Cost-Effectiveness of Comprehensive School Reform in Low Achieving Schools

Abstract

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Struggling Schools, a user-generated approach to Comprehensive School Reform implemented in 100 low achieving schools serving disadvantaged students in a Canadian province. The results show that while Struggling Schools had a statistically significant positive effect on Grade 3 Reading achievement, d=.48 in 2005-06 and .60 in 2006-07, the program was not cost-effective when compared to two alternatives: 1. The cost of bringing one student to the provincial achievement standard was more than 25% higher in Struggling Schools than in the status quo. 2. The cost-effectiveness ratio (i.e., effect size per $1,000 of incremental cost) was lower in Struggling Schools than in Success For All. Struggling Schools would have been deemed to be cost-effective if different choices had been made, especially in (a) the calculation of costs (e.g., the inclusion of donated time), (b) the decision rules for declaring cost-effectiveness, and (c) the studies used to access comparative data. --- Nous avons evalue le rapport cout-efficacite du programme Struggling Schools (ecoles en difficulte), une approche generee par l'utilisateur a la reforme d'ensemble des ecoles mise en œuvre dans 100 ecoles peu performantes desservant des eleves defavorises dans une province canadienne. Les resultats indiquent que si l'effet du programme Struggling Schools sur le rendement en lecture en 3e annee etait statistiquement significatif et positif (d= 0,48 en 2005-06 et 0,60 en 2006-07), son rapport cout-efficacite n'etait pas aussi interessant que celui des deux alternatives suivantes: 1. Le cout de rehausser le rendement d'un eleve pour qu'il atteigne le standard provincial etait plus eleve de 25% avec Struggling Schools par rapport au statut quo. 2. Le rapport cout-efficacite (c.-a-d. l'effet par 1 000$ de cout differentiel) du programme Struggling Schools etait plus bas que celui du programme Success for All. Le programme Struggling Schools aurait ete juge rentable si on avait choisi autrement, notamment par rapport (a) au calcul des couts (par ex. l'inclusion de la main d'œuvre a titre gratuit), (b) aux reglements portant sur les decisions quant aux criteres de rentabilite, et (c) aux etudes employees pour acceder aux donnees de comparaison.