It didn't seem like a super big deal to me but others seem to think otherwise and who knows maybe they're right. Last week, the Consortium's report on turnaround efforts of various kinds came out, which generated a slew of moderately positive coverage about the results: Study: CPS has some success turning around grammar schools, not high schools Sun Times, School Reform Efforts Show Mixed Results in Study CNC, Progress seen at city 'turnaround' schools Tribune, Turnaround study shows only small gains Catalyst, and Study: Drastic school reforms produce some positive results WBEZ.
But now Catalyst Publisher Linda Lenz -- a longtime admirer of the Consortium's work -- has penned a Sun Times commentary raising some troubling questions about the way the Consortium report was fashioned and raising the perennial issue of the Consortium's dependence on CPS for student data. And Seth Lavin's weekly roundup says it's troubling that the report was shared with CPS long before the public got it (and that the presentation of its data may have been overstated by the Consortium and/or CPS): "CPS, which proposed the turnarounds, and the Board, which approves them, seemed to have seen the report or at least internalized its findings. The public—which is supposed to be at this moment discussing the turnaround proposals—couldn’t have it."
Has anyone taken a close enough look at the study to match the data, the findings, and how they were presented? That seems to be the main issue here. Meantime, I'm putting out calls to the Consortium and CPS, among others, to find out what they have to say.