The Global Achievement Gap
I appreciate Wagner’s overall message of getting past memorization and test prep to focus on higher order critical thinking skills. Throughout the book - as I nodded my head in agreement many times while reading - I would stop to wonder why I don’t do more of the things he’s advocating for in my own classroom. As of now I guess my less-than-satisfying answer is because of the subtle pressures of covering so much content. While I certainly do have lessons that emphasize some critical thinking, it’s certainly not the focus of my curriculum. And now Wagner has forced me to stop and think...why not? At least now, thanks to reading this book, the seed has been planted - and I know it will stay with me as I begin laying out my social studies curriculum for next school year.
As for my own survival skills - I am trying to be more succinct than Wagner. For I agree with Frederick the Great who famously said “He who defends everything, defends nothing.” I certainly applaud the wide net cast by Wagner’s “Seven Survival Skills” (which is really more like fourteen skills, since each of Wagner’s skills actually mentions two skills), but I know that the reality of teaching teenagers is that you’ll be more successful focusing on just a few skills than a big laundry list.
My survival skills for students:
- Support your claims with evidence!
2. How to make sure a website is reliable!
Since anyone can put anything on the internet, and since the internet is where students get all their information, it’s critical that students understand how to determine whether an online source is reliable. What’s the web address extension? Is there an “about us?” Is there a “contact us?” Is there a physical office/address? What do other reliable sources say about the online source? These are the questions students must instinctively ask before citing online sources as fact.
3. Empathy (seeing other perspectives)
In an increasingly interconnected global society, students must be able to put themselves in the shoes of others to see where they are coming from. The history of nationalism fostered an us/them mentality that only served to divide the world. Now that the world is probably the most collaborative it’s ever been, it’s critical that students also see things from different perspectives so they can better understand why things happen the way they do (this is certainly an important form of critical thinking).
4. Follow your passion
This is more of a mindset than a skill. But if students can keep their eyes on the prize, and consistently make choices that allows them to work on topics/projects that truly interest them, their motivation will skyrocket. And when motivation is high, so is work ethic. When work ethic is high, students increase their chances of success!
I already try hard to incorporate these skills into my social studies classroom - but I could do better at explicitly teaching empathy. Perhaps next year when we look at current events on Fridays - a new assignment could be to research the event from a different country's perspective. Success could be measured by having students dissect current events from multiple perspectives toward the end of the year.
Catching Up or Leading the Way
The pursuit of individual interests will narrow student learning somewhat, but that path is still a net gain for the student.
Clearly focusing more time on one subject or class in order to follow a passion means that there will be less time left for other subjects and classes. But Zhao makes a strong case that that’s a good thing for students.
The United States ranked #1 in the Global Competitive Index in 2007-2008, which measures “the ability of countries to provide high levels of prosperity to their citizens.” Clearly a country that does so well for its people must be doing something right at the school level.
Zhao outlines the American tradition of local control, school autonomy, and flexibility when it comes to schooling. It’s that approach to education, one filled with choice for students and teachers, that has helped lead to an innovative American economy and contributed to the impressive Global Competitive Index #1 ranking.
It’s an approach that has worked so well, in fact, that other countries are now trying to copy the model. “China wants to be an innovation-driven knowledge society…an innovation-driven society is driven by innovative people. Innovative people cannot come from schools that force students to memorize correct answers on standardized tests or reward students who excel at regurgitating dictated spoon-fed knowledge.” (p. vii)
The truth is that the American curriculum is already narrowed. “NCLB has already led to the narrowing of curriculum…” (p. 59), but this narrowing has focused mostly on math and reading. While math and reading are obviously extremely important, it’s plausible that focusing on one’s passion is even more important. Students in American schools have far more choices than their peers in countries with more standardized curriculum. When students get to choose the focus of their studies, they will value it more. And when students value it more, that leads to more motivation and hard work. Or as Zhao states, “When (students) are intrinsically motivated, they become courageous.” (p.48).
Intrinsically-motivated, courageous, focused students will probably be better prepared for life after school than students whose school experience was about preparing for tests. The test-focused schools of China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore are realizing that they have narrowed their focus too much on test preparation, and are now looking to emulate the US system based on flexibility and choice. They are realizing what Zhao has already concluded about US schools: “Schools thus should be the place for us to experience and experiment with different options in life and decide what we want to pursue later.” (p. 57). That formula has been a boon to the innovation-based US economy, and its one the rest of the world has begun to copy.
So, yes, the support of the pursuit of individual passions and interests does lead to the narrowing of student learning. But that’s a good thing for students and their country.
The pursuit of individual interests will narrow student learning somewhat, but that path is still a net gain for the student.
Clearly focusing more time on one subject or class in order to follow a passion means that there will be less time left for other subjects and classes. But Zhao makes a strong case that that’s a good thing for students.
The United States ranked #1 in the Global Competitive Index in 2007-2008, which measures “the ability of countries to provide high levels of prosperity to their citizens.” Clearly a country that does so well for its people must be doing something right at the school level.
Zhao outlines the American tradition of local control, school autonomy, and flexibility when it comes to schooling. It’s that approach to education, one filled with choice for students and teachers, that has helped lead to an innovative American economy and contributed to the impressive Global Competitive Index #1 ranking.
It’s an approach that has worked so well, in fact, that other countries are now trying to copy the model. “China wants to be an innovation-driven knowledge society…an innovation-driven society is driven by innovative people. Innovative people cannot come from schools that force students to memorize correct answers on standardized tests or reward students who excel at regurgitating dictated spoon-fed knowledge.” (p. vii)
The truth is that the American curriculum is already narrowed. “NCLB has already led to the narrowing of curriculum…” (p. 59), but this narrowing has focused mostly on math and reading. While math and reading are obviously extremely important, it’s plausible that focusing on one’s passion is even more important. Students in American schools have far more choices than their peers in countries with more standardized curriculum. When students get to choose the focus of their studies, they will value it more. And when students value it more, that leads to more motivation and hard work. Or as Zhao states, “When (students) are intrinsically motivated, they become courageous.” (p.48).
Intrinsically-motivated, courageous, focused students will probably be better prepared for life after school than students whose school experience was about preparing for tests. The test-focused schools of China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore are realizing that they have narrowed their focus too much on test preparation, and are now looking to emulate the US system based on flexibility and choice. They are realizing what Zhao has already concluded about US schools: “Schools thus should be the place for us to experience and experiment with different options in life and decide what we want to pursue later.” (p. 57). That formula has been a boon to the innovation-based US economy, and its one the rest of the world has begun to copy.
So, yes, the support of the pursuit of individual passions and interests does lead to the narrowing of student learning. But that’s a good thing for students and their country.
Is it possible to implement the “input-based accountability” proposal in this chapter? Why and why not?
It is certainly possible to implement the input-oriented accountability system put forward by Zhao. The input-oriented accountability system is simply holding schools accountable “...for providing the best educational environment for all students,” (p.184) as opposed to being accountable mostly to test scores. In fact, the input-oriented accountability system might even be an easier system to implement than our current test-oriented accountability system. The creation of its own learning environment is something a school at least has control over, whereas test scores are affected by factors outside of the school’s control. The school controls the factors Zhao mentions as “input”: the physical environment, facilities, teachers, curriculum, leadership, innovation, and opportunities to be different. The school cannot control the factors outside its walls that affect student’s test scores; factors like poverty, home environment, sleep, and parental behavior. It’s almost like the phrase “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” A school can certainly lead a student to a variety of opportunities, but it’s then up to the student to take full advantage. But with test scores, you can’t make a student perform well any more then you can make a horse drink. So it would appear that the input-oriented accountability system might be a more fair measure of school performance. BUT, one could also argue that it may perhaps lower standards. It could give teachers and schools the chance to wash their hands of accountability for student performance: “We taught it, it’s not our fault the student didn’t learn it!”
How do the different perspectives from the different readings impact your view on Yong Zhao’s suggestions for making education into a global enterprise?
I have always been a proponent of incorporating as much of the “real world” into the classroom as possible. It makes academic content more relevant, and thus helps to motivate students. And what is more real world than reminding our students that they truly will be competing against students from everywhere following graduation?! So I certainly agree with Zhao that schools are indeed a global enterprise, even if that notion is unsettling for parents and students. As Zhao puts it, students “will enter a global market in the sense that they will be competing with other students around the globe.” (p.189) If we are truly to empower our students to succeed in their economic lives after school, we have to consider “what kind of products (students) can meet the needs of the global market.” (p.190) To get there Zhao recommends doubling down on the historical traits of American education such as innovation, choice, flexibility, local autonomy and individuality. However, in the article “The Good, Bad, and Ugly Dimensions of Chinese Education” by Qiang Zha, we are reminded that the Chinese system also has worthy traits when it comes to preparing students for global competition. Although focused mostly on test-taking, the Chinese system promotes qualities that are prerequisites for good test scores. “Discipline and focused effort contribute to that success…” of internationally high test scores. So while I mostly agree with Zhao that the American tradition of freedom and flexibility trump a top-down authoritarian approach, Zha provides a good reminder that to be globally competitive, students must also be hard-working and disciplined.