Lazear, Edward (Ed.). (2002). Education in the Twenty-first Century. Reviewed by Glenn Rideout, The King's University College, Edmonton, Alberta

Lazear, Edward (Ed.). (2002). Education in the Twenty-first Century. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. Pp. xxxviii + 192 $15.00     ISBN 0-8179-2892-8 Reviewed by Glenn Rideout The King’s University College Edmonton, Alberta, Canada August 3, 2005 Education in the Twenty-first Century is a collection of essays written by senior and research fellows of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University (with the exception of Andrew J. Coulson, currently Senior Fellow in Education Policy at Mackinaw Center for Public Policy). The Hoover Institution was founded on “principles of individual, economic, and political freedom; private enterprise; and representative government” (Hoover Institution, 2005). Introductions and forewords are provided by the director of Hoover, by former Secretary of State Charles Schultz, and book editor Edward Lazear. This review begins with a discussion of several themes that are prominent in the forewords and introduction. This is followed by a brief overview of key issues representative of the themes raised by each of the essayists. The latter section of this review examines contextual issues prominent throughout this book. Introductory Themes In his introductory comments John Raisian, Director of the Hoover Institute, leaves no doubt about the purpose of education. It is within the implications of this purpose that the approaches to education promoted in this book are justified. Education is a means of increasing the value of human resources – of human-capital appreciation and accumulation. In relation to competing constructivist and progressivist views of education that are purported to have created a crisis in American education, the purpose of this collection is clear. Speaking for the Hoover Institute, and in particular for these essayists, Raisian indicates that while “much attention is brought to bear on the short term crisis, we seek to alter the balance” (p. viii). The stage is set. This is not a dialectic concerning the merits of competing views of American public education, but a series of essays that serve to clarify and defend positions represented by the Hoover Institution. The “schooling” (Daniels, 1993, p. 12) paradigm is reinforced by Shultz’s foreword. Schooling should be based on parental control, primarily in English, and math should be the main focus. The teaching of approved curricula and knowledge within specified guidelines is promoted. This is the machinery of wealth building. In The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for the 21st Century Capitalists (1991), Reich critiques such approaches to education, and its historically embedded reliance on values such as “reliability, loyalty, and capacity to take directions” (p. 175) and on standardized tests to confirm that learning has occurred. In Edward Lazear’s substantial introduction, he indicates that the goal of this book is to shed light on what education does, on the structure of education, on lessons from the past, and on how much can be accomplished in the future. Adam Smith’s revolutionary ‘human capital’ approach, along with his ‘invisible hand’ economic theory are juxtaposed against Horace Mann’s public school methodology. These writings consistently challenge the public education system, which is seen as going too far in its ideology of inclusion and equity. The solution is competition among schools for students; this agenda can be best accomplished through the privatization of American schools. Lazear addresses several policy issues that are prominent in the current educational reform milieu. For instance, in response to the question “Is More Money the Solution?” (p. xxvii), not surprisingly the answer is “No”. More teachers do not really need to be hired to reduce class size. Smaller classes would not be necessary if children would listen, if there were no behaviour issues. “[E]ducation is a public good subject to negative spillovers from each of the students” (p. xxviii). Such ‘spillovers’ prevent students from being good students, that is, from “listen[ing] attentively to the teacher’s instructions” (p. xviii). We will now look more closely at the eight essays, which are divided into two sections. The first section, Education and Income, presents four essays which are unified around the theme of the primary function of education as an input to economic growth. The second section, Education and Society, includes four essays on the impact of education on society. Attention is drawn to the disservice paid to the disadvantaged (identified as primarily black children) and the traditional family by the American public education system. Eight Essays Gary Becker’s The Age of Human Capital differentiates between human and physical capital. Human capital represents a larger than commonly attributed element in total capital stock. Becker’s focuses on human capital as the fuel that empowers the machinery of the modern economy. The value of education is in its ability to increase economic growth, as demonstrated by the increase in earnings of college over high school graduates. Internet technology is touted as an efficient means to make learning (absorbing information) more efficient. It saves time and creates flexibility in the dissemination of knowledge, so that the value of human capital can be enhanced most efficiently. In Education as a Determinant of Economic Growth, Robert Barro indicates that the quality of education is determined through standardized tests, particularly in math and science. The more input (schooling, cultural influences, student effort) the more output. Investment in education must be made since changes in human capital are slow to realize, and national output is at stake. The goal of American education is clearly to sustain position as “the most productive country in the world”. To accomplish this goal, infrastructure must be sustained. The rule of law is identified as a key component for effective infrastructure. Barro’s focus is on the product, not the process; on economic benefit, not education as an end in itself. While heavy on statistical data and analysis, Barro presents some interesting findings about the impact of “schooling capital” (p. 17) on economic growth across approximately 100 countries. He focuses on both the quantity (average years of attainment, as classified by age, sex, levels of schooling) and quality (data were only available across 43 countries), as identified in standardized test scores for math, science and reading. While both quality and quantity were significant in improving economic growth, quality of schooling was much more important. Science scores had a particularly strong positive relationship with economic growth. In The Value of Education: Evidence from Around the Globe, Robert Hall reiterates what has been established in the previous essays, that education increases earnings. Hall discusses several indexes that he has established to demonstrate not only the relationship between education and earnings, but to clarify other factors that intervene to complicate the linear relationship between these two variables. These additional factors include the amount of plant capacity and equipment available to combine with workers efforts, and the production efficiency of the economy in which these factors are present. Since there is a high correlation between these three components (education, equipment, efficiency), Hall identifies social infrastructure (rule of law) as the fundamental factor that determines high degrees of these conditions. Countries with high degrees of social infrastructure have high degrees of these conditions, and therefore accumulate larger degrees of human capital. The colonial heritage, identified as either transplantive (as in the U. S. and Canada) or extractive (as in India) is presented as the key predictor of the degree of social infrastructure a country has developed. Hall does not provide any commentary in this article concerning how to reverse the trend regarding the lack of poor public education in countries with low social infrastructure. Instead, the primary benefit of increased education is identified as the increase in economic output of the country. Improvement of the circumstances of the individual is secondary. In Redistributional Consequences of Educational Reform, Paul Romer raises concerns about the state of American public education. He reports that there is no greater degree of literacy in the US among more recent cohorts of high school graduates than there was 30 to 50 years ago, while there are improvements in countries that had both lower and higher literacy rates in the past. Romer promotes an alternative solution, that private enterprise should be able to do a better job of producing educational achievements than government. Government should maintain some leadership in education by providing for the funding of schools through a two step process. Total income should be maximized through the market system, and the government should use a system of taxes and transfers that is preferred by the majority for a redistribution of resources, using a system selected by the market. In this way the creation of a relatively homogenous society, albeit one that is aided by the invisible hand theory (Adam Smith) can be guarded by government but instituted by private enterprise. Romer points out that economists bear no moral, ethical, or philosophical responsibility in justifying their science. The goal is to increase economic output, and education is seen as a key input to achieving this goal. Re-distribution of the resulting wealth is irrelevant to economists. Charitable giving, taxation, and the provision of free public education are cited as examples of the redistribution of wealth. Romer argues at length for a subsidy for education as opposed to a subsidy for low wage earners. The subsidy for low wage earners would not be sustainable as wages continue to increase for more highly educated workers, since it would create a large tax burden for all. This would be viewed by the majority of taxpayers as an unfair redistribution of income. The subsidy to education would be used to increase the income of low wage earners, and as the GDP, along with total earnings, increase, the redistribution necessary to continue the subsidy to low wage earners may be self-funding. The maintenance of government assistance while encouraging the privatization of educational services is proposed as the solution. The inherent problem with this approach, according to Romer, is that the shift to privatization would probably lower the public funding of education. The disadvantaged would suffer most from this move. “The negative effects of spending cuts could dominate the positive effects of competition and choice” (pp. 72-73). Thomas Sowell, in The Education of Minority Children, indicates that minorities perform well if given the right work and discipline ethic. In a defence of standardized testing, Sowell attempts to demonstrate anecdotally that minority standing does not preclude educational achievement at or above the national average. Sowell dismisses psychological and sociological reasons for lower achievement that influence the thinking of many educators. It is work, not attention to applying “fashionable educational theories of our times” (p. 88) that will bring academic success to all groups of children, minority or otherwise. Education need not be socially relevant to the students, connected to their personal history, or challenging of the status quo. Further, parent involvement in education may be problematic, since the changing role of parents has led to a higher degree of involvement in the shaping of educational policy and its application in the classroom. In Sowell’s opinion, parents roles should perhaps be restricted to “giving moral support to the school by letting their children know that they are expected to learn and behave themselves” (p. 90). The principal of a school whose minority students were successful in standardized tests, is quoted in support of Sowell’s assertion that success in education can be achieved without social vision: “Do not consume my time with extraneous issues and then expect me to have enough time left over to dedicate myself to a strong academic program” (p. 89). In Educating Black Students, Shelby Steele discusses the need for blacks to take agency for their own education. That is, they must take responsibility for success in the education process, as they have in music and sports. Agency resides with the student, or with the student and the family, for the development of intelligence. The trend of attempting to direct the education of minorities as a compensation for perceived historical disadvantages is seen as a misplaced agency. Steele goes on to appeal for “traditional” (p. 99) education as opposed to other approaches that seem to be displacing it. Traditional education, according to Steele, is supported by an array of values that, by inference, are absent from other approaches. These values include commitment to excellence, hard work, delayed gratification, initiative, and risk-taking. Steele juxtaposes a fictional account of Charlie Parker and his saxophone alongside an account of the real Charlie Parker in order to persuade the reader that the real Charlie may have failed if there had been an attempt to care for his perceived neediness. The ‘real’ Charlie succeeded since there was no one around who cared about his progress, any more than the next young boy learning to play a musical instrument. Steele’s intent is to illustrate that in schools so much attention is paid to the psychological and sociological facets of the student that we cast an expectation of failure, of challenges to be overcome, on the child. Excellence will surface if its potential resides in the child, and will be discovered as educators stick to the basics. Andrew Coulson, in Delivering Education, summarizes a history of public and private schools, focusing on the efficiency and success of the latter. Coulson is explicit in his view of the purposes of education, which are to produce more skilled wage earners, and to create harmony and participation in the democratic process. In order to consider the effectiveness of schools as they are now, he examines alternative schooling systems, both in the US and abroad. Coulson is critical of the shift to progressivism. The tenor of these comments is that progressivism was the downfall of “organized and teacher-directed” (p. 109) education. Progressivism is characterized as “less structured, more pleasant-seeming lessons” (p. 110). Coulson presents Stanley Hall as representative of progressivist approaches to education, and leaves “the still famous” (p. 109) John Dewey uncontested. In this blatantly "strawman" presentation of progressivism, it is purported to be against, among other things, learning to read, and based on “pedagogical methods … chosen for their philosophical pedigrees rather than their demonstrated effectiveness” (p.110). Coulson goes on to provide several examples of past and present successes in the world of ‘for profit’ private education. These include Japanese Juku (afterschool school) and historical examples of ‘for profit’ schools that more precisely met the needs of parents, (such as the Heidenheim, Germany reformation example where parents rejected a classical education for one focused on vocationally oriented reading and writing). Coulson’s solution is to allow private, diverse schooling. “We are all losers when our differing views become declarations of war; when, instead of allowing many distinct communities of ideas to coexist harmoniously, our schools force us to battle one another in a needless and destructive fight for ideological supremacy” (p. 124). In this view, private schools are safer, care for the needs of a more diverse population, and are more affordable and efficient, (considering the $7000 per year cost for public education per student). Private schools are more suited to the stated goals of education since they extend parental choice, give direct financial responsibility for education to parents, create a climate of freedom for education, and create competition and a profit motive for schools. In Competing Visions of the Child, the Family, and the School, Jennifer Roback Morse examines competing visions of schooling. According to Roback Morse, the predominant vision is that the school replaces parents in the delivery of material, intellectual, psychological, or moral resources to students that the parents fail to deliver. This vision is based on the premise that the primary connection between parents and children in the transfer of resources. A second, alternative vision is proposed by Roback Morse: The transfer of resources between parents and children is a by-product of the primary job, which is relationship building. The school’s job in this scenario is to assist parents, not to act as their substitute. The author promotes the second vision, since resources are secondary to relationships, and resources should not be permitted to undermine this relationship. She cites universal daycare, school breakfasts, and hostility to home schooling as example of services and attitudes prominent in public schools that are not in the best interests of relationship building within the family. The school supplies resources, often in opposition to interests and wishes of the family. Roback Morse favours a move away from political correctness in identifying the value of family input to the child, which she characterizes as being ‘crowded out’. Whereas some critics of the education system refer to the ‘academic crowding out effect’ where things such as lessons on personal hygiene are seen as crowding out math and literacy, Roback Morse refers to the ‘family crowding out effect’. Relational aspects of parenting, including the teaching of personal values and morals by example as well as instruction, are crowded out by the school. This essay builds a strong case for relationships as a key ingredient in the academic success of the child. There is no doubt that the evidence presented supports the notion that children with strong family relationships will do better in school. It also seems reasonable to think that there might be an infringement by educational policymakers on the relationship-building process that may be most appropriately anchored in the family. However, the legitimacy of this discussion of foundational issues is potentially undermined by Roback Morse’s polemic characterization. For instance, in order to lead the reader to a conclusion that non-academic subjects are displacing parent roles, and that the role of the school is to teach core subjects, tooth-brushing is given as the non-academic example, and math and literacy are given as the academic subjects. There is no mention, for instance, of movement related subjects, or the development of aesthetic appreciation, areas that might be more problematic, and more applicable to the debate on the role of the school versus the role of the family in relation to providing services. The point of Roback Morse’s argument is that schools should stick to the basics, and private schools handle the basics best for a number of reasons, including the belief that individuals will produce the most when they pursue self-interest over the common good. “More people will work harder, and more effectively, when they are pursuing their own good, or the good of their families, than they will if authorities are trying to force them all to contribute to some grand master plan” (p. 172). Some readers may also be uncomfortable with Roback Morse’s identification of children whose family arrangements are non-traditional as having a negative impact on the academic scores of children from traditional families. The ‘spill-over effect’ (p. 157) is cited to explain why children from traditional families suffer as a result of being in the same class as children from non-traditional family groupings. “Mother-only families may create spill-over effects on other children in the schools” (p. 157). Lower math and reading scores are attributed to classes with such a mix of students. Conclusion: Context and Critique Readers will become aware of several communal attitudes and approaches to education that are woven, either explicitly or implicitly, throughout these essays. These shared approaches and attitudes identify an overarching contextual framework within which this outlook on education can be best understood. Three of these items are discussed below. The review concludes with two points of critique concerning the larger approach prominent throughout these essays. Firstly, students are primarily valuable as human capital. In this view, education is an input that enhances the value of this capital, and leads to increased economic output. For these essayists, it logically follows that education would therefore operate more efficiently if it were privatized. Schooling is analogous to an industry with customers. The traditionalist approach to education is best, since it is through this model that commitment to excellence and hard work will bring the greatest rewards. The implication is that these values are absent from other approaches. Secondly, there is but one (objectivist) view of the world, and education is a tool for perpetuating that view. There is no room for (or acknowledgement of) paradigmatic thinking in the opinions expressed in these essays. Popper’s (1968) anti-philosophical approach carries the day; Kuhn’s (1970) multi-paradigmatic approach to the world is antithetical to the foundations of this work. Authorities cited in these pages bolster the ideological position and methodological solutions presented. There is a notable absence of any other perspective, other than in a pejorative manner. For instance, those who would oppose education ‘reforms’ such as privatization and increased competition among students are presented as self-serving, too interested in their own jobs to see the larger benefits of such an approach for children. Anyone, and in particular politicians, who would disagree with a return to core subjects, or support programs that, for instance, promote “bilingualism and self-esteem” (p. 91) would only be doing so to avoid “charges of mean-spiritedness [and] implications of racism” (p. 91). Thirdly, progressivism opposes reform and effective education. Sociological and psychological issues faced by children of varying backgrounds should not be a consideration in their education. Philosophical examination of the purposes and processes of education detract from achieving the desired outcomes. Among the most prominent challenges to be overcome in education are inattentive students, who don’t listen when the teacher is teaching, and large classes, which generally would be okay if students didn’t interrupt teaching. This applies at all levels, from pre-school to university classes. Education reform means improved efficiency, evidenced by standardized, quantified output. Only that which leads to higher standardized test scores is of value. Smaller classes and equitable treatment of the disadvantaged may be seen as detracting from the achievement of this goal. There are, additionally, two issues concerning the larger approach taken in this book that warrant comment. Firstly, several procedural and methodological issues are problematic. There is a notable lack of any learning, motivational, or pedagogical research in support of presumptions made throughout about the passive role ascribed to the child and learning as the absorption of knowledge through listening. There is a no critique to the ideas presented here. The representation of American society used as a backdrop for these essays could easily be seen through a critical theory lens as embedded, historicized, and universalized in an uncontested structural functional paradigm (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). For some readers, the ideological rhetoric may cloud significant problems that do exist within the American public education system, and deter a more scholarly consideration of these problems. Correlation is often confused with causation in the research that is cited throughout. In some cases the research appears to be specious at best. For instance, children of particular family circumstances are seen as disadvantaging class scores. Provision of free school breakfasts is presented only in a negative light – there is no attempt to identify any of its positive results, and there is no attempt to differentiate the need or benefit of equity programs for those of varying SES. Secondly, this book does not take the dialectic approach preferred by many reflective educators. In effect it is a series of occasionally strident polemic position papers intent on providing educational policymakers and consumers with a defence of the traditionalist approach to education. References to educators at large are generally negative, focussing on their allegedly high degrees of absenteeism, low quality as teachers, and negative role as trade unionists. There is no mistaking the right-wing ideology that undergirds the view of education espoused in these pages. Just as Rousseau’s Emile, Neill’s Summerhill, or a latter-day Chomsky may be far removed to the ideological left from most educators’ actual beliefs about education, the schooling approaches of this collection of essays may be as ideological remote in the other direction. References Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heineman. Daniels, L. (1993). Dilemmas in educational change: Towards a taxonomy of educational change dilemmas. In T. Riecken & D. Court (Eds.), Dilemmas in educational change (pp. 5-13). Calgary, AB: Detselig. Hoover institution (2005). Retrieved from http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/main/brochure/mission.html Kuhn, T. (1970a). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Popper, K. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper & Row. Reich, R. B. )1991). Thework of nations: Preparing ourselves for the 21st century capitalists. New York; Knopf. About the Reviewer Glenn Rideout is an Assistant Professor of Education, The King’s University College, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. He teaches courses related to classroom management, evaluation, and educational administration. His areas of interest include educational and organizational paradigms, educational change, pre-service teachers philosophical orientations, multiple intelligence theory, and pupil control ideology. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.