They can tell schools how many they should have, but that doesn't mean they'll be able to get them. (Kind of like "People in hell want ice water, but that doesn't mean they'll get it")
And this:
" Every witness in Vergara, on both sides, agreed that teacher quality is the most important in-school determinant of student outcomes."
is insane. The most important factors for student success, the elephant in the room, are parental education and parental income. Sure, teachers make a difference, but it's miniscule compared to the two aforementioned parental parameters.
There's no way I'd teach in a dangerous location. I value my life too much. Teaching can be dangerous even in suburban schools like mine- I've had a few kids have very bad medication related issues while in my class (and one of the kids was violent, and had punched a coach- although I never ever felt in danger, I think if he'd gotten angry with me, I could have been vulnerable). Most teachers go in to teaching because they are social, and relatively friendly, and they don't want to carry guns, or work in a war zone. For those teachers who want to, more power to them- they're doing heroic work, but for most really gifted teachers, are they really going to want to work in dangerous, impoverished areas? Probably not. So how do you get those kids these fabulously qualified individuals? Because fabulously qualified individual can work where they want to work- that's the way the market is. I get offers all the time- just got one from a new start up school in San Jose- offering much more cash than I make in the public sector, but I'm not even tempted. I love where I am, who I work with, and what I do- and I would probably do it for free (and have in the past) but I probably won't share that with my employer. |
