US charter schools aren’t stuck with the tenure rules that make firing teachers difficult:
“Known as the CREDOstudy, it evaluated student progress on math tests in half the nation’s five thousand charter schools and concluded that 17 percent were superior to a matched traditional public school; 37 percent were worse than the public school; and the remaining 46 percent had academic gains no different from that of a similar public school. The proportion of charters that get amazing results is far smaller than 17 percent.”
|—||or they knew because good results would mean more students many schools would cheat. In 2010 there were 34 breaches. In 2011 there were over 50.|
|—||It’s so insulting how every time someone criticizes how much money private schools get from the government compared to public schools, they’re attacked by conservatives for being “jealous” and “envious”. Why the hell shouldn’t they be?, it isn’t fair. Why should the government be paying for billiard tables and marble columns while in public schools children are being poisoned by broken heaters? It’s class warfare, but not against the wealthy.|
It entrenches a jaded union attitude that is essentially defeatist and deeply classist, holding that students in remote or disadvantaged schools might need to be taught, but only under sufferance. It extends the tyranny of low expectations to teachers. Instead of transferring reluctant teachers to “undesirable” schools as a hardship tour for which they will be compensated later with a supposedly cushy posting, we should be attracting committed teachers who relish a challenge and genuinely believe that all children have the right and ability to learn.
But why can’t teachers who want a “challenge” at a remote or disadvantaged schools do so under the current transfer points scheme? Without a point system, how are the worse off schools going to compete with the better off schools to get the best teachers? If you work for a couple of years at a school of hard knocks or in some secluded area, why shouldn’t you be rewarded with some time spent teaching at a school it is easier to commute to? If principals have all the power to choose teachers then the schools in the best areas with the biggest perks will get all the best teachers. Education isn’t about making a profit; it’s about educating youth. So why should we treat it like a business? So that the private schools in wealthy schools can continue to suck up most of the resources? It’s free market economic Darwinism, but it isn’t fair to those without the means to get the best.
And why does Miranda believe rural, tough, and disadvantaged schools can get teachers without a point system? Because John Fleming, the deputy principal of Melbourne’s Haileybury College says they can. Clearly he has nothing to gain from the “current principals get to choose” system in Victoria.