I reject your efforts to force everything into your "us vs. them", conservative vs. liberal, frame. I give millions of dollars to 'progressive' causes and I consider the head of the NEA a personal friend. That doesn't change what I see. I didn't state "this fiction that teachers can't be sanctioned, fired, etc." (although that is certainly true, not fiction; no one can seriously argue that it's not much more difficult to fire a Mountain View public school teacher than it is a Google software engineer) or anything about "regulations" (although it is certainly true that rules protecting teachers should be subject to collective bargaining, not written into California law as they are now). All I said is a matter of pretty obvious fact: the system
(which includes a wide variety of factors, including low pay, as you mention, as well as things like teachers being primarily paid based on seniority rather than on the quality of their work, and managers who have little control or jurisdiction over those who work for them) prioritizes 'fairness' over 'effectiveness' in teaching. I visited a successful public school in the Bronx a few weeks ago; the principal still has to get the teachers to vote every year on whether to waive the rules that would prevent the school from operating according to the methods that makes it successful. That's not a system
that you would come up with if you were just focused on effectiveness. You would build something more like the private sector, where people are employed at-will and executives have broad discretion but also more accountability than public school administrators and principals now have.