Both Catalyst and the Tribune have stories out looking at AUSL that both say the same basic thing -- AUSL has done some really good work, but its results aren't uniform and it's had some resource advantages over the CPS schools it's replaced. Who did it better? I like the school-based reporting in the Catalyst version. Why the competing stories on the same topic? Could be coincidence or could be competition. Editors like to dial up competing stories to prevent opposing outlets from having a story to themselves.
At AUSL, progress but ‘this is not magic’ Catalyst: On average, the AUSL turnaround schools are outperforming neighborhood schools on state tests. However, only half of the 10 are performing substantially better. And some neighborhood schools that have not gotten the same resources are gaining ground at a similar clip.
AUSL's turnaround model of school reform achieves mixed results Tribune: In addition to the money the district portions out to each neighborhood school, turnaround high schools receive $500,000 for specialized teacher training and recruitment and an additional $500 per pupil to pay for instructional coaches, student mentors and tutors. Elementary schools receive $300,000 and $420 per student.