Chad Freer of Portland, OR asks:

Will Clinton's proposal for more teachers really help? What can Senators and Representatives really do about education? It seems to me that governors and mayors should be talking about education in local elections, I don't understand the relevance of a nation debate.

Jane Hannaway responds:

This question is a good one for a number of reasons. The amount of funding is not large enough to have a dramatic effect on the number of school teachers hired in schools in the United States. Small school districts, which constitute a large fraction of school districts in the U.S., are unlikely to receive enough funding to cover even one additional teacher. In the short term, the value of the funding for teachers will, in large part, depend on how school districts decide to allocate additional teachers. There is evidence, for example, that small class size has benefits for disadvantaged children in the primary grades. If districts choose to allocate additional teachers to the low grades in particularly needy schools, there could be significant benefits to the children in those schools. Districts, however, also have to worry about absorbing the long-term costs of hiring new teachers. There is no guarantee the federal funds will continue to be available for this purpose. This uncertainty could affect the allocation decisions of school districts. Legitimate questions can also be raised about the availability of certified teachers for new positions. Some analysts argue that the negative consequences of hiring less-than-qualified teachers in California, when class size was reduced in the primary grades, more than offset the benefit of smaller classes.

In addition to it direct effect on teachers, however, the actions of the federal government could have indirect effects. And the indirect effects may be far more significant. The discussion and the actions at the federal level could foster discussion and debate in state capitals and local districts about appropriate class size, especially in the lower grades. Such a discussion could lead to greater awareness and greater investment by states and districts in the classrooms of young children.

Chester Finn responds:

No, the President's proposal will not help. In fact, it will likely hurt our schools, especially those serving our most disadvantaged students.

American average class sizes, and pupil-teacher ratios, have steadily declined through the 20th century--with what to show by way of results? The research is fairly clear: teacher quality is much more important than class size. You're far better off in a class of 40 with a crackerjack teacher than in a class of 18 that is presided over by a dud. Class size reduction plans, like the one in California, have also tended to draw experienced teachers from inner-city schools into new positions in the suburbs. That saddles inner-city schools with more of a problem than they already have: too few good teachers. The real teacher crisis is quality, not quantity.

You are right that this debate (on class size) should be taking place at the local level. Everything we know about effective organizations says that important decisions should be made as close to home as possible.