Uh huh. Typical circular argument: “They do well because they are smart. How do we know that they are smart? Because they do well”. IQ is a meaningless term which was invented to support a system which ensures that poor families stay poor by blaming them for their poverty. IQ is a smoke screen for hiding privilege, racism, and classism.
Alabama law says that “public employees are not authorized to picket to compel a labor contract”. They may not as well have unions, if state law takes away the only weapon by which public employees can protect themselves.
Because of funding. If you fund public schools generously, and pay teachers very well, and support them, your school system will do well. Well equipped and supplied schools with teachers who are well educated and trained will perform well. But if your school lack basic facilities, and teachers are paid so poorly that few teachers who have alternative possibilities will apply, and those who apply are afraid of angering parents and politicians, the school is going to suck.
If a school offers great pay, benefits, and facilities, they will be able to pick and choose the very best teachers from the many ma y teachers who will be lined up to apply. A school which has poor pay and in which teachers have to buy the basic class materials with their own money, will have difficulty even hiring enough teachers to provide basic classes, and will take anybody with the minimal credentials. Add “at will” hiring, and you are left with a few idealists who burn out after a couple of years, and a bunch of teachers who could not get hired elsewhere.
Of course, you can always add basing a teacher’s pay on performance at standardized testing as an extra bonus to chase off a few more good teachers.
But I’m sure that your idea of making a teacher’s job even less appealing than it already is will help K-12 education more than funding and support will.