Only two of the most popular school improvement models for elementary schools have 鈥渕oderately strong鈥� evidence to show that they work, according to a consumer-style guide released last week by a Washington-based research group.
The federally financed report by the American Institutes for Research rates 22 of the most widely used comprehensive-school-reform models on the strength of the research on them and other characteristics. Although the AIR produced a similar study five years ago, reviewers this time judged programs by a tougher standard, one that mirrors the federal government鈥檚 definition of what constitutes 鈥渟cientifically based research鈥� in education.
By that measure, the researchers found that none of the programs has accumulated 鈥渧ery strong鈥� evidence of effectiveness. Only two programs鈥擠irect Instruction, a model based in Eugene, Ore., and the Baltimore-based Success for All program鈥攅arned the group鈥檚 second-highest, 鈥渕oderately strong鈥� rating.
The report, is posted by the .
At the other end of the scale, though, no programs were found to negatively affect student achievement. But the researchers gave seven programs a 鈥渮ero,鈥� meaning that studies attesting to their success were unreliable.
鈥淥ur purpose in providing ratings is not to pick winners and losers, but rather to clarify options for decisionmakers,鈥� said Steve Fleischman, a managing director for the AIR who oversaw the study.
鈥淲ith increasing numbers of schools not meeting adequate yearly progress under the [federal] No Child Left Behind Act and the law鈥檚 emphasis on programs grounded in scientifically based research,鈥� he said, 鈥渨e think this [report] will be an obvious place where decisionmakers turn.鈥�
New Information
Some developers of school improvement models argued that the AIR鈥檚 rating system favors more-prescriptive, better-financed improvement models.
鈥淲e鈥檙e really an approach that takes different characteristics in different contexts,鈥� said Lewis Cohen, the executive director of the Coalition of Essential Schools, which got a zero rating. The Oakland, Calif.-based group uses broad principles, rather than specific curricula, to guide improvement efforts at schools in its network. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a lot easier to measure impact if all schools use the same kind of approach,鈥� he added.
The idea of using packaged, schoolwide improvement models gained ground after Congress set aside money for such programs in the late 1990s. Since then, roughly 6,000 elementary, middle, and high schools have used federal funds to adopt more than 500 different reform models, according to the study.
For their analysis, which was funded by the U.S. Education Department鈥檚 office of elementary and secondary education, the AIR researchers concentrated on elementary programs used by at least 20 schools in three or more states.
Mr. Fleischman said the evaluators drew heavily on criteria developed for the department鈥檚 What Works Clearinghouse. The research organization helped set up and manage the federal clearinghouse, which also vets and publishes reviews of studies for education consumers.
But the new report goes beyond What Works鈥� framework to rate programs on whether they provide professional development or technical assistance, for instance, and whether they inspire more parent involvement in schools.
Meeting the Standard
Still, the report鈥檚 bread-and-butter findings are its ratings on whether programs improve student achievement.
After the moderately strong and the very strong categories, the researchers placed five models in the 鈥渕oderate鈥� category. That distinction means that while there was some notable evidence of positive effects, those studies were a little weaker.
Programs in the moderate category include: Accelerated Schools PLUS, of Storrs, Conn.; America鈥檚 Choice School Design, of Washington; Core Knowledge, of Charlottesville, Va.; School Renaissance, of Madison, Wis.; and the School Development Project, based in New Haven, Conn.
The reviewers said another eight programs showed 鈥渓imited鈥� evidence of effectiveness. They are: ATLAS Communities and Co-nect, both of Cambridge, Mass.; Different Ways of Knowing, of Santa Monica, Calif.; Integrated Thematic Instruction, of Covington, Wash.; the Literacy Collaborative, of Columbus, Ohio; the National Writing Project, of Berkeley, Calif.; Modern Red Schoolhouse, of Nashville, Tenn., and the Ventures Initiative and Focus System, of New York City.
Besides the Coalition of Essential Schools, the six other programs that received a zero are: Breakthrough to Literacy, of Coralville, Iowa; Comprehensive Early Literacy Learning, of Redlands, Calif.; Community for Learning, of Philadelphia; Expeditionary Learning, of Garrison, N.Y.; First Steps, of Salem, Mass.; and Onward to Excellence II, of Portland, Ore.
Developers of programs that were rated lower on the report鈥檚 scale said that the rigorous studies that would have earned them higher ratings are rare, expensive, and difficult to carry out. Of the 800 studies the AIR reviewed, only 80 were deemed to be 鈥渧ery strong,鈥� according to the report.
鈥淏ut if this is going to continue to be a federal standard,鈥� added Gregory Farrell, the president and chief executive officer of Expeditionary Learning, 鈥渨e鈥檒l have to meet it.鈥�
Mr. Fleischman said his organization would publish a similar report on schoolwide improvement programs for middle schools and high schools in the fall of 2006.
