Cost-Effectiveness of Comprehensive School Reform in Low Achieving Schools
Bibliographic record
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 $1,000 of incremental cost) was lower in Struggling Schools than in Success For All. Struggling Schools would have been deemed to be cost-effective if different choices had been made, especially in (a) the calculation of costs (e.g., the inclusion of donated time), (b) the decision rules for declaring cost-effectiveness, and (c) the studies used to access comparative data. --- Nous avons évalué le rapport cout-efficacité du programme Struggling Schools (écoles en difficulté), une approche générée par l'utilisateur à la réforme d'ensemble des écoles mise en œuvre dans 100 écoles peu performantes desservant des élèves défavorisés dans une province canadienne. Les résultats indiquent que si l'effet du programme Struggling Schools sur le rendement en lecture en 3e année était statistiquement significatif et positif (d= 0,48 en 2005-06 et 0,60 en 2006-07), son rapport cout-efficacité n'était pas aussi intéressant que celui des deux alternatives suivantes: 1. Le cout de rehausser le rendement d'un élève pour qu'il atteigne le standard provincial était plus élevé de 25% avec Struggling Schools par rapport au statut quo. 2. Le rapport cout-efficacité (c.-à-d. l'effet par 1 000$ de cout différentiel) du programme Struggling Schools était plus bas que celui du programme Success for All. Le programme Struggling Schools aurait été jugé rentable si on avait choisi autrement, notamment par rapport (a) au calcul des couts (par ex. l'inclusion de la main d'œuvre à titre gratuit), (b) aux règlements portant sur les décisions quant aux critères de rentabilité, et (c) aux études employées pour accéder aux données de comparaison.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".