The school turnaround debate goes on. See Andy Smarick's first post , Bryan and Emily Hassel's reply , and Andy's rebuttal . Here's another round, again from Bryan and Emily Hassel of Public Impact .
Four quick responses to Andy's latest on turnarounds .
First, the IES study did not find that school turnarounds are futile, just that there's not much good research about them.?? If you look outside education, success rates for new start ups and for turnaround efforts look pretty similar, in the 20-30% range. There's just no evidentiary basis for Andy's belief that new starts are a higher-probability strategy.
Second, all of Andy's critiques of turnaround research apply equally to research on successful charter schools.?? In both cases, we have imperfect knowledge based on success stories. Let's get better info, but we'd be foolish not to use imperfect knowledge to help kids now. If we accidentally emphasize a few wrong factors (as in Andy's West Point example), that's better than doing nothing.
Third, one of the reasons we have so little good research on school turnarounds is that so few real school turnarounds have been attempted.?? Most...