According to the article:
There will be telephone and in-person interviews, and applicants will have to submit multiple forms of evidence attesting to their students’ achievement and their own prowess; only those scoring at the 90th percentile in the verbal section of the GRE, GMAT or similar tests need apply. The process will culminate in three live teaching auditions.
Of course the article states that the experiment calls into question "how teachers should be selected, compensated and judged", so this may or may not be the best way of selecting "great" teachers.
"They", of course, being the taxpayer (whether or not they have children that attend the government schools).
It is hard to tell for certain from the article, but it sounds as though the school itself will not cost more per student than other schools, but that the school will eliminate other costs and positions (making teachers do those jobs as well), have less technology than other schools, and have higher class sizes so that almost all the money spent on the school can go toward paying the higher teacher salaries.
However my primary comments were addressed towards the concept of breaking the school system out of the hands of government. It certainly disrupts our 'comfort zone' (seeing how we've gotten comfortable with increasing levels of mediocrity from our schools) - but the benefits would be great. Better schools. Better opportunities for good teachers. Accountability. AND smaller government.
This will be a government school, so I suspect there is no way you would like it no matter how it was constituted, but the stated purpose is to provide "Better schools. Better opportunities for good teachers.[and] Accountability."
Would you at least concede that since it is making the unions uncomfortable and challenging their way of doing things, it might be a good start and/or a useful experiment?
Thanks for summarizing the 'greatness' metrics. On the surface it sounds good - but of course the devil is in the details, and how the selection committee actually weighs the data.
I am very skeptical about the comment that:
"but it sounds as though the school itself will not cost more per student than other schools, but that the school will eliminate other costs and positions (making teachers do those jobs as well), have less technology than other schools, and have higher class sizes so that almost all the money spent on the school can go toward paying the higher teacher salaries."
I agree that 'technology' is overblown with respect to K-12 education (the rage - in the 90s - to get computers into all of the classrooms and to 'wire' them onto Al Gore's Internet was insane. Learn the basics well, and let the other 'stuff' come later - as needed). But, I just don't see these folks balancing a budget -- they never have. Saying that they are going to balance the higher salaries by cutting budgets, increasing class sizes, eliminating admin positions, etc., sounds nice - but I just see this as something being stated for public consumption, and not intended to be implemented.
This will be a government school, so I suspect there is no way you would like it no matter how it was constituted, ... Would you at least concede that since it is making the unions uncomfortable and challenging their way of doing things, it might be a good start and/or a useful experiment?
You are correct on the first point - after 40 years of deteriorating school quality, I'm of the 'End it, Don't Mend it' persuasion. But in regards to your second point - yes, I concede that in principle this sounds like a positive program. I just believe that because it is operating within the existing system -- IF it shows evidence of success the system's anti-bodies will kill it, to ensure the survival of the host (the unions, and school establishment). So from an abstract perspective? - sure, sounds like a great idea. From the track record of the organization it is trying to fix? - it won't work, the government needs to get out of the school system and the schools need to demonstrate (and be held accountable) for producing good product in a competitive environment.