For maybe 3-5 years, when the feral majority of the students drag the bestest of the best down to their level. Then switch again. And again and again until hell freezes over.
But for the first year or so, these cream of the crop teachers just may have some success and some of these kids might get an education. Maybe. Hopefully. Probably not.
Students from "feral" urban ghetto backgrounds, with rare exceptions, have little interest in academic learning. In fact, there is a strong anti-education subculture afoot. Students who try to get good grades are ridiculed by the boors in classes. Often, they go along with the disruptive students in trying to derail the class to avoid being called "oreos" or actually being beat up.
It would not matter if you put the "best" or the "worst" teachers in front of such students. Why should the "best" teachers be rewarded for their skills by being placed into classrooms where they will not be respected, they will be the target of the lowest dirtiest gutter language, where they will have empty plastic beverage containers thrown at them, be spit on, and threatened if they dare to impose any sort of control ("Please sit down. Please be quiet. Please put away that cell phone.")?
And why should the students who strive to learn be "rewarded" with less skilled teachers? Is that fair to them?
Your proposed scheme of switching teachers between schools is also not realistic nor productive. Teachers develop educational communities within schools, find out their available resources, and maintain relationships with students. A student you had as a freshman might come to you for a college recommendation letter 3 years later, or you might get some joy at attending the graduation and seeing your "babies" off. Uprooting teachers is also very disruptive and wastes a lot of time with readjustments--perhaps the new school is farther away, perhaps there is little parking available, the time schedule is certainly going to be different, the intra-school procedures are going to be different, etc. etc.