Through the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration (CSRD) program (Public Law 105–78; see Doherty, 2000) and Title I School-Wide programs (Natriello & McDill, 1999), there is currently considerable impetus for reforming education using whole-school change models. Implementing comprehensive school reform (CSR) programs requires tremendous commitment and effort by school districts and their individual schools. As the literature on school reform indicates, it also takes time (Bodilly, 1996). What the public, media, and school boards sometimes fail to understand is that programs by themselves are not what improve student learning. Rather, the critical factor is the positive changes that the reforms engender in school climate, resources, and, most critically, the quality of classroom teaching and learning. But whether achievement effects are evidenced in a relatively short period, as occurred after 2 years in Memphis (Ross et al., 2001) or, more typically, after 5 or more years (Herman & Stringfield, 1995; Levin, 1993), key stakeholders (e.g., the public and school boards) want fairly immediate information about what is happening in the schools to justify the reform effort. At the same time, teachers and administrators within schools need formative evaluation data to know whether their efforts are producing the tangible changes desired.

These considerations prompted our development of the School Observation Measure (SOM; Ross, Smith, & Alberg, 1999), the instrument to be described in this chapter.