The theory of human “capital” - that human beings are, in effect, national resources which can be invested in and which, when trained and educated, represent financial returns on that investment - is anathema to most people in education. Teachers, above all, remain firmly committed to the idea that the personal development of the individual is what matters, and that humane values are more important than economic success.
Yet teaching is the key profession which enables such human resources to be developed. And, over the past couple of decades, the justification for spending public money on education has, in most Western countries, been put more and more in terms of human capital development and international economic competition. In England, it is almost impossible to get money for education out of the Treasury without using this type of argument - hence the current insistence on targets, tests and benchmarking.
Is there no escape from the stranglehold of economics? Maybe not yet. But there are signs of a shift in emphasis. Recently, the Performance and Innovation Unit at No 10 held a seminar to explore the idea of social capital - the networks and informal relationships that bind us together and make our lives more stable and satisfying. Home Secretary David Blunkett, who is turning into one of the Government’s most innovative thinkers, gave the keynote speech.
Research shows that social capital is declining in some modern societies, notably the United States and Australia, where fewer people belong to local societies and associations than in the past, and voluntary work and informal socialising have declined. The level of trust in other people, which is taken as a key indicator of levels of social capital, is also lower than it used to be.
But in other countries, such as Scandinavia, Japan, Germany and the Netherlands, the level seems to be rising, with increased social participation and, surprising in this wicked world, higher levels of trust.
The UK shows a mixed picture. More people belong to associations outside the home - often self-help groups or single-issue organisations. But levels of personal trust are greatly reduced, as is trust in public institutions, especially among the young.
High levels of social capital may not be a good thing. Like financial capital, it is often passed on through families, and can be exploited to exclude others - as in the English old-boy network based on exclusive private schools. Close bonds may even reinforce a criminal lifestyle, as in the case of street gangs or the Mafia.
But this new analysis throws a fresh light on what is happening in our society and it is hard not to conclude that a constant emphasis on individual competitiveness has eroded valuable elements of our civic life. Strategies which attempt to build up social capital - especially in areas of the country where the local culture has fragmented - could improve the quality of all our lives.
Social capital includes the formal and informal “rules” which influence our behaviour, and the sanctions which make sure we stick to them. Teachers who are on the receiving end of violence from pupils or parents will not be surprised to hear that such sanctions, which used to be part of the natural fabric of society, may be breaking down.
Can such qualities as trust and respect be artificially rebuilt through measures such as citizenship education, mentoring and parenting classes? Be careful if you are tempted to answer “No”. You are questioning the very basis of education itself.
