There Are No Miracle Schools. But There Are Some Really Good Ones.
Over this year, as I tell people about my project visiting schools across Los Angeles to try to understand education in real time, they often ask me if I could sum up what I’ve learned in a headline or two. What do I take away? What’s really surprised me?
Here’s what I find myself saying over and over: “There are no miracle schools.” All those books I bought with titles like “Schools That Succeed” and “Education That Makes A Difference”? Forget about it. The authors either have an agenda to promote a particular form of education or they haven’t spent enough time in a school to notice the cracks in the surface.
Here’s what I’ve seen over this year: a lot of really, really good schools. I know there are terrible ones. I haven’t visited them (yet). As far as I can tell, all terrible schools are alike: chaotic and without strong leadership. The good schools I’ve seen, by contrast, are each unique, reflecting the differences in the communities they serve. But none of these are “miracle” schools, schools whose philosophy and teaching methods, if replicated elsewhere, would automatically provide an excellent education for all. All of these schools will work for some students and—whether intentionally or by default, be inaccessible to others. There is no one perfect model.
Part of the problem is that when we talk about the dream of “miracle schools,” schools that might solve the problems of education, we’re actually having two different conversations:
One conversation is about education in affluent, middle-class or socioeconomically mixed communities. In these communities, though there may be students living in poverty, the student body on the whole is not coming in far below grade level or suffering from trauma or dislocation. Many parents have finished high school; many have finished college. Families often own homes There Are No Miracle Schools. But There Are Some Really Good Ones. | Gatsby In L.A.:
