At the gate

International rankings
[You can view the PDF here.]

Worry, Thomas Friedman tells Americans: The world is flat (forgive the advertisement) – and losing the Olympic basketball tournament is just the beginning. Standards of education are rising throughout the world, and as the country’s preeminence wanes, so go its substantial advantages.[1] After all, a globally competitive economy necessitates a globally competitive education. The United States, it seems, makes a solid performance, but leaves much to be desired, that is, depending on where one stands. It is, more than anything, a numbers game.

Many, with whom this paper agrees, would have the world’s richest economy be the best educated as well. (It, the United Nations ranks, is 12th out of 21 countries.)[2] Others, are more non-chalant: after all, of Newsweek’s top ten global universities, eight of ten are American.[3] The argument is at both points self-defeating and immediately beneficial to this paper’s quest for privatization. First, the gap between a poor education and superior economies does not bode well for long-term economic growth – the investment seems only capable of deteriorating; second, universities, private or autonomous, represent the ideal embodiment of a privatized schools system. Steven Sample, President of the University of Southern California, definitively concludes, “A country that has the best universities in the world has among the worst elementary and secondary schools.”[4]

Measuring the reading proficiency of fifteen year-olds, as measured by OECD, 61.1% of America’s students rank at or above Level 3 proficiency. This trails Japan’s level of 72% or Australia’s 68.6%. All told, fourteen of twenty-seven scores rank higher than the United States in terms of proficiency at the high end. More disconcerting, the percentage of the country’s pupils ranking at the bottom is 6.4%, more than mean of 6.0%, and greater than seventeen other nations.[5]

Math, as measured by the Department of Education’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, te lls a similar tale: the country ranks 15th – only 8% above the mean, and trailing Singapore by 20 percent.[6]

Among the more interesting statistics, 25 and 20.2% of America’s students report a low sense of belonging and participation, respectively, also higher than the mean statistics for both benchmarks.[7] At 15.5 students to teachers at the pre-primary level, America is almost 5% higher than the mean; for all-secondary education, the country’s rank of 15.5 is some 14% above average. The country finds a rare success at the primary level where it has a ratio that is seven percent less than average. The country is notable for the near absolute stability of its ratio – the United Kingdom’s ratio ranges from 26.6 students per teacher to 12.5.[8] (This marked disadvantage for England’s primary-level children is remarkably clear: the cost, The Economist notes, of a child leaving English primary schools illiterate is some £50,000).[9]

Seeking the forest

Invariably, it does not take much to become muddled in statistics. Therefore, two points should be drawn in summary: higher centralized funding, as advocated in this paper, is negatively correlated with a country’s reading performance. (Only 8% of America’s school funding comes from the national government, whereas the mean is 50 percent.)[10] Schools independence, however, demonstrates a positive correlation (see chart). What then to make of the contradictory numbers in context of this paper’s argument; and what to weigh more?

Independence is the essence of Kansas’ position – nationalized funding is but a secondary aim, albeit the potentially most effective for bringing about the full force of an incentives-based competitive market. This paper does not doubt the overall effectiveness of its schools reform platform if the means for financing it was altered to become the legally-bound responsibility of the state. A nationalized solution, then, is most pragmatic because it is less crippling locally and requires less political will to implement and follow-through.

One can also combat the negative correlation between centralized funding and schools performance on three fronts. Mexico, for better or worse, best embodies these trends.[11] First, geographic disparities naturally result in differences in the source of a schools funding. Smaller countries, e.g., Luxembourg, can more readily centralize funding.

Yet, this difference in the source of funding does not differentiate between the level of resources available within and between countries: where the United States is relatively prosperous throughout its states, in countries like Mexico, where income distribution is not as equal, it is more pragmatic for a central government to step in. While central government spending may be high, it does not necessarily mean that it accounts for much, making such comparisons untidy.

Second, underlying factors regarding the nation’s economic development and the structure of its education system can skew results. Where economic conditions are bleak, the advantages of staying in school shrink. As a result, enrollment falls – or was never enforced – and performance deteriorates.

Third, general inefficiencies, a consistent target of this paper, could also be put into play. Mexico’s Educational Workers’ Union, the largest trade union in Latin America, has what The Economist terms “a stranglehold” on education funding. The union readily absorbs increased funding, and control of bad teachers, Enrique Rueda, director of Oaxaca's teachers, says is “very bad.” As a testament to the country's inefficiencies, public education spending as a percentage of all public expenditures in 2001 was marked at 18.0 – in excess of the mean of 8.9 percent – a territory it finds itself in with none other than the United States.

[1] The World is Flat. Thomas L. Friedman. 2005.
[2] Full of woe. The Economist. 17 February 2007.
[3] The Complete List: The Top 100 Global Universities. Newsweek. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14321230/. 13 August 2006.
[4] The Educated Child. William J. Bennett, Chester E. Finn, Jr., John T. E. Cribb, Jr.
[5] Reading Literacy of 15-year-olds. Education at a Glance 2004. OECD. http://tinyurl.com/2w7z5k.
[6] Average mathematics scale scores of eight-grade students, by country: 2003. Institute for Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. http://tinyurl.com/2u7tmq.
[7] 15-year-olds’ Engagement in School – A Sense of Belonging and Participation. Education at a Glance 2004. OECD.
[8] Class Size and Ratio of Students to Teaching Staff. Ibid.
[9] Catching up. The Economist. 23 December 2006.
[10] Total Public Expenditure on Education. Education at a Glance 2004. OECD.
[11] Mexico’s mezzogiorno. Time to wake up. A survey of Mexico. The Economist. 18 November 2006.