Powering the Global Education Conversation: About edCircuit

Education Will Not Rescue the Collapsing Middle Class

By Anthony Cody

About a month ago, the New York Times carried a story with a familiar refrain.  The headline read: “Closing Education Gap Will Lift Economy, a Study Finds.”  In the article, journalist Patricia Cohen tells us, “When it comes to math and science scores, the United States lags most of the other 33 advanced industrialized countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, ranking 24th, far behind Korea, Poland and Slovenia.” “Moving up just a few notches to 19th — so that the average American score matched the O.E.C.D. average — would add 1.7 percent to the nation’s gross domestic product over the next 35 years, according to estimates by the Washington Center, a nonpartisan, liberal-leaning research group focused on narrowing inequality.

That could lead to roughly $900 billion in higher government revenue, more than making up for the cost of such an effort.” “If Americans were able to match the scores reached in Canada, which ranks seventh on the O.E.C.D. scale, the United States’ gross domestic product would rise by an additional 6.7 percent, a cumulative increase of $10 trillion (after taking inflation into account) by the year 2050, the report estimated.”

This sort of lofty speculation has driven education reform for the past decade. Back in 2010, Bill Gates speculated on Oprah that if we were able to rid ourselves of “bad teachers,” “our schools would shoot from the bottom of these (international) rankings to the top,” and this would give our economy a huge boost. Fortunately for us, the New York Times also features Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, who offered a perspective debunking this line of thought.  

Krugman goes to the heart of the argument.  Those who believe that education will yield great economic growth are essentially arguing that a lack of education is holding wages down and the economy back. This is sometimes described as a “skills gap,” meaning that there are skilled jobs left unfilled because of a lack of people with the necessary education to fill them. Not so, says Krugman. “… there’s no evidence that a skills gap is holding back employment. After all, if businesses were desperate for workers with certain skills, they would presumably be offering premium wages to attract such workers. So where are these fortunate professions? You can find some examples here and there.

Interestingly, some of the biggest recent wage gains are for skilled manual labor — sewing machine operators, boilermakers — as some manufacturing production moves back to America. But the notion that highly skilled workers are generally in demand is just false.” Furthermore, he points out, “…the inflation-adjusted earnings of highly educated Americans have gone nowhere since the late 1990s.” In fact, according to this article from the Economic Policy Institute, even the most educated workers have seen their wages decline in recent years.

Krugman has a theory as to what is happening: “…what is really going on? Corporate profits have soared as a share of national income, but there is no sign of a rise in the rate of return on investment. How is that possible? Well, it’s what you would expect if rising profits reflect monopoly power rather than returns to capital.”

I came across a new website hosted by Pearson, which offers all sorts of education related data. I took a look at the page focused on the United States, and found this information especially interesting: US per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is $54,550. That means there is enough wealth for every single person in the US to have that income. The GDP per actual worker is $101,430.

Pearson does not report the following, but according to the US Census Bureau, the median income for men with jobs is $50,116, and for women it is only $38,340. If each worker is generating more than $100,000 in income, where is all that income going? The college graduation rate in the US is now an all time high — 38.75%. If sending more people to college would restore the middle class, shouldn’t we have seen evidence of that by now? Krugman explains: “As for wages and salaries, never mind college degrees — all the big gains are going to a tiny group of individuals holding strategic positions in corporate suites or astride the crossroads of finance. Rising inequality isn’t about who has the knowledge; it’s about who has the power.” This means that the entire economic premise of the education reform enterprise is bankrupt.

There is no “skills gap,” no “STEM crisis” preventing our economy from advancing. There are no riches to be gained by investing in education. If there were, the powerful might actually favor spending more money on schools, rather than cutting budgets to the bone. There is plenty of wealth in our economy to invest in high quality education for every child in this nation. And it is tempting to grasp onto the idea that doing so will yield economic benefits, and use this as a rationale to advocate for such investment. But when we do so, we inadvertently concede that our economic problems are due to inadequate education.

This is fundamentally untrue, and it bears several costs that are harmful to our schools and children. First, this places the needs of employers as the central driver for education. The demand that our schools “prepare students for college and career,” as defined by the Common Core, has surpassed and subsumed all other goals for our schools. And we see this logic now extending to higher education, through “Outcome Based Funding.”

This is not serving children well. Our schools ought to serve the full development of children as human beings, in all dimensions, including those without direct economic return. Second, the premise that weak educational performance is the source of the decline of the middle class deflects attention from the real sources of economic deprivation. The fact is that as economic productivity has continued to rise, the benefits of that productivity are being hoarded by the very wealthy. Education is a convenient scapegoat, and this allows political leaders to pretend they are doing something for the poor when they condemn their schools as failures and turn them over to private and semi-private schools.

The greatest lesson we ought to be drawing from the past two decades of concerted concentration of wealth is that the needs of corporations are not the same as those of the poor. If education is redesigned for maximum benefit to corporations, and if reforms are designed to do this more efficiently, this is not likely to lead to any restoration of the middle class, or any increase in equity or opportunity for the poor. As Paul Krugman points out, this is about power. Raw power. It is time that power was reclaimed by ordinary people. Perhaps we need some education reform with that goal in mind.

The opinions expressed here are solely those of Anthony Cody.

Share With:
  • “Moving up just a few notches to 19th — so that the average American score matched the O.E.C.D. average — would add 1.7 percent to the nation’s gross domestic product over the next 35 years, according to estimates by the Washington Center, a nonpartisan, liberal-leaning research group focused on narrowing inequality. That could lead to roughly $900 billion in higher government revenue, more than making up for the cost of such an effort.”

    I wonder how the reformers would respond if they knew that the U.S. is already ranked much higher than 19th on that O.E.C.D average—that they claim would improve the economy?

    For instance, “A comprehensive analysis of international tests by Stanford and the Economic Policy Institute shows that U.S. schools aren’t being outpaced by international competition.” -January 15, 2013

    I wonder where the media was when Stanford released this study more than two years ago? Why was this correction in the misleading PISA comparisons ignored?

    “Martin Carnoy and Richard Rothstein have revised certain numbers cited in the story below about their report (What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance?) after being made aware of more accurate information concerning the survey and timing of U.S. students taking the PISA test in 2009. The revisions do not change the report’s conclusions.

    “As a result of the new information, the U.S. rankings on the 2009 PISA test in reading and math would rise, respectively, to sixth from 14th and to 13th from 25th after controlling for social class differences and a sampling error by PISA and after eliminating between-country differences that are statistically too small to meaningfully affect a country’s ranking.”

    Since the U.S. rank is really SIXTH in reading and 13th in Match, would the corporate reformers and they lackeys boost their number to 4th for reading and 10th for math to boost the economy?


    Another question that screams for an answer is why the U.S. average on the PISA looked so bad compared to the rest of the O.E.C.D. countries?

    And the answer of course was in that study out of Stanford.

    “Socioeconomic inequality among U.S. students skews international comparisons of test scores, finds a new report released today by the Stanford Graduate School of Education and the Economic Policy Institute. When differences in countries’ social class compositions are adequately taken into account, the performance of U.S. students in relation to students in other countries improves markedly. …

    The report also found:

    There is an achievement gap between more and less disadvantaged students in every country; surprisingly, that gap is smaller in the United States than in similar post-industrial countries, and not much larger than in the very highest scoring countries.

    Achievement of U.S. disadvantaged students has been rising rapidly over time, while achievement of disadvantaged students in countries to which the United States is frequently unfavorably compared – Canada, Finland and Korea, for example – has been falling rapidly.

    U.S. PISA scores are depressed partly because of a sampling flaw resulting in a disproportionate number of students from high-poverty schools among the test-takers. About 40 percent of the PISA sample in the United States was drawn from schools where half or more of the students are eligible for the free lunch program, though only 32 percent of students nationwide attend such schools.

    March 18, 2015
    • Thank you Mr. Lofthouse. If only this were common knowledge and made the front pages like most negative articles on education do. And you have my great respect for making the 30/30 club; 30 years averaging more than 30 students.

      April 27, 2015
  • Excellent article. We sorely needed that.

    I would add one further reflection. I see the basic problem as precisely one of mutating cultural values or what I would call the devaluation of education, a once living cell progressively emptied of its nucleus. This is linked to a deep ideological shift within our society. That shift has consisted of creating and nurturing the dogma that education is reducible to the pragmatic task of feeding pre-formatted brains into the free market economy, along with its corollary that the measure of success in education is nothing other than the profitability and growth of US businesses. Within that ideology, where defining one’s metrics is the key, it is natural that testing and comparing scores will be the chosen method for executive decision-making. It enables leaders to conduct “management reviews”, analyze competitive advantage and apply corporate strategies to growing the “business of learning” Thus testing constitutes the unique method of evaluation that reinforces those corporate values. Once the numbers appear on the page and the analytical keys are applied, we can move forward rationally (i.e. with a focus on efficiency and profit… and impact on the GDP!).

    How we can let the likes of Bill Gates guide our understanding of education is beyond me, but obviously not beyond people like Arne Duncan and other policy makers. So in a society where the only non-debatable proof of value is profitability and/or accumulated wealth, it actually makes a lot of sense. After all, even Donald Trump founded a “university” (basically a scam for gulls impressed by the Donald’s bravado) and even hired Roger Schank — reputed to be a pedagogical thinker and revolutionary — as CLO. (I’m actually not sure how that ended but publicly predicted the worst at the time).

    The trend towards economic cynicism may have started much earlier (see Bros, Marx, Horsefeathers, 1932, Paramount) and the worm may have been in the apple for much longer, but traditional “civilizational” values that, even with grades as a the ultimate form of measurement, respected non-testable virtues (appreciation of complexity, dynamic understanding, contradictory thinking, the place of the arts, originality of thought, variations of style, initiation into the community of thinkers, critical acumen, etc.) continued for quite a while to mount a somewhat successful resistance against the instrumental pragmatism of the corporate economists.

    The great ideological shift produced it’s definitive earthquake and an ongoing series of aftershocks round about 1980 with the financialization of the economy. The result is that now, 35 years later — at a moment in history when technology has changed the way we communicate, network, build our culture, engage in dialogue — before we even begin talking about the methods of learning, we are expected to focus on competitive economic advantage and global statistics based on standardized metrics. But why should we even think about “talking about methods”? The test results are doing all the talking. And education has become that period in one’s life where one takes all the tests in order to leave it all behind to get a job (if there are any available that will enable one to pay off the debt for all that expensive testing).

    April 5, 2015
    • I deserve an F on the final paragraph. It’s a good thing I’m able to shift from student to teacher and grade myself. How humiliating to have written, “produced it’s definitive earthquake” instead of “its”?

      April 5, 2015
      • You could have blamed it on autocorrect. Mine prefers it’s to its. However for your referencing of the classic work of Bros., Marx, all shall be forgiven.

        April 27, 2015

Leave A Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.