Take exam results as a simple measure.
*First: it the whole ethos of the school that affects performance in exams - see NB
So divisions based on envy and jealously result if individuals are singled out for more pay. I have worked in a factory where the worker on the highest bonus for production left it to others to clean up after him and did no maintenance on equipment. The same thing can happen in schools. It needs to be a team effort.
*Secondly: the socio-economic background of the children affects performance.
If children are absent with illness or other family reasons the teacher can have very little influence on this.
*Finally: By my criteria a really good teacher is one who is remembered for a being role model or a mentor and this can’t be assessed until at least 10 years after their pupils have left school.
NB. I have taught craft at a small private school where the children chose when to attend classes. Many of these children have excelled at their chosen professions and also are living stable fulfilled lives. Is this because of the school structure, the teachers, or the parents? Hard to say isn’t it? I think part of the answer is children learn much better when they are enthusiastic and in control of their learning; in most schools teachers have to contend with unwilling pupils, tired pupils, and those for whom the subject matter is boring at their present stage in life; or even at that time of day.

Taking life success as a measure there is a University of Canterbury longitudinal study which found that, at the age of 25, people from public schools fared best followed by co-ed private schools, with single sex private coming last. This is despite single sex private schools achieving the best exam results.

Perhaps “the very best teachers” have realised they are not achieving any lasting results and go to professions that are more satisfying. Many studies have shown that once a comfortable income level is reached other factors such as job satisfaction become more important than more money, for most people.

Thank god you’ll never get more than single-digit percentage voting for you.

Why is public childcare provision “of higher quality” than private? Sounds like ideology to me.

Public funds should go where they get the most bang for their buck. If some operators can’t compete, then that’s their problem. THEY need to lift their game, or go do something else.

Generally, BP, it is common courtesy when debating serious issues to actually provide evidence, theory, or at least anecdotes contradicting your opponent before declaring their argument dismissed.

You don’t get to declare something ideology before you prevent some sort of contradictory evidence to the debate.

Or did they not offer debating in your private school? (I’m kidding of course, I know it’s far more likely that private schools DO offer debating, and that I don’t know that you went to one, but come on BP, be fair now)

First of all the STATE does not pay for anything, the tax payer does.

The taxpayer is the most fundamental part of the state. Nothing can be done without the hard work that generates real wealth, both social and economic. The machinery of the state squirrels away a small amount of what it deems excess to pay for stuff like making sure our kids aren’t driving teachers insane with their inner ear problems.

I guess it’s because there is no such thing is equal opportunity. Their underlying assumptions are wrong, which is why their solutions don’t work.

So long as we get every kid in the ballpark, we’re good. We also need to push our elite to excel.

That is how we survive….

By which I end up reading “their underlying assumptions run counter to the current situation on the ground, therefore I assume they are being idealistic and cannot achieve their goals”.

Really now, I don’t think we’re arguing for anything more than strong minimum standards that are met with actual assessment of those standards, rather than private-sector market forces that do not work for a good that thrives in the public sector like education.

> So long as we get every kid in the ballpark, we’re good. We also need to push our elite to excel.

Neither of which will happen if they have undiagnosed eyesight or hearing problems.

Might incentivise good teachers to go to the schools that would benefit the most from their skills, rather than the schools that already have high achievement.

I can see problems with that too, but the devil is in the details, i guess…

I do agree with paying better teachers more on an individual basis, but support of the schools themselves (outside of teacher compensation) is a bit more problematical for me.

respectfully
BJ

Level playing field is a nice idea, but there is no such thing. Forget equality and focus instead on deliverables. Direct all your efforts into the achievable. Hit the baselines.

Agree that we have to push our “elite”… they aren’t necessarily the children of the wealthy. I am not disagreeing that there is a point to rewarding the best teachers … but rewarding the best schools ?

respectfully
BJ

So long as we get every kid in the ballpark, we’re good. We also need to push our elite to excel.

That is how we survive….

There is a philosophical divide here that I don’t think we’re going to bridge easily.

respectfully
BJ