A comparison is made between two broad strategies for instituting reform in secondary schools: the bottom-up, process-oriented approach typified by the California School Improvement Program and the top-down content-oriented approach typified by the more recent reform effort in California, the School Reform approach. The comparison was made in terms of the types of innovation undertaken, the local implementation process used, and the impact of the reform on school climate, teachers, students, and ongoing capacity for change at the local level. Specifically, the comparison of the two strategies focused on: (1) what content areas were addressed, what type of students were targeted, and what methods of instruction were pursued; (2) in what ways the people at the school conceived of, and implemented, the process of change; and (3) how did the innovations affect student outcomes, staff morale, or the capacity of the organization to make ongoing changes. Findings indicated that: (1) top-down strategies are effective for implementing comprehensive reforms; (2) the bottom-up process is most effective for unique programs targeted to specific student needs; (3) bottom-up changes are difficult to institutionalize within the regular program; and (4) top-down strategies must include bottom-up participation. (JD)