Can Today's Mis-educated High Schooler Become Tomorrow's Global Leader?

Among the concerns with secondary education today is that in teaching to the lowest common denominator dictated by standardized tests, the average American high school student is woefully undereducated in subjects critical to the world of the future (and today of course), particularly math and science. Add international trade to the list of subjects in which a good education is lacking.

I have the pleasure of serving as a mentor in a program for students attending one of our local large urban public high schools.  We were catching up this morning on how things were going in his geography class.  When I asked what they were working on, I was momentarily pleased to hear that they were studying international trade.  My pleasure turned sour when I asked what he was learning about global trade.  His answer:

Basically we're learning how international trade is good for rich countries like the United States, but that it's really hurting the poor countries in the world.

I guess I should have seen that coming.  I asked whether there is much class discussion or whether it was primarily lecture from the teacher.

There's discussion . . . but since we don't really know anything about it other than what our teacher tells us, basically what we discuss is how harmful trade is to the poor countries in the world.

My mentee's teacher is not alone of course in substituting a belief in a political ideology for a grounded understanding of international economics and business.  An example of this school of thought is found in Antonia Juhasz's book "The Bush Agenda, Invading the World One Economy at a Time"  in which the author argues that the only country benefiting from globalization is America to the point that she believes that globalization itself is a conspiracy between the U.S. government and its large corporations to use global economics as an express arm of foreign policy enabling the U.S. to assert its hegemony on the world without having to resort to strictly military means.

There are a number of aspects of this view that strike me as odd -- not the least of which is that in this presidential election season the two liberal candidates are bashing international trade and calling for the renegotiation of agreements such as NAFTA claiming that international trade only helps other countries while harming the U.S.   And in the strange bedfellows department, this anti-trade chorus is joined by right wing pundits such as Lou Dobbs who in his utterly wrong headed diatribe entitled "Exporting America", argues that the only people benefiting from globalization are foreign countries which are taking advantage of what he sees as a conspiracy of greed driving American corporations to export jobs and to undermine the very existence of the American way of life.  It seems that quite a number of ideologues outside of this teacher's classroom think international trade is bad for exactly the opposite reason -- that it is bad for the U.S.  [The coexistence of these contrary ideological views of the role of the United States in world trade is discussed in a slightly different context in an earlier post entitled "Ben Bernanke on the Benefits of Globalization".]

I also wonder how my mentee's geography teacher addresses the real world juxtaposition of the experience of countries such as China and India when contrasted with countries such as North Korea or Myanmar.   Not too long ago, both China and India had nationalistic policies that isolated them from world markets.  They were also among the world's poorest countries.   Since fully embracing international trade, of course, they have become shining examples of the ability of expanding markets to produce widespread economic opportunity to a previously destitute population.  Meanwhile countries such as North Korea which have regimes that continue to isolate their people from world markets in order to keep the citadel walls around their autocracies remain countries with the most abject poverty.

My student told me that his teacher particularly focused on poor countries in Africa as examples of how international trade keeps poor countries under the boot heels of wealthy nations.  As discussed elsewhere in this blog, interestingly the problem many countries such as those in Africa have with making headway in a global marketplace isn't international trade, but the lack of free trade.  The principal products that many of these countries could naturally export in order to gain the currency necessary to participate in international trade are agricultural.  But it is in agriculture that the wealthy nations are most protectionist both in terms of subsidies to their domestic agri-businesses and tariffs on the import of agricultural goods from elsewhere.  This is exactly the problem that the Doha round of trade talks is trying to address -- talks repeatedly scuttled by the wealthy nations' insistence on protectionism, not the existence of free trade.

I suppose it would be too much to ask that a teacher broaching the subject of international trade begin by imparting an understanding of the theory of comparative advantage and then allowing students to examine case studies of how the theory plays out for better or worse in the real world and then see where an objective discussion on the subject leads from there.  In any event, global commerce is a significant part of the world dynamic that future leaders need to understand and be comfortable with, and if our education system in this area concerns itself with political ideology rather than established trade theory and practice, our future in this regard will not be so bright.

So here's a few suggestions:

• Business organizations (chambers of commerce, World Trade Centers) and individuals engaged in international business might volunteer time and resources to support secondary education in the area of global trade and economics;
• College degree programs aimed at future teachers might include more substantive education in international economics and business as a core subject;
• Secondary schools might offer a course in business and economics rather than leave the subject up to ill-prepared geography and social studies teachers to cover as an aside to other topics such as the comparative wealth of nations. 

If suggestions such as these were to be implemented, I would be saved from having to dispense the wimpy advice that I ultimately imparted to my mentee this morning -- since my role in this particular program isn't to provide an alternative education, but rather is to help the kid get through high school, after suggesting some alternative ideas on international trade, I counseled him that usually with teachers such as this, the way to get a better grade is to parrot the teacher's political view point.  My charge was happy with that advice, particularly since the only information he has on the subject is what he was told by his teacher -- which is where the problem starts in the first place.

Comments

[Thomas Chow]

Well said, Craig! I really enjoyed this article, and I think I may have to showcase it on my weekend review.

[Craig Maginness]

Thomas:

Thanks for the comment. And more importantly thanks for featuring the China quake relief effort on your blog. I just used one of the links on your site to make a donation. I would recommend that others read up on the latest developments through your blog and then do the same.

Craig

[Thomas Chow]

Craig,

Its not a problem. I've been glued to the earthquake developments, and really wanted to see things happen there, so it isn't anything special that I feel that I am doing for the Chinese, which are my own people. Thanks for commenting on my blog as well--really appreciate it.

[Demerzel]

Unfortunately, you'll find that unless you're studying IR (EG: studying at GWU), the required class on economics is still domestic level economics with few then learning about comparative advantages. There are a whole variety of GEs that students have to take, and anything 'international' is an advanced course that is not offered on a lower level.

[Craig Maginness]

Demerzel:

Thanks for the comment. I think you are correct. Most undergraduate courses that focus on international tend to be political science rather than economics. I know I didn't study international trade theory until working on a masters degree in econ. All of which is to say that the problem I wrote about in high school continues at the next level as well.

Craig