In a three-part study we explored implications for enhancing the role of "Corrective Reading" ("CR") in systemic school reform relating to teacher judgments of the high levels of student academic performance required by "CR" tasks in contrast to inappropriate instructional perspectives applied by teachers regarding possible adoption of "CR". As an operational context, in Part 1 we demonstrated that a year-long implementation of "CR" in grades 3 and 4 with initially low-achieving, at-risk students significantly accelerated achievement growth in reading (vs. comparison students). In Part 2, we showed that teachers in demographically comparable non-"CR" schools judged content samples from "CR" as instructionally appropriate for higher-ability and more grade-advanced students than those with whom we had used the "CR" materials in Part 1. In Part 3 we found that, when asked to evaluate "CR" for possible adoption, teachers who were unfamiliar with "CR" held perspectives inconsistent with "CR" design. We present strategies for reconciling the findings across the three parts of the study and enhancing the perceived educational value of "CR" in school improvement. (Contains 9 tables.)