Education and the Economy

Abstract

The majority of education and economy experts believe that their fields are intrinsically linked. That is, a stable economy depends on a skilled, educated populace, and quality education institutions depend on funding and support from individuals living in a prospering economy. A survey of the history of education and the economy shows the close link between an educational institution and its surrounding community. Speculations on the future of the nation's economy and its education institutions are also reviewed as are comparisons between the U.S. and other nations. Education will prepare students for employment in the "new economy," however failure to prepare may have devastating consequences. Some alternative viewpoints argue that government entities may actually be fostering poor quality education systems for their own economic gains.

Overview

For those who live in the United States, education is seemingly a free commodity for persons age five to eighteen. Much like the water that comes from the taps, bridges that connect two separate land masses, or the paved roads that enable transportation, public education is something people take for granted and assume will always be there. Despite its ubiquitous nature, education is not free. Citizens pay for administrators and teachers' salaries, classrooms and school halls, computers and textbooks, and other components of their schools through taxes. In this way, the previous generation funds the education of the current one, which is usually monitored or controlled by politics, public opinion, and voting (Glomm & Ravikumar, 1992, p. 818).

Historical Perspectives. After World War II, the United States, working with such international organizations as the United Nations, sought to build its education systems in order to create and secure solid, prospering economies for its citizenry. The United States, like most other developed nations, began funding public education institutions grades K–12 and requiring all persons of a certain age to attend these institutions. Such efforts enabled more advancement among the socioeconomic classes and gave everyone, regardless of their income, a chance to better their position in life. K–12 education provides better income and employment opportunities for the individual and also fosters a solid economic environment for communities and the country overall. Decidedly, high priority was given to economic development and funding education was seen as key (Resnik, 2006, p.176).

In the 1960s, economists of education started seeing publicly funded education as an investment or a commodity much the same way one would invest in the open market. Economists such as Friedrich Edding began measuring public education in terms of return on investment, costs, human capital, and residual factors (Resnik, 2006, p. 181). Economists such as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Alfred Marshall, and others closely tied education to capital. Neoclassical economist Marshall believed education was a national investment and said that "public education unleashed reserves of talent latent in the population" (p. 182). Seeking to correlate numbers and data to education and the economy, Theodore Schultz and Gary S. Becker developed the theory of human capital which built quantitative indicators of human resource development. Using these tools, economists were able to determine that high quality human capital was closely linked to strong economic development (p. 182). In other words, talented, skilled, educated people built and sustained robust economies.

Public versus Private Education. Though the federal government partially provides funding to all public schools, K–12 public education is largely funded by its own district and state. As such, the wealth of a school district usually mirrors the wealth of its surroundings. In this way, affluent neighborhoods tend to fund schools with superior facilities such as modern computer, library, and science labs. These districts typically can pay better wages to teachers thereby attracting educators with more experience and better reputations. Districts in financially strapped communities may lack the resources to provide such funding for their schools. As a result these schools are more likely to lack such modern facilities and are less likely to be able to recruit and retain quality teachers. Teacher to student ratios tend to be higher in poorly funded schools, which have been shown to negatively impact student learning (Glomm & Ravikumar, 1992, p. 820).

Conversely, private schools do not rely on public funding and are therefore dependent on the donations of parents, relatives, or community leaders to operate. It is a long-held belief by many in the U.S. that private schools offer better educational opportunities when compared to their public school counterparts. In a 1992 study Glomm & Ravikumar compared the two domains and found that in fact private education is typically superior to public education, provided that the income of those who support the private school continues to remain high. Private schools can often afford current technologies and resources and often can afford to pay higher salaries in order to recruit better educators (p. 832). This evidence shows the reciprocal relationship between quality education and a strong economy. In other words, those who have funds and who are the beneficiaries of a thriving economy can pay for quality education that will in turn foster its continued economic prosperity. For better or worse, public education does serve to lessen the impact of income differential for the individual student. In other words, all students within the same public school district, regardless of their individual family income, are able to achieve the same goals (p. 832).

State by State Differences. Since public schools both at the K–12 level and at the college level are so heavily dependent on the state for funding and support, it should surprise no one that each state differs vastly in regard to such spending. Along these lines, the state's legislature and other elected government officials play a significant role in allocating funds to public schools. In giving a speech to state legislators, David Wyss, Standard & Poor's chief economist, said, "States with the highest percentage of college graduates boast the highest personal incomes and lowest unemployment rates" (Weinberg et al., 2005). While such messages may reinforce the importance of education, state legislatures often have many valuable public entities and groups competing for the same limited budget. Considering these factors as well as political influences, legislators are often pushed to cut spending in one or more areas. Because quality public schools are so closely linked with their surrounding economies, many legislatures recognize the importance of making sure their schools receive adequate funding. Yet because the payoff for an educational investment is not seen immediately, public school funding is sometimes reduced due to more pressing concerns (Weinberg et al., 2005).

Looking Forward. In the post World War II era, the United States thrived and prospered; the country was an economic powerhouse that seemed unstoppable in terms of growth and sustainability. In the early 1990s, a shift occurred where Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and others saw huge development that outshined U.S. and European growth. People then started making comparisons between the U.S. and Asian nations and the stark contrasts between educational attainments began to gain attention. Where the U.S. once dominated, its education systems were now lukewarm. With economic security more dependent on a skilled, educated labor force than ever before, what kind of picture is being painted of the nation's future? Since having a strong economy depends on having an educated, capable workforce, many are concerned that the standard of living may actually worsen. Hanushek (2002), a senior fellow at the progressive Hoover Institution, says, "The evidence suggests that the American K–12 education system is falling behind those of other developed nations. As a result, it is unclear whether we will be able to count on the education system to fuel future U.S. economic growth" (p. 12). Of particular concern are U.S. students' test scores in areas of mathematics and science, which show to be average or even below average when compared to other countries. Since these skills are of the utmost importance in the 21st century economy, Hanushek suggests that the U.S. may have to partially rely on an international workforce to fill such high-skill jobs if its K–12 schools do not take drastic steps to reform and improve student learning (Hanushek, 2002, p.16).

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, results from the 2012 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), American students continue to perform academically below students of other industrialized nations. On the 2012 PISA, U.S. 15-year-olds scored below 27 other countries/education systems, with only 9% of U.S. students performing at the highest level of proficiency; by way of comparison, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 55 percent of students from Shanghai scored at the highest level, as did 13 percent of students from all OECD countries combined. The average mathematics score for American students was 481, below the OECD average of 494, and below that of students in 29 other systems. In science, only 7% of U.S. students scored at the highest level of proficiency, not statistically different from the OECD average of 8%, but below that of 17 other countries. The average science score for U.S. students was 497, also not statistically different fro the OECD average of 501, but below that of students in 22 other systems, including Shanghai, whose students received the highest average score of 580. In reign, 8% of U.S. students scored at the highest proficiency level, not statistically different from the OECD average, but below students in 14 education systems, including the highest scorer Shanghai (25%). The average score for U.S. students was 498, not statistically different from the OECD average of 496, but below 19 education systems, including the highest scorer, Shanghai. Based on PISA 2015, average science and reading scores for US students were not measurably different from 2012 scores, while the 2015 scores for mathematics literacy were lower than they were in 2012 (NCES, 2015)

Further Insights

Education for the Twenty-First Century Economy. In preparing for what he called the "new economy," based on globalization, service sector growth, and technological innovation, Hall (2007) sought to discover which states or regions were best prepared to educate, train, and retain a workforce capable of thriving in this new market. In order to maintain or bolster a state's economy, the local government needs to ensure that educated, skilled graduates will stay in the area and not take their skills to another state. Therefore, states need to attract new economy businesses such as information-based industries, rather than rely on manufacturing and other "old economy" staples (p.632). In order to grow, states need to work with education and business sectors to implement innovative solutions to solve these problems of the new economy. Hall (2007) argues, "The most important human resources for innovation (new economy development) are experienced scientists and engineers, as well as individuals who are training to become scientists and engineers" (p. 633). In his study, he concluded that a state's ability to find innovative ways to educate these workers and attract businesses to employ them will yield long-term economic prosperity. States such as New York, California, and Massachusetts that have large populations with solid governmental, educational, and economic systems in place are better prepared for the new economy than states that are sparsely populated with fragmented infrastructures. To prosper, these states will need to embrace innovation in order to find ways to grow in the new economy or they are likely to stagnate (Hall, 2007 p. 633).

In this new economy, those with in-demand skills or talent will be heavily recruited and paid top dollar salaries while others will work low-wage, repetitive jobs that offer little growth or security. College-educated persons will typically see the results of their efforts pay off as more of them will earn higher paying jobs. Though most jobs will offer little in terms of employer security when compared to generations past, educated workers are more equipped and capable of changing jobs or even careers over the course of a lifetime. On the other side of the coin, the future looks bleak for blue collar, low-skill, poorly educated individuals whose jobs are being outsourced, replaced by immigrants who will accept low wages, or by technological innovations (Roth, 2007, p. 57).

The Digital Divide. In order to better prepare students to be successful in the global, service-based, and technologically innovative economy, teaching students how to use computers has become a core of any contemporary K–12 education institution. With the focus of the economy shaped around information technology, students attending schools equipped with current technologies have a marked advantage over those who do not. The term "digital divide" is often used to refer to the gap between those with information technology skills and those without them. Closing this disparity is a goal for educators and also for those in business who know a vital economy depends on a tech-savvy workforce. The digital divide often reflects socioeconomic divides in society. However, many computer users saw the digital divide as a choice, believing that age and an unwillingness to learn account for it more than wealth or accessibility (Clark, Demont-Heinrich, & Webber, 2004, p. 534). As such, they felt that neither schools nor the government was necessarily responsible for providing people with computer instruction or access. According to Clark, et al., many who did not use or have access to computers said they felt using computers was a luxury and not something needed in society. Few thought the government should fund programs that would enable low-income families to own computers, even when they acknowledged that having computers would give them educational advantages. In this way, those without computers typically did not fully grasp their importance, particularly when it referred to their future employment opportunities or potential salaries (p. 536).

Examples from Preschool. Sustainable economic development has been linked to education programs at all levels from pre-kindergarten to high school and from technical training to postdoctoral studies. In efforts to improve the overall capabilities and skills of its state's workforce, a Washington-based Committee for Economic Development sought to review the relationships between certain education programs and economic growth. In a report, the Committee found that individuals who attended pre-K education programs had better chances of attaining and keeping quality, high-paying jobs than those who did not. As a result, committee members sought to find ways to better fund these programs as well as give students greater access to them (Hurst, 2004). However, critics such as Krista Kafer of the state's Heritage Foundation argued that no hard evidence could be found that directly linked pre-K education to success in high school, college, and career. She concluded that any connections were coincidental. In this example, business leaders and others showed reluctance in funding pre-K programs until long-term positive results could be more conclusive (Hurst, 2004).

During the 1960s, the High/Scope Perry Preschool Study began in order to follow a large group of students from preschool through adulthood and study life outcomes. The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study is convincing of the importance of pre-K education. The study compared two groups of low-income, African Americans at different phases of life. Fifteen of the individuals attended a pre-K education program and the other fifteen did not. When comparing the two groups at ages 11, 14, 15, 19, 27, and 40, the results overwhelmingly showed better outcomes for those individuals who attended pre-K. Specifically, the individuals who attended pre-K had better high school and college graduation rates, were more likely to hold steady jobs, were more likely to own their own home, were more likely to avoid the criminal justice system, and were less likely to need social services than those who did not. This study shows how states and community organizations can receive exponential benefit in the long-run by investing in such pre-K programs for low-income families. The study also suggests that from an economic vantage point, the local, state, and federal governments can save thousands of dollars in long-term, adult-care programs by investing in pre-K (Manning & Patterson, 2006).

Publicly Funded Higher Education. Despite the problems with K–12 public education schools, U.S. institutions of higher education remain world renown in attracting large numbers of international students. According to the Digest of Education Statistics produced by the National Center for Education Statistics (2016), in 2009–2010, total expenditures for public degree-granting institutions in the U.S. totaled over $281 million, with average per-student expenditures of $35,679 for students at 4-year institutions and $11,902 for students at 2-year institutions; in 2014–15, the total expenditures totaled over $335.6 million. State by state comparisons show a stark contrast in per state spending, tuition rates, and private donations. Morgan, Kickham, & LaPlant (2001) argue that state funding for higher education works closely along with supply and demand economic principles. If enrollment dictates that an institution needs to grow, then the state may consider increasing funding to that institution, particularly if its programs are closely tied with need in the local area. This supply and demand also can affect tuition pricing, causing the cost of in-demand programs to rise in some circumstances (p. 360). More often than not, state funding mimics the funding by the federal government. That is, when the federal government gives a solid amount to one state's public universities, that state feels more secure and will follow suit.

The wealth of the state or even of the university community affects how much state funding goes to higher education institutions. Affluent communities expect and demand more out of their universities and colleges; they demand good facilities, topnotch faculty, and cutting edge programs. Understanding how such an investment benefits its economy, states follow the example of their wealthier residents and pour money into the universities. Conversely, states that are struggling to keep afloat may not make funding of higher education a priority, which will negatively impact their community over the long run. In this way, the link between education and wealth cannot be denied (Morgan, Kickham, & LaPlant, 2001, p. 362).

Viewpoints

The Quasi-Privatization of Public Education. In recent years, one way of attempting to improve the quality of public education in grades K–12 has been through "quasi privatization" and use of standardized testing. In 2001, President George W. Bush passed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation that gave the state and federal government the power to base school funding on the performance of its students. Schools whose students performed poorly on standardized tests could lose their funding and actually be forced to close their doors or become private enterprises (Leistyna, 2007, p. 64). Numerous corporations such as Edison Schools/Newton Learning Corporation, Educational Testing Service's ETS K–12, Advantage Learning Systems, Measured Progress, Data Recognition, Questar Educational Services, Kaplan, Princeton Review, BP, AT&T, Tribune, McGraw-Hill, IBM, and Dupont — and the politicians who accept donations from them — are turning huge profits by forcing schools to purchase testing and related materials. By closely following the money trail, one can see that funds go from taxpayers to the government, to schools, and then to publishing or educational companies (p. 65).

Teaching to the Test. Though in one form or another standardized testing has been used for years, it is now used so extensively with NCLB that "teaching to the test" has become the norm. Since the schools depend on their students' achievement of passing test scores in order to get funding, they now spend money to buy test-prep materials. Leistyna (2007) argues that rather than spending the money on student learning, money is being spent on acquiring these publications and other educational services. Pedagogy has been replaced by mnemonics and strategizing to better ensure that students will pass standardized testing (p. 58). Moreover, in affluent school districts, parents can pay for costly private tutoring sessions and expensive prep books that "guarantee" success. Since the passage of NCLB, public schools administer nearly 50 million tests each year at a cost of about $400 to $700 million (Leistyna, 2007, p. 56). Private tutoring company Educate Inc., which owns Sylvan Learning Centers, has seen its profits increase 250 percent. From public schools in affluent suburban communities to those in impoverished inner-city neighborhoods, there seems to be virtually no consensus from teachers and administrators on how, if at all, NCLB and its standardized testing is improving learning for students (Leistyna, 2007, p. 66).

Another View of NCLB. In a highly controversial opinion, some have suggested that NCLB was intentionally designed to fail. In this way, schools that failed to meet NCLB accountability standards would close their doors thereby forcing students to attend private or charter schools. Money from the private schools would then go into the pockets of educational service corporations and the politicians who accept donations from such companies (Leistyna, 2007, p. 70). Bill Bennett, former Secretary of Education under the Reagan administration, gave evidence to this type of thinking in a discussion with Intel director Reed Hundt. When Hundt asked Bennett if he would for help him get legislation passed to help fund Internet capabilities in all classrooms and libraries in the country, an effort extending from a bill passed from the Clinton administration, Bennett replied,

“That he would not help, because he did not want public schools to obtain new funding, new capability, new tools for success. He wanted them to fail so that they could be replaced with vouchers, charter schools, religious schools, and other forms of private education” (as cited in Leistyna, 2007, p. 70).

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Another attempt to improve performance by American students nationwide is creation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), a set of standards developed in 2010 by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, in consultation with education researchers, parents, teachers, and school administrators. The goals of the CCSS include establishing high goals and expectations for English language arts and mathematics education across the country, and fostering state cooperation in developing educational materials and assessments. The federal government played no role in developing the CCSS, and state adoption of the CCCS is voluntary; however, by September 2017, thirty-six states and the District of Columbia had adopted and kept the CCSS; ten other states had adopted CCSS, but subsequently announced a major revision or replacement of the standards; four states had not adopted CCSS, and one state, Minnesota, adopted the English language arts standards but not the mathematical standards (Ujifusa et al., 2017). Some see CCSS as an admirable attempt to raise the quality of education across the U.S., while others see it as a means of reducing local control and imposing national standards that may not be appropriate to a local school system. In addition, because American school systems are funded primarily at the local and state levels, the imposition of standards without increased funding is seen by some as essentially courting or ensure failure for students in poorly-funding school systems.

Terms & Concepts

Digital Divide: Slang term for the gap between those who have and use computers and those who do not. It also refers to people who are computer literate and those who are not.

Economic Development: The economic development of a community is related to jobs and income, as well as standard of living, including factors such as human development, education, health, and environmental sustainability.

Human Resources: Related to economics, the term human resources is the study of how people allocate scarce resources to produce various commodities and the distribution of those commodities for consumption.

Market Economy: A market economy, as the one in the U.S., is an economy in which most production, distribution, and exchange is controlled by private individuals and corporations rather than by the government; a capitalistic system in which the government involvement in the market is minimal.

New Economy: The new economy, a term that was first coined in the 1990s, involves industry sectors producing computers and related goods and services such as e-commerce. It is characterized by an accelerated rate of productivity, innovative ideas, and new ways of doing business.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): Initiated by President George W. Bush in 2001, the NCLB education reform plan incorporates four different principles: a stronger liability for improved results, expanded flexibility and local control, broadened options for parents, and an emphasis on methods of instruction that have worked in the past.

Public School: Public school is largely defined as a tax-supported elementary or high school open to anyone. In the U.S., public schools are operated by state and local governments.

Standardized Test: A test administered in accordance with explicit directions for uniform administration. It compares the performance of every individual subject with a norm or criterion.

Bibliography

Cavanagh, Sean. (2012, Jan.). Complex policy options abound amid international comparisons. Education Week 31 , p. 6–10. Retrieved December 27, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=70474691&site=ehost-live

Clark, L.S., Demont-Heinrich, C., & Webber, S. A. (2004). Ethnographic interviews on the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6 , 529-547.

Department of education, state of Indiana. (2005). Standardized test. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from http://www.doe.state.in.us/asap/definitions.html

Digital divide. (n.d.). Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English, Preview Edition. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/digitaldivide

Glomm, G. & Ravikumar, B. (1992). Public versus private investment in human capital: Endogenous growth and income inequality. The Journal of Political Economy, 100 , 818–834. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=9211164919&site=ehost-live

Hall, J. L. (2007). Informing state economic development policy in the new economy: A theoretical foundation and empirical examination of state innovation in the United States. Public Administration Review, 67 , 630-646. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=25335354&site=ehost-live

Hanushek, E. (2002). The seeds of growth. Education Next, 2, 10-17. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from http://media.hoover.org/documents/ednext20023_10.pdf

Hoffman, T. (2005, October 4). The candid Bennett. eSchool News: Ed-Tech Insider. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/eti/2005/10/001190.php

Human resources. (2005). The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from http://www.bartleby.com/65/ec/economics.html

Hurst, M. D. (2004, Nov. 3). Groups link preschool education, economic growth. Education Week, 24 , 8. Retrieved August 6, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=15200285&site=ehost-live

Lee, J., and Reeves, T. Impact of NCLB high-stakes school accountability, capacity, and resources: State NAEP 1990-2009 reading and math achievement gaps and trends. (2012, June). Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis 34 , p. 209-231. Retrieved December 27, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=74556370&site=ehost-live

Leistyna, P. (2007). Corporate testing: Standards, profits, and the demise of the public sphere.

Manning, M. & Patterson, J. (2006). Lifetime effects: The high/scope Perry preschool study through age 40. Childhood Education, 83 , 121.

Market economy. (2002). The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Retrieved August 8, 2007, from http://www.bartleby.com/59/18/marketeconom.html

Matlock, K. K., Goering, C. Z., Endacott, J., Collet, V. S., Denny, G. S., Jennings-Davis, J., & Wright, G. P. (2016). Teachers’ views of the Common Core State Standards and its implementation. Educational Review, 68(3), 291–305. doi:10.1080/00131911.2015.1070333. Retrieved February 12, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=117840631&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Morgan, D. R., Kickham, K., & LaPlant, J.T. (2001). State support for higher education: A political economy approach. Policy Studies Journal, 29, 359-372. Retrieved August 8, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=6006385&site=ehost-live

National Center for Education Statistics (2015). Selected findings from PISA 2015. Institute of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2015/pisa2015highlights‗1.asp.

National Center for Education Statistics (2016). Table 334.10: Expenditures of public degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by purpose of expenditure and level of institution: selected years, 2007–08 through 2014–15. Institute of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16‗334.10.asp.

New economy. (n.d.). Online Glossary of Research Economics. Retrieved August 8, 2007, from http://www.econterms.com/

Public school. (n.d.). The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Retrieved August 8, 2007, from http://www.bartleby.com/65/pu/publicsc.html

Resnik, J. (2006). International organizations, the "education-economic growth" black box, and the development of world education culture. Comparative Education Review, 50 , 173-195, 309. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20943956&site=ehost-live

Ribeiro, R. & Warner, M. (n.d.). Economic development. Measuring the Regional Importance of Early Care and Education: The Cornell Methodology Guide. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/html/MethodologyGuide_TermsUsed.htm

Schleicher, A. (2011, Oct.). Is the sky the limit to education improvement? Phi Delta Kappan 93 , p. 8-62. Retrieved December 27, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=66478609&site=ehost-live

Teacher Education Quarterly, 34 , 59–84. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=26012196&site=ehost-live

Ujifusa, A., Bannerjee, S., & Tomko, G. (2017, September 18). Map: tracking the Common Core State Standards. Education Week. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/map-states-academic-standards-common-core-or.html.

United States Department of Education. (2003, August 23). Fact sheet on the major provisions of the conference report to H.R. 1. Retrieved August 8, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/factsheet.html

Weinberg, S., Eckl, C., Perez, A., Ramsdell, M., Bell, J., & King, M. (2005). Solving big problems: A different perspective: Advice from four national experts on addressing the critical problems in the economy, homeland security, education and health care. State Legislatures, 31 , 18. Retrieved August 7, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17796435&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Checchi, D. (2006). The economics of education: Human capital, family background and inequality. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Dukes, C. C., Darling, S. M., & Bielskus-Barone, K. (2017). States’ description of Common Core State Standards to support students with severe disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(3), 143–154. doi:10.1177/1540796917715016. Retrieved February 12, 2018, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=124739867&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Schweke, W. (2004). Smart money: Education and economic development. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Walberg, H.J. & Bast, J. L. (2004). Education and capitalism: How overcoming our fear of markets and economics can improve America's schools. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.