MARCH 31, 2010...7:00 AM
The Allure of “Magic Bullets” in School Reform
I doubt if I am the only one who gets fatigued from the constant use of the phrase “magic bullet” in school reform. Most often the words disparagingly describe reforms that once pumped up hopes for solving serious school problems and then missed the target or created much collateral damage.
Remember “Career Education” in the 1970s; “restructuring schools” in the 1980s; “systemic school reform” in the 1990s. Don’t forget “choice” in the 1990s when John Chubb and Terry Moe pronounced it as a “panacea.” And for the past decade, champions of “magic bullets” have touted “teacher pay-for-performance,” Reading First, Teach for America, and principals as instructional leaders. I could go on and on but the point of very smart people believing in one “magic bullet” after another that turned out to be duds raises a few obvious questions.
1. What is the origin of the phrase?
2. Why do policymakers, practitioners, parents, and reform-driven folks hunt again and again for the next magic bullet?
3. Are “magic bullets” unique to education?
What is the origin of the phrase? If you guessed the field of medicine, you are correct. Paul Ehrlich (1854-1915) used “magic bullet” to describe a chemical that “would seek out and specifically destroy invading microbes or tumor cells.”He and another researcher discovered a treatment for syphilis called Salvarsan that destroyed the bacteria causing the disease while not killing healthy cells.
