Education, The Economy, and Talking Dogs

by Robert Pondiscio
December 31st, 2009

If schools produce well-educated and skilled graduates, the nation’s economy will grow.  That belief has been at the very heart of school reform since the late-1970s.  Yet the belief is suspect, Larry Cuban points out, ”because even economists, the ones who are expected to know, cannot point with assurance at precisely which factors cause economic growth.”

In 2004, a group of top economists published the Barcelona Development Agenda announcing in it that ‘there is no single set of policies that can be guaranteed to ignite sustained growth.’ Not that economists are shy about identifying factors that explain economic growth. It is just that there are too many explanations. One recent survey found 145 separate factors linked to economic growth, yet most of these factors could not be isolated as ones that caused heightened growth. Yes, formal education was one of the 145 factors.

Cuban writes on his blog that no one cites the example of Switzerland, which is one of Europe’s wealthiest countries, “yet has the lowest university attendance and graduation rates among OECD countries.”  Similarly, he points out, several developing African nations including Angola, Zambia, Ghana have made major investments in education and increased their graduation rates with little discernible economic impact.   The Stanford education professor cites ventriloquist Todd Oliver and Irving, his talking dog, as a “harmless shared illusion,” since no one really believes the dog can talk.  But the idea that education exists to grow the economy, he writes, is not a harmless illusion.

There are many reasons to have strong schools in a society beyond, but including, economic ones. Although they hardly get mentioned by policymakers save in throwaway lines at graduation ceremonies, expanded literacy in service of developing an engaged citizenry who, in fulfilling their civic obligations, build better communities and live moral lives are, and have been, historic reasons for investing tax dollars in American schools.

“Historically, schools have sought to serve society and the individual in many ways beyond job preparation,” Cuban writes.  “Not now.”

It’s The Economy, Stupid. Right?

by Robert Pondiscio
October 23rd, 2008

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says failing public schools pose America’s greatest national security concern–undermining the United States’ ability to lead and to compete in a global economy.  Speaking at a conference in Long Beach, California, Rice said it breaks her heart to see “kids who might be the next Nobel Prize winner trapped in some public school that’s just basically warehousing them.”

As a secretary of state, it makes me terrified because if we cannot do better in educating all of our people, then we are not going to be competitive in a global economy…We’re going to become protectionist, we’re going to turn inward, the United States is not going to lead.

In an unrelated NY Times op-ed, the Berkeley professor of education and public policy Bruce Fuller takes exception to fusing “the fundamental purpose of schooling to the capitalist yearning for economic expansion.”

Sure, as parents we want our children to succeed economically. But we also worry about whether they are forming supportive friendships in school and becoming confident thinkers in the hands of nurturing teachers. While contemporary parents still subscribe to humanistic ideals when it comes to children’s well-rounded development, the new utilitarian approach is too quick to fuse schooling to dollar signs. Do we really need more college-educated workers or would we be better off with young people who are employed and engaged in their local communities?