EDUCATION and the workforce were among the “hot topics” discussed by political scientist Edward C. Banfield in his brilliant 1974 book, “The Unheavenly City Revisited.” Among other things, he wrote that a “distinction should be made between a ‘trained’ worker and an ‘educated’ one. The trained worker has learned how to perform certain tasks of more or less complexity — to operate a machine, say, or to keep accounts…. The educated worker, by contrast, (1) possesses the kind of general knowledge, especially of reading and mathematics, that will help him to solve various new problems, and (2) has certain traits of character — especially motivation to achieve, ability to accept the discipline of a work situation, willingness to take the initiative and to accept responsibility, and ability to deal fairly with employers, fellow-employees, and others.”
Question for the policymakers of today. Are we educating future workers or merely training them?
Then and now, many believe that more funding for education is the key to improving education. Banfield noted, however, that a 1965 study involving 645,000 pupils in 4,000 public schools in the States “found that not only were the differences in school resources (facilities, curricula, and staff) within school districts not as great as had been supposed but — more important — they explained relatively little of the wide variation in pupils’ achievement. As compared to ‘family background,’ the school was unimportant. And of the several variables constituting ‘family background,’ one, ‘pupils’ attitude,’ accounted for more of the variations in achievement than all of the other together and also more than all of the school-related variables together.”
There it is again. The importance of individual attitude in determining individual achievements.
Banfield said the findings of other reputable studies indicate that “the socioeconomic status of a student’s family — his parent’s income, education and occupation — invariably prove to be significant predictors of education outcome.” It follows then that “increasing expenditures on traditional educational practices is not likely to improve outcomes substantially.”
The “avalanche” of research, he added, “appears to support the view that what the pupil brings to school in the way of attitudes and motivations (class culture, in large part) influences his success there, as measured by standardized tests, more than do the practices of the school.”
Even before the smartphone and A.I. rendered today’s K-12 curricula of minimal relevance, Banfield, half a century ago, already believed that “it would make sense to lower the normal school-leaving age to fourteen, giving a diploma on completion of nine rather than twelve grades…. This would not reduce the amount of free schooling available to those who are able and willing to learn, but it would eliminate the efforts — almost wholly futile — to stop truancy…and it would enable nonlearners to leave without being stigmatized as dropouts.” Students could start college or other advanced training of their choice or even find a job that much sooner.
“At whatever age they finish school, boys and girls should go to work,” Banfield said. “The discipline of the job will more than take the place of that of the school. Moreover, it is a better discipline. One chooses one’s job, and therefore one’s boss and fellow workers….” The employee, however, “must do or produce something of value if he is to keep his job. He is not permitted, or at any rate not encouraged, to waste his time and that of others. Having to work is not really the disadvantage it is often made out to be, for nothing is so demoralizing in the long run as to know that one’s energies and abilities are of no use to anyone…. The main reason for encouraging boys and girls who leave school to go to work, however, is not to increase their incomes but to hasten their growing up — to bring them sooner into the adult world, where they have the satisfaction of being taken seriously, of being on their own, of being responsible for themselves and indeed very soon for others as well.”
This is sound advice. However, reducing the mandatory schooling period to eight or nine grades instead of 12 would significantly reduce the number of education personnel. It would be like expecting a jurisdiction whose largest voting bloc comprises government employees to implement policies that cut government expenses — starting with their own jobs.
To be continued
Send feedback to editor@mvariety.com
