StickWithANose

This article on Reverse Brain Drain got me thinking about the disconnect between political discourse and concrete realities, especially as it relates to international comparisons of education systems. One of the key message frames employed by our public intellectuals to justify all manner of education reforms is the idea of global competition from nations such as China and India. However, the reforms being advocated beneath the banner of economic globalization will actively work to undermine the competitiveness of the American worker and economy.

The logic behind the global competition thesis is straightforward and not without merit. Remaining competitive in a global economy requires advanced economies, such as the U.S., to lead the way in technological innovation and high-value production. This economic need demands that the education systems in these economies respond by teaching students the skills of critical thinking and constructive creativity in addition to the foundational skills of literacy, mathematical reasoning and scientific inquiry. From a purely economic point of view, this is a fairly accurate way of summing up the situation.

Indeed, Arne Duncan likes to regularly invoke the specter of a rising China as a key justification for his reform push, but as Michigan State’s Yong Zhao correctly notes the reforms Arne’s pushing are moving us in the wrong direction.

NCLB practically defines good education as being able to show good scores in a limited number of subjects. Thus as schools conform to the standardized curriculum and attempt to provide “good education” so defined, children are deprived of opportunities to develop talents in other areas. As well those children who do not perform well on the required tests at the required time are discriminated against because they are considered less able and “at risk.” Theoretically, different schools can teach more than what is mandated. In reality schools must ensure that they do well in areas that affect their reputation and standing, which means the subjects that are counted in standardized testing. It is also theoretically possible to develop standards for a broad range of subjects and activities and require all schools teach the same curriculum nationally or statewide, like what China used to do. But even in the case of China, only subjects that count in the high-stake College Entrance Exam are paid serious attention to. In the U.S., such an effort is not even possible. The Clinton Administration supported the development of national standards for nine subjects but most of them failed to be accepted because of disagreement over what should be included in each subject.

As a result of adopting national standards, schools will produce a homogenous group of individuals with the same abilities, skills, and knowledge. Such a result will be disastrous to America and Americans because as globalization and technology continue to change the world.

America needs a citizenry of creative individuals with a wide range of talents to sustain its tradition of innovation. Americans need talents and abilities that are not available at a lower price elsewhere on earth. American education, despite its many problems, has at least the basics that support the production of a more diverse pool of talents. However these basics are being discarded by NCLB and similarly spirited reform efforts.

Perhaps, what is most stunning is not only the sheer wrong-headedness of Arne’s reforms but that the chief villain in his simple narrative, China, has already discovered the structural flaws of a rigid assessment regime and is actively moving in the opposite direction.

In summary, the MOE [Chinese Ministry of Education] tried to promote changes in student assessment from measuring only knowledge and cognitive skills to all-round aspects of intelligence and development; from neglecting the diversity of student characteristics and orientations to taking all these into account; from dealing with students as only passive objects to encouraging them to play a more active roles; from very centralized control and competitive atmosphere to less centralized and more relaxed atmosphere. The new policies, among other things:

a) Introduced a new assessment of “general learning quality”;

b) Emphasised the concept and technique of process assessment;

c) Used rating grades as a substitution of the percentage marks in assessment;

d) Improved the techniques and renewed the contents of pen-and-paper tests;

e) Decreased the frequency and intensity of public examinations; and

f) Stopped ranking students, teachers and schools based on test and exam results.

Considering all of the fawning coverage Arne and the reform express is generating these days, you’d think that someone might call him on this disconnect, but that is not the case. Americans are a tragically uninformed lot about most things beyond our immediate context. The popularity of the Becks and Dumbaughs of the world and the insanity of screeching tea-baggers speaks to a tragic civic deficit in the U.S. and the absence of even a rudimentary understanding of the complexities of modern society. It is not simply the case that the reforms that Arne and Obama are pushing will undermine economic competitiveness, although they surely will. It is equally important to note that narrowing the curriculum to the easily assessed and quantified will only contribute further to our civic and knowledge deficits. This is not simply a threat to our global competitiveness but also our democratic institutions.