Comprehensive School Reform

UCLA SMP began providing Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) services to eleven schools in the 2004-2005 school year as part of a three-year contract. CSR, a program of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, provides federal funding to schools struggling with accountability requirements. Services provided by SMP included collaborative assessment of current needs, coaching of Instructional Leadership Teams (ILTs), leadership retreats, and Instructional Leadership Institutes. The group was comprised of two cohorts: State Cohort 4, which began work in July 2004, and State Cohort 5, which began work in January 2005. Based on 2006-2007 scores, standardized testing shows that the program has been successful in raising student achievement over the three-year period covered by the CSR program:

CSR schools working with UCLA SMP compared to other CSR schools and Similar SchoolsIn addition to statewide ranks, schools are ranked compared to 100 other schools with similar demographic characteristics. For the similar schools rank, schools are ranked into deciles according to school type: elementary, middle, and high. To determine the similar schools rank for a school, a comparison group of 100 similar schools of the same type is formed for that school, based on similar demographic characteristics. The APIs for this group of 100 schools are ranked into ten categories of equal size, called deciles, from one (lowest) to ten (highest). Each decile contains 10 percent of all of the 100 similar schools in the comparison group. The school’s similar schools rank is the decile where that school’s API Base falls compared with the Base APIs of the 100 other similar schools in the comparison group. Special education schools, schools in the ASAM (Alternative Schools Accountability Model), and small schools with between 11 to 99 valid STAR (Standardized Testing and Reporting) Program scores do not receive similar schools ranks. not involved with CSR…


As is often the case in schools facing comprehensive restructuring, an implementation dip (as described by Michael Fullan, 2001*) is seen in 2006. Implementation dips are characterized by an initial decrease in performance after a period of dramatic reorganization that requires new skills and understandings. It is important to realize that organizational change is often a non-linear and complex process and with the proper support and guidance, forward momentum is possible. With UCLA SMP’s Cycle of Continuous Improvement and Inquiry, schools that encounter an implementation dip are provided with the necessary tools to examine a broad range of data to obtain a clearer understanding of current reality, establish clear and measurable goals, and to identify specific implementation strategies.

* Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.


UCLA SMP schools also exhibited a greater improvement in growth than the comparison groups in 2005, and after an implementation dip in 2006, a dramatic improvement than comparison groups in 2007.



Prior to the CSR program, Adams Elementary School had an API of 606, performing below their API base and API target. During their 3-year participation in the CSR program, the school gradually increased their API scores with a steady positive growth. For the 2006-2007 school year, Adams Elementary School achieved an impressive API score of 701, well above their base score of 619.
Prior to the CSR program, Humphreys Avenue School had an API of 628, scoring above their API base and API target. During their 3-year participation in the CSR program, the school consistently improved their API growth. For the 2006-2007 school year, Humphreys Avenue School achieved an admirable API score of 720, well above their base score of 605 and entered “safe harbor.” NCLB contains a “safe harbor” provision for meeting AYP in some circumstances. The safe harbor criteria are applied in the 2007 AYP reports scheduled for release on August 31, 2007. Safe harbor is an alternate method of meeting the AMOs (Annual Measurable Objectives) if a school, LEA (local educational agency), or subgroup is showing progress in moving students from scoring below the proficient level to the proficient level or above on the assessments used to determine AYP. In the event that a school, LEA, or student subgroup does not meet its AMO criteria in either or both content areas, AYP may be achieved if all of the following conditions are met:

  • The percentage of students in the school, LEA, or subgroup performing below the proficient level in either ELA or mathematics decreased by at least 10 percent of that percentage from the preceding school year.
  • The school, LEA, or subgroup had at least a 95 percent participation rate for the assessments in ELA and mathematics.
  • The school, LEA, or subgroup demonstrated at least a one-point growth in the API or had a Growth API of 590 or more
  • The school or LEA met graduation rate criteria, if applicable. A confidence interval of 75 percent is applied to safe harbor calculations
Prior to the CSR program, Shenandoah Elementary School had an API of 622, performing above their API base and API target. During their 3-year participation in the CSR program, the school consistently increased their API scores. For the 2006-2007 school year, Shenandoah Elementary School attained an API of 737, well above their base year of 590. Furthermore, the school’s educational efforts and academic performance resulted in an exit from Program Improvement (PI) status.
Prior to the CSR program, Walker Elementary School had an API of 640, ranking above their API base and API target. During their 3-year participation in the CSR program, the school continued to raise their API scores. For the 2006-2007 school year, Walker Elementary School achieved an API of 681, well above their base year of 615.
UCLA & GSEIS logos UCLA home page UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies