With great and continuing fanfare, the Clinton Administration is promoting the idea that America's education problems can be addressed by a federal plan to hire 100,000 teachers for kindergarten through grade 12.

Presumably, in the logic of the Department of Education, these teachers can fill gaps in urban clasrooms and reduce class size - the ratio of students to teachers. The guiding principle is that a lower student-teacher ratio allows for more individual attention, which translates into a higher level of student attainment.

That there isn't a scintilla of evidence to support this proposition doesn't seem to influence the Clinton crowd. It continues to employ the mantra of additional teachers, accompanied by a supporting chorus from the National Education Association, the largest teacher's union.

Adding 100,000 teachers to the total of 2.8 million teachers in public and private schools would lower class size from 17 students to every teacher to 16.4 students to every teacher. What this "improvement" would signify, however, is difficult to determine.

In Texas, for example, the student-teacher ratio is 15.5-to-1, well below the national average, yet the state graduation rate is 58.4 percent, number 43 in the nation.

By contrast, the student-teacher ratio in Utah is one of the highest in the nation at 24.4-to-1, yet the state graduation rate is a soaring 78.4 percent.

Can the federal government provide any sensible leadership on the education issue?

The most devastating answer can be found in Washington, D.C., which is under the control of Congress. Teacher salaries in the District of Columbia are the sixth highest in the United States, the student-teacher ratio is a low 14.9-to-1 and the district ranks number 2 in average expenditure per pupil. Yet the graduation rate is the country's lowest.

One might assume, based on these numbers, that the student-teacher ratio is irrelevant to student performance and that adding 100,000 teachers to the corps of instructors won't improve the deplorable state of American education.

Studies in Japan, where the average class size is almost twice that of the United States, indicate that the number of students in a class has little, if any, influence on student achievement.

The 100,000 figure is purely a public relations effort to make the Clinton administration appear to be addressing concerns that American public education is inferior.

Of course, there are recommendations that could make a difference, but these fall into the category of controversial.

School funding could be used to reward successful schools. Currently, poorly perfoming schools receive more money than schools that do well. The logic is that additional money is needed to address the failing school's problems. Unfortunately, this practice results in rewarding schools that do poorly.

The administration could also suggest that education dollars be attached to kids instead of schools, giving parents the freedom to send their children to the school of their choice.

Teachers could also be compensated on the basis of student performance. At the moment, whether students do well or poorly, teachers salaries are unaffected. Imagine a business in which a salesman's compensation is unrelated to how well he sells his products. In the end, you get nonperformance.

These ideas are not new, but they certainly won't be embraced by the Clinton administration. Instead we get feel-good ideas that simply won't make a difference for schools or for student achievement.