$12 million for a technical assistance program that could allow theformation of partnerships with states, regional service centers,regional educational laboratories, and consortia of local educationagencies. 
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Congress specified that CSRD programs must meet the followingcriteria: (1) use research-based innovative strategies and methods;(2) have a schoolwide reform plan that enables students to meet statestandards based on a school needs assessment; (3) provide ongoing,high-quality professional development for staff; (4) have measurablestudent goals and benchmarks for meeting those goals; (5) maintainfaculty, administrative, and staff support; (6) nurture meaningfulparent and community involvement; (7) use high-quality externaltechnical support; (8) include a plan for evaluating implementationand student achievement; and (9) identify other resources availableand how they will be used to coordinate services to support andsustain the reform (H. Res. 390, 1997). 
FIELD RESEARCH ON WHOLE-SCHOOL REFORM
Studies suggest that, in the poorest schools, it makes more sense toenrich all students' educational experience than to providesupplementary services to individuals or single classrooms; schoolwideprojects increase at-risk students' achievement gains (U.S. Departmentof Education, 1990, 1993; Schenck & Beckstrom, 1993; Wong, Sunderman,& Lee, 1996; Stringfield et al., 1997). 
Studies also show that schools vary greatly both in implementation andoutcomes of reform strategies (Stringfield et al., 1997). Schoolswhose at-risk students make the greatest academic gains tend to payattention to both initial and long-term stages of school improvementeffort, and to incorporate new methods and programs into regularoperations. Programs that concentrate on early grades tend to havelarger achievement gains than do programs that spread resources acrossall elementary grades or in secondary schools. Effects on studentachievement are most dramatic where (1) faculty and administrationconsider diverse options to match a program with local needs; (2)principals and central administrators sustain a focus on fullimplementation, with intelligent local adaptation; (3) technicalassistance and staff development are ongoing and targeted to specificschool issues and problems; and (4) curriculum is demanding(Stringfield et al., 1997). 
Research by the RAND Corporation has identified four barriers tocomprehensive reform: (1) difficulty in implementing new professionaldevelopment models; (2) varied perceptions of school autonomy, whichis important, but may not be well understood; (3) culture clashesbetween schools and external design teams; and (4) inability of designteams and schools to involve and engage the public (Bodilly et al.,1996). These barriers suggest how important local politics are withinthe school and the district. In rural areas, where a school may wellbe the central institutional force, issues of autonomy and politicsare crucial. 
In an alternative view, Tyack and Cuban (1995) support graftingthoughtful reforms onto healthy parts of an existing system. Wheneducators completely scrap old programs, schools are more likely torevert back to them. Innovations that seem to solve problems for, orraise the status of, schoolteachers and administrators also tend tosurvive. 
To date, whole-school reforms have concentrated on elementary schools.But a 5-year study of Wisconsin secondary schools suggests impressiveachievement gains in mathematics, reading, history, and science linkedto instruction that emphasizes higher-order thinking, disciplinedinquiry, and the value of education for solving community problems oradding to students' personal experience (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). 
Educators seeking appropriate ways to redesign schools should realizethat few school districts and no states have tried widespreadimplementation of comprehensive school reform designs. There islimited data on whether these designs can be implemented across manyschools or how the designs change when adopted in different schools.Results also can change over time in the same school (Stringfield etal., 1994). Therefore, reformers must have a clear vision and be ableto articulate that vision, offer leadership, and then build consensusfor reform. Rural educators should ensure that their reforms havewidespread public input and support, are well planned, and aresustainable in the long run, given the relatively small sum of federalfunding. 
WHAT TO EXPECT FROM CSRD AND REFORM MODELS
CSRD requires applicant schools to commit to proven whole-schoolreform practices. Any successful reform requires substantialinvestments of time, teacher and administrator resolve to complete theprogram, community input, and care about how the reform fits ruralcommunity needs. The guidelines also require some promise ofreplicability and an infrastructure for delivering successful reformpractices and innovations to other schools via coaching or technicalassistance. 
Quality technical assistance, one of the CSRD criteria, will likely bea vital consideration for small and rural schools where resources maybe scarce. Comprehensive school reform is supported by activeinvolvement of outside experts who advise and help school personnel toretool schools with new skills, roles, and methods. To help assuresuccess in rural communities, each reform design should be afunctioning program with documented success in small towns and ruralareas. Also, successful models and their associated experts shouldhelp administrators and teachers in a detailed way with the real-lifeproblems and challenges of reform. 
As such, schools need a great deal of autonomy, principals' roles mustbe redefined to give parents and teachers a central part in ongoingdecision making and evaluation, and school administrators need tobuild consensus between teachers and community members. Support fromthe superintendent and school board is crucial. 
CONCLUSIONS FOR RURAL SCHOOLS
Sustaining school reform is difficult, and rural school officialsshould be fully aware of its implications. Congress clearly gave localschools a wide range of reform choices, and changes made to CSRD in1998 are intended to give small and rural schools improved access todifferent reform plans. Much still depends on how federal and stateofficials interpret CSRD guidelines. There are, however, opportunitiesfor rural school leaders to craft whole-school reforms that fit localneeds and can be tailored for other communities. 
Prudent policymakers and rural educators should be aware that existingwhole-school reform models are generally in the early stages ofdevelopment and implementation, and many are urban based. Elements ofteacher time and school resources must be matched with communityneeds, resources, and expectations. 
Note: Detailed information about various CSRD models is available fromNorthwest Regional Educational Laboratory (see reference) orAppalachia Educational Laboratory's Web site,http://www.ael.org/rel/csr/catalog.htm. 
REFERENCES AND RESOURCES
Bodilly, S. J., Purnell, S. W., Ramsey, K., & Keith, S. J. (1996).Lessons from New American Schools Development Corporation'sDemonstration Phase. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp., Inst. on Educationand Training. (ED 396 377) 
Education Commission of the States. (1998). Comprehensive schoolreform: Criteria and questions (Key Issue Packet). Denver, CO: Author.House Res. 390, 105th Cong., 1st Sess., 96-99 (1997). Also:http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/compreform/committee.html (1998,November 6). 
House Res. 2264, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (1997). 
Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful schoolrestructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison, WI:Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. (ED 387 925) 
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (1998). Catalog of schoolreform models. Also:http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/natspec/catalog/index.html (1998, November6). 
Schenck, E. A., & Beckstrom, S. (1993). Chapter 1 schoolwide projectstudy. Final report. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corp. (ED 365 768) 
Stringfield, S., Milsap, M. A., Yoder, N., Brigham, N., Nesselrodt,P., Schaffer, E., Karweit, N., Dolan, L., Levin, M., Smith, L., Gamse,B., Puma, M., Rosenblum, S., Herman, R., Bedinger, S., Randall, B., &Stevens, R. (1997). Urban and suburban/rural special strategies foreducating disadvantaged children (Final report). Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service. 
Stringfield, S., Winfield, L., Milsap, M., Puma, M., Gamse, B., &Randall, B. (1994). Urban and suburban/rural special strategies foreducating disadvantaged children (First year report). Cambridge, MA:Abt Associates; Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University. (ED 369 854) 
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century ofpublic school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). The Comprehensive School ReformDemonstration Program.http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/compreform/2pager.html (1998, November6). 
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research andImprovement. (1990). Chapter 1 policy manual. Basic programs operatedby local educational agencies: Part A of Chapter 1 of Title I,Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 amended by the AugustusF. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary SchoolImprovement Amendments of 1988 (Public Law 100-297). Washington, DC:Author. (ED 323 274) 
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning. (1993).Reinventing Chapter 1: The current Chapter 1 Program and newdirections (Final report of the National Assessment of the Chapter 1Program). Washington, DC: Author. 
U.S. House of Representatives. (1998). Congressional Record-House,October 19, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
Wong, K. K., Sunderman, G. L., & Lee, J. (1996). When federal Title Iworks to improve student learning in inner-city schools: Lessonslearned in schoolwide projects in Minneapolis (Spotlight on StudentSuccess No. 112). Philadelphia: Laboratory for Student Success. (ED402 369) Also: http://www.temple.edu/LSS/spot112.htm (1998, November6). 
Topper Sherwood is an education consultant and writer who lives inMartinsburg, West Virginia. 
This publication was prepared with funding from the Office ofEducational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education,under contract no. RR93002012. The opinions expressed herein do notnecessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI, the Department,or AEL.