We reached and survived the second presidential debate that addressed critical issues such as economic growth, employment and inflation, infrastructure and development, poverty and inequality, climate change and sustainable development; issues that are living wounds in our beautiful and sometimes tired territory. Amid arguments over which candidate represents whom, and promises of higher rather than living wages (there’s a big difference), education emerged, albeit somewhat timidly.
In most cases, education was mentioned as an investment destination, something we take note of and hope will materialize in reality. However, there was a phrase that positioned her not only as a recipient of funds, but as part of the solution to one of our most painful problems: poverty. This phrase was pronounced by the first candidate who agreed to sign the Pact for Early Childhood and one of the two who agreed (at the moment) to attend the ’10 for Education’ dialogue: Jorge Álvarez Máynez. The phrase was: “And the solution to poverty is exactly the opposite, starting with girls and boys…”
To better understand the relevance of this phrase, let us consider that since research on the connection between education and economy began, there has been a debate about whether the educational development of a country is a consequence of its economic growth or if, on the contrary, Education drives such growth. Beyond opinions, most of the results have shown that, although education is not entirely responsible for economic growth, it has been a determining factor in it. With this phrase, the candidate not only demonstrated that he had listened to his son, as he mentioned at the close of his debate, but that he had also listened to the knowledge produced by educational specialists and economists. Two fields that are not always the best of friends, but we are family.
What this research has shown in part is that, while some of the benefits that education provides are monetary in nature (future salary income); others are residual in nature and difficult to quantify (health care, rights and duties as citizens, among others). Both impact both on an individual level and on society as a whole. For example, if you are a responsible person who pays taxes and have decided not to have children, you might ask yourself: how could investing in the education of girls and boys I don’t know benefit me financially? Monetarily it is because if these girls and boys are well prepared, they can achieve great patents or get jobs with decent salaries. Your tax contributions will be greater and constant, which will translate into improvements for the country and more secure pensions for you. In essence, school is one of the main spaces where girls and boys learn to take care of their health, to coexist, to live in society, and to demand their rights. This means that from childhood onwards, the chances of them becoming healthy and socially responsible adults increase significantly. This not only reduces the burden on health and social services systems in the future, but also contributes to a more informed, civic, productive and safe society. Investing in the education of new generations, even if you do not have daughters or sons of your own, supports a more robust social and economic environment that eventually benefits all members of the community, including you.
Another fact to take into account is that research in the economics of education has shown that the return on investment in education is greater if it is done in the first years, that is, from basic education. So the candidate’s approach, at least in the discursive part, makes sense.
At Mexicanos Primero we approach education as a fundamental human right that allows us to provide girls and boys with better opportunities and, with it, their entire community. Let’s start with girls and boys.
The author is director of monitoring of Educational Policies at Mexicanos Primero.
