城市经济学奥沙利文Chap012PPT文档格式.ppt

1、White=43%;Black=12%Math proficiency:White=51%;Black=14%12-312-412-512-6Production function:Achievement=f（H,P,C,E,T）H（home）:rules for homework;motivation;instructional materialP（classroom peer）:boosted by smart&motivated peersSweden:increase P（50th to 84th pct）increases A（50th to 54th pct）Tradeoffs w

2、ith peer effect:Sorting versus MixingLow achiever benefits at cost of high achiever Mixed evidence:Gains of low vs.loss of high12-7Differences in Teacher ProductivityInner city:Gap between high-quality&low-quality teacher=1 grade levelTeacher swap:Replace average teacher（50th pct）with superior teach

3、er（84th pct）Average student moves from 50th to 58th student percentileEarnings（58th）-earnings（50th）=$21,311For 20-student class,value of superior teacher=$426,00012-8Characteristics of Productive TeachersList of productivity characteristics is elusiveEducation level:no evidence that graduate coursew

4、ork increases productivityExperience increases productivity for first few yearsVerbal skills increase productivity12-9Effects of Class SizeAchievement increases as class size decreasesFigure 12-1:Efficient number of teachersMarginal benefit curve negatively sloped:diminishing returnsMarginal cost cu

5、rve horizontal at teacher wageEfficiency:MB=MCEvidence MB（earnings）close to MC12-1012-11Teacher Compensation:Experience premium puzzle Teacher compensation increases by roughly$1,000 per yearProductivity doesnt increase with experience after 3 years20-year teacher earns 1.44 times as much as a 3-yea

6、r teacherFigure 12-2:Efficient level of experience decrease spending inequality12-23Matching Grants:Guaranteed Tax BaseMatching grant increases with amount of local revenueMatch rate=0.25=$0.80 of local revenue generates$0.20 grantLocal cost per dollar of spending=1/（1+m）=1/1.25=$0.80Matching&non-ma

7、tching grants have income effectMatching grant also has substitution effect:lower opportunity cost of local spending causes substitution in favor of grant-supported good12-24Guaranteed Tax Base（GTB）Grant=Local tax rate （Guaranteed tax base per pupil-Local tax base per pupil）ExampleGuaranteed base=$2

8、50,000;Local base=$200,000Tax rate=0.02=Grant=$1,000;Local revenue=$4,000,for a total of$5,000Tax rate=0.025=Grant=$1,250;Local revenue=$5,000,for a total of$6,25012-2512-26Effects of Equalization PlansStates responding to court ordersDecrease in spending inequalities from leveling upFor low-spendin

9、g districts,spending increased by 27%For medium spending districts,spending increased by 15%For high spending districts,spending unchangedStates not responding to court orders:No significant change 12-27Michigan:Complete Control of K-12 FinanceReform increased spending in rural districts decreased s

10、pending in poor urban areas&rich suburban areasReform increased achievement where spending increasedsmaller class size higher teach salaries and productivity12-28Central cities and equalization plansUrban schools:large number of low-income studentsHigher cost for security,family/health crisesWeak ac

11、ademic preparation,limited English skillsEqualization programs:relatively small increase in funding or decrease in funding12-29Education in Central CitiesRelatively low achievement from unfavorable home environment and peersPolicy:Improve quality of teachersPolicy:Decrease class sizePolicy:Improve learning environment?12-30