Asymmetry: education will cause disparities to grow

I first presented my approach to reshaping education during the T20 Inception Workshop in Argentina. Our involvement with the T20 is based on our belief in the need to realign business, economies, and society. Understanding how we can better educate for the future is one of the fundamental elements of the path we suggest to design a world that is more equitable for all.

The world has become significantly wealthier over the last few decades which has both elevated millions of people out of poverty and created people with obscene levels of wealth. However, in the same time period, those who were moderately well-off and those who were really, really poor have seen no progress, and in many cases their real wealth has declined. This trend in the rising disparity in wealth and the erosion of the middle class we have called Asymmetry in the ADAPT framework.

You might ask what asymmetry has to do with education. At the most basic level it is essential to recognize two elements of asymmetry to understand its relevance. First, there are significant differences in wealth within most countries and across the world: some regions are really wealthy and others not so. And, second, wealth often provides access to education. These two taken together suggest that unless we manage education correctly, it will reinforce an existing disadvantage, rather than being the equalizing force most of us consider it to be.

But, the issues are even deeper still and the solutions require looking at what we teach and learn, the institutions in which we do so, and the relationship between those institutions and the communities and societies of which they are a part. To understand this, it is essential to consider four major aspects of asymmetry in greater detail.

1. Disparities in opportunity will grow and regional disadvantage is likely to get larger.

We already highlighted one major factor for growing disparities; access. It is concerning, for example, that the universities providing the greatest opportunities after graduation, disproportionately admit wealthy students. However just changing admissions processes will not solve the growing disparity issue. Consider the context in which schools are trying to operate — the relationship between schools and their environment. Most elementary and high school education is locally funded — drawing on taxes collected at a local level or private tuition collected at the school level. The challenge starts with the dramatic disparities in the level of wealth in different regions of a country or world. By definition, local resources will reflect that disparity. Teacher salaries, quality of facilities, and extra-curricular activities will be funded at quite disparate levels.

Direct funding of the institutions is not the only challenge; in some regions of the world parents need their children to work to sustain the family. In these cases, even if the schools are adequate, many students simply cannot attend, or are not able to devote the same time to their studies as their peers with fewer familial responsibilities. And, differences in individual wealth compound the issues with some parents being able to afford their children private tutoring, private schools and college preparation, that others’ cannot. But, there is a silver lining to the disparity challenge. As when developing countries were able to leapfrog to cellular phones without building the infrastructure for landline communication, innovations in education can be adopted when there is not a significant installed base. To do this, however, requires finding a vehicle for getting access to capital, and wherewithal to do so.

2. Technological capability enhances disparities.

I remember when calculators were first introduced into teaching. The notion was that the existence of the calculator would reduce the disparity between those good in math and those less so, as well as to make up for initial disadvantage in math learning. Unfortunately, they did just the reverse. Better math students and students with greater math preparation could use the calculator in ways that those less capable or less well-prepared simply could not do. The disadvantage grew. The same is true with smart technology; instead of bringing people closer together, disparity grows. Today this happens for two reasons. First, poorer regions or students cannot afford the technology and, second, even if they do, they do not have the same support to help them be effective. Consider the implications for schools in disadvantaged areas. Most significantly, technology spend needs to be prioritized in their small budgets and they should also use technology to reduce the running costs of running their institution and enhance the quality of learning. Of course, this is difficult as the teachers themselves often face the same challenges as the schools in which they teach, they too cannot afford technology. And, without significant prior experience they do not have the insight to understand how to use technology to enhance learning or improve the quality and reduce the costs of school administration to free up resources for teaching and learning. Technology creates a Catch-22 for regions or individuals who are less well off. Technology can help reduce disadvantage, but because of disadvantage there is limited access to the technology that can help.

3. Traditional sources of money will decline.

Many countries have looked to the government to equalize educational opportunities, or at least to ensure some sense of universal education. However, traditional sources of tax money are declining as wealth disparity grows. Consider the typical sources of public revenue:

a. Income tax. Wealth tends to be kept in the form of capital and many wealthy people seek to limit declared income, both because that strategy has tax advantages and because if you are truly wealthy it is hard to spend the income the wealth generates. As wealth is kept as capital, income tax as a source of revenue declines for the state. At the same time, incomes for the middle class have declined in real terms, which means there is less real income to tax.

b. Sales tax or VAT. For similar reasons these two sources of tax revenue also decline with wealth disparity, as people spend proportionately less of their wealth as wealth grows. In addition, disposable income is increasingly being spent on experiences rather than material possessions, which are not taxed in the same way.

Taken together these examples illustrate that, especially for poorer regions, tax revenue declines as wealth disparity grows.

4. Public private partnerships are more critical. Which brings us to the key idea at the heart of any solution to managing the growing disparity in educational opportunity. If we are going to make progress in advancing educational opportunity in regions without resources, or for children from impoverished backgrounds, we are going to have to increasingly depend upon the private sector. This is true for two reasons — increasingly capital and meaningful technological insight sit within the private sector. To make these partnerships work will require us to change how we think about teaching and learning, running schools and the relationship between schools and their larger communities.

Consider each in turn:

a. Relationship between a school and its broader environment. Many schools have at their heart the notion that they are public entities funded by the government to ensure they are open to all and part of the rights of any citizen. However, as described above, relying on public funding alone is limiting. Many wealthy individuals are expressing significant interest in education, a large number of them in places with the greatest need. But, they may not support educational efforts without some influence over how the money gets spent and they rarely target school settings that have not sought them out. There are three reasons I think wealthy people offer their support. First, they could be of the diaspora, having left the country to make their wealth, but with a sustained interest in their region of origin. Second, they may draw critical material or staff from the region. And, finally, they may just care. There are a growing number of people who care and are willing to invest provided the recipient is open to some of their ideas.

b. Implications for the school itself. To accept help of this sort requires a new kind of leader: one willing to completely rethink how a school, school system or the learning process should work. Successful people generate ideas and they expect their partners to both entertain and be able to operationalize them. This raises the stakes for school leaders both in terms of their ability to imagine alternative models, and to execute them in often challenging circumstances. But, such imagination and ability is essential. Consider the challenges of scale (such as India’s need to educate millions of students, many very disadvantaged) or dated curricula, such as places still depending upon the British curriculum from the 1950s, but needing their villages to create people able to compete in the 21st century.

c. Implications for teaching and learning. It is perhaps at the interface of teaching and learning that wealthy, creative people can have the biggest impact: helping find ways to enhance student learning; helping teachers remain current, bringing the best of the world to bear on classes no matter where in the world; helping to keep the curriculum current; and helping students connect their learning with issues in the real world. To take that help teachers will need to be open to the ideas of people outside their profession, ideas that might seem crazy (and some of which are). But, if they really wish to help their students be ready for the world in which they will live teachers need such help. This requires a special kind of teacher. One able to listen, experiment, learn, reject that which does not work and keep that which does. Always keeping the interest of the student at heart. Our best teachers do that all the time. The job of the philanthropist and the administrator working with them is to help them do that better, faster and in a more relevant manner.

The very real risks associated with asymmetry also provide opportunities to find solutions in untraditional places. We should maximize these, fast, to meet the education needs particularly of those from disadvantaged regions. And, we must remember Asymmetry is only one of the forces to consider when reviewing the challenges for education. All the proposals suggested here must also be considered alongside the implications of the other four elements of ADAPT. In my next post, I will dive into the case for Disruption.

Learn more about PwC’s engagement with T20 here: www.pwc.com/commonpurpose