And, if it does make a difference, is there any reason to allow bad teachers to continue to teach?
Those are two impolite questions that have been raised by scholars who normally side with Democrats. That bit of information is interesting because teachers unions have been longtime supporters of Democratic candidates.
The Wall Street Journal’s David Wessel discussed these issues in a column April 6.
At issue is a 34-page paper by economist Douglas Staiger of Dartmouth College, Thomas Kane of Harvard University, and Robert Gordon, who served as domestic policy adviser for the John Kerry campaign for president in 2004.
The paper cites research in the Los Angeles school district. That research showed that students did substantially better when they had good teachers rather than bad ones.
That research also suggests that it is possible to find out within two or three years whether a teacher is good or bad. Kane, Staiger and Gordon suggest that it would be smarter and more cost-effective to get rid of bad teachers and hire more good ones. They suggest that would have a greater impact than simply lowering class sizes — a more expensive proposition because it would require hiring more teachers.
In addition to this paper, another proposal is coming from the liberal Democratic side. Former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has created the Hamilton Project (named after Alexander Hamilton, our first treasury secretary) to take a hard look at teacher tenure. The proposal wouldn’t eliminate tenure, but would encourage school districts to think in those terms through financial incentives.
There are reasons for tenure, of course, and teachers unions have raised concerns about how teachers would be made more accountable — and worry that the new accountability measures would be unfairly applied.
Still, if we are looking at taking a harder look at the outcomes of public education, then we need to consider the possibility that tenure might reward bad teaching as well as good.
In any case, this is a discussion worth having.
|
More Opinion: |


To Re wrote on May 5, 2006 9:33 AM: