¶ … Doug Harris, "Identifying Optimal Class Sizes and Teacher Salaries," attempts to apply cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) when comparing class-size reduction policies with the raising of teacher salaries. In particular, this essay hopes to arrive at the solution of which is more cost effective: reducing class sizes or increasing teacher salaries?

The answer, according to the author, is that it depends upon the analysis method used. However, that is not the "true" answer. Even with two different analysis methods used by way of example in this essay, the author still comes to the conclusion that, ultimately, it is more cost effective to raise teachers' salaries than it is to decrease class sizes. The author comes to this conclusion based on two "strong" assumptions: that the effects of schooling are determined by their effects on test scores, and that there are no other benefits gained as a result.

A found this essay and the author's conclusion to be rather disappointing. Instead, I think there needs to be a happy medium between both. Teachers' salaries need to be increased because these people are valuable resources and have a very important job -- educating our future leaders -- and they are often underpaid and overworked. However, studies show that students who are in smaller classes do better because there is more personal attention paid to them and the students are able to develop a bond with their teachers, which also translates into better test scores.

A found the author's assumptions to be unrealistic and too limiting given the scope of the subject matter. I don't think, in this case, that the education of our children can be looked at as being akin to profit and margin losses in a business plan. Rather than doing what the essay title suggested, which was finding the optimal balance between class sizes and teacher salaries, the author instead seemed biased towards increasing teachers' salaries at the expense of class sizes. In my opinion, that lack of compromise and obvious bias is unacceptable.