education in the flat world - center for teaching and technology

Volume 2 • Number 4

LOOK INSIDE FOR• Executive Summary

The Latest Information for the Education Practitioner

MARCH/APRIL 2007 • PHI DELTA KAPPA INTERNATIONAL

Executive SummaryThe No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has failed to

meet the nation’s education needs. Schools face mountingpressures to narrow what children can learn in schools sothat they can score better than their Chinese and Indiancounterparts in math and science. Thanks to NCLB,schools increasingly are limiting what is taught andlearned, and high-stakes state tests constrain how teachingand learning is conducted.

Other elements of NCLB include centralization andstandardization of curriculum, increased demand forteacher quality, more math and science, more schoolchoice, and reduction of diversity and flexibility. The over-all goal is better academic achievement of all students,measured by standardized tests of a limited number of sub-jects, through increased accountability of schools, admin-istrators, teachers, and students.

The impetus for this reform can be traced to two sources:concerns over equity and international competition. Unfor-tunately, the effects of these reforms are all undesirable: nar-rowing what students learn, teaching to tests, forcing teach-ers to cheat, and making schools find “creative” ways tomeet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements.

More troubling, NCLB distracts us from teaching whatwill truly enhance global competitiveness. Even if, some-how, these reform measures led to significantly increasedtest scores in math, reading, and science and wiped outachievement gaps, our children would not be better preparedfor life in a more globalized and technological world.

Instead, we are becoming obsessed with test scores in alimited number of subjects, which in essence is the adoptionof a single criterion for judging the success of students,teachers, and schools. Once we adopt this single criterion, wewill kill the most important and sought-after commodity inthe 21st century — creativity. As U.S. policies lead us awayfrom creativity, other countries are attempting to add greaterflexibility and creativity into their curricula.

EDge is published bimonthly between September and May at Phi DeltaKappa International, 408 North Union Street, P.O. Box 789, Bloomington,Indiana 47402-0789 USA. Online at www.pdkintl.org.

Globalization has become a crisis in many parts of theworld. How globalization will affect us and the future ofour education systems depend on how we face the chal-lenges. Policy makers, education leaders, and the publicmust come together to face this crisis. Together, we needto consider how to educate Americans to become valu-able and indispensable contributors to the integrated andinterdependent global economy.

Editor........Grant E. Mabie

Designers.........Victoria Voelker, Merridee LaMantia

Typestylist.....Sheila Way-Middleton

Copyright © 2007 by Phi Delta Kappa International

ISSN 1556-6765

EDge is a PDK member benefit. Kappans can go to the PDK website, register, login, and download a free PDF edition as each new issue becomes available.Readers who want paper editions mailed to them may purchase an annual sub-scription for $28.95 — for 5 issues. Kappans can buy an annual subscription at themember discount rate of only $23.95—a $5 savings. To subscribe, phone 1-800-766-1156 and pay by credit card. Personal orders accompanied by a checkmade out to Phi Delta Kappa International and institutional purchase orders maybe mailed to Phi Delta Kappa International, ATTN: EDge Subscription, P.O. Box 789,Bloomington, IN 47402-0789. Purchase orders may be faxed to 812/339-0018.

ContentsWrong Fixes.....................................................................3

Audio EDge ......................................................................4

How Not to Kill Creativity .................................................5

About the Author ..............................................................5

Multiple Intelligences and Global Education .......................7

Cold War Mindsets vs. the Globalized World ......................8

The Real Problems..........................................................10

Lack of Preparation.........................................................11

National Security ............................................................11

Multiculturalism..............................................................12

What Other Countries Are Doing......................................13

What We Should Do .......................................................14

Change Our Mindset .......................................................15

Prepare Global Citizens ...................................................16

Cultivate Diverse Talents .................................................17

Facing the Globalization Crisis .........................................17

References .....................................................................18

Abrams (2004) found that, though computers are avital tool for writers and for teaching writing, morethan 30% of teachers nationwide do not use comput-ers when teaching writing because the state writingtest is handwritten. This is more unsettling when con-sidering that schools are supposed to prepare studentsfor the digital world.

Wrong FixesThough high-stakes testing is central to current

reform efforts in U.S. education, it is only one ofmany elements affecting all players in the educationenterprise — administrators, teachers, students, andparents. Other elements include centralization andstandardization of curriculum, increased demand forteacher quality, more math and science in highergrades, more school choice, and reduction of diver-sity and flexibility of what schools can offer. Theoverall goal is to achieve better academic achieve-ment of all students, measured by standardized testsof a limited number of subjects, through increasedaccountability of schools, administrators, teachers,and students.

The impetus for this reform, including both NCLBand separate state-level high school reform initia-

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, PresidentBush’s prescription for education and American com-petition in the global economy, fails to meet the na-tion’s education needs. Instead, it is simply fool’sgold, attracting American education into a deep darkcave rather than a bright future.

Already, this prescription has caused considerabledamage. It has resulted in mounting pressures to nar-row what children can learn in schools so that theycan score better than their Chinese and Indian coun-terparts in math and science. Thanks to NCLB, nowin its fifth year of implementation, “teachers andprincipals are poring over test results with unprece-dented intensity. Struggling students are receivingextra lessons in reading and math, sometimes at theexpense of class time in other subjects” (Rentner etal. 2006, 2). Furthermore, high school reforms haveresulted in 22 states requiring students to pass a stateexit exam to receive their diplomas. In 2006, 65% ofthe nation’s high school students and 76% of the na-tion’s minority high school students were enrolled inthese 22 states. These “exit exams are encouragingteachers to spend more class time on tested subjects”(Kober et al. 2006, 5). More than limiting what istaught and learned, state tests also constrain howteaching and learning is conducted. Russell and

EDge: Education in the Flat World 3

Education in theFlat World:Implications of Globalization on Education

Yong Zhao

WE NEED TO ENCOURAGE CHILDREN to take more math and science, and to make sure thosecourses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations. We’ve made a good start in the earlygrades with the No Child Left Behind Act, which is raising standards and lifting test scores acrossour country. Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placementcourses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms,

and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs. If weensure that America’s children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world.

— GEORGE W. BUSH, 2006

4 March/April 2007 • Volume 2 Number 4

tives, can be traced to two sources: concerns over eq-uity and international competition. The equity con-cern is rooted in the persistent poor performance ofa group of schools, located mostly in impoverishedinner cities and rural areas, as well as among ethnicminority students in other schools. The concern overinternational competition has been prompted by bothunfavorable comparisons of U.S. students with thosein other developed countries, such as Singapore andKorea, and the rapid economic growth of China andIndia, which have often been blamed for job lossesand the surging U.S. trade deficit.

As Bill Gates (2005), founder of Microsoft, hasdeclared:

In the international competition to have thebiggest and best supply of knowledge work-ers, America is falling behind. That is theheart of the economic argument for better highschools. It essentially says: “We’d better dosomething about these kids not getting an ed-ucation, because it’s hurting us.” But there’salso a moral argument for better high schools,and it says: “We’d better do something aboutthese kids not getting an education, becauseit’s hurting them.”

The current reform initiatives have been purpose-fully designed to address the increasing challengesbrought about by globalization. Reform advocates,many of them business leaders like Gates, are acute-ly aware of — and often helped create — global anddigital factors that influence education. They havecommunicated the sense of urgency for more future-oriented education so that our children can be pre-pared to compete with their peers in foreign coun-tries (Business Roundtable 2005; U.S. Departmentof Education 2006a; Committee on Prospering in theGlobal Economy of the 21st Century 2006).

Their fixes — more accountability (tests and pres-sure on teachers and schools to achieve better scores),high standards (centralization and standardization ofcurriculum and instruction), and rigorous instruction(focused teaching to the tests) — are comprehensive.NCLB and high school exit exams already havegenerated far-reaching consequences. They are aboutto deliver even deeper, sustained effects on the wholeU.S. education system.

Unfortunately, the clearly observed and indis-putably identified effects are all undesirable: narrow-ing what students learn, teaching to tests, forcingteachers to cheat, and making schools find “creative”

This issueavailable in audio

Kappans can visit

the PDK website—

www.pdkintl.org

—register, log in, and

download the audio

version of this article.

Use Audio EDge

anytime you are

on the go and want

to fill your ears with

the latest information.

All back issues of

EDge also are avail-

able online.

About the Author

Yong ZhaoYong Zhao is the University DistinguishedProfessor of Education at MichiganState University, where he also servesas the founding director of the Centerfor Teaching and Technology as well asthe US-China Center for Research onEducational Excellence. He is a fellow ofthe International Academy for Educationand currently serves on the NationalAcademy of Sciences NationalResearch Council’s Committee toReview the Title VI and Fulbright-HaysInternational Education Programs. Zhaoreceived his Ph.D. in Education from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1996. His research interests include diffusion of innovation,teacher adoption of technology, computer-assisted language learning, globalizationand education, and international andcomparative education. Zhao has pub-lished extensively in these areas. He hasbeen invited to lecture on issues relatedto education reform, globalization, andtechnology in more than 10 countries.He received the 2003 Raymond B.Catell Early Career Award from theAmerican Educational ResearchAssociation.


ways to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) re-quirements. The desired effects — raising studentachievement and narrowing achievement gaps — arenot so obvious. According to Rentner and her col-leagues (2006), 35 states reported that students re-ceived higher scores in English/Language Arts thanthe previous year, and 36 states reported similar re-sults in math. The rest of the states reported scoresdeclining, staying the same, or “other.” The reportlisted possible explanations for the improvement: a)the students indeed learned more, b) the studentsdeveloped better test-taking skills, c) cheating, d)changes in tests (less rigorous, easier, or lower stan-dards), and e) normal fluctuations in grades. Othernational studies doubt even the existence of suchgains reported by state officials. For example, the Na-tional Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)found no gains in student achievement during thesame period. The effect of NCLB on narrowingachievement gaps is equally uncertain.

The effects of current reforms on student achieve-ment are disappointing, but truly troubling is howNCLB distracts us from teaching what will truly en-hance global competitiveness. Even if, somehow,these reform measures miraculously led to signifi-cantly increased test scores in math, reading, and sci-ence and completely wiped out achievement gaps,our children would not be better prepared for life ina more globalized and technological world.

Instead, we are becoming obsessed with test scoresin a limited number of subjects, which in essence isthe adoption of a single criterion for judging the suc-cess of students, teachers, and schools. Once weadopt this single criterion, and we are well on ourway, we will kill the most important and sought-after commodity in the 21st century — creativity.

How Not to Kill CreativityCreativity has led to many innovations in science

and technology, literature, music, and art. In theknowledge-driven economy, the “creative class” is atthe top of the economic value chain and the drivingforce of economic and social development (Florida2002).

Over the past 150 years, the United States has beenthe world leader in scientific innovations that havepowered economic growth at home and around theworld. Though Asia is expected to gain prominencein the 21st century, these countries cannot competewith the U.S. in creativity and innovation. As William


Hannas (2003) documented, modern development inAsia has been rooted in technology transfers from theUnited States and European countries. Yet leaders andeducators in the United States typically confuse tech-nical skills with creativity. As a result, Asian nationshave been working on closing the creativity gap, whilethe United States has been troubled by the “achieve-ment gap” revealed by international comparison tests.

To be creative is to be different. Florida (2002)found that, in general, tolerance of deviation from tra-dition and the norm results in greater creativity. In in-dividualist cultures such as the United States, creativ-ity is respected and valued; in collectivist cultures,the emphasis is on continuity and tradition (Sawyer2006).

Schools tend to demand conformity and obedi-ence, yet “most young children are naturally curiousand highly imaginative,” noted Dacey and Lennon(1998, 69). “After children have attended school fora while, they become more cautious and less innova-tive. . . . Teachers, peers, and the educational systemas a whole all diminish children’s urge to express theircreative possibilities.”

Yet there is a difference in the degree to which thishappens, and this difference may explain, at least inpart, the “creativity gap”between Asians and Americans.First, “American children spend less time in academicactivities than Chinese and Japanese children do interms of hours spent at school each day and days spentin school each year” (Stevenson and Stigler 1992,52–53). Second, Asian teachers “make an explicit ef-fort during the early months of elementary school” toteach children to think of themselves as a group andto be constantly aware of their obligations to thegroup (Stevenson and Stigler 1992, 62).

Third, American parents generally seem to bemore satisfied with their children’s academic per-formance and their schools than do mothers in Chi-na and Japan. American parents define success morebroadly and strongly emphasize that children are in-dividuals. In contrast,Asian parents play an extreme-ly high value on grades, test scores, and, most impor-tant, admission to prestigious universities. All otheractivities — including art, music, community, andathletic development — are considered unimportantunless they produce an advantage in entering bettercolleges.

American parents’ broader definition of successand the emphasis on internal standards of successmay not lead to high test scores or good grades, butthey do help to preserve and protect individuality and

Are we willing to kill

more creativity in

exchange for better

scores?


creativity. A broader conception of student successand less emphasis on external indicators allow stu-dents to “feel good” even if they excel in areas otherthan academic subjects. This also enables, if not en-courages, children to pursue their interests and thuspreserve some level of intrinsic motivation, which isessential for creativity (Dacey and Lennon 1998).

Asian parents’emphasis on external indicators andhigh expectations for the education system lead to lessself-confidence and externalization of motivation,which is detrimental to creativity. Consequently,Asians are much more interested in external rewardsthan Americans when they enter the work force.When asked to select the important aspects in a job,about 82% of Americans mentioned “a job that is in-teresting.” In stark contrast, only 18% of Chinese men-tioned this (World Values Survey 1999–2004).

Finally, standardized and centralized curricula, an-other feature of Asian education systems oftenpraised by reformers, serve to further squeeze oppor-tunities for individual differences. Teaching at the samepace, in the same sequence, and using the same text-books for all students leaves little room for exploringindividual interests and accommodating differentlearning styles. Curriculum standardization and high-stakes testing do not nurture creativity.

The U.S. education system can make a choice. Arewe willing to kill more creativity in exchange for bet-ter scores? This seems to be the path current reform-ers have chosen, and we risk losing the position ofthe world’s leading hub for scientific and technolog-ical innovations. Such a loss would be difficult, if notimpossible, to reverse.

I’m not arguing for a system that lets children dowhatever they want. Indeed, systematic, in-depth,and disciplined learning is required for anyone whowants to succeed in life. But this learning must notbe confined to a limited number of subjects, and ourschools must not honor a limited range of talents.

Multiple Intelligences and Global EducationBy now, more than 20 years after Howard Gard-

ner’s seminal book Frames of Mind: The Theory ofMultiple Intelligences was first published in 1983, theidea that there is more than one “intelligence” — thateach of us possess a unique set of intelligences — hasbeen generally accepted. As Gardner (1993, xxiii)wrote in his introduction to the 10th edition:

In the heyday of the psychometric and be-haviorist eras, it was generally believed that

’’’’

Learning must not be

confined to a limited

number of subjects, and

our schools must not

honor a limited range

of talents.


intelligence was a single entity that was inher-ited; and that human beings — initially a blankslate — could be trained to learn anything, pro-vided that it was presented in an appropriateway. Nowadays an increasing number of re-searchers believe precisely the opposite; thatthere exists a multitude of intelligences, quiteindependent of each other; that each intelli-gence has its own strengths and constraints;that the mind is far from unencumbered atbirth; and that it is unexpectedly difficult toteach things that go against early “naïve”theories that challenge the natural lines offorce within an intelligence and its matchingdomains.

For both biological and cultural reasons, we are“intelligent” in different domains, more intelligent insome areas while less intelligent in others. Yet, in itsattempt to cultivate certain talents, school suppressesother, less valued talents. Most schools today tend tovalue only two of the intelligences on Gardner’s origi-nal list: linguistic and logical-mathematical. Thoughmany have embraced the spirit of Gardner’s theoryand the associated research, schools have not broad-ened what they value. A child’s performance in mathand language is still the primary indicator of intelli-gence or ability. As a result, those inclined towardmath and language are considered good students,while those with less mathematical and linguistic ca-pacities are considered at risk, regardless of strengthsin other areas. The latter group of children receivespoorer grades and lower scores on standardized tests,which then affects their self-esteem, their chances ofattending college, and ultimately their future.

The degree to which schools value linguistic andlogical-mathematical intelligences varies across cul-tures. East Asian education systems have traditionallyvalued academic performance in math and languagealmost exclusively over any other type of talent,which has resulted in students spending almost alltheir time on getting good grades in these areas orwithdrawing from school. Schools and parents havealso put all their efforts into helping students performwell in these areas. As a result, these education sys-tems have shown excellent performance in interna-tional comparative studies, which have mostly meas-ured performance in mathematics.

In contrast, American schools and parents have traditionally tolerated other intelligences in schoolsand held a broader, more individualized view of suc-cess. Unfortunately, these other opportunities, such

as sports, student clubs, and music, may graduallydisappear as education reforms squeeze other intel-ligences out of schools.

Daniel Goleman (1996, 34) noted, “One of psy-chology’s open secrets is the relative inability ofgrades, IQ, or SAT scores, despite their popular mys-tique, to predict unerringly who will succeed in life. . . .At best, IQ contributes about 20 percent to the fac-tors that determine life success, which leaves 80percent to other forces.”

Globalization and advancements in technologyhave made intelligences in these other domains moreimportant than ever. Daniel H. Pink (2005) has ar-gued that what was important in the Information Age— left-brain, sequential, literal, functional, textual,and analytic thinking — is no longer sufficient. Aswe move into the Conceptual Age, what really mat-ters is right-brain, simultaneous, metaphorical, aes-thetic, contextual, and synthetic thinking — the typethat is not assessed well on standardized tests.

Cold War Mindsets vs. the Globalized WorldSo why are well-intentioned and otherwise intel-

ligent political and business leaders working to fur-ther narrow the definition of success for schools andstudents to performance in math and science? The answer, according to Joseph Stiglitz (2006, 25), isthat “economic globalisation has outpaced the glo-balisation of politics and mindsets.” Reform advo-cates are applying a Cold War mindset to the global-ized world. Instead of rethinking education and human capital in the context of globalization, theyare holding on to an adversarial mentality, which isevident in the frequent references to “Sputnik” inmany reports.

For example, the Business Roundtable (2005, 2)argued that, to meet tomorrow’s educational needs,“the United States must respond . . . as energeticallyas we did to the Soviet Union’s launching of Sputnikin the 1950s. To remain the technological leader inthe 21st century, we must establish and achieve anambitious goal: We must double today’s science,technology, engineering and mathematics graduateswith bachelor’s degrees by 2015.” Similarly, the U.S.Department of Education (2006a, 4) declared, “To-day, America faces not a streaking satellite but arapidly changing global workforce.”

One of the most fundamental elements of the ColdWar mindset is that we have to maintain superiorityover “them.” Any sign of losing that superiority, no


matter in what domain, is considered a defeat and athreat. Though research has repeatedly shown thatgrades and test scores in schools are inadequate inpredicting life success or overall productivity, inter-national comparative studies such as TIMSS andPISA have been repeatedly cited to suggest that U.S. education is in trouble, especially in math andscience.

Furthermore, we often are presented statistics thatshow an increase in students studying math, science,technology, and engineering in other countries and adecline in the number of U.S. students in these areas.These sobering figures suggest that other countries,particularly China and India, are overpowering theUnited States in math, science, engineering, and tech-nology. From a Cold War perspective, this suggestionmay be correct; but our more interconnected, global-ized world demands a different interpretation.

Globalization, the increasing integration of worldeconomies through trade and financial transactions,involves movements of goods, people, and moneyacross national and geographical borders. Ben S. Ber-nanke (2006), has noted, “The traditional distinctionbetween the core and the periphery is becoming in-creasingly less relevant . . . as the mature industrialeconomies and the emerging-market economies be-come more integrated and interdependent.” Bernanke(2006) added, “Production processes are becominggeographically fragmented to an unprecedented de-gree. Rather than producing goods in a single processin a single location, firms are increasingly breakingthe production process into discrete steps and per-forming each step in whatever location allows themto minimize costs.”

Theoretically, a business can locate any of its ele-ments anywhere in the world and can employ anyonefrom anywhere; conversely, any individual can workfor any business located anywhere in the worldthrough telecommunication or migration. The tie be-tween individuals and their nations and national en-terprises is weakening. Today, countless Chinese andIndians are working for U.S. businesses located inany of the three countries. Similarly, millions ofAmericans are working for Japanese, Chinese, Ger-man, French, or Indian businesses. In 2005, Chinaimported more than 300,000 experts and technicalworkers (Lin and Wang 2006).

Yet reform advocates continue to point to signs ofcrisis. Businesses seek to maximize profit, which willsend them anywhere to hire anyone, regardless of theirnational affiliation. Though U.S. schools produce

Though U.S. schools

produce qualified

workers, U.S. businesses

will send their jobs to

other countries where they

can find similarly qualified

workers at lower costs.


qualified workers, U.S. businesses will send their jobsto other countries where they can find similarly quali-fied workers at lower costs. The number of U.S. stu-dents interested in math, science, engineering, andtechnology can decline; for businesses, it is a mootpoint.

For the United States, competitiveness has moreto do with immigration policy and other factors irrel-evant to education. The degree to which a communi-ty can prosper is dependent on talents, tolerance, andtechnology (Florida 2002). Living standards, finan-cial infrastructure, cultural and legal respect for in-tellectual properties, and other political, social, eco-nomical, and cultural influences have kept the UnitedStates competitive despite repeated alarms soundedabout its “horrible” education system (Zhao 2006a).Since the publication of A Nation at Risk (NationalCommission on Excellence in Education 1983),whichpainted a bleak picture of American education and is-sued an urgent call for reform, many similar publica-tions have argued that U.S. education is floundering.Yet the United States has remained competitive, lead-ing global growth over the past two decades and inscientific research, entrepreneurial activity, andworker productivity (Council on Competitiveness2006).

To remain competitive, a nation must cultivate newindustries and its businesses must innovate. As tradi-tional industries move to other countries, those jobsget outsourced. Instead of trying to keep them, theUnited States should consider creating new ones,whichdemands different talents and intelligences. As mil-lions of Chinese and Indians become qualified engi-neers, technical workers, and call center workers (allat a lower wage), we must develop different abilities,talents, and skills rather than compete with them inthe same domains. Indeed, Americans may be doingprecisely that, which could explain the decline in en-rollment of U.S. students in math, science, engineer-ing, and technology.

The Real ProblemsAmerican education is not free of problems.

Teaching and learning can be improved. Yet the cur-rent reforms are undermining the nation’s competi-tiveness by squelching creativity, squeezing out spacefor intelligences and talents that are truly needed in theglobal economy, and taking resources away fromstudents.

As traditional industries

move to other countries,

we must develop different

abilities, talents, and

skills rather than

compete with them in

the same domains.


1. LACK OF PREPARATIONOne problem is that American schools are not ade-quately preparing students to develop global knowl-edge and skills. According to the Committee for Eco-nomic Development (2006, 14), “Many Americanstudents lack sufficient knowledge about other worldregions, languages and cultures, and as a result arelikely to be unprepared to compete and lead in a globalwork environment.”

This assessment is backed up with a long list ofcompelling evidence. More than 80% of New YorkCity eighth-graders did not meet the state standardsin social studies in 2004. Moreover, the number ofstudents meeting the social studies standards has de-creased by almost 20% since 2002.

Furthermore, most young Americans lack geo-graphic knowledge or an understanding of how theUnited States fits into the world. A survey conductedby the National Geographic Society (National Geo-graphic–Roper Public Affairs 2006) found that:

• 63% of young American students could not lo-cate Iraq on a map of the Middle East, “despitenear-constant news coverage since the U.S. in-vasion of March 2003” (6).

• 75% could not find Indonesia, Iran, or Israel ona map.

• 18% correctly identified Mandarin Chinese asthe world’s most commonly spoken native lan-guage, while 74% believed it to be English.

• 29% correctly identified the United States as theworld’s largest exporter of goods and services,while half thought it was China.

In Sweden, surveys have indicated that 89% ofyoung adults speak at least two languages, and 92%have ventured outside of their home country withinthe previous three years. In stark contrast, at the timeof the survey, only 36% of young Americans spokemore than one language and a mere 22% had left U.S.soil in the preceding three years. In fact, only about25% of all U.S. citizens have passports. The Com-mittee for Economic Development (2006, 6) has noted,“Compared to their counterparts from universities inother parts of the world, U.S. students are ‘strongtechnically’ but ‘shortchanged’ in cross-cultural ex-perience and ‘linguistically deprived.’”

The U.S. economy depends on its capacity to in-teract with other economies in the world. Nearly 60%of growth in earnings of U.S. businesses came fromoverseas in 2004; one in five U.S. manufacturing jobs

is already tied to exports. Trade between the UnitedStates and Asia is already approaching $800 billionannually. In 2002, U.S. affiliates of foreign compa-nies directly employed more than 5.4 million work-ers in the United States. American companies lose anestimated $2 billion a year because of inadequatecross-cultural guidance for their employees in mul-ticultural situations. Nearly 30% of U.S. businessesargue that they had failed to fully exploit their inter-national business opportunities because of insuffi-cient personnel with international skills (Committeefor Economic Development 2006).

2. NATIONAL SECURITYNational security is a critical challenge. Yet it de-

pends less on military might, as some might suppose,than on diplomacy, cross-cultural communications,intelligence, and maintaining a positive image acrossthe world. A nation is truly secure when it does nothave enemies. Though achieving this position maybe nearly impossible for the United States, a morepositive image around the world can only help. Anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is well known, butnowadays the United States is not very popular evenin Western nations.

Anti-Americanism may have many causes, butU.S. foreign policy and perceived arrogance shouldcertainly be on the list. Our lack of understanding ofother cultures, unilateralism, and perceived arro-gance result from our education. Abraham Lincolnonce said: “The philosophy in the classroom of thisgeneration is the philosophy of government in thenext.” America needs talented diplomats and a publicthat understands and respects other cultures.

The negligence of American schools in preparingstudents in foreign languages and cultures has had adirect effect on the nation’s security. The Committeefor Economic Development (2006, 9) noted, “TheSeptember 11th intelligence failures provide consid-erable evidence of our shortage of expertise in Arabicand Asian languages and cultures.” The Army, theCIA, the FBI, and other national security agencieshad considerable difficulty in recruiting experts incritical languages (U.S. Department of Education2006b). As a result, the FBI’s counter-terrorism ef-forts were hampered. As the National Commissionon Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (2004,77) argued, “The FBI did not dedicate sufficient re-sources to the surveillance and translation needs ofcounter-terrorism agents. It lacked sufficient transla-tors proficient in Arabic and other key languages,


U.S. education is

moving toward more

standardization and

centralization, while Asian

countries are working

hard to allow more

flexibility and autonomy

at the local level.

resulting in a significant backlog of untranslatedintercepts.”

3. MULTICULTURALISMUnderstanding other cultures and languages is

vital to the continued prosperity of the United Statesas a multicultural society. Racial and ethnic harmonyrests upon mutual understanding and respect. Despiteprogress made over the years, racial relationships re-main a critical issue in the United States. The nationmust continue to face this difficult problem and keepAmerica an open society. To do that, schools mustteach about other cultures and languages.

In fairness, President Bush and this administrationrecognize the need to prepare America to be global-ly competent. In the statement for International Educa-tion Week in 2001, the President said, “America’sleadership and national security rest on our commit-ment to educate and prepare our youth for active en-gagement in the international community. I call onschools, teachers, students, parents, and communityleaders to promote understanding of our nations andcultures by encouraging our young people to partici-pate in activities that increase their knowledge of andappreciation for global issues, languages, history, ge-ography, literature, and the arts of other countries.”

However, NCLB and the high school reform ini-tiative at the federal level pay little attention to for-eign languages and cultures. The U.S. Department ofEducation’s initiative, Strengthening Education:Meeting the Challenge of a Changing World, was re-leased in February 2006 following the announce-ment of the American Competitiveness Initiative byPresident Bush in his State of the Union address. Theinitiative commits $5.9 billion in FY 2007, and morethan $136 billion over 10 years, to increase investmentsin research and development and to strengthen edu-cation and workforce training. Yet nearly all of theprograms associated with this government initiativefocus on math and science learning, high standards,and accountability.

The National Language Security Initiative (NLSI)is one exception. It will address our shortage ofpeople who speak languages critical to our nationalsecurity and global competitiveness by: encouragingearlier and stronger coursework in critical-need foreignlanguages from kindergarten through postsecondaryeducation; increasing proficiency among all speak-ers; and providing incentives for government serviceand teaching critical-need foreign languages (U.S.Department of Education 2006c). Yet NLSI is tightly


coupled with current national security needs and hasa narrow goal. Even so, the mere $114 million re-quested by Bush for FY2007 has to be shared acrossthe departments of Education, State, and Defense aswell as the Office of the Director of National Intelli-gence. The Department of Education requested $57million, an insignificant figure compared with theamount devoted to math, science, engineering, andtechnology.

The Education Department’s investment of $5 mil-lion to put 1,000 new foreign language teachers inthe classroom by the end of the decade further revealsa lack of real appreciation of the critical need in for-eign language and cultural talents, considering thecurrent state of foreign language teaching in Ameri-can schools. After all, most U.S. school districts donot offer foreign languages until high school, though itis commonly understood that foreign language teach-ing must start much sooner. Still, even a requirementthat all high school students take a foreign language,especially a non-Western language, could have atremendous effect — though doing so would taketremendous efforts and resources at all levels.

What Other Countries Are DoingWhile the U.S. administration worries about rais-

ing test scores in reading, math, and science and sub-jects students to high-stakes testing and an increas-ingly standardized curriculum, other countries, espe-cially our economic competitors, are doing some-thing different. U.S. education is moving towardmore standardization and centralization, while Asiancountries are working hard to allow more flexibilityand autonomy at the local level. We are investing re-sources to ensure that all students take the same cours-es and pass the same tests, while Asian countries areadvocating individualization and attending to emo-tions, creativity, and other skills. While we are rais-ing the stakes on testing, Asian countries are exert-ing great efforts to reduce the power and testing.

CHINAIn 2002, the Chinese Ministry of Education issued

a policy authorized by the Chinese State Council toreform assessment and evaluation in elementary andsecondary schools. Entitled Ministry of Education’sNotice Regarding Furthering the Reform of Evalua-tion and Assessment Systems in Elementary and Sec-ondary Schools, this policy calls for alternative waysof assessment to simple testing of academic knowl-

edge. It specifically forbids ranking school districts,schools, or individual students based on test resultsor making test results public (Chinese Ministry of Ed-ucation 2002).

In 2003, the Chinese Ministry of Education re-leased its plan for high school curriculum reform,which was scheduled to start in 2004. The primarygoal of this reform is consistent with the previous cur-riculum reform for primary and middle school: fos-ter creativity and the spirit to innovate and develop prac-tical life skills. The specific strategies include grant-ing more flexibility and autonomy to students andschools in deciding what to learn, more courses out-side traditional disciplines, and a more authentic as-sessment and evaluation scheme. The reform pushes formore electives and fewer required courses for students,more local and school-based content, integrated stud-ies, and such new subjects as art, environmental stud-ies, and technology. A strong community service andexperiences component is also included (ChineseMinistry of Education 2003).

In addition, foreign language (mostly English) isa required course starting from 3rd grade in China.

SOUTH KOREAIn 2001, South Korea released the 7th National

Curriculum. It aims to cultivate creative, autono-mous, and self-driven citizens who will lead the era’sdevelopments in information, knowledge, and glo-balization. The curriculum promotes fundamentaland basic education that fosters sound human beingsand nurtures creativity. It helps students build theirself-motivated capacity and implements learner-oriented education that suits students’ capability, ap-titude, and career-development needs. And it ensuresexpanded autonomy for the local community andschools in curriculum planning and operation (Min-istry of Education and Human Resources Develop-ment 2001).

As in China, foreign-language learning (again,mostly English) is being promoted in the elementarygrades.

SINGAPORESince 1997, Singapore has engaged in a major cur-

riculum-reform initiative. Titled Thinking Schools,Learning Nation, this initiative aims to develop allstudents into a community of active, creative learnerswith critical-thinking skills. Its key strategies includethe explicit teaching of critical and creative-thinkingskills; the reduction of subject content; the revision


of assessment modes; and greater emphasis onprocesses, rather than on outcomes, when appraisingschools.

In 2005, Singapore’s Ministry of Education re-leased another major policy document, NurturingEvery Child: Flexibility and Diversity in SingaporeSchools, which calls for a more varied curriculum, afocus on learning instead of on teaching, and moreautonomy for schools and teachers (Ministry of Edu-cation 2005). Singapore is already multilingual in itseducation, but there have been recent calls for strongerteaching of Chinese.

JAPANSince 2001, Japan has been working to implement

its Education Plan for the 21st Century, which hasthree major objectives. The first is “enhancing emo-tional education” by cultivating students as emotion-ally well-rounded human beings. The second objec-tive is “realizing a school system that helps childrendevelop their individuality and gives them diversechoices” by moving toward a diverse, flexible edu-cational system that encourages individuality andcultivates creativity. The third is “promoting a sys-tem in which the school’s autonomy is respected”through decentralizing education administration, en-hancing local autonomy, and enabling independentself-management at the school level (Tokutake 2000).

UNITED KINGDOMOn 15 November 2004, Charles Clarke, then

Britain’s Education and Skills Secretary, launched acomprehensive national strategy to build strongerlinks between the nation’s education system and theirworld partners, requiring every British school to havean international partner school within the next fiveyears. “Our vision,” Clarke noted (in Department forEducation and Skills 2004), “is that the people of theUK should have the knowledge, skills and understand-ing they need to fulfill themselves, to live in and con-tribute effectively to a global society and to work ina competitive, global economy. It means, in short, put-ting the world into the world class standards to whichwe aspire.”

What We Should DoI am not suggesting that math, science, technolo-

gy, engineering, and reading are unimportant; nor amI saying that we should not teach these subjects inschools. But these are not the only subjects that are

The globalized economy

demands a diversity of

talents. American schools

should capitalize on their

strengths: flexibility,

openness, and tolerance.


needed. The globalized economy demands a diversityof talents. American schools should capitalize ontheir strengths: flexibility, openness, and tolerance.

Nor am I opposed to setting higher standards forschools or more accountability, but I am against ex-cessive standardization and testing because of theirnegative effects on creativity, individual interests, andpassion for real learning. We must be mindful of thecriteria we use in establishing accountability andavoid teaching students that what can be tested iswhat’s important. A sign in Albert Einstein’s Prince-ton University office noted, “Not everything that canbe counted counts, and not everything that counts canbe counted.”

Furthermore, I am not against international com-parative studies. If conducted properly, we can learna lot about the effects of educational policies andpractices from different countries. However, I amagainst treating these studies as an international horserace that compares student achievement in a limitednumber of domains. Test scores may provide infor-mation about how students are doing on certain testsbut have limited power to predict the future of a stu-dent. Indeed, their use might damage a student’sfuture.

Finally, I completely agree with the spirit ofNCLB; there are intolerable gaps in the quality ofeducation between the rich and the poor, betweeninner-city students and those in the suburbs, andamong different racial groups. However, an exclusivefocus on math, reading, and science may exacerbatethe situation by shutting out those students who needthe most help.

So what should we do?

CHANGE OUR MINDSETThe first thing that we, as educators, must do is

change to a global mindset, to accept the reality ofglobalization and seek opportunities, rather than toget distracted by the problems of the past. Currentreform efforts offer a “manufactured crisis” (Berlin-er and Biddle 1996) or false alarms instead of insightsinto the future. Lower test scores are not the end ofthe world; fewer Americans majoring in science andtechnology is a natural reaction to the transformedglobal economy. As China and India graduate moreengineering students, we must develop different talents.

A child born today will be entering the society asan adult in 2027, and the changes that can take placein those 20 years will be dramatic. Consider the last

We must accept the

reality of globalization

and seek opportunities,

rather than to get

distracted by the

problems of the past.


Citizens must be able to

competently negotiate

cultural differences,

manage multiple identities,

comfortably interact with

people from different

cultures, and confidently

move across cultures.

20 years: the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the invention and coming of ageof the Internet, the formation and expansion of theEuropean Union, the rise of China to the world’s thirdlargest economy, the addition of some 40 new mem-ber states to the United Nations, and the first and sec-ond Gulf wars, to name just a few.

We don’t know what the future will require of ourchildren, but we can prepare them. About 150 yearsago, Herbert Spencer asked, “What knowledge is ofmost worth?” His answer, “science,” challenged poli-cy makers and educators to replace religion, Latin,and Greek, which had been the primary subjects forhundreds of years, with modern sciences. Globaliza-tion and the digital revolution compel us to askSpencer’s question again.

PREPARE GLOBAL CITIZENSCitizens must be able to competently negotiate cul-

tural differences, manage multiple identities, com-fortably interact with people from different cultures,and confidently move across cultures as well as thevirtual and physical worlds. To do so, they need adeep understanding of the interconnectedness and interdependence of all humans, cultural knowledgeand linguistic abilities that enable them to appreciateand respect other cultures and peoples, and emotionaland psychological capacities to manage the anxietyand complexity of living in a globalized world.

To actually make this happen will require deter-mination, effort, and resources at all levels. The fed-eral and state governments must recognize the greatimportance of international and foreign language education. The severity of the current situation inschools demands sufficient political and financialresources to help schools with this critical yet ex-tremely difficult change.

Many schools will need to reconfigure their cur-ricula, develop or adapt a curriculum framework,identify teaching materials, recruit or retrain profes-sional staff in international education and foreign lan-guages, organize international experiences for students,and offer courses in these areas. Some of these taskscan be accomplished only with substantial invest-ment and policy changes. Schools can begin by:

• Learning more about globalization, internation-al education, and foreign language education.The Asia Society’s International Education(http://internationaled.org) website is a greatstarting point.


• Developing, with the help of technology, inter-national partnership schools. Oracle (www.think.com) has developed a platform for inter-national networking of schools, and ePals(http://epals.com) is another source of potentialpartnerships.

• Offering foreign languages through online in-struction, if needed. For example, the ConfuciusInstitute (http://confucius.msu.edu) at Michi-gan State University has been offering onlinehigh school Chinese courses through MichiganVirtual High School.

• Engaging in teacher and student exchanges.Though very limited, the Federal Fulbright-Hays program offers support in this area, andother organizations and the local communitycan be sources of support.

CULTIVATE DIVERSE TALENTSWe must help children develop their “multiple in-

telligences.” And we must avoid head-on knowledgecompetition with such developing countries as Indiaand China. Our schools must develop niche talentsthat will fit in the large, integrated, global supplychain of talents. To do so, schools need to:

• Resist the temptation of winning the academichorse race in a narrowly defined set of domains:math, science, and reading. U.S. schools, com-pared to many schools in the world, have abroader definition of talents, but NCLB and as-sociated reform efforts are effectively erodingthis great tradition.

• Broaden the definition of success. U.S. schoolsmust purposefully define student success ineven broader terms and celebrate diverse talentsand accomplishments.

• Keep and even increase programs in the arts,music, sports, literature, humanities, and digi-tal citizenship.

Facing the Globalization CrisisAs I have argued elsewhere (Zhao 2006b), you

cannot teach creativity. But you can kill it, throughstandardization, conformity, and a monolithic viewof intelligence. To limit the power of schools in “cre-ativity killing,” we must:

• Reduce, not increase, the frequency of high-stakes standardized testing.

’’’’

You cannot teach

creativity. But you

can kill it,

through standardization,

conformity, and a

monolithic view

of intelligence.


• Stop imposing high-stakes standardized testingat the elementary grades; instead, provide moretools for teachers to diagnose early problems.

• Follow Britain’s example on high-school exitexams by including more subjects so that stu-dents can choose a subset of them from whichto demonstrate their abilities.

• Allow high school students to choose from a setof different specializations — including art,sports, humanities, language, technology, math,and science — rather than require them all todo the same things.

Globalization has become a crisis in many parts ofthe world. How globalization will affect us and thefuture of our education systems depends on how weface the challenges. Policy makers, education lead-ers, and the public must come together to face thiscrisis. Together, we need to consider how to educateAmericans to become valuable and indispensablecontributors to the integrated and interdependentglobal economy — to be respected, loved, but notfeared, neighbors in the global village.

ReferencesBerliner, David C., and Bruce J. Biddle. 1996. The Manufactured

Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on America’s PublicSchools. New York: Perseus Books.

Bernanke, Ben S. 2006. “Global Economic Integration: What’sNew and What’s Not?” A paper presented at the Federal Re-serve Bank of Kansas City’s 30th Annual Economic Sympo-sium, 25 August. Available at: www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2006/20060825/default.htm.

Bush, George W. 2001. “Message from President Bush.” Avail-able at: http://exchanges.state.gov/iew2001.message.htm.

Business Roundtable. 2005. Tapping America’s Potential: TheEducation for Innovation Initiative. Washington, D.C.: BR.

Chinese Ministry of Education. 2002. Ministry of Education’sNotice Regarding Furthering the Reform of Evaluation andAssessment Systems in Elementary and Secondary Schools.Beijing: CME.

Chinese Ministry of Education. 2003. A Framework for HighSchool Curriculum Reform (Pilot). Beijing: CME.

Committee for Economic Development. 2006. Education forGlobal Leadership: The Importance of International Studiesand Foreign Language Education for U.S. Economic and Na-tional Security. Washington, D.C.: CED.

Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21stCentury. 2006. Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energiz-ing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Council on Competitiveness. 2006. Competitiveness Index: WhereAmerica Stands? Washington, D.C.: CC.

Dacey, John S., and Kathleen H. Lennon. 1998. UnderstandingCreativity: The Interplay of Biological, Psychological, and

How globalization will

affect us and the future

of our education systems

depend on how we face

the challenges.


U.S. Department of Education. 2006b. “National Security Lan-guage Initiative.” Available at: www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/nsli/nsli.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education. 2006c. “Strengthening Educa-tion: Meeting the Challenge of a Changing World.” Availableat: www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/challenge.

World Values Survey. 1999–2004. World Values Survey. Avail-able at: www.worldvaluessurvey.org.

Zhao,Yong. 2006a. “Are We Fixing the Wrong Things?” Educa-tional Leadership 63(8), 28–31.

Zhao, Yong. 2006b. “Creativity Can’t Be Taught, But It Can BeKilled.” Detroit Free Press, 16 January.

Social Factors. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Department for Education and Skills. 2004. “International Strategy

for Education: Putting the ‘World’ into World Class Educa-tion.” Available at: www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2004_0193.

Florida, Richard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: And HowIt’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community, & Everyday Life.New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, Howard. 1993. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multi-ple Intelligences, 10th anniv. ed. New York: Basic Books.

Gates, Bill. 2005. Speech, National Education Summit on HighSchools. Washington, D.C., 26 February.

Goleman, Daniel. 1995. Emotional Intelligence:Why It Can Mat-ter More Than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.

Hannas, William C. 2003. The Writing on the Wall: How AsianOrthography Curbs Creativity. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.

Tokutake Yasushi. 2000. “Educational Reform.” Japan Echo27(6). Available at: www.japanecho.com/sum/2000/270603.html.

Kober, Nancy, et al. 2006. State High School Exit Exams: A Chal-lenging Year. Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy.

Lin L. P. and Wang Y. 2006. “Waizhuanju Fayanren: ZhongguoJiang Zhuozhong Yingjin Waiguo Gaoshuipin Rencai(Spokesperson of Foreign Expert Bureau: China Will Focuson Importing Advanced Experts).” Xinhua News Agency.Available at: www.gov.cn/jrzg/2006-09/20/content_393748.htm.

Ministry of Education. 2005. Nurturing Every Child: Flexibilityand Diversity in Singapore Schools. Singapore: ME.

Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development. 2001.7th National Curriculum. Seoul, Rep. of Korea: MEHRD.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Na-tion at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Wash-ington, D.C.: NCEE.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the UnitedStates. 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report. Washington,D.C.: 9/11 Commission.

National Geographic–Roper Public Affairs. 2006. 2006 Geo-graphic Literacy Study: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Na-tional Geographic Society.

Pink, Daniel H. 2005. A Whole New World: Moving from the In-formation Age to the Conceptual Age. New York: PenguinGroup.

Rentner, Diane S., et al. 2006. From the Capital to the Class-room: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington,D.C.: Center on Education Policy.

Russell, M., and L. Abrams. 2004. “Instructional Uses of Com-puters for Writing: The Effect of State Testing Programs.”Teachers College Record 106(6), 1332–57.

Sawyer, R. Keith. 2006. Explaining Creativity: The Science ofHuman Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stevenson, Harold W., and James W. Stigler. 1992. The Learn-ing Gap: Why Our Schools Are Failing and What We CanLearn from Japanese and Chinese Education. New York:Simon & Schuster.

Stiglitz, Joseph. 2006. “Make Globalization Work for Everyone.”The Straits Times, 8 September, 25.

U.S. Department of Education. 2006a. “Meeting the Challenge ofa Changing World: Strengthening Education for the 21st Cen-tury.” Available at: www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness.

Register today! Space is limited.

Publishers of the Phi Delta Kappan journal.Join PDK today! Become a part of our network of con-cerned educators. Access cutting-edge publications, profes-sional development resources, and more. Committed to lead-ership, research, and service in education since 1906.

[email protected] • 1.800.766.1156

How should we prepare our students forwork and citizenship in a global society?

Panel Moderator:Lloyd Axworthy,Nobel PeacePrize nominee,president of the University of Winnipeg, andpast-director of the Liu Center for the Study ofGlobal Issues, University of British Columbia

Keynote Speaker:Gene Sperling, director of the Center forUniversal Education, Council on ForeignRelations

Competitiveness. Environmental Sustainability.

World Peace.

Join us in this

critical dialogue

for education

in the 21st cen-

tury and beyond

at the 8888

For more than 40 years PDK’s International Travel Program has been taking groups of educators to visit schoolsand to learn from their peers throughout the world. Find out more about this unique professional developmentopportunity at www.pdkintl.org/travel/thome.htm or contact Monica Overman by e-mail at [email protected] by phone at 800-766-1156.

Join Phi Delta Kappa Internationalon a summer adventure toNEW ZEALAND that will enrichyou both personally and profes-

sionally. From 21 July through 1 August2007, you will tour this astonishinglybeautiful country’s historical and cultur-al sites, visit schools, and meet with topeducation officials.

The highlight of the trip will be a visitto schools involved in the Te KotahitangaProject, an initiative designed to exam-ine why Maori students struggle inschool and to identify strategies toboost their achievement. Described as a “win-win” for both teachers and students, Te Kotahitanga is shiftingstudent performance in New Zealand’sclassrooms. Don’t miss this opportunityto meet with the researchers and edu-cators involved in this incredible effort— it will change the way you viewyourself as an educator.

Need help funding your adventure?PDK members can apply for a Gerald Howard ReadInternational Travel Scholarship.

Don’t Just Think Outside the Box—Think Outside theHEMISPHERE!

Pho

to:

Sco

tt V

enni

ng

education in the flat world - center for teaching and technology

Documents