[EPI welcomes
reader
feedback.]
Teachers and Farmers: Some Reflections
The United States is the strongest nation in the world.
One of the reasons is that food is so inexpensive here. Even
though only a small part of the nation's labor force is
engaged in agriculture, we can eat well. In fact, obesity is
more of a problem than hunger in the United States.
There are several reasons why the production of food in
the United States is so efficient, but I wish to invite
attention to one in particular. The productivity of
agriculture increased in spectacular fashion in the 1900s.
Output per man-hour (better quality and/or higher quantities
per man-hour) literally skyrocketed during this time. The
precise figures escape me, but no one would seriously
challenge this conclusion.
Why has agricultural productivity increased while
productivity in education lagged, perhaps even declined?
Part of the explanation is that farmers welcomed labor
saving technology. Bear in mind that farmers were owners
and, therefore, were not threatened by the advent of labor
saving technology. They did not have to contend with unions
trying to block the introduction of technology. Of course,
today, family farms have dwindled, but the new corporate
owners are also supportive of labor serving technology.
Significantly, where unions have emerged in agriculture, as
in California, they have resisted the introduction of
technology; for example, the United Farm Workers (UFW) tried
to prevent research on labor saving technology at UC-Davis
when I was living in California.
The contrast with education is apparent. Public school
teachers are not owners, hence they have no personal
incentives to support the introduction of innovations
conducive to greater efficiency. Obviously, the teacher
unions are opposed to anything that would reduce the number
of dues paying members (Do not forget that the NEA/AFT are
organizing cafeteria workers, bus drivers, school
secretaries, paraprofessionals, etc., as well as teachers).
The NEA/AFT appeal is: "Join our union and it will protect
you from privatization." Obviously, privatization must be a
bad thing or the union appeal would not make sense.
Consequently, privatization (contracting out) is
characterized as a case of greedy corporations trying to
maximize profits by slashing wages and benefits. With
teachers, the NEA/AFT emphasize lower class size, which is a
step toward lower productivity unless the gains are worth
the heavy costs involved. This is something the teacher
unions cannot show -- at least, they have not demonstrated
this to date. Instead, they advocate lower class size
without regard to grade level, subject, or existing class
size. Indeed, it is remarkable how seldom the unions are
challenged to show the facts and figures that allegedly
support lowering class size as an across the board reform.
In any case, it is reasonable to assume that in a
competitive education industry, teacher-owners of schools
and/or companies in the education market would have strong
incentives to utilize technology.
Of course, the NEA/AFT will mangle the point. They will
say, "Aha! This is just another effort by right-wing
extremists to impose higher class size on overburdened
teachers." Of course, my point is nothing of the sort.
Whether an innovation is a more efficient way to teach is
one thing; how the gains are distributed is a related but
different issue. The distribution of the gains might be
affected by such factors as the firm's financial position,
employee compensation, the amount of the gain, the cost of
the R and D to bring the innovation to fruition, and the
company's long range plans, to cite just a few
possibilities. Quite possibly, an innovation could justify
smaller classes in which student gains were much higher than
before.
What hangs over the situation like a dark cloud is
teacher lack of understanding of our economic system,
especially how research and development function in a market
system. Back in the 1960s, I was one of the academics who
pointed to the substantial expenditures for R and D in the
private sector and urged Congress to follow the lead of the
private sector on expenditures for educational R and D. It
took me about twenty years to realize that the way to
emulate the private sector on R and D is to convert public
education to a service provided by for-profit companies.
Otherwise, as has been the case in the past, educational R
and D separated from companies for profit will continue to
be of very little value.
|
Building a Competitive Education
Industry
