l squared on great principals

If you've ever seen a school with a really great principal, you would be totally amazed. Living in a happy, moderately well off, more-or-less suburban city, there are a lot of good principals. They keep everything running smoothly; they support good ideas that don't cost them money (and a few good ideas that do); and they're nice.

But.

A while back, I lived in a big city, and in this city was a magnet school that emphasized academics. Its goal as a magnet school, was to attract kids that were not ESL, who were not starting from behind, and were not likely to move in the middle of the school year (it had a yearly turnover of 50% of the students, most of whom were ESL--I met a student teacher who was talking about how hard it was to deal with 30% turnover: this was 50%).

That principal was amazing. She had the teachers, the students and the parents all on her bandwagon. So far as I could tell, no one came out of a year at that school without being able to read (OK, I was just a parent, I'm pretty sure they didn't succeed with everyone, but it sure wasn't for lack of trying, or good programs, or reaching out to parents and anyone else who could help).

In this school, there was always full time devoted to reading and writing and math and science. The assemblies were honoring kids for doing well in academics, or improving in academics, or to get parents on board for helping their children succeed in academics. There was a science fair, and the fourth graders performed MacBeth. There was an amazing amount of energy for learning.

I'm afraid I was thoroughly spoiled. If that school, with its challenges, could do so well, why aren't the rich schools doing better? I know it's possible to run a school with dedication and vision and a premium on academics because I've seen it, but it requires energy, and vision on the part of administrators, and that seems to be awfully rare.