The Journal reports, link, that the poorest APS schools have
the poorest teachers; poorest in the sense of lowest paid.
And if you believe that education and experience are generally
good measures of good teaching, they have the poorest
teachers in the sense of least qualified, as well.
This isn't OK.
Poor children have a right to an "average" teacher,
the same kind of teacher that rich kids have a right to.
The situation is the result of natural selection.
Which does not justify allowing it to come to be in the first
place, and does not justify having allowed it to continue.
Monday, June 22, 2009
APS' poorest schools have the poorest teachers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is an awful, but common American practice.
Supes have their "Favored" schools (like La Cueva" and their "I have to deal with this crap" schools like "Rio Grande".
The "beloved" school is always the richest school, the "Bastard" school is the poorest.
Beloved gets well seasoned instructors and "creative funding" beyond the ordinary; the bastard school gets beginning teachers, hand-me-down resources and the main "creative funding" is the mere Title I tidbits.
Post a Comment