Schultz: The Economic Value of Education

TW Schultz, “The Economic Value of Education,” New York (1963).
"My aim is to bring economic analysis to bear on education" (1).

"Concepts of education, like those of freedom, bristle with difficulties...Education is intimately bound to the culture of the community it serves, and for this reason what education means differs from one community to another...Thus, to educate means etymologically to educe or draw out of a person something potential and latent; it means to develop a person morally and mentally so that he is sensitive to individual and social choices and able to act on them; it means to fit him for a calling by systematic instruction; and it means to train, discipline, or form abilities, as, for example, to educate the taste of a person" (3).
Shultz makes a distinction between schooling and education, the first being former and the later less rigidly defined.

"From the evidence already presented, the picture is that schooling and advance in knowledge are both major sources of economic growth. IT is obvious that they are not natural resources; they are essentially man-made, which means that they entail savings and investment. Investment in schooling is presently, in the United States, a major source of human capital" (46).

"Thus, a concept of capital that is restricted to structures, producer equipment, and inventories may unwittingly direct attention to issues that are not central or critical in understanding economic growth over long periods" (47).

Benavot et. al.: Knowledge for the Masses

Benavot, Aaron, Cha, Yun-Kyung, Kamens, David, Meyer, John W., & Wong, Suk-Ying. (1991). "Knowledge for the Masses: World Models and National Curricula, 1920-1986". American Sociological Review, 56(1), 85-100. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28199102%2956%3A1%3C85%3AKFTMWM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

This article examines how much of the primary school curriculum has become standardized from a sociological perspective. Old perspectives on this issue constructed the formation of school curriculum as the result of either the, “…functional requirements of society”, or, “…as a reflection of existing power relations in society” (86). This would skew the result more heavily towards a nationally patterned set of distinct curricula.

However, these authors posit that the rise of the standardization of national curricula can be seen a corollary of the rise of, “standardized models of society” (86). This can be seen as an emerging world cultural set of values and structures. “…the same world-wide processes that were involved in the spread of primary education may also have generated similarity in its content” (86).

The authors put forth a number of hypotheses. Increased social development would relate to increased standardization in curriculum as well as more focus on math, natural science and social science. Increasing development would also be seen through an increasing focus on “modern values”.

They deploy a statistical method for exploring these hypotheses. They find that there is a “world-wide trend” that moves countries towards standardization of curriculum. “This striking worldwide trend toward a more integrated notion of society could have a functionalist interpretation, e.g., greater public involvement in and control over social life produced a stronger conception of society as a ‘social system’” (92). Other statistical finding support the view that the standardization process was formed mostly not by national processes but by global processes.

Conclusion: “Functionalist theory suggests that national curricula vary by level of socioeconomic development, increasingly incorporate modern subject matter, and are slow to change” (96). What are the deeper drivers of this standardization? “We have no information on the processes by which this curricular standardization is achieved” (97). “The real surprise of our findings lies not in the unimportance of local influences, but in the relative unimportance of national influences on curricular structure” (98).