Search

Extending recent analyses using PISA data, the current study utilises the OECD's Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) to test the central claims of knowledge capital theory. PIAAC has a distinct advantage over PISA in that it more directly tests levels of purported 'knowledge capital' across an entire national workforce, rather than offering approximations based on the performance of 15-year-old students. Findings from our two original studies reported herein further refute the tight linkage between cognitive levels and GDP growth per capita envisaged by proponents of knowledge capital, most notably the OECD and World Bank. These results suggest that knowledge capital theory is now degenerate. If scholars are willing to extend this reporting of results refuting knowledge capital theory, this will likely accelerate the theory's loss of momentum in the coming years.

Educational scholars, particularly those working in comparative education, have largely failed to recognise, let alone discuss, the impending finite-ness of global resources. The field continues to operate on an assumption of infinite resources, an implicit cultural horizon in place since at least the Western Enlightenment. It has missed the epochal shift that is now upon us; unable to contribute to the deep transformation of research and practices that has now become urgent. Herein we discuss how such concerns might be addressed, suggesting an approach that centres ontological alterity through comparative method as means of making the turn towards a sustainable future.

Founded on several highly influential quantitative studies, the past decade has witnessed the OECD and World Bank increasingly converge on the view that cognitive levels of students and education quality, as proxied by international large-scale assessments (ILSAs), are the primary determinant of national economic growth worldwide. More recent OECD and World Bank pronouncements have further suggested these dynamics are clearly illustrated in East Asia's education and 'Economic Miracle', in particular the cases of South Korea and Singapore. Herein we utilise the OECD's own data to examine this new development narrative, finding little evidence in support of these claims.

Several recent, highly influential comparative studies have made strong statistical claims that improvements on global learning assessments such as PISA will lead to higher GDP growth rates. These claims have provided the primary source of legitimation for policy reforms championed by leading international organisations, most notably the World Bank and OECD. To date there have been several critiques but these have been too limited to challenge the validity of the claims. The consequence is continued utilisation and citation of these strong claims, resulting in a growing aura of scientific truth and concrete policy reforms. In this piece we report findings from two original studies that invalidate these statistical claims. Our intent is to contribute to a more rigorous global discussion on education policy, as well as call attention to the fact that the new global policy regime is founded on flawed statistics.

Extending recent analyses using PISA data, the current study utilises the OECD's Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) to test the central claims of knowledge capital theory. PIAAC has a distinct advantage over PISA in that it more directly tests levels of purported 'knowledge capital' across an entire national workforce, rather than offering approximations based on the performance of 15-year-old students. Findings from our two original studies reported herein further refute the tight linkage between cognitive levels and GDP growth per capita envisaged by proponents of knowledge capital, most notably the OECD and World Bank. These results suggest that knowledge capital theory is now degenerate. If scholars are willing to extend this reporting of results refuting knowledge capital theory, this will likely accelerate the theory's loss of momentum in the coming years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Educational scholars, particularly those working in comparative education, have largely failed to recognise, let alone discuss, the impending finite-ness of global resources. The field continues to operate on an assumption of infinite resources, an implicit cultural horizon in place since at least the Western Enlightenment. It has missed the epochal shift that is now upon us; unable to contribute to the deep transformation of research and practices that has now become urgent. Herein we discuss how such concerns might be addressed, suggesting an approach that centres ontological alterity through comparative method as means of making the turn towards a sustainable future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Founded on several highly influential quantitative studies, the past decade has witnessed the OECD and World Bank increasingly converge on the view that cognitive levels of students and education quality, as proxied by international large-scale assessments (ILSAs), are the primary determinant of national economic growth worldwide. More recent OECD and World Bank pronouncements have further suggested these dynamics are clearly illustrated in East Asia's education and 'Economic Miracle', in particular the cases of South Korea and Singapore. Herein we utilise the OECD's own data to examine this new development narrative, finding little evidence in support of these claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several recent, highly influential comparative studies have made strong statistical claims that improvements on global learning assessments such as PISA will lead to higher GDP growth rates. These claims have provided the primary source of legitimation for policy reforms championed by leading international organisations, most notably the World Bank and OECD. To date there have been several critiques but these have been too limited to challenge the validity of the claims. The consequence is continued utilisation and citation of these strong claims, resulting in a growing aura of scientific truth and concrete policy reforms. In this piece we report findings from two original studies that invalidate these statistical claims. Our intent is to contribute to a more rigorous global discussion on education policy, as well as call attention to the fact that the new global policy regime is founded on flawed statistics. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]