Skip to main content

The education economy (I)

Who demands education and who supplies it? In this post, I refer to "education" as formal education, that is the learning that takes place in school classrooms.

There is a consistent tendency among people and institutions today to assume that education is demanded by students and their parents or guardians and supplied by teachers and schools. So, when anything happens to go well in education - a certain year showing exceptionally good results, or a surge in engineering professionals - schools are rewarded. Similarly, when anything devastating happens in education - a year of terrible results, or an increase in exam-time suicides - schools are blamed. 

But this assumption begs a question: Where is the students' and parents' or guardians' demand for education rooted? Is it an esoteric demand that comes from within the household at any given inspirational moment? Or is it an exoteric demand that comes from outside the household, nudging the household itself to want it?

My belief is that the demand is exoteric. That society has created a demand among people for education that is sufficient to make every new household want it automatically.

Then, education is really demanded by society.

If indeed education is demanded by society, then can the commonly-understood suppliers meet this demand? That is, is it teachers and schools that meet the entire society's demand for education? Or is it the students themselves who, after attaining a certain qualification, move from the classroom into the world to manifest their learning in something productive for society?

My belief is that the students, with the help of their parents and guardians, meet society's demand for education.

Then, education is really supplied by those who learn. 

If we consider this perspective on the economy around education, then perhaps what we expect of it will change. Perhaps we ought to scrutinize society's demand for education and the student's supply of knowledge onto society when critiquing or complimenting education. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tanzania is not Tasmania

Dear friends: Please let's stop refering to Tanzania as Tasmania. Here is why. Tanzania is located on the coast of East Africa, below Kenya. It is not origin of the the cartoon character from your childhood. Tasmania is an island which is part of Australia. The animal known to exist only on Tasmania is the Tasmanian Devil. Once again, you will see this is not the cartoon character you remember from your childhood. Let's summarize: Tanzania is not Tasmania.
Post a Comment
Read more

Policy Brief 2: Why is Tanzania Poor?

(Policy Brief # 2 Submitted December 6th 2007, for Econ 346 - Economic Development, Lafayette College) Over the course of the 20th century, Tanzania experienced a multitude of social, political and economic changes. It still remains poor today. The WorldBank classifies a ‘low income country’ – such as Tanzania – as one with a Gross National Income per capita of $905 or less (WorldBank Data 2006). As of 1992, Tanzania ’s per capita income was recorded at $110, and average per capita consumption was $0.5 per day (OECD 2000). Several possible factors have been blamed for contributing to current hardships, such as Julius Nyerere’s failed attempts to collectivize agriculture between 1961 and 1975 through his socialist Ujamaa policies as the first president of Tanzania (Pratt 1980). While pre-independence plans “focused on the commercialization of agriculture and the creation of industries that could reduce the need for a variety of imports”, post-independence interventions by the Gov
4 comments
Read more

Revision rinsed II

When discussing communication for development, we tend to argue against the models based only on diffusion of media technologies. That is, in pursuing a critical approach to development practices, we tend to support participatory approaches to technology use and engagement. Yet, we leave development practice in the abstract. We stop short at revised theory, and consult with practice initiators who attempt to materialize the abstract. Even there, we treat attempts as cases, and recriticize to align with still revised theory. It's time the field of communication for development confessed its efforts to change market-based activities. It's also time that it confessed that power in the market is strong, and at most times, stronger than the power of discourse. Instead, the field of communication for development should hold strong to the assumptions that structuralist development practice has not worked. That's that. Why go further to assume that a new theory is needed, or
Post a Comment
Read more