classroom phenomena and have effects that are felt throughout entire school districts" (p.327).Monk raises the possibility that there is no production function for education; that no "systematic process governs the transformation of inputs into outcomes" (p. 342). Many of the same themes are reprised in Monk's 1992 article. He begins by pointing out the current policy push towards what he calls "outcomes as standards" -- the idea that educational outcomes can be improved by setting and enforcing higher standards. He notes that there is a paradox between pessimistic assessments of productivity research in education and the growing drive towards improving productivity, which requires "a nontrivial store of knowledge regarding the ability of state, district, and school officials to enhance productivity" (1992, p.307). Monk's view is that "...the underlying model of education productivity is inadequate and has not evolved much.... The weakness of the conceptualization gives rise to much of the policy- making frustration." (p. 308) In particular, Monk argues that education productivity research has failed to consider the ways in which production in education is different from other kinds of production. For example, Monk notes that some outcomes of schools are also inputs to later production (e.g., knowledge gained in primary school is an input to learning in secondary school). He points out that many of the most important inputs in education, such as family and peer influences, are not purchased and are difficult to account for. Most relevant to this discussion, he acknowledges that "student time and effort are central ingredients in education production" (p. 315). David H. Monk’s (1996) study of the New York State K-12 system found a 55 percent increase in secondary-level special-education instructional resources between 1983 and 1992, alongside modest increases in allocations for science and math teachers. These findings raise quest...
