The problem is not too few teachers. It's too many unqualified teachers. The Department of Education itself reports that 36 percent of public school teachers of academic subjects neither majored nor minored in the subject they teach. Yet, for example, a retired mathematician could not teach in a public school for the lack of teaching "credentials."
Indeed, a recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that class size and other resources have less effect on student performance than teacher quality. There are better ways to spend the money, such as providing annual scholarships to low-income pupils to escape from the educational prisons into private or charter schools, or tuition grants to the nation's teachers to actually learn more about the subjects they teach.
As Hanushek notes, "The evidence gives no reason to believe that reducing overall class size will have any effect on student performance." So why do it? Well, maybe because teachers get more jobs, unions get more members and more dues, politicians get more votes, and soccer moms feel all warm and fuzzy.
Daniel John Sobieski
Chicago, IL
A fascinating article. It cuts right through the circuitous hypothesizing that is so popular in the subject of education today.
Pat Collins
Sheridan, OR
colfam@open.org
I just have to say to Mr. Hazlett, "You're the Man!" Once again, in a clear, concise, factual, and insightful article, you have hit one way out of the ballpark!
David P. Reinhardt
Seattle, WA
dpr@davidpreinhardt
Thomas W. Hazlett replies: Many thanks for the kind words--and the chance to plug one more deserving inner-city school working miracles: Saint Elizabeth's Elementary School (4052 S. Wabash Ave., Chicago, IL 60653). Joe Klein turned me on to this little academic oasis with a piece he wrote in Newsweek in 1996, and I'm very pleased to pass the plate on its behalf.
TV Talking
I read with great delight "I Want My Satellite TV" (April). I've been a communications lawyer for more than 20 years, but I've never understood the issues and rules you describe--until your plain-English, real-life explanation.
I offer the following observations on the subject:
First, forbidding people in Area 1 to see local stations from Area 2, so as to preserve the monopoly of Area 1 stations over the people there, benefits a small but powerful group--Congress. For example, Congressman Bloop, who represents Area 1, wants "Re-Elect Bloop" ads to reach everyone in Area 1 (especially on the major network stations, which still get about 50 percent of the prime time viewers). If people in Area 1 can get Area 2 stations, it denies Congressman Bloop an unequaled concentration of the eyes and ears (voters) in Area 1.
Second, I wonder whether allowing satellites to beam down Area 1 stations in Area 1, Area 2 stations in Area 2, and so on, is really a solution. Specifically, I wonder if it's technically feasible with today's satellites. There are more than 1,000 local over-the-air TV stations in this country, and I wonder if any satellite a) has that capacity and b) can direct Area 1 stations just to Area 1.
Third, although the "must carry" rules were originally intended to save all over-the-air stations, they no longer benefit the big ones (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC). Those stations don't need "must carry" rules because any cable network must carry them to get customers. In fact, NBC may tell cable systems, "I'll let you show NBC on your lousy cable system only if you also show, for free, CNBC and MSNBC." The people who benefit today from "must carry" regulations are the small over-the-air stations.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
nfl jerseys|11.15.10 @ 2:42AM|#
xjtryhxdtr