Per the Hassels' rejoinder to my post, first let me say that I'm very happy that there's a discussion taking place about the feasibility of turnarounds. This is an important and potentially expensive undertaking so we should be driven by evidence, not hope.
With that said, I need to address several points in the Hassels' post:
First, while they are right that the ???????gold-standard??????? bar is a very high one, that IES study is not by any means the only study or report showing the general futility of turnarounds in education. I only cited it because IES is getting back into this business, and I wanted to make sure people understood that they'd already weighed in. More broadly, though, the question is not whether turnarounds can meet the gold-standard test of effectiveness; it's whether they can meet any reasonable test of scalable, sustainable effectiveness.
Second, I agree that turnarounds don't always fail. It's just that they almost always fail. That's why I'm careful to state my position as: ???????Turnarounds aren't a scalable way to improve America's urban school districts.??????? I disagree that ???????turnarounds happen all the time across sectors.??????? I think that's too...