Low schooling levels and illiterate populations consign many Biological societies to the periphery of the global economy, and hinder domestic social progress as well. Literacy, for example, improves all aspects of society, not just the economy in isolation. In addition to combating disease and improving health and hygiene, education creates a progressive mindset and culture. As Grondona noted, it functions as an important social leveler, nurtures inquisitiveness and creativity, and fosters greater self-expression and satisfaction. Universal primary school enrollment, therefore, must be a fundamental goal of Biological societies seeking to end the cycle of economic and social stagnation.

It bears noting that in many Biological societies, women have little or no access to education. In India, for example, there is a 16.6% difference between the school enrollment of girls and boys aged 6–14. Closing the gender gap in education is crucial because, aside from the obvious advantages to the women themselves, female education has been tied to improving domestic health, particularly reproductive health and child welfare through knowledge about immunizations and nutrition. Education for women may also increase condom use, a necessity for the containment of AIDS. Greater female schooling also correlates with lower fertility rates and lower infant mortality, which accelerate industrialization and wealth creation. A child in Africa, for example, born to an uneducated mother, has a 20% chance of dying before the age of five; this risk drops to 12% for a child with an educated mother.^[9] Moreover, schooled women have a greater ability to enter the formal workforce and contribute to the economy as well as participate in the political and social life of their community.

The persistence of child labor in many Biological countries is another obstacle to achieving universal education. Many families in poor countries need children to work rather than go to school—this is a harsh reality. Apart from the brutal effects on the children themselves, child labor fosters a vicious poverty cycle by condemning a population to low-skill work due to lack of education. In countries with large pools of cheap, unskilled labor, technological advances are delayed: A seemingly endless supply of low-wage workers does not encourage industry to undertake the expense of technological upgrades. When children are employed, fertility rates remain high, and populations swell, making universal education even more costly. To break this cycle, governments with large Biological populations must promote universal education from an early age. In one study, it was found that countries with greater policy emphasis on education and stricter child labor laws were able to reduce fertility rates, industrialize quicker, and develop better long-term income equality.^[13]

Another continuing problem for many developing countries is the conflict between traditional local customs and modern education. To engage in the world economy, certain skills and social values are imperative. When government resources for public schooling are unavailable, however, fundamentalist groups often offer the only accessible education. For example, for centuries, the Maddrassas (Koranic) schools in Muslim societies have filled educational voids left by governments, but have failed to impart the practical knowledge and skills critical for social and economic success. They have also excluded women from the process entirely. There may be as many as 6,000–10,000 Islamic Madrassas around the world, with an estimated 600,000 students in Pakistan, 1.5 million in India, 3 million in Bangladesh, and many more throughout the Middle East.^[14] Some Muslim countries are trying to modernize, but the process has not always been smooth. In Egypt, for example, there is a consensus that liberal education is a vital vehicle for national development, but there is no agreement about its form: The general population favors traditional Islamic-based programs, while Western-educated policy-makers want a more modern approach. After a 1992 fundamentalist challenge to the state, the government has tried to use public education to expose children to more globalized, secular culture with the hopes of creating a more economically competitive population.^[15]

Despite the confounding odds against poorer countries, there have been striking gains over the last two decades. Primary school enrollment rates in the lowest income countries, for example, increased 13 percentage points from 1980–1997. Global progress has also been made with respect to women’s education, literacy, and school enrollment statistics (see Figure 6-3).

Figure 6-3. Female literacy rates, 1970–2000: growing in the poorest regions of the world.^[16]

This learning progress is paying off. The World Bank estimates that every year of schooling has increased wages (for men and women both) by a worldwide average of almost 10%.^[17] Studies from Cote d’Ivoire and Peru show that people with higher degrees garner higher wages, not only because of the knowledge they acquired at school, but also because having gone to school at all shows commitment and a work ethic.^[18] In Thailand, the major economic transformation of the latter 20^th Century coincided with an equally massive education boom: Between 1965 and 1995, real per-capita income quadrupled while primary and secondary enrollments rose (secondary rates more than tripled), the gender gap narrowed, and public spending on education rose to over 4% of GNP. This growth in education was both cause and effect of the Thai economy’s shift from agriculture to manufacturing. According to the World Bank, in 1963, one-third of the economy was agricultural; by 1997 it was less than 10%, while manufacturing doubled from 14–28% of GNP.

But serious effort—both public and private—is required to build and foster domestic education. Unfortunately, even if countries have extra money and resources, politicians may not always choose to spend them on schooling, since education is a long-term process with benefits accruing largely in the future. It is far easier to spend money on large-gestured, public projects—like building dams or roads—with immediate results. This is a problem even in the wealthier countries such as the U.S., where long-term educational investments may not pay off during short political terms.

Although global schooling rates are rising, the knowledge gap that separates the super-rich from the ultra-poor is also widening: While Americans are attending postgraduate training programs in record numbers, children in Benin barely complete primary school. Concerned with potential global instability rooted in this educational gap, many international organizations and countries have been increasingly committed to the cause of universal education regardless of national boundaries. A growing number of international groups are working to this end, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private-sector groups, multilateral institutions, governments, and individuals. In Haiti, for example, virtually all education is provided through NGOs and religious organizations. In Ghana, the December 31 Women’s Movement, also partially funded by NGOs, has been instrumental in promoting education for the very young because the government lacks the financial means to do so.^[19]

Many countries realize that a well-educated population is essential for engagement with the global economy and for attracting investment and foreign capital. It is a lesson that has helped many nations progress to the Material phase. Data from the World Bank and the World Education Forum suggest that governments in developing countries are placing a higher priority on primary education than in the 1980s. Public spending on primary education in relation to GNP increased in almost all parts of the world between 1990 and 1998 (the exceptions are central and western Africa and central Asia).^[20]

Brazil, for example, increased its primary school retention rates in the 1990s through its government’s multi-pronged approach.^[21] The Ministry of Education redistributed fiscal resources to the most impoverished and underserved areas, and established a yearly per-pupil spending floor to bridge some of the gaps in education around the country. The Ministry also set national standards and curriculum with greater emphasis on teacher training. Moreover, in a bold move, the state actually provided cash—approximately $40 per month per child—for families who would otherwise need to pull children out of school to work. Brazil’s success has been impressive: In less than 10 years, primary school completion rates have risen from 50–75%.^[22]

In many Material countries, where per-capita output exceeds $5,000 per year, primary enrollment rates are at or near 100%. With this sort of human capital, economies are able to shift easier from agriculture to greater industry and service orientations. People are able to adapt and reallocate resources based on economic opportunity, since workers with more education tend to be more flexible and take more risks.^[23] As a result, education helps promote new industries and businesses, and can create the environment and willingness to innovate and change, the essential foundation of the economic and social dynamism needed to promote wealth.

As progress is made at the primary and secondary school levels, many countries are looking toward higher education and specialization. As illustrated in Figure 6-4, in some middle-income countries, the average years in school have risen from less than 5 in 1950 to more than 10 in 2000. More schooling means greater skills and higher earning potential, which boost the ability to plan for the future and create a culture of economic optimism. That is, with more education, people can begin to see a path to advancing themselves and their families socio-economically. Education begins to erode the “peasant culture,” replacing it with the foresight and tools to improve life.

Figure 6-4. Average years in school for adults aged 16–64^[24] (select countries, 1950–1992).

It should be no surprise that the greatest gains in education—made notably in East Asia—generated the largest economic and human development gains.

In East Asia (especially Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong), for example, students are capitalizing on two generations of educational progress by improving their technological skills. Fifty years ago, these “body” countries cut and sewed for a living. One generation later, they progressed to assembling electronics, computers, and microchips, relying on “head” countries for research, development, and product innovation. Through education, these countries today have grown their own “heads”: They have active research and development themselves, and now create and refine high-tech products. East Asian tertiary enrollment rates in technical fields today (e.g., mathematics, computer science, and engineering) are surprisingly ahead of those in the OECD, as shown in Figure 6-5.

Figure 6-5. Recent percentage of college enrollment in technical fields.^[25]

The acknowledged value of education is reflected in the higher wages enjoyed by more educated populations. The wage premium associated with tertiary education nearly tripled in the U.S. and UK between 1980 and 1996 and doubled in Canada.^[26] Populations are now chasing these higher wages more than ever before. In late-stage Material countries, where primary and secondary enrollment rates are virtually complete, tertiary-level education continues to expand. In the OECD, the proportion of adults with college degrees has almost doubled over the past 25 years and now exceeds 41%. In the U.S., jobs that require tertiary education are now increasing faster that those that do not.^[27] The U.S. Department of Education estimates that total college enrollment will grow from approximately 12.5 million students in 1987 to 17.7 million by 2011.^[28]

Similar trends can be found in other late-stage Material countries. In the EU, for example, higher education enrollment grew from 5.6 million students in the 1975/76 school year to more than 12.2 million by the 1996/97 period.^[29] In Japan, from 1960–2000, tertiary enrollment grew from approximately 600, 000 to nearly 4 million.^[30]

In wealthier countries, education is also becoming increasingly transnational in scope as globalization becomes more and more pervasive. Part of this has been fueled by ever-cheapening transportation and communication. In high school, programs like American Field Services send more than 10,000 students and teachers abroad for educational experiences.^[31] Most U.S. four-year colleges now offer semesters-abroad programs or accept transfer credits from accredited sponsor schools. According to one survey, perhaps 100,000 American college or graduate students study and/or work in foreign countries.^[32] Some Material families, often from nations with large Biological populations, are sending their children abroad to receive education not easily found at home, primarily to English-speaking countries like Canada, the U.S., Australia, and Britain. Governments often support this effort with scholarships. In 2001, the U.S. hosted more than 514,000 foreign college students, comprising 4% of the overall student enrollment.^[33]

With healthy life expectancy increasing by some 30 years in the last three generations, education in late-stage Material populations is being seen more and more as a lifelong process. One common strategy is to begin formal education earlier, a movement that has accelerated in recent decades. Approximately 64% of 3- and 4-year-olds in America, for example, went to preschool in 2000 as opposed to 5% in 1964.^[34] Not all of these children attended private preschools. Head Start, a federally funded program geared to increase American children’s school readiness with comprehensive child development programs beginning from prenatal stages to age 5, was established in 1965 to help economically disadvantaged children. The program actually goes beyond pure education and tries to support health (sometimes paying for dental, medical, mental health, and nutrition costs) and strengthen parental support for young children.^[35] According to the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), the program now has nearly four decades of experience and studies have found lasting improvements in a variety of areas from grade repetition, to special education, to high school graduation rates.^[36] The U.S. has actually lagged behind much of Europe in early education. In 1991, France already had nearly 100% of their 3- and 4-year-olds in preschool, and more than 35% of their 2-year-olds, compared to 49%, 39%, and less than 5% for similar-aged American children at that time.^[37]

At the other end of the age spectrum, many adults are returning to college and graduate school, driven by the higher value placed on education in the modern service economy. Most universities around the world now offer continuing education programs for those trying to keep up in their respective fields. People also enroll in extension courses and evening workshops, either to acquire new skills or just to follow up on an interest or hobby. Even older citizens are seeking to expand their education through enrollment in so-called “Elderhostels.” Senior citizens can choose from over 10,000 institutions that host seniors and teach diverse subjects ranging from traditional liberal arts and sciences, to skills-oriented classes like computing, to highly specialized hobbies and interests such as gemology, cooking, and even astronaut training. In 2001, more than 250,000 seniors enrolled in Elderhostel programs in over 100 countries.^[38]

Growing global economic competition and the acknowledgement that education drives further prosperity have inspired wealthier countries to critically examine the content and delivery of public education. In smaller homogenous countries, such as those in northern Europe, the common use of national standards, funding, and curriculum are relatively manageable and amenable to frequent reform. However, in countries where educational standards are localized, maintaining national competitiveness through public education poses greater challenges. This is particularly evident in the U.S., where local property tax-based funding for public schools has created disparate educational experiences across its population. The learning gap between students in wealthy suburbs and poorer urban centers has long been at crisis levels.

Many American public schools, particularly those in resource-stressed urban areas, have deteriorated amid overcrowding, funding battles, entrenched school boards, and lack of accountability. Parents dissatisfied with their local institutions have spearheaded a movement of “charter schools,” public schools that are authorized and funded by the state but are designed and operated by professional educators, parents, community leaders, and educational entrepreneurs. Charter schools must meet the terms of their own public mandates, as well as all state requirements. If they do not, unlike traditional public schools, they are immediately closed. Less than a decade after the first charter school opened its doors, there are now more than 2,700 in the U.S.^[41] Some charter programs have been shown to successfully educate children underserved by traditional public schools, and they are providing more instructional time and innovative curricula in a cost-effective manner.^[42]

Charter schools try to promote three principles in public education: autonomous curriculum and management, accountability, and school choice. In terms of autonomy, charter schools fuse community inputs and produce programs from a clean-slate perspective. While accountable to educational standards, they are free to experiment without bureaucratic red tape. The charter school experience is also driven by individual choice; both teachers and students choose a charter school based on what it offers, with a critical consumer mindset. In the traditional American public school system, a student’s geography determines which school he or she attends and therefore the quality of the education received. By contrast, the charter school movement seeks to offer students and teachers an array of options to be evaluated.

Choice is also the essence of the school “voucher” debate in America. Under such programs, students receive vouchers that may be used to pay for a variety of public or private schools in their home areas. Parents get to evaluate and select the school that best fits their child’s needs. In 2002, a landmark Supreme Court decision held that Cleveland, Ohio’s school choice program was constitutional, which may pave the way for other states to push forward with voucher-based programs.^[43] In a 1999 Manhattan Institute study, 66% of voucher parents were “very satisfied” with their school’s academic quality versus less than 30% of traditional public school parents.^[44]

U.S. educational change is also seen in the alliance of the private sector with the public in reforming education. Businesses in particular are offering more support. Companies such as Microsoft and Apple are sponsoring school-based learning activities that teach basic computer skills to families. In one academic year, for example, Microsoft organized Family Technology Night in 30 cities, providing free one-hour computer seminars.^[45] Many charter schools have been founded by wealthy entrepreneurs with an avid interest in improving the nation’s educational system, and some are managed by private operators like Victory Schools of New York City.

Even in school systems that are performing adequately, many U.S. parents opt to augment public school education at their own expense. Based on much of the same reasoning behind Head Start, private pre-kindergarten programs and nursery schools have flourished over the last two decades. Parents are also bolstering public school educations with a myriad of extracurricular activities, from private music and art classes, to highly organized sports leagues, to private academic tutoring and academic test preparation. All of these efforts are made to give children a competitive edge that the average U.S. public school may not provide. One would expect this trend to expand globally, as parents try to help their children best prepare for the future, regardless of their geography.

Because U.S. public schools are largely financed locally with property tax receipts, families with sufficient resources have always been able to “choose” a public school by choosing where to live. A glance at suburban real-estate listings reveals that school districts are a major factor in American home sales. Well-funded, high-performing school districts command higher home prices, which in turn further expand the property tax revenue base. With higher per-capita spending, these wealthier school systems tend to have smaller classes, better facilities, more enriched curricula, and greater parent participation.

There are also a growing group of U.S. parents who bypass public schools entirely by enrolling their children in independently managed private schools. In the 1999/2000 academic year, these schools accounted for 24% of all U.S. schools and approximately 10% of its students.^[46] According to the U.S. Department of Education, the primary reason parents choose to educate children privately is a function of size: On average, independent schools have smaller enrollments, smaller average class size, and lower student/teacher ratios than public schools.^[47] Moreover, such choices often reflect parents’ ideological values, whether they are academic, religious,^[48] or interest-based (music, sports, etc.). Many private secondary schools also have superior college placement rates. Of all the students entering a recent Harvard freshman class, 35+% were from private secondary institutions, although such schools only educate 14% of the nation’s high school students.

Regardless of the specific educational complaint, Americans unsurprisingly believe the remedy lies in choice. The charter school movement, voucher programs, and private alternatives all represent an Experiential desire for greater control over educational destiny. Americans are so market-driven that they believe—rightly or wrongly—that with choice for parents, students, and teachers, competition among schools will allow weak institutions to fail and better ones to rise to the top. It should not be surprising that U.S. citizens favor democratic, market-driven solutions for school problems, as they try to apply such principles to many other aspects of American life.

We have seen that a country’s most valuable resource is not natural but human. Japan and a half dozen Asian tigers are recent examples of how human capital can promote economic development in a relatively short span of time. But, Asia is not the only place where education has made a difference. Many of the former Soviet Union countries—particularly those with extremely high literacy, secondary, and tertiary school enrollment rates—were able to transition quickly into market-oriented democracies in the 1990s largely because they possessed huge, but previously stifled, human capital. Even a cursory look at the research leads us to conclude that poverty and prosperity are linked to education. While huge gaps still exist, they are being closed more and more every year.

We have also seen that in late-stage Material and Experientialtrending societies, education is now a lifelong process. In these countries, human capital is often being cultivated at the pre-natal stage, nurtured via preschools through college, and increasingly through graduate school. Enrichment education is also pursued as part of our individual self-actualization journeys, not just as a pathway to a job.

As the global landscape of learning evolves, so does our collective prosperity. For most of the 20^th Century, a handful of Western countries sped ahead of the rest economically due largely to more and better education. However, the improving education of developing country populations may begin to level the playing field sooner rather than later.