Eric Alan Hanushek (/ˈhænəʃɛk/;[1] born May 22, 1943) is an American economist who has written prolifically on public policy with a special emphasis on the economics of education.

Since 2000, he has been a Paul and Jean Hanna Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution,[2][3][4] an American public policy think tank located at Stanford University in California.

In his most recent book, The Knowledge Capital of Nations, Hanushek concludes that the quality of education is causally related to economic growth.

[7] Hanushek is a periodic contributor to the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal and also appears in court cases as a paid expert witness testifying for the state in lawsuits brought by plaintiffs attempting to equalize disparities in funding of school districts.

[8] Hanushek received a Bachelor of Science degree from the United States Air Force Academy in 1965 and a PhD in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1968.

Hanushek is married to Margaret (Macke) Raymond, director of the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University.

Since the early 1970s, when plaintiffs have filed lawsuits seeking to overthrow school funding based on local property taxes as inequitable, Hanushek has been called to testify as an expert witness in defense of the state.

[10] The 20 school funding trials at which Hanushek has testified over the years include Serrano v. Priest (1973) in California, Somerset County Board of Education v Hornbeck in Maryland (1980), and Abbott v. Burke (1987) in New Jersey.

Citing Hanushek and Lindseth in a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court held that in evaluating the actions of the state, attention should focus on student outcomes rather than on inequalities of spending and other inputs to schools.

In that case, Denver District Judge Sheila Rappaport issued a 189-page decision rejecting the state's arguments, writing that: "Dr. Hanushek's analysis that there is not much relationship in Colorado between spending and achievement contradicts testimony and documentary evidence from dozens of well-respected educators in the State, defies logic, and is statistically flawed.

For his part, Hanushek maintains that state and federal court decisions "of the type we describe" (namely, rejecting funding equity appeals) may be justified because they "may persuade the legislature to adopt the more ‘disruptive’ reforms that may actually lead to improvements in student achievement.

[14] According to Hanushek, when placed in the common value-added form, his model identifies the impact of added resources, given prior achievement and other non-school factors.

One critic, Larry Hedges, used meta-analysis of Hanushek's own figures to contend that $100 spent per pupil (1989 dollars) would in fact raise student achievement by one-fifth of a standard deviation.

Citing with approval Frederick M. Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, he argues that court decisions over funding adequacy, may create a policy ‘window’ in which "judicial cover is provided for legislative activities and a variety of remedies are put forward.

"[20] Hanushek's other claim, that class size has no consistent effect on educational performance,[21] is vehemently disputed by Alan Krueger,[22] among others.

[31] By his calculations, average U.S. PISA scores would increase to the level of Canada, or maybe even Finland, and that higher U.S. growth would lead to substantial economic gains.

The same authors also issued a more general article, "School Leaders Matter", explaining their conclusions in the Hoover Institute magazine Education Next 13: 1 (Winter 2013).

In a review, Margaret Terry Orr agreed that principals can have positive effects but she questioned whether value added methods could ever adequately measure their performance, faulting the authors for using "sloppy terminology" and ignoring "a large body of research.

[39] In contrast, the variance in achievement appears to have no systematic influence, leading them to conclude that ability grouping per se has no separate impact.

[45] Breton has challenged the validity of Hanushek's claim that cognitive skills, as measured by international test scores, are a more accurate indicator of a nation's capabilities than years of schooling.

[52] In 2011, a United States National Research Council panel issued a report that concluded that empirical results do not support the use of such test-based accountability policies such as the No Child Left Behind Act and high school exit exams.

The report concluded that such incentives, which now have been in place for many years, at best have succeeded in raising scores only minutely in the earliest grades and then only in math.

[55] The re-authorization of the No Child Left Behind Act and plans for expansion of high school exit examinations now hinge on the outcome of these debates.

Together with Ludger Woessmann of the University of Munich and other co-authors, Hanushek has developed comparative data-based approaches for identifying the impact of differing educational systems.

Hanushek and Woessmann, however, caution that merely improving access can do little, unless students' cognitive skills are raised, which they say is not happening in many developing countries.

[64] Hanushek has advocated targeted policies, such as providing text books, which can lead to more efficient schooling by cutting down on grade repetition.