Comprehensive School Reform
by Ross Diener
The concept of school reform is not new; if we were to look back over time and examine
the changes to the field of education, we would find an over abundance of “innovations.”
Since the idea of teaching multiple children under one roof began, teachers, educational
leaders, policy makers, all levels of government and, of course the public, have had their
turn at citing what is wrong and what needs to be fixed. There is no other public domain
that has had such a deluge of public outcry.
Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) as we recognize it today had its beginnings after
World War II, and was further impacted by the phenomenon known as “Sputnik.”
Researchers and policy makers, and to a lesser extent knowledgeable education leaders
were, for quite a while, aware that for school reform to be successful there had to be
certain constant elements in any reform program; an external change agent, buy-in by
school personnel, i.e. the teachers and staff as well as strong leadership, both on the
school and district levels.
A very important criteria that began in earnest after World War II was that
Comprehensive School Reform had to be research-based, wherein methodologies that
were established for a particular model could be replicated from the demonstration site to
any other school. Using a linear approach, researchers and policy makers proceeded
under what was dubbed RDDU-research, development, dissemination and utilization.
These leaders created models that would incorporate a total school improvement plan
which would dramatically change the entire culture and systems within schools however
school and/or district buy-in was an impediment.
In the 1960’s, curriculum reform was seen as the ingredient needed to improve schools;
this concern for more stringent curricula especially in science and mathematics became
heightened after Sputnik. This was then followed in the 1970’s by various federal
programs, such as Title I, Title III of ESEA, Bilingual Education, to name a few, which
were mostly created to assist the socio-economically disadvantaged student, or specific
groups. The federal government provided money to schools whose populations had
specific percentages of students that qualified for assistance.
An issue that was very well known and difficult to overcome was the buy-in component
as well as the implementation process. For the most part, implementation was either non-
existent or at best, poorly done. Schools would not incorporate the model fully, or they
would take those parts of a model that they liked, or, they would adopt the design in its
fullest extent thereby eliminating their own identity.
2
The RAND Corporation investigation Federal Policies Supporting Educational Change
(Berman & McLaughlin, 1975), helped ignite a major paradigm shift in the area of
Comprehensive School Reform.
The researchers looked at the implementation process of several of the federal program’s
that were being funded and as noted above, came to the alarming conclusion that how a
design model was being utilized was a major factor in school reform. The down side of
this study was that it was limited in scope in relationship to the programs that were
studied; they were the programs that provided the least amount of dollar expenditures.
Subsequent studies followed providing significantly more information into the
implementation process. These studies demonstrated that the more rigorous and clearly
defined a model was as well as the more intense support it received from the school and
district leadership, the more faithfulness to the model was also evident. These studies
gained insight into key elements that made a profound difference.
A major component was the external change agent. This “expert” was instrumental in
how teachers perceived and bought into a design. The change agent needs to have a very
impressive buy-in strategy, needs to provide ongoing teacher training in the program, has
to allow teachers time to practice the changes, should provide materials and of extreme
importance, needs to provide staff with decision making opportunities within the
implementation phase. If all of these elements are in place, school personnel and
administrators will show a greater willingness to adopt a program. These designs of
course do not create a quick fix, nor do they look at only one aspect of a school, they call
for a total realignment of how a school works.
Another significant change was within the Title I construct. Initially, Title I provided
funds for the socio-economically disadvantaged student. When these funds reached their
destination, schools usually utilized them to provide assistance in one domain of a child’s
life without looking at the whole child. For the most part, no significant benefit was seen
from these expenditures; for as many schools and/or districts exist, you could count the
number of different programs that were created to deal with this population. In the late
1970’s and into the 1980’s, this program evolved from single purpose distribution to
being much more inclusive. These funds were to become part of other monies, which
would then be used as a totality, meant to facilitate school-wide change.
In essence, to be successful, comprehensive school reform relies upon a school’s
adopting and properly implementing research-based models and designs within the
context of current practices. This shift in thinking was instrumental in the establishment
of the
New American Schools Development Corporation (1991) as well as Congress’ creation
of the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program (1997).
3
The New American Schools Development Corporation, a private, non-profit group,
created a partnership between the private and public sectors. The corporation provided
the funds, raised in the private sector, to promote research in more encompassing school
reform and change. The Corporation sought, through grants, design teams who would
create whole school change programs that would be innovative and that would totally
change the culture of a school, promoting student achievement and success.
These teams would design programs, implement them in demonstration schools for two
years and then, enhance their designs and implement them over a five-year period in an
even greater number of schools and/or districts.
Of even greater impetus to the reform effort was the Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration Act of 1997. This legislation allocated money to school districts for the
sole purpose of implementing research-based school improvement designs. With the
passage of No Child Left Behind in 2001, more money was allocated and the word
“Demonstration” was eliminated, whereas now the legislation is simply known as the
Comprehensive School Reform Act. Over the years, a significant number of schools have
applied for, received and implemented improvement models. A key ingredient of the Act
is the eleven attributes that need to be addressed in a plan.
The Act calls for parent and community involvement; resources must be evident; proven
scientifically researched models, with a proven record of student achievement must be
used; teacher/administrative buy-in; measurable goals and benchmarks; an experienced
change agent with a record of achievement is mandatory; this agent must provide
professional development and technical support; an evaluation of program and student
achievement must be performed annually; and there needs to be alignment of all
components of the plan.
Numerous studies are being performed to study the effectiveness of the Comprehensive
School Reform Act, especially the implementation of the numerous models and designs
that currently exist. The Study of Instructional Improvement (Rowan, Barnes &
Camburn, 2004) is one example of a major study examining the effectiveness of this Act.
With state’s vying for federal funds generated by the Race to the Top legislation, the
adoption of the
Common Core Standards and the incorporation of No Child Left Behind into the Race to
the Top framework, the under lying premise of comprehensive school reform will
continue to take on greater significance, however will real and lasting improvements be
the end result? Research will eventually reveal the facts and provide us with this
information.
4
References:
Rowan, B., Barnes, C., & Camburn, E. (2004). Benefiting from comprehensive school
reform: A review of research on CSR implementation. In C.T. Cross (Ed.), Putting the
pieces together: Lessons from comprehensive school research (pp. 1-52).
Washington, DC: The National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.
Cicchinelli, L. F. (n.d.) Noteworthy perspectives: Comprehensive school reform.
Retrieved from http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/Noteworthy/59831R_NW_CSR_99.pdf
Comprehensive school reform. (2004, August). Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/comprehensive-school-reform/