THE TEACHING DILEMMA
March 11, 2005
Over the past half-century, the number of pupils in U.S. schools grew by about 50 percent while the number of teachers nearly tripled. What America has done, these past 50 years, is invest in more teachers rather than better ones, even as countless appealing and lucrative options have opened up for the able women who once poured into public schooling, says Chester E. Finn Jr., a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Why did we triple the size of the teaching work force instead of paying more to a smaller number of stronger people? Three reasons:
- The seductiveness of smaller classes; teachers want fewer kids in their classrooms and parents think their children will be better off, despite scant evidence that students learn more in smaller classes, particularly from less able instructors.
- The institutional interests that benefit from a larger teaching force, above all dues-collecting (and influence-seeking) unions, and colleges of education whose revenues (tuition, state subsidies) and size (all those faculty slots) depend on their enrollments.
- The social forces pushing schools to treat children differently from one another, creating one set of classes for the gifted, others for children with handicaps, those who want to learn Japanese, who seek full-day kindergarten or who crave more community-service opportunities.
Nobody has resisted. It was not in anyone's interest to keep the teaching ranks sparse, while many interests were served by helping them to swell. Today, we pay the price: lots of money spent on schooling, nearly all of it for salaries, but schooling that, at the end of the day, depends on the knowledge, skills and commitment of teachers who don't earn much and cannot see that they ever will, explains Finn.
Source: Chester E. Finn Jr., "Teacher Can't Teach," Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2005.
For text (subscription required):
Browse more articles on Education Issues