I am currently serving my sixth year as a school administrator at a high school in Arizona, USA. I oversee many areas on my campus, including observation/evaluation of teachers in the mathematics and physical education department, campus safety, discipline for the sophomore class, athletics, transportation, and our maintenance crews. Salient to the topic of Gerrard and Barron’s article, overseeing the maintenance crews involves hiring, evaluating, and supervising members of our team. A brief listing of my responsibilities seems to be making a case for privatisation of ‘non core’ functions so principals can ‘concentrate on the core business of teaching and learning’ (Gerrard and Barron, this issue, X). The previous sentence could not be further from the truth, or at least it is the opposite of my opinion on this topic by way of experience. There are many reasons that come to mind on why I am a staunch advocate for elimination of terms like ‘core’ and ‘non core’, which lead to ‘problematic hierarchies’ (Gerrard and Barron, this issue, X). Below I discuss a few. Gerrard and Barron explain that privatisation of school infrastructure, facilities, and maintenance has resulted in poor working conditions, reduced hours, and lower pay for members of these workforces in Victoria, Australia. Furthermore, by distinguishing ‘non core’ labour from ‘core’ labour through privatisation has reduced the number of these workers by the thousands. This outcome is troublesome because there is strength in numbers and unity as public education employees. This strength is evidenced by successful efforts across the United States where public education personnel (‘core’ and ‘non core’) banded together to demand increased funding, not only for students (Flannery and Litvinov 2018), but also for increasing wages that had declined and at best remained stagnant since the Great Recession of 2007 (Semuels 2017). In my home state of Arizona, for example, the strikes that were orchestrated by teachers and support staff led to the Governor of Arizona to sign a bill that increased funding for salaries of all school personnel as well as funding for textbooks, technology, and improving infrastructure (Flannery and Litvinov 2018). Gerrard and Barron state, ‘as teachers attempt to demarcate their work as professional, and use a range of unions and professional bodies in pursuit of this aim, the labour conducted in the service schooling (such as cleaning, maintenance and infrastructure), are broadly bracketed from their concerns’ (this issue, X). Given the importance of strength in numbers during the educator-led strikes that swept the United States, I am left

中文翻译：

---

有问题的等级制度：公共教育中“非必要”责任的划分和私有化：对“清洁公共教育：学校私有化”的回应

我目前在美国亚利桑那州的一所高中担任学校行政人员的第六年。我负责监督校园内的许多领域，包括对数学和体育系教师的观察/评估、校园安全、二年级纪律、体育、交通和我们的维修人员。对于杰拉德和巴伦文章的主题，监督维护人员涉及雇用、评估和监督我们团队的成员。我的职责的简要清单似乎正在为“非核心”职能的私有化提供理由，以便校长可以“专注于教学的核心业务”（杰拉德和巴伦，本期，X）。前一句话离事实不远了，或者至少从经验的角度来看，这与我对这个话题的看法相反。有很多原因让我想到了为什么我是一个坚定的倡导者，以消除诸如“核心”和“非核心”之类的术语，这些术语会导致“有问题的层次结构”（杰拉德和巴伦，本期，X）。下面我谈几点。杰拉德和巴伦解释说，学校基础设施、设施和维护的私有化导致澳大利亚维多利亚州这些劳动力的工作条件恶劣，工作时间减少，工资降低。此外，通过私有化将“非核心”劳动力与“核心”劳动力区分开来，这些工人的数量减少了数千人。这个结果很麻烦，因为作为公共教育从业人员，人数众多，团结一致。美国各地的公共教育人员（“核心”和“非核心”）联合起来要求增加资金，不仅是为了学生（Flannery 和 Litvinov 2018），而且是为了增加工资，这证明了这种优势。自 2007 年大衰退以来一直处于停滞状态（Semuels 2017）。例如，在我的家乡亚利桑那州，由教师和支持人员策划的罢工导致亚利桑那州州长签署了一项法案，增加了所有学校人员的工资以及教科书、技术和改进的资金。基础设施（Flannery 和 Litvinov 2018）。杰拉德和巴伦说，“因为教师试图将他们的工作划分为专业，并利用一系列工会和专业机构来实现这一目标，在服务学校进行的劳动（例如清洁、维护和基础设施），被广泛地从他们的关注范围内排除（这个问题，X）。考虑到在席卷美国的教育者领导的罢工期间人数力量的重要性，我被留下了