This study adds to the effective schools debate a criticism of existing criteria--based on standardized achievement test profiles--for targeting schools for intervention programs. Qualitative and quantitative methods of gathering data result in conflicting assessments of the magnet elementary school studied as needing or not needing intervention. After analysis of quantitative data, including standardized district tests in which children generally scored above norms and questionnaires indicating high teacher satisfaction, the school would not be assessed as needing intervention. However, qualitative data, including teacher interviews and classroom observations focusing on the school's "laboratory" enrichment classes, result in a more critical evaluation of the school as a prime target for effective schools intervention. These apparently conflicting findings are interpreted as complementary, together providing the detailed knowledge of the school necessary for a funding decision. Generalizations offered districts on data gathering procedures include: collecting data for each school on key process and content factors such as attendance or suspensions, as well as achievement data; gathering qualitative data in as many schools as possible; targeting every school for some intervention; developing school site capacity for self-monitoring; and providing specific additional intervention for schools most in need. (MJL)