Learning to Problem-Solve – Reviewing Draxler’s “International Investment in Education for Development: Public Good or Economic Tool?”

Image by SDG4Education 2030.

The debate surrounding the role of education in development has been ongoing since the end of World War II, with policy positions varying from valuing education as an economic tool to establishing education as a human right and public good (Draxler, 2014, p. 39). Draxler takes on this debate, providing a thorough literature review of milestone reports on the topic, along with an analysis of the increased role of the private sector in education policymaking and a description of what is to be expected for education in the next international development agenda. In this chapter, Draxler argues that “preserving the role of the state as the ultimate democratic arbiter of rights, equality, and equity is the only way, albeit imperfect, of guaranteeing education as a public good” (2014, abstract). A fierce critique of the market- oriented focus on the education sector, this chapter attempts to illuminate the continued disparities in education policies that hinder individual potential and leave individuals, as well as groups, excluded. Positing many questions without many answers, this article does a fine job of setting up the debate and shining a light on the existing deficiencies in the education sector, but it struggles to provide ideas and solutions for the problems discussed.

When considering Draxler’s argument, it is important to understand that she is not claiming that there has been no acknowledgement by the international community, including both international organizations and governments, of basic education as a human right. While this appears to be the implication at first, she rather uses the commitment by the international community of establishing education as a right to draw attention to the fact that little accountability has been issued to ensure that all parties are actively working towards this goal (Draxler, 2014, pp. 40-41). She does so by referencing organizations like the United Nations (UN), specifically its education-focused arm UNESCO, who have openly defended a rights- based approach to education yet have “increasingly shown quite the uncritical acceptance of the role of the private sector and welcomed market-based approaches” (Draxler, 2014, p. 41). With this being said, Draxler caveats later in the chapter that “education as a human right is now the first statement and central argument of most international policy documents on the subject” (2014, p. 48).

Given this, Draxler rightfully calls attention to the inconsistency between messaging and actual policy. This chapter was written before the initial 2015 deadline for the Millennium Development Goals, which transformed into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with an extended deadline of 2030. Currently, Goal 4 of the SDGs calls for ensuring “inclusive and equitable quality education” and promoting “lifelong opportunities for all”, with targets and indicators set on eliminating disparities in education and ensuring equitable access to education (United Nations 2021). These are the same calls to action that Draxler argues for, furthering her point that messaging is not sufficient and is often not reality. This is relevant because it adds context to Draxler’s argument in the present-day. If the international community was advocating for equitable education in 2014 and continues to do so in 2022, how much progress has been made and why do injustices remain?

The crux of Draxler’s argument, however, is that because of the privatization and business-oriented manner that has overcome the education sector, the existing disadvantages, injustices, and disparities are not actually being addressed, and are rather being deepened. She counters the neoliberal approach to education by claiming that there is hardly any evidence that supports the assumption that by focusing on improving schools, unemployment can be addressed. In fact, she boldly claims “Education does not create employment” (Draxler, 2014, p. 49). The issue here is she provides no evidence of this herself. She lacks statistics and data, which severely diminishes the legitimacy of her argument.

At the end of the chapter, Draxler dedicates a whole paragraph to posing questions that she deems need to be answered in order to know how the right to education will be offered and by whom it will be exercised going forward (2014, p. 51). While thought-provoking, she makes no attempt to draw any solutions in the paragraphs proceeding and she draws no reference to those who have presented solutions before her, such as Nussbaum, who, in an attempt to reclaim education as a public good, proposed a human development paradigm to counteract the education for profit that is replacing American liberal education (Nussbaum cited in Baltodano, 2012, p. 501). While this paradigm is designed for the United States, it at least proposes a set of ideas for which the reformation of education policy can take place. This is where Draxler falls short. She acknowledges that it is the responsibility of the public sector to transform the education system (Draxler, 2014, p. 51), but she neglects to make any substantial attempt at forming a potential policy solution that goes beyond the bigger picture of making the system more equitable and just. This is an area the reader is inclined to agree or disagree with, but the question remains – how is the reader meant to be convinced that these injustices and disparities can be addressed if the author does not thoughtfully entertain any prospective steps that could be implemented by the international community to reform the education system in order to make it more equitable and just?

The article concludes with a proclamation that only the public sector can make a transformative shift in the education sector, with Draxler stating that it is reasonably clear that the practices and philosophy of education as it stands will favor economically led approaches to education planning, and that aggressive policies that tackle the gaps in the system will be missed (2014, p. 52). Perhaps she is correct, but her neglect to provide any substantial path forward limits the argument to solely being a critique, rather than a plan of action inspiring the reader. If this was her intention all along, then she succeeded while wastefully leading the reader on. In order to construct a more convincing argument, Draxler should revisit the questions she asked in her conclusion and attempt to find some sort of resolution.