Proposal Background. Recent policy initiatives force educators across the world to standardize learning, teaching, and teacher education in ways that inhibit creativity—the characteristic that most often differentiates nations and businesses that thrive economically. Creative problem solving, collaboration, and networking demark companies like Apple, Google, and Sony; yet, they may be absent from national standards and their articulation. Thus, the unintended consequence of standards may be creating educational contexts where what one knows is more valued than how one comes to know and to solve problems—the characteristics of highly creative individuals and successful establishments where they may work. Consquently, policy makers may be establishing settings that intellectually and socioeconomically stratify learners.

Research Purpose. The purposes of this paper include: (a) examining the economics of innovation and the social contexts of highly productive organizations; (b) analyzing current standards for learning in Finland, Japan, and the United State; and (c) exploring ways to create standards and settings that inspire creativity and collective economic, intellectual prosperity.

Conceptual Framework. The economics of innovation (Dosi & Nelson, 2010), ecological inquiry (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998), and the creation of future settings (Sarason, 1972, 1997) guide this inquiry. They provide a framework for critically examining current standards for learning and the nature of educational contexts that promote intellectual, economic parity.

The literature related to the economics of innovation posits that financially successful organizations involve knowledge production and complex interactions leading to capital accumulation (Antonelli, 2003). The literature includes case studies of technological change and innovative industries, analyses of practices that support innovation and economic advancement, and studies of contexts and policies that impact economic growth.

From an ecological perspective Wideen, Mayer-Smith, and Moon (1998), ask: In what ways do settings engender the desire to learn? promote collaborative problem solving? What do opportunities to learn look like? Thus, when held up to the standards of highly creative organizations, this paper will ask: How do classrooms based on current standards fare promote the creativity required of economically thriving organizations?

Sarason (1972, 1997) details that creating innovative settings includes leadership, conditions, and practices similar to those found in the literature on the economics of innovation. Sarason promotes working collaboratively to set clear goals and tasks, continuously problem finding and solving, and engaging in collaborative inquiry in a culture of learning. In future settings, Sarason (1998) suggests teachers and students would be “engendering and sustaining the desire to learn and change because it has practical, personal utility” (p. 9). From Sarason’s perspective, we ask: What if the standards we have create settings that stratify individuals rather than engage them in intellectually stimulating activities similar to those within economically successful, innovative organizations?

The purpose of this paper is to address the following questions and promote the creation of future settings for learning that support intellectual, socioeconomic parity and advancement:

1. What are the common characteristics of innovative organizations that thrive economically and the concomitant skills employees would need to be successful working there?
2. In what ways are these characteristics and skills represented in national standards established for student learning in Finland, Japan and the United States?  In what ways are they absent from the standards?
3. What are the implications of the mismatches found among the nature of economically thriving organizational conditions and requirements for workers and national standards for learning?
4. What are recommendations for creating the types of educational standards and settings that prepare citizens for inventing and working in highly productive, innovative work environments?

Antonelli, C. (2003.) The economics of innovation, new technologies, and structural change. New York: Routledge. Baumol, W. J., Schilling, M. A., & Woolf, E. N. (2009). The superstar inventors and entrepreneurs: How were they educated? Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 18, pp. 711-728. Dor-de Kadijevic, Lenni Haapasalo, and Jozef Hvorecky. "Educational technology standards in professional development of mathematics teachers: an international study." The Teaching of Mathematics 8.1 (2005): 47-52. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Common Core States Standards Initiative: Preparing Amercia’s students for college and career. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/. Pehkonen, Erkki. "Problem solving in mathematics education in Finland." Proceedings of ICMI Symposium. 2008. Porter, Andrew, et al. "Common core standards the new US intended curriculum." Educational Researcher 40.3 (2011): 103-116. Sarason, S. B. (1972). The creation of settings and the future societies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sarason, S. B. (1997). Revisitng The Creation of Settings. Mind, Culture and Activity, 4, 175-182. Rosenberg (Eds.). Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (pp. 51-127). New York: Elsevier. (pp. 680-730). Schmidt, W.H., Raizen, S.A., Britton, E.D., Bianchi, L.J. & Wolfe, R.G. (1997). Many Visions, Many Aims: A Cross-National Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: Shin, J., Lee, H, and Kim, Y. (2013) Student and school factors affecting mathematics achievement: International comparisons between Korea, Japan, and USA. School Psychology, 30, 520-537.Teece, D. J. (2010). Technological innovation and the theory of the firm: the role of enterprise level knowledge, compentarities, and (dynamic) capabilities. In B. N. Hall and N. Valverde, G.A., & Schmidt, W.H. (2000). Greater expectations: learning from other nations in the quest for 'world-class standards' in US school mathematics and science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol 32 (5), 651-687. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., and Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, pp. 130-178. Yue-yuan, K. A. N. G. "1, CAO Yi-ming1, XU Li-hua2, David Clarke2 (1. School of Mathematical Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China; 2. Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3053, Australia); A Comparative Study of Content Settings of Mathematics Curriculum Standards from China, Australia, and Finland [J]." Journal of Educational Studies 1 (2012).