Why Does Everyone Talk About the Importance of Education but Few Do Something to Improve It?
Why Does Everyone Talk About the Importance of Education but Few Do Something to Improve It?
Hugo Eduardo Meza Pinto (*)
Marcus Eduardo de Oliveira (**)
Hypothetically, imagine the situation in Brazil after receiving two atomic bombs in any war. Imagine further, that all the pride of the country has been devastated, like its infrastructure and economic and social development. Compounding this scenario of pure imagination, imagine that Brazil has no wealth of natural resources (anything from the Amazon or Atlantic Forest) or the mineral wealth we now have.
In this imaginative exercise think now that the geographical area of that country was composed of volcanic islands vulnerable to earthquakes in the last degree on the Richter scale.
Imagined? It would be chaos, right?
If you think this is one of the world's worst case scenarios, be surprised to learn that in the last century, after the Second World War (after 1945), Japan had all these features described above, with the exception of natural resources in large scale.
However, even given all these constraints of structural and economic orders, this oriental country managed to overcome them with massive investments in a policy of long-term development, focusing on reconstruction of infrastructure and especially in the appreciation of education as an element of transformation. The Japanese educational policy focused specifically on the creation of technical courses supported by a policy of innovation applied at the base. Copy the best products, surpass them in quality, and the proposed goal was achieved by the Japanese. Result? In the 1980s, the then U.S. president Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), had to ask the Japanese Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita (1924-2000), that companies of his country, especially the automotive sector, stop selling cars in the U.S. market, since such action could cause the fall of General Motors (GM).
Not very long after these events, in the 1960s, South Korea sought a model of economic development to be able to move forward with South Korean companies. The socioeconomic indicators of the country were below the Brazilians, not counting the tiny home market. At the same time, Brazil was experiencing the fruits of the process via Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI), which was basically to protect the domestic market from international competition, thus ensuring a space for companies which were within the country (both domestic and multinationals). Such a practice would lead to a competitive process capable of making local businesses replace imported products, ensuring, in essence, a consistent and promising industrialization.
Korea, it is important to note, copied this model with some variations: 1) protected its industry while at the same time promoting competition in the world order, 2) as its domestic market was small, they opted to sell their products to the world, which obliged it, therefore, to make its industries take measured efforts with international leaders, particularly on issues of innovation and competitiveness, 3) conducted an extensive and symptomatic revolution in its education system.
The last demonstration in which this took place? Radical changes occurred in schools through the university level. Substantial investments in basic education have made South Korea think big, as the ruling class believed that education needed structural change. From there a culture of meritocracy was implanted to encourage education, increasing the number of hours of study. Today, after a decade of the new century, the South Koreans study twice as many hours as compared to Brazilian children.
South Korea emphasized specific points: improved teacher salaries, increased partnerships with the private sector in order to raise funds for education and promotion of technological innovation and, ultimately, involved the nuclear family in responsibility (co-participation) in the process of teaching and learning. They applied the sermon that together (government, families, businesses, students and teachers) all become stronger.
The figures underpin this statement: The budget for education in South Korea rose from 2.5% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1951 to 22% in 1980 - in less than thirty years, a jump of more than 750% . The result was predictable: South Korea was the only country that managed to develop economically in a well structured form over the last quarter of the twentieth century.
Education: the key variable
In the examples cited, education appears as a decisive variable for the development of countries (Japan and Korea), and currently it is being worked in a cohesive manner for countries growing at considerable rates such as India and China.
This "variable" called education, was also the object of study by economist Theodore Schultz (1902-1998). Following the war, Schultz wondered why Germany and Japan, which were defeated countries physically ravaged by the crudity of bombs, recovered so quickly. Schultz's conclusion was that the speed of recovery of these countries was due explicitly to a healthy and highly educated population. He said a good combination of these two variables - health and education - weprefer to callit sentiment, would significantly increase the productivity and competitiveness of these and other countries who transited through these paths.
