How much does school choice matter? Probably less than you think, as Levitt has previously argued. Now, in an analysis of seven years of test-score data from 6,000 Los Angeles teachers, the L.A. Times, assisted by a senior Rand Corp. economist, has found teacher effectiveness to be three times more influential than school attendance on student performance. What’s more, the Times reports, “the best teachers were not concentrated in schools in the most affluent neighborhoods, nor were the weakest instructors bunched in poor areas. … The quality of instruction typically varied far more within a school than between schools.” More data from the study is here. (HT: Amanda Ripley) [%comments]
Better Schools, or Better Teachers?
and 
. You can also watch it on 
School choice has never been tried on a meaningful scale. Until we have at least a major city worth of private choice schools in operation for about 10 years, it is foolish to judge the idea one way or another.
Markets take time to adjust to consumer preferences. Choice schools need that time.
To clarify my first post, we should not be looking at the results of teachers in choice schools or at the results of choice schools. We need to look at the over time results of a choice system compared to our existing system.
The big improvements that we could have using an all private choice system are indeed systemic. There will still be lousy teachers and even some lousy schools but the incentives will be aligned so the problems get better rather than worse.
The bonus of a private choice system would be to slow down urban sprawl. As young families would no longer have to move to exurbia in search of affordable housing in good school districts.
Yet the best teacher’s are paid the same as the worst teachers.
I think this analysis ignores the theory that administrations will respond to the ability of students to move by aggressively recruiting the best teachers, removing bad ones.
David – not in Los Angeles. Teachers are never removed in Los Angeles public schools.
More telling than the numbers, were the observations by reporters. Amazingly, the teachers who kept their students’ attention and challenged them to think critically were the teachers with the highest gains. The sweet and loved teachers at my school with the ability to do neither of the above are kept around because they are sweet and loved, not because they are good at what they do. That should change.
As long as there are teacher unions we will have the issues we currently have.
A teacher union is actually closer to a professional sports league union than a trade union. In a trade union like carpenters after a worker spends 3 to 4 years learning the trade they become a full-fledge carpenter. Here is the kicker that worker with 4 or 5 years experience makes the same as the worker with 25 years experience. This is not the case for teachers. A teacher with 25 years experience is going to make a ton more than a teacher with say 5 years experience. Who is the better teacher? We don’t know. Yet that is the most important factor to our child suceeding.
I would not mind the teacher unions if all full-fledged teachers made the same amount. But having teachers that make over 100K and get a pension is crazy when there are workers in the workforce willing to do the same job for less.
At the same time, better schools attract better teachers. Here in SC, schools are very hit or miss, with many more misses than hits. I’ve talked to a number of teachers, and believe me, the competition between them to teach at the better schools is FIERCE. This is a state with a 65% high school graduation rate. How many teachers who really care about success want to work in an environment where 1/3 of the students would rather sit at home without a diploma than pay attention? Sure, there are a few “superhero” teachers who look forwards to that challenge. but not many. Or to put it this way, Would the Freakonomics folks be willing to leave Chicago U. and head out to… I don’t know… some dumpy school with crumbling facilities, toilets that don’t work, students that will throw stuff at them and sleep in class, be high or drunk through class, perhaps have a weapon with them, and insult them all day long? Because that’s what a “bad school” looks like. If the answer is “yes” then maybe I will say that the school doesn’t matter. But the answer isn’t “yes” then I’ve made my point. And do you REALLY think those kinds of conditions do not affect the quality of education much?
Yes, the teacher matters more than the school. But it is so hard to get a good education, and so few good teachers want to teach in those conditions, that a better school environment is a baseline requirement for a good education.
J.Ja