Education, Business, and the ‘Knowledge Economy’
Alison Taylor

· Organizations such as the Conference Board of Canada (CB), the Canadian Chamber of Commerce (CCC), Business Council on National Issues (BCNI) and the Fraser Institute, construct “education,” through their documents, as a means for developing a highly skilled workforce and thus securing national economic prosperity. They recommend tightening relationships between schools and the workplace. But what happens when there is too much corporate involvement? This article focuses on the interest and impact corporations have on schools in producing a labour force that is functional for the changing workplace.

· The CB, a corporate-sponsored research institution aiming to enhance the performance of Canadian organizations within the global economy, has done the most work in the area of K-12 schooling. In 1992 the CB established a National Council on Education, which oversaw the development of the employability skills profile (ESP). Documents produced by the CB and conferences held by the organization promoted partnerships with business, national standards, increased focus on outcomes and accountability, decentralized decision-making, more attention to problems of drop-outs and illiteracy, increased technology and innovation in schools, and great attention to math and science. http://www.conferenceboard.ca/topics/education/default.aspx

· The Fraser Institute has focused on making schools more efficient and effective by running them more like businesses. This institution has focused on the role of schools in producing a world-class workforce. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/#

· There are some differences among business groups that are related to the different types of companies that they represent. For instance, the CB and the BCNI represent multinational corporations across Canada. The Alberta Chamber of Commerce (ACC) represents companies of varying sizes, reflecting the specific interests of the resource-sector. According to the CCC, there is a great shortage of skilled trades workers. Several business leaders argue that skilled trade workers are knowledge workers in the new economy; this speaks to the surprising degree of corporate consensus that has developed in the 1980s and 1990s around education.

· There is considerable alignment between the visions for education promoted by corporate groups like the CB and governments since the early 1990s. Visions for education expressed by the government in their documents are similar to those found in the business documents. The goal is for a high-skill information economy where the achievement of economic goals brings social benefits.

· In education, efforts to tighten the links between school and work reflect, for the most part, the interests of business leaders. Taking this into strong consideration, Taylor asks two questions: (1) Why has this agenda met with so little resistance from education stakeholders, and, (2) What are the implications for democratic purposes?

· “Education for economic prosperity” has been met with little resistance because the futurist tone of the knowledge economy discourse makes it difficult to challenge, and the promise of jobs in high performing, democratic workplaces is attractive to all stakeholders. Also, the discourse of “progressive vocationalism” is seductive for parents, given high youth unemployment rates. Knowledge economy theory generally assumes that “workers increasingly require more skill, become more involved in planning their own work, and increasingly constitute a professional class” (Livingstone, p. 137, cited in Taylor, p. 177).

· Boutwell (1997, cited in Taylor, p. 176) argues that the requirements of the knowledge economy lead to a confluence between two historically opposing groups: the “utilitarians,” who have attempted to direct education toward specific, pragmatic ends, and the “educationalists,” who are more concerned with the development and growth of individual children without reference to society’s needs.

· A 1992 OECD reports states the following: “Increasingly, the most important skills needed at work, and those that firmst want to encourage schools to teach, are more general. Thinking flexibly, communicating well, working well in teams, using initiative – these and other ‘generic’ skills in the workforce are becoming crucial to firms’ competitiveness.”

· Breaking down academic and vocational barriers and providing a more progressive work education experience is appealing for students who lack the interest or grades required to go to university.

· “In the functionalist view of the school-workplace relation, it is the workplace that takes center-stage. Youth are to be molded by schools to some set of predetermined standards derived from workplace norms. Education is a mean to an end, rather than an end in itself “(Carnoy & Levin, 1985, p. 19, cited in Taylor, p. 179).

· But how much faith should be placed in the hands of business leaders to bring about democratic workplace change, in a workworld where terms like “customers” and “cost competitiveness” prevail over the term “employees”? Should businesses not value human resources by empowering, developing and rewarding employees, rather than focusing on short-term stock price performance?

· Establishing links between schools and the community can be a key part of teaching for democratic citizenship; however, this requires that partnerships be developed with a range of community organizations, not just private sector ones. Furthermore, it is pertinent to develop a democratic culture by involving students in community development projects that enable them to understand local needs and recognize their abilities to have an impact in the community.