I listened to this story on NPR tonight and what the printed version misses is the last question asked of some of the "peers". Why haven't students in Toledo shown a marked increase in academia? The answer was a very dissatisfying "imagine what it would be like if this system wasn't in place".

To me that's a typical non-answer. I don't know if the peer review system is good or bad but the answer to that question is "more needs to be done" at the very least.

I agree, also: it seems this is not real peer review, the teachers are in the hand of one single reviewer. They can not request an other one,
they do not get multiple reviewers even when things seem to go badly. These consultants are not responsible in any way of what they are doing. They have power and power corrupts. I think the only possible result that can come out of this is a bunch of good "master" teachers going corrupt one way or other.

Answer: Let's look at Columbus, or just about any other city in Ohio for that matter.

Places that don't have this system and still beat out Toledo in every category speak volumes about its effectiveness.