Saturday, July 29, 2006

Does Education Matter?

A review of "Does Education Matter?" By Alison Wolf

Yes, of course education matters. The author, who holds the Sir Roy Griffiths professorship of public sector management at King's College, London, is not questioning whether education is good at all. Rather, she questions whether governmental efforts to expand "access" to higher education and public training programs are justified. The book's subtitle - myths about education and economic growth - suggests that her answer is in the negative. It certainly is. In my view, Professor Wolf has given us one of the most useful books on education policy in many years because she quietly and carefully demolishes the conventional wisdom that it is imperative for government to "invest" more in higher education. After reading the book, I believe that most people will agree that the best we can do is to provide a solid education in each child's early years and forget about trying to manage higher education and workforce training.

Wolf, who has worked both in the U.S. and in Britain, has heard the standard political rhetoric about the new "knowledge economy" and how it supposedly compels governments to make higher education almost universal. In the finest academic tradition, she asked whether those beliefs are true and found them not to be. She writes, "But doesn't follow is that vast amounts of public spending on education have been the key determinant of how rich we are today. Nor is it obvious that they will decide how much richer, or poorer, we will be tomorrow. The simple one-way relationship which so entrances our politicians and commentators - education spending in, growth out - simply doesn't exist." Saying that in today's education-infatuated world is not unlike saying that the sun doesn't go around the earth in Galileo's time.

A standard -- but completely unsubstantiated - notion in America, Britain, and other advanced countries is that the economy is changing dramatically in ways that call for greater knowledge and skill among the workforce and therefore if a nation fails to educate its workers to a greater extent than in the past, it will find itself falling behind. For example, in a recent paper that I wrote about here, former North Carolina governor Jim Hunt states that "The emergence of a global and highly competitive new knowledge-based economy.requires enormous numbers of workers with education and training beyond high school." Wolf is one of the few who doesn't accept that idea. "Politicians may think it is clear that everyone's work will soon be dependent on `creativity', `ingenuity', and `knowledge capital' in a way that is quite different from the past: but it is no such thing. It is just as likely that we already have an over-educated workforce as that we need more graduates for a high-skills economic future."

Instead of beating the drums for increasing "access" to higher education through more government spending in the mistaken belief that a more formal eduction is always better, Wolf contends that the modern economy calls for nothing other than the same solid education in "the basics" that we used to do quite well. "The ability to read and comprehend, write fluently and correctly, and do mathematics appears more important than ever," she writes. "It isn't obvious why this means pouring extra resources into more years of education, rather than maintaining quality in the places that already teach these skills." I would only add that maintaining quality is not the problem in lower education; it will have to be restored. Nevertheless, Wolf is absolutely right that putting people through college who have not mastered reading, writing, and mathematical fundamentals will do very little to make up for their academic deficits. Moreover, conferring college degrees on such people does nothing to improve a nation's productive capacity.

We keep hearing that if a nation "invests" more in higher education for its people, then it will be rewarded with better economic results, but Wolf demonstrates that a national commitment to increasing the percentage of citizens who go to college is neither necessary nor sufficient for prosperity. Switzerland is an example of the former proposition. The Swiss have one of the world's highest standards of living, but only about a third as many Swiss go to college as in other developed countries. On the other hand, Egypt is an excellent example for the latter proposition. Wolf points out that Egypt embarked on a campaign to raise the level of education among its population beginning in the 1970s, more than doubling the rates of secondary schooling and university participation. During that period of time, the nation went from the 47th poorest in the world to .. 48th poorest. Formal education is no panacea.

The World Bank has done a number of analyses finding that there is a negative relationship between education levels and economic growth across the developing nations. Unfortunately, the widespread belief that there is a direct and positive relationship between education and economic growth has, Wolf writes, "led many developing countries, notably in Africa, South-East Asia, and South America, to spend a very great deal of money without creating successful economies in the process." More seat time in classrooms does not automatically mean that students will be more productive than they would otherwise have been.

After burying the "more education equals faster economic growth" myth, Wolf changes focus to ask what kind of preparation for work business leaders would like to see in young people. While she writes specifically about Britain, I have no doubt that the U.S. is no different. She writes, "For the most part, businessmen's views about the public education system were - and are - quite simply expressed. They are that schools turn out pupils who simply do not have the relevant skills or personal qualities. They can't add up; they can't write a business letter; they don't know how to work in teams, or talk to customers, or to understand the need to turn up to work on time. In fact the schools are doing a dreadful job for a lot of money and need to improve, fast."

The most beneficial educational reform, in other words, would be for K-12 to graduate students who have the basic skills to be readily trainable. Wolf is not a fan of government "job training" programs that supposedly compensate for the less-than-optimal degree of training that businesses provide. She doubts the assertion that businesses don't provide the ideal amount of employee training and further doubts that even if it were to some extent true, government could devise any useful policy to improve matters.

What will be the result of a concerted program to raise the "educational attainment" of the populace? Answer: more credential inflation. Employers often use the possession of a college degree as a screening device. That is why it's so often true that when a job ad specifies that a college degree is a requirement, it does not indicate that any particular studies are necessary. As educational credentials escalate, so will employer demands. Although she doesn't cite his work, I believe that Wolf is in agreement with Stanford professor David Labaree, who has observed the ratchet effect of ever-increasing levels of formal education. Labaree writes in his book How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning, "Consumers have to spend increasing amounts of time and money to gain additional credentials because the swelling number of credential holders keeps lowering the value of credentials at any given level..Employers keep raising the entry-level education requirements for particular jobs.but they still find that they have to provide extensive training before employees can carry out their work productively."

Education is a sacred cow in the U.S. and few people question the idea that more of it is necessarily beneficial. However, it is no more true that adding education (i.e., formal classes for credit) is always a good thing than it's true that adding more fertilizer to a field is always a good thing. Congratulations to Alison Wolf for challenging the sacred cow and giving us this extremely insightful book.

Source






How to spend limited taxpayer education dollars

By Star Parker

The National Center for Education Statistics, part of the U.S. Department of Education, has just released a study comparing the performance of fourth- and eighth-graders in public and private schools. As important as this research may sound, I think it is more a symptom of our education problems than a useful tool in solving them.

Generally, studies show students in private schools outperforming students in public schools. However, in this research, statistical adjustment was made to account for differences in socioeconomic background. The result: Whereas the raw data shows superior performance in private schools, much of that differential is eradicated after the statistical massaging. Public-school fourth-graders did better; however, the reading advantage at the eighth-grade level remained with the private-school kids. Predictably, the National Education Association wasted no time to use this study to affirm the unqualified success of the public-school system and to use it as ammo to further load up in its endless and tireless attack on vouchers and school choice.

But there are many things the study doesn't say. One, as John Tierney of The New York Times points out, is that, on average, private-school tuition is about half of what the average public school spends per student (no, most private schools are not fancy New England prep schools). So, even after going through statistical gymnastics to account for differences in kids' backgrounds, public schools spend far more to get not much better results. Tierney goes on to point out that studies specifically designed to test results for providing a choice option in a district under controlled circumstances show that kids with vouchers do better.

But, frankly, with limited taxpayer dollars available, and 3 million kids nationwide in failing schools, is funding more research what we need? Let's keep in mind that this is work funded by the Department of Education. The department was established in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter to improve education in our country. The department's budget then was $14.5 billion. Today, its budget has grown sixfold. Yet over the same period of time there has been virtually zero change, on average, in test scores.

Now I have no doubt that many of the bureaucrats walking the halls of the Department of Education are very fine people. But my common sense is violated to think that a parent in Los Angeles, where my organization CURE is headquartered, needs a single one of these folks in Washington to get his or her child educated. I certainly question that parents need much, or indeed any, of the reams of research and studies the department conducts to get their child educated.

The Department of Education may report that, on average, after filtering out socioeconomic differences, fourth-graders in public schools did better on tests than fourth-graders in private schools. But what are black and Latino parents with kids in Los Angeles Unified School District schools supposed to do with this information? Nine out of 10 black and Latino fourth-graders in L.A. public schools score below proficiency in reading and math. What are the parents of the 250,000 kids in Los Angeles who are in schools that are failing by No Child Left Behind standards supposed to do with this information?

Can anyone still in touch with their common sense doubt that these parents would prefer having a choice where to send their kids to school? Anyone who does doubt this should talk to these parents. My staff does. We're working with them and trying to get at least the school choice that No Child Left Behind guarantees them. We, along with the Alliance for School Choice, have filed complaints with the school districts in Los Angeles that they are not in compliance with NCLB because they are not informing parents that they have the option to transfer their child. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has given the districts until Aug. 15 to respond to our complaint or have their Title I funds from the federal government jeopardized.

Choice, competition and freedom are core values that define what we are about as a nation. It is troubling to think that we have gotten to the point where these truths are no longer obvious and we have to do research to try and figure out if they are a good idea. The Bush administration proposal to appropriate $100 million in opportunity scholarships for poor kids in failing schools is a needed program. Let's use our limited taxpayer dollars to enhance education freedom for poor families and not on superfluous research and bureaucracy.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"


Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here. My home page is here

***************************

No comments: