Sometimes the anti-tax, anti-government zealots will actually concede that the United States is an outlier in economic inequality and becoming more unequal all the time. But they hasten to insist that this is a function of a meritocracy, and that our weak economic security system and low taxes foster creativity, initiative and innovation, from which all boats will rise.
But during a period marked by historic tax cuts and federal-state disinvestment in education, the U.S. has slipped in average education attainment (largely provided by taxes and government) and there are signs it may be slipping in innovation too.
The U.S. has dropped to 10th on the Global Innovaton Index, behind nations such as Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the U.K. and the Netherlands, all with much superior economic security entitlement. The index is an annual analysis published by Insead, an international business school, and the World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations Agency. The index is comprehensive and takes into account dozens of factors, including business sophistication, human capital and research, and creative output.
I like the analysis on these rankings by Education Week blogger Jason Tomassini, who says this:
"So, if we didn't know already, in order to create innovators through education we need to increase rigor in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math instruction; teach students business acumen and entrepreneurship; and lower class sizes. Get to it!
Oh, and there's another factor we should watch out for: We are No. 2 in the world in video uploads to YouTube. According to the Global Innovation Index, this is a good thing, but I can't see the harm in dropping a few spots before next year."
Let's allow that there might be a trade-off for public-sector size and private-sector growth rates, and in the extreme too much government and prohibitive tax rates might well stifle creativity and incentive. I personally think people tend to be more creative and productive when they are relatively secure, and know they will have health care and enough to eat, even if they take a risk and fail. That's how a retired Swedish businessman explained it to me when I visited there three years ago, as I wrote in an op-ed column inspired by his creative analogy of economic efficiency to humane handling of hunting dogs.
--Dane Smith
Doing with greater diligence what we’ve done for the past 100 years simply accelerates our progress toward catastrophe. Deming and Juran, the two
management experts given most of the credit for making the quality of Japanese manufactured goods world class, argued that poor performance indicated an unaddressed system problem. Rejecting their contention, Goals 2000 and No Child Left Behind assume instead that “the system” is basically sound. They blame poor performance on the people in the system and use the news media to subject educators and students to annual barrages of counterproductive public shaming. Defenders of the current thrust of reform say those who oppose it should stop making excuses, stop whimpering about standards and accountability and get to work to close the achievement gap. Yet doing with greater diligence what we’ve done for the past 100 years simply accelerates our progress toward catastrophe.
If, as I’m arguing, our schools aren’t quality operations and if, as Deming
and Juran argued, poor quality means there’s an unaddressed system problem, what is that problem? What part of the massive, complex institution of public education are we failing to examine because its ubiquitousness has made it part of the woodwork? What system component needs to be hauled up into consciousness and inspected with fresh eyes?
The curriculum. The curriculum that’s been in place since 1892. The curriculum that
unexamined personal experience has convinced us is “how it’s supposed to be.” The curriculum whose validity every current major reform effort fails to question, choosing instead to pursue it
with greater rigor or to play with class size, school size, length of day, length of year, variable staffing, shared decision making, looping, grouping, flexible scheduling, technology, merit pay, vouchers, charters, choice, business partnerships, parent partnerships, privatization and testing.
The curriculum, what’s taught and what’s learned, is what the whole institution is
supposed to be all about and it’s largely ignored, treated as if it made no difference. Doing with greater diligence what we’ve done for the past 100 years simply accelerates our progress toward catastrophe.
Posted by: Joelgingery | July 21, 2012 at 09:19 AM