U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

ESEA: Comprehensive School Reform - FY 2006


CFDA Numbers: 84.332A - ESEA Comprehensive School Reform
84.332B - Comprehensive School Reform Quality Initiatives

Program Goal: To enable low-performing students to improve their achievement to meet challenging standards

Objective 1 of 2: Student achievement in core subjects generally will show marked improvement in Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program schools.
Indicator 1.1 of 1: AYP results: The percentage of Comprehensive School Reform schools that have or have had a CSR grant and made achieved adequate yearly progress (AYP).
 
Measure 1.1.1 of 2: The percentage of CSR schools achieving AYP in reading/language arts.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2004 67  
2005   68
2006   68

Measure 1.1.2 of 2: The percentage of CSR schools achieving AYP in mathematics.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2004
69
 
2005
 
70
2006
 
70

Source: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Consolidated State Report, PBDMI

Frequency: Annually.

Next Data Available: June 2006
 
Explanation: The FY 2004 data were used as the baseline.
 
Objective 2 of 2: School Improvement: Decreasing numbers of CSR program schools will be designated as schools in need of improvement.
Indicator 2.1 of 4: Usefulness of products and services developed through Technical Assistance: The percentage of all products and services that are deemed to be of high usefulness to education policy or practice by target audiences
 
Measure 2.1.1 of 1: The percentage of a random sample of all products and services that receive audience ratings for usefulness of ''high and above'' on a field survey.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2006
 
999

Source: Grantee performance report based on a survey of ratings of products and services

Frequency: Annually.

Next Data Available: December 2006
 
Explanation: The FY 2006 target is to establish a baseline.
 
Indicator 2.2 of 4: Capacity building: The percentage of new research projects funded by the CSR Quality Initiatives program that are deemed to be of high relevance to education practice
 
Measure 2.2.1 of 1: The percentage of new research projects funded by the CSR Quality Initiatives program that are deemed to be of high relevance to education practice as determined by a review panel of practitioners.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2006
 
999

Source: Grantee performance report based on project rating by review panel of practitioners

Frequency: Annually.

Next Data Available: December 2006
 
Explanation: The FY 2006 target is to establish a baseline.
 
Indicator 2.3 of 4: Impact on School Improvement: No schools that have received CSR program funds will be designated as in need of improvement, while CSR funds continue to be targeted on the lowest achieving schools
 
Measure 2.3.1 of 1: Percentage change from year 1 to year 3 of ''need of improvement'' schools moving out of ''need of improvement''
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2004
61
 
2014
 
0

Source: Grantee performance data

Frequency: Annually.
 
Explanation: The FY 2004 data were used as the baseline.
 
Indicator 2.4 of 4: Research based school reform model: The percentage of principals in Title I schools reporting that they are implementing a research-based school reform model.
 
Measure 2.4.1 of 1: The percentage of principals in Title I schools reporting that they are implementing a research-based school reform model.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
1999
31
 
2000
46
 
2001
62
55
2002
 
60
2003
 
70
2004
 
72
2005
 
74
2006
 
74

Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Schools, (NCES)

Frequency: Annually.

Next Data Available: June 2006

Limitations: Data are taken from a nationally representative sample of Title I schools; data are not available for all Title I schools. Because data are based on self-reports, it is difficult to judge the extent to which reform programs are comprehensive and research based. An examination of school documents on a subsample of Title I schools will allow some indication of the quality of comprehensive school reform efforts in Title I schools in general.
 
Explanation: Increasing numbers of Title I schools are implementing research-based school reform models to improve curriculum and instruction. The Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program is meeting its purpose of increasing awareness of and support for comprehensive school reform among states, districts and schools, and acts as a catalyst for how Title I funds can be used in schoolwide programs to support the adoption of research-based comprehensive school reform programs. The student achievement data at CSR schools collected for 2002 and 2003 were found to be incomplete and inconsistent, and were not used. A contractor worked with states to complete the data collection process for 2004-06, and to provide quality assurance.
 


Return to table of contents

Last Modified: 01/20/2006