What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rebirth of Education: Schooling Ain't Learning
Despite great progress around the world in getting more kids into schools, too many leave without even the most basic skills. In India's rural Andhra Pradesh, for instance, only about one in twenty children in fifth grade can perform basic arithmetic.
The problem is that schooling is not the same as learning. In "The Rebirth of Education," Lant Pritchett uses two metaphors from nature to explain why. The first draws on Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom's book about the difference between centralized and decentralized organizations, "The Starfish and the Spider." Schools systems tend be centralized and suffer from the limitations inherent in top-down designs. The second metaphor is the concept of isomorphic mimicry. Pritchett argues that many developing countries superficially imitate systems that were successful in other nations -- much as a nonpoisonous snake mimics the look of a poisonous one.
Pritchett argues that the solution is to allow functional systems to evolve locally out of an environment pressured for success. Such an ecosystem needs to be open to variety and experimentation, locally operated, and flexibly financed. The only main cost is ceding control; the reward would be the rebirth of education suited for today's world.
The problem is that schooling is not the same as learning. In "The Rebirth of Education," Lant Pritchett uses two metaphors from nature to explain why. The first draws on Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom's book about the difference between centralized and decentralized organizations, "The Starfish and the Spider." Schools systems tend be centralized and suffer from the limitations inherent in top-down designs. The second metaphor is the concept of isomorphic mimicry. Pritchett argues that many developing countries superficially imitate systems that were successful in other nations -- much as a nonpoisonous snake mimics the look of a poisonous one.
Pritchett argues that the solution is to allow functional systems to evolve locally out of an environment pressured for success. Such an ecosystem needs to be open to variety and experimentation, locally operated, and flexibly financed. The only main cost is ceding control; the reward would be the rebirth of education suited for today's world.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
13 people are currently reading
267 people want to read
About the author
Lant Pritchett
15 books9 followersLant Pritchett (born 1959) is an American developmental economist. He worked for the World Bank from 1988 to 2000 and from 2004 to 2007. From 2000 to 2004 he was a lecturer in public policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is currently a professor of the practice of economic development at the Kennedy School of Government.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
October 3, 2020
In 2015 the U.N. declared that its education goal -- getting more children into schools in the global South – had been an unprecedented success. Within a few years, UNESCO and UNICEF were admitting what others had long known: It was an utter failure. More years of bad schooling didn't lead to better education, the U.N. goal merely just got the world stuck in a rut, with vested interests that were happy to see more money poured into the problem, with no results.
The U.N. agencies warn that schools are getting worse, but don't ask why. I've spent a lot of time asking, and have concluded that the ill-advised U.N. goals, and endless meddling, by these agencies, are the biggest single causes. Lant Pritchett, in this thoughtful book, expands on the themes of what makes for good education, what does not, and what’s likely to distract us along the way (expecting money to fix things).
He concludes by discussing six traits that he believes are needed to provide quality education. I don’t agree 100%, but his list is a good starting point for any discussion. It includes:
* Openness to new schools and new approaches;
* A high level of local autonomy;
* Opportunities for teachers to network and develop professionally;
* Accountability for results.
The middle of the book sometimes got bogged down in statistics. He’s trying to prove a point: That more money and more years of schooling won't fix the problem if the underlying structures are wrong. But the people who believe that aren’t likely to read this book. Skim those pages if you don’t find them helpful. His thoughts about successful systems make it all quite worthwhile.
The U.N. agencies warn that schools are getting worse, but don't ask why. I've spent a lot of time asking, and have concluded that the ill-advised U.N. goals, and endless meddling, by these agencies, are the biggest single causes. Lant Pritchett, in this thoughtful book, expands on the themes of what makes for good education, what does not, and what’s likely to distract us along the way (expecting money to fix things).
He concludes by discussing six traits that he believes are needed to provide quality education. I don’t agree 100%, but his list is a good starting point for any discussion. It includes:
* Openness to new schools and new approaches;
* A high level of local autonomy;
* Opportunities for teachers to network and develop professionally;
* Accountability for results.
The middle of the book sometimes got bogged down in statistics. He’s trying to prove a point: That more money and more years of schooling won't fix the problem if the underlying structures are wrong. But the people who believe that aren’t likely to read this book. Skim those pages if you don’t find them helpful. His thoughts about successful systems make it all quite worthwhile.
December 31, 2016
I discovered great insights from the book! This book opened my eyes that in order to ameliorate the quality of education, the whole system in the country needs to change. This book made me feel a bit pessimistic about it, actually, but it's good to have a comprehensive understanding about the issue.
I recommend the book for those who's interested in education (especially in developing countries) and development.
Some of the great things Pritchett wrote in the book:
"If your bicycle tire has a hole, pumping in more air won't do much good."
"The particular danger of isomorphic mimicry is that the mimics might look as good as, or better than, actual performers when both groups are assessed only on input and process."
"This is not to say that inputs cannot affect learning in developing countries; they do. But replicating or augmenting the external trappings of good schools does not make a good school. Without the animating drive that is at the heart of any functional school, adding more of one or another input won't make much difference. ... Appearances can be forced from outside, but performance is driven from within."
"Perhaps more surprising, even the rich in developing countries also lag. For example, in Indonesia, the richest quintile has scores around 450 - less than the 500 for the poorest quintile in Korea or the same as the poorest quintile in the UK. So in poor countries, the richest are still getting mediocre education, and the poor cannot be said to be getting education at all."
I recommend the book for those who's interested in education (especially in developing countries) and development.
Some of the great things Pritchett wrote in the book:
"If your bicycle tire has a hole, pumping in more air won't do much good."
"The particular danger of isomorphic mimicry is that the mimics might look as good as, or better than, actual performers when both groups are assessed only on input and process."
"This is not to say that inputs cannot affect learning in developing countries; they do. But replicating or augmenting the external trappings of good schools does not make a good school. Without the animating drive that is at the heart of any functional school, adding more of one or another input won't make much difference. ... Appearances can be forced from outside, but performance is driven from within."
"Perhaps more surprising, even the rich in developing countries also lag. For example, in Indonesia, the richest quintile has scores around 450 - less than the 500 for the poorest quintile in Korea or the same as the poorest quintile in the UK. So in poor countries, the richest are still getting mediocre education, and the poor cannot be said to be getting education at all."
May 5, 2020
Isomorphic mimicry = banging, and applies to many dysfunctional systems in developed countries e.g. some badly performing schools that attempt to meet Ofsted criteria rather than building a functioning education system.
Great job
An aeronaut jumps in his hot air ballon for a trip. Unfortunately, a storm blows him off course and he’s completely lost. He sees a man on the ground and decides to ask him for help. “Where am I?” he yells. “You’re in a hot air balloon” the man replies. “You must be an economist!”, the aeronaut declares. “Why, how did you know?” asked the man on the ground. “Because your answer” replied the aeronaut, “was irrefutably correct, but utterly useless.”
Great job
An aeronaut jumps in his hot air ballon for a trip. Unfortunately, a storm blows him off course and he’s completely lost. He sees a man on the ground and decides to ask him for help. “Where am I?” he yells. “You’re in a hot air balloon” the man replies. “You must be an economist!”, the aeronaut declares. “Why, how did you know?” asked the man on the ground. “Because your answer” replied the aeronaut, “was irrefutably correct, but utterly useless.”
July 2, 2015
The premise of the book is to support decentralization of the education process without actually choosing which path to take (charter, private, voucher, etc.). That's a much better answer than choosing a path, the author argues, because the actual path depends on the society that is building the educational system. The argument is not only convincing, it's basically right. You cannot argue that the same educational system will work in India, China, Nigeria & France. It's actually a bit laughable that I once thought you could export the charter system from the suburbs into an urban area; it's kind of obvious that charter systems will have a much tougher time in densely packed areas. The same principle goes for all the other specific systems.
Pritchett spends most of the book going after the current centralized system, which allows him to loop in all of the current education systems around the world. This abstraction is very important because if he can convince you that the principles of the abstraction (the "spider system") are discordant with progress in education, then you have to call all of the current education systems garbage. I already did that, so he was speaking to the choir with respect to that conclusion. However, the abstraction codifies what I already felt. Testing is useful, just not on its own. To strike that balance is on the parent or guardian or community, not on the federal government. Competition between schools is more important than standardization: you can make everyone stupid but you need competition to make everyone better than what they are now. These kinds of principles are what Pritchett uses to strike down federal & state mandates on education.
A critical aspect of Pritchett's stance is the separation of schooling (physical) & education (mental). This is a very important separation that can be applied to lots of other controversial topics (diversity in terms of # of jobs (physical) vs ability to succeed independent of race or creed (mental), for example). As a result, while every government can talk about improved schooling, very few can talk about improved education. The most tedious part of the book is the constant examples of lack of improved education. Pritchett throws a TON of studies at you to justify that schooling != education empirically. It makes sense as an argument, but apparently the empiricism is necessary to go after the naysayers.
Overall, I liked the book and even though it's a bit of a tough read (ugh economists), it's worth the time. You can use the spider-starfish argument to counter both the privatization people (society needs to check-and-balance you) and the socialists (constant mediocrity does not provide innovation).
Pritchett spends most of the book going after the current centralized system, which allows him to loop in all of the current education systems around the world. This abstraction is very important because if he can convince you that the principles of the abstraction (the "spider system") are discordant with progress in education, then you have to call all of the current education systems garbage. I already did that, so he was speaking to the choir with respect to that conclusion. However, the abstraction codifies what I already felt. Testing is useful, just not on its own. To strike that balance is on the parent or guardian or community, not on the federal government. Competition between schools is more important than standardization: you can make everyone stupid but you need competition to make everyone better than what they are now. These kinds of principles are what Pritchett uses to strike down federal & state mandates on education.
A critical aspect of Pritchett's stance is the separation of schooling (physical) & education (mental). This is a very important separation that can be applied to lots of other controversial topics (diversity in terms of # of jobs (physical) vs ability to succeed independent of race or creed (mental), for example). As a result, while every government can talk about improved schooling, very few can talk about improved education. The most tedious part of the book is the constant examples of lack of improved education. Pritchett throws a TON of studies at you to justify that schooling != education empirically. It makes sense as an argument, but apparently the empiricism is necessary to go after the naysayers.
Overall, I liked the book and even though it's a bit of a tough read (ugh economists), it's worth the time. You can use the spider-starfish argument to counter both the privatization people (society needs to check-and-balance you) and the socialists (constant mediocrity does not provide innovation).
January 23, 2014
can get 80% with pritchett's econtalks interview and a couple of the academic papers, but its fun to read.
three takeaways:
1 - The dramatic increase in schooling in the developing world has not been matched by increases in education, and more inputs are unlikely to produce improved outcomes without improved systems (the numbers here are really startling)
2 - Developing world education is driven by spider systems (top down design, centralized), at the expense of starfish systems (bottom up evolution, flexible). While bad at educating kids, spider systems stick around because they are good at camouflage (mimicking form without producing substance) and indoctrination.
3 - Six principles: open entry and exit, locally operated, performance pressured, professionally networked, technically supported and flexibly financed.
(For what its worth, pritchett doesn't really think these principals are good for US schools.)
three takeaways:
1 - The dramatic increase in schooling in the developing world has not been matched by increases in education, and more inputs are unlikely to produce improved outcomes without improved systems (the numbers here are really startling)
2 - Developing world education is driven by spider systems (top down design, centralized), at the expense of starfish systems (bottom up evolution, flexible). While bad at educating kids, spider systems stick around because they are good at camouflage (mimicking form without producing substance) and indoctrination.
3 - Six principles: open entry and exit, locally operated, performance pressured, professionally networked, technically supported and flexibly financed.
(For what its worth, pritchett doesn't really think these principals are good for US schools.)
June 19, 2016
Interesting essay with compelling evidence that the global education problems are being resolved by focussing to much on schooling (inputs) as opposed to outcomes, i.e. learning. The author elaborates on a comprehensive and, to some extent, disruptive proposal which requires governments to shift the paradigm on how to deploy education systems and measure progress.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews