The main point of the article is that the input-directed approach to raising schools’ teaching quality and educational outcomes of students is not working. Officials continuously allocate funds to schools and compare the financial input and output of schools often neglecting student performance. The researcher criticizes the fact that legislators oversee mostly the characteristics that are poorly related to personal achievements such as curricula, school spendings, equipment, and so on while families, student background, and cumulative educational input are often disregarded.
In the studies the author cites, he identifies the problem that most of them are either statistically insignificant or use performance measures not related to educational outcomes. The article is mostly centered on reviewing other works related to educational institutions’ performance measurement. Hanushek reveals that one of the most popular indicators to examine is the teacher/student ratio, which as the author notes is not very reliable. Other measures typically include teacher education and experience levels, expenditures per pupil, and others. Presently, the production-function model measures the teaching expenditures and assumes that this factor explicitly states the level of education quality. The author argues that teachers’ salaries that the expenditures are mostly comprised of are calculated by the number of years of experience, which does not necessarily mean quality.
The author assumes that performance-oriented strategies are needed to achieve better results. He states that quality of education that is directly related to concrete teaching and learning outcomes can and should be measured by a variety of techniques that would show how well students study collectively not individually. Consequently, Hanushek claims that teachers have the utmost importance to student performance and the new teacher quality tests and measures need to be implemented. Various studies cited by the author suggest that present ones are flawed because they do not directly reflect the quality of teaching.
As a policy intervention, he suggests shifting from an input-oriented measuring paradigm to a performance-oriented one. However, Hanushek notes that for centuries now this problem remains unsolved.
One of the positive contributions the researcher has made is the identification of several issues that persist in the current education quality measurement system. He also reviewed the issues that other researchers face in their aspiration to assess the impact of various performance indexes. By bringing up this problem, Hanushek raises awareness of the issue among the scientific community and, perhaps, legislators as well.
However, the article also has its downsides. As such, the author reviews only the negative or flawed practices in the education performance measurement, while positive ones have been almost completely neglected. In criticizing the fact that the education system is to a great extent controlled by policymakers while little influence is observed from students and their families, he does not propose a solution or at least an area for improvement to address the issue. While it is understandable that the author concentrates on the critique, the issue he reviews and the questions he raises, in the end, are fairly obvious and well-known, as he notes himself.
Nonetheless, the problems researched in the article are still relevant in the U.S. today as many schools still face personnel gaps and the quality of education still needs improvement. Despite the study providing little answers, the questions it asks enable legislators and researchers to continue working towards the elaboration of the sustainable and effective education system where both students and teachers are benefitting.