Ah, the insanity reigns. This idea that we can do more with the same pot of money is ludicrous. It defies fundamental economics (which is why Hanushek and Chetty talk about econometrics - fancy name meaning they can ignore basic math). Looking at some of Chetty's work on value-added scores and classroom impact, what he's really talking about in an ideal scenario is that a kid MIGHT end up making about $1000 more a year than a peer IF they had the exact right combination of teachers. Not exactly knocking it out of the park in terms of making the case to tie teacher compensation to test scores.
Additionally, instead of the BS idea of teachers giving up pensions, why aren't we talking more about defined-benefits programs for ALL workers? Could a portable pension be developed that is NOT a 401(k)? It seems like using all the econometric brain power on solving some of the logistical challenges of pensions would be more helpful than this crap that makes policymakers happy (because it doesn't cost anything).
Ah, the insanity reigns. This idea that we can do more with the same pot of money is ludicrous. It defies fundamental economics (which is why Hanushek and Chetty talk about econometrics - fancy name meaning they can ignore basic math). Looking at some of Chetty's work on value-added scores and classroom impact, what he's really talking about in an ideal scenario is that a kid MIGHT end up making about $1000 more a year than a peer IF they had the exact right combination of teachers. Not exactly knocking it out of the park in terms of making the case to tie teacher compensation to test scores.
Additionally, instead of the BS idea of teachers giving up pensions, why aren't we talking more about defined-benefits programs for ALL workers? Could a portable pension be developed that is NOT a 401(k)? It seems like using all the econometric brain power on solving some of the logistical challenges of pensions would be more helpful than this crap that makes policymakers happy (because it doesn't cost anything).