Yong and Common Core

Five Questions to Ask about the Common Core.

Yong Zhao seems better educated and reasoned than other attempts at opposing Common Core. It would be foolish for me to lightly dismiss his experience and knowledge. I can, however, state with some confidence a few things.

He seems to favor individuality, and I can agree with that. America should be about diversity. Diversity of perspectives and opinions working together. There should be a respect for liberty and an individualized approach. Not all children learn the same or can be taught via the same toolset. I would assume there are many educators out there superior than I who can discuss this.

He does not make this a political attack against Obama. Or, at least, he conceals this which is refreshing at least. Some people, particularly Conservative Republicans, will oppose anything Obama promotes. Not because it's bad; they oppose everything blindly. This is exceedingly unwise. It builds a partisan attitude which does not respect a diversity of perspectives.  Conservative Republicans seem disadvantaged when it comes to addressing evidence and employing reason. They engage, excessively, in highly motivated reasoning. They begin with an agenda; they work to that agenda while ignoring, deflecting, distracting, or distorting all available evidence to that end. They are blind; they have eyes but will not see. They are deaf; they have ears but will not hear.

Obama is not a saint; nor is he a devil. He is a popularly elected second-term President of the United States. The will of the people have spoken and they asked for him to lead. The Republican approach is inherently disloyal to the political process of America. Their own vested interest should, in their eyes, be imposed on others. This, I fear, is the tyranny which they seem to fear but cannot recognize in themselves. They cannot see it, perhaps, because people can be terrible at seeing through their own delusions.

Common Core may not be a good thing. If, however, it works for weal or brings about woe, this should be assessed on the merits of Common Core as opposed to knee jerk opposition. The American education system needs improvement and reform. The question needs to be asked, does Common Core offer any advantage over the existing, fractured system.

People greatly value their autonomy. The imposition of a set of standards can seem intimidating. The lack of autonomy hinders a person's ability to freely respond to their circumstances. This is also seen in nature as individuals of any given species all possess some slight affinity for variation. Some variations are superior to others and, in the event of unforeseen circumstances, these variations can have surprising benefits. For example, an animal may vary in a way that generates feathers and these may slowly transition into the gift of flight. The advantage of flight could not have been understood or expected from the first evolution of feathers. So, too, it may be that the variation in the approach to the educational system can lead to variations in outcomes which, although difficult to foresee, can lead to variations which are well suited to exploit some heretofore unforeseen circumstance.

We do not want to become cookie-cutter clones of each other. Diversity is good. The problem here lies in the tendency for Conservatives to not value diversity. The people promoting the Common Core educational reforms are more Liberal. We should expect to be able to reach such people with an appeal to maintain diversity within our education system. The contrary cannot be expected for the Conservative agenda. Therefore, while it seems this is something to keep an eye on, we would needs be more fearful if the transformation were being spearheaded by Conservative groups.

Yong also seems to want to transition what he sees as a left-side of the brain intensive education into a more right-side manner. Here, I must admit to having read somewhere in the past that this whole turn of phrase.. right-side vs. left-side is overused and inaccurate. It is possible, however, to understand the gist of what Yong advocates. He wants a more creative education. The question would be, can you educate creativity? If so, how do you do it?

He is arguing, as it were, in a vacuum. Let me explain that. Our existing education system is left-sided, not right-sided. No Child Left Behind is the existing system. Yong does not state that No Child Left Behind is better than Common Core at educating towards a creative intelligence. To oppose Common Core on these grounds, one would have to show the existing system in some credible way superior to the proposed changes. He has not done so.

Uniformity, while something we fear being enforced upon us, is also something we greatly prize. Widgets are made all exactly the same. Assembly lines intend to create exactly duplicate goods. We understand that uniformity and organization brings efficiency. We can see, through the evolution of businesses within our economy, what systems produce goods and services of reproducible quality and, thus succeed. Chaotic, fractured, inconstant, business models do not seem to be highly successful. In order to oppose uniformity in the education system, one would need some credible reason to believe that education operates differently than any other process in our economy.

And, as far as I can see, it does not. To do my job, for example, you have to pass a test by the Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification board and engage in Continuing Education on a two-year cycle. If you want to complain about teaching to the test, it might be prudent to realize that some jobs revolve around being able, specifically, to pass a test. Doctors, like my employer, must also routinely take and pass tests in order to continue practicing. Lawyers must pass the Bar examination. How can you change the education system without changing the workforce requirements?

Yong may be very right about profit in finding some way of educating young minds to be more creative and flexible. But, as there is no plan on the table for accomplishing that, it doesn't make sense to criticize Common Core education reforms. For many occupations, we much teach to the test anyway. Creative intelligence is difficult to test, assess, measure, quantify, etc...


Response to Marc Tucker

 I got to understand and know Yong Zhao a little better form his response to Marc Tucker. The response seems to me to have very understandable and expected errors of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. I am, of course, always more comfortable talking to educated people because even if they have such biases, they have a more organized style of thought and it does remain, occasionally, possible to have a conversation.

It is hard to not have an agenda; a challenge to identify our biases and work to minimize them. Yong Zhao's background, coming from China, seems to have set him against a test-heavy mentality and State directed education. He has some good points about education becoming obsolete with a change in culture. We cannot expect Yong Zhao to lightly change his opposition to the Chinese style of education.

I can see his perspective. However, there is also a clear and defensible perspective in this video that he simply remains incapable of seeing. A great measure of intelligence and a healthy store of education does not necessarily help one critically and skeptically address their own biases.

 There are many things in the video which will not resonate with Yong, but will resonate strongly with others. Consistency and fairness. The idea that the same student in different cities would be receiving a different education. We would like to know that a Grade Point Average of 3.8 in Seattle meant the same thing as one from a school in Chicago. When these kids go to college, their respective GPAs might be put in competition against each other as if they were equal. There is a measure of apparent unfairness in such a system. Yong, although undoubtedly more educated and intelligent than I, simply cannot see this point.

However, we cannot expect a Knife to serve the same function as a Hammer nor a Bolt to serve where a Nail works better. Instead of trying to tear down a great mind with significant education, allow me to try to see where he is seeing clearly and where he has something worth considering. That is, let me see the strengths of his position instead of merely seeking to immediately reject his position. Let me avoid or resist the temptation towards motivated reasoning.

We have an example of a system from Yong's experience and perspective which was in place in China. He tells us of the problems he saw with such an enforced set of standards. The phrase used is "high-stakes  testing." Education is high stakes for the children. I have seen teachers who are dispassionate and merely hand out pamphlets. See also: Jeff Bliss (viral video), "there are kids in here that don't learn like that." Some stakes for teachers seem like a good idea.

As a part of the education system, we would expect people from Yong's perspective to take the side of the teacher's union. Now, I expect Unions strive to protect the jobs of their members. As such, it would be reasonable for a Union to wish to avoid or defeat any imposition of a standard that holds teachers accountable. However, there are teachers who have achieved tenure that need a little shaking up.

Zhao:  First, it is not true that “it is now more important than ever to figure out what all young people need to know and be able to do.”

Zhao is addressing Tucker in this excerpt.  He quotes a British Philosopher advocating education reform from 150 years ago and illustrates briefly some continued effort at establishing standards. Zhao suggests, "There has never been a lack of attempts to figure out what all young people should know and be able to do, consequently there is no shortage of standards around." He also comments that "America did just fine as a Nation" without being able to come up with a set of standards.

As the times change, we would expect the standards to change as well. Given the power of tradition and the reluctance to change, we would expect periodic pushes being necessary to update those standards for the same reasons they were originally attempted. Establishing standards has been happening in the education system and will continue. Common Core doesn't change that. Common Core is merely the latest attempt at defining and establishing standards which may need to shift to keep pace with shifting times.

I cannot validate Tucker's claim that it is "now more important than ever," but I can suppose that every time someone has advocated for education reform and the establishment of standards that they have probably believed that it was "now more important than ever." Conversely, while portraying a continued effort at establishing standards, Zhao doesn't seem to establish a reason for believing it is not, in fact, "now more important than ever." Of course, it is hard to prove a negative.. as I recall hearing. Zhao does not believe there is anything particularly important about establishing standards. Or, at least he says he doesn't.

Elsewhere, Zhao has mentioned a changing workforce and, specifically, suggested a need to move away from a testing-heavy education system (left brained) to a more creative education (right-brained). He seems to have assessed the world as reaching a particular place of change where it is difficult to fathom what skills might be needed in the coming years to succeed. He has said that globalization has brought vast changes.. which, stated another way, would seem to support the perception that “it is now more important than ever to figure out what all young people need to know and be able to do.”

In other words, he rejects a sentiment by Tucker because it supports Common Core but in another place has used a very similar argument to oppose Common Core. This is one of the ways to identify a particular strain of motivated reasoning.

Zhao says, "The Common Core initiative seems to suggest that either there are no standards in America or the existing standards are not good enough." Now this seems fairly well defensible, if one takes the or into consideration. Clearly there are standards, so the full statement is a waste of time. So, removing the useless bit, we get: 'The Common Core initiative seems to suggest that the existing standards are not good enough." This is immanently logical. As the world changes, existing standards will no longer be good enough. Standards much change with a changing world.

But, is there any evidence that Common Core is better than previous ones? Zhao would like to know, but he forgets to turn the question around. Is there any evidence that the existing ones are better than Common Core? Clearly, in some states of our Union, there is reason to believe quite the opposite. For example, in any state who's local standards support teaching Intelligent Design as a "theory" on an even footing with the Theory of Evolution.

Creationism is religion. Evolution, even if it were wrong, is Science. A State's local standards that can possibly confuse the two is 1) a violation of the separation of Church and State in my opinion and 2) evidence that the standards in place are not good enough. There is no marketable value in teaching children Intelligent Design or muddying their understanding of Science and the Scientific Method in this way. Do not misunderstand me, you can teach your children any religion you like. Just don't pretend it is science. We must needs teach our children to identify and reject motivated reasoning, and trying to validate Intelligent Design accomplishes the opposite. There are no marketable jobs to be found from an understanding of Intelligent Design. Truth is not a matter of opinion.

I don't expect Zhao to read my little blog. I don't really expect anyone to read it. However, even if he did, I don't expect I'd be able to change his mind about anything. Even so, I would hope that he would agree with me that some autonomy to set standards at the State level aren't exactly  helpful and that States pressing to put ID on the same footing as Evolution are no less tyrannical than the education system in China from which he fled. I would imaging this would very much look like forcing propaganda down the throats of the  young and impressionable. I have done a little reading on Mao. I would really be surprised if Zhao can't see the comparison.

Zhao includes an anecdote to support his views, without realizing that the same argument can be turned around against them.

An anecdote: For hundreds of years it was possible for the adults in my little village in China to figure out what all children should know and be able to do: handling the water buffalo was one for the boys and sewing for the girls. My village was small and isolated, with around 200 people. But that predication became invalid when China opened up to the outside world in the 1980s. The common standards in my village proved to be wrong later in at least two cases. First it did not work for me. I was pretty bad at what my village’s Common Core prescribed (handling the water buffalo) so I had to do something else (coming to America to debate with Marc Tucker, for example). Second, it did not work for the rest of the children in the village either, because working as a migrant worker in the city is different from handling a water buffalo.

How would it be possible for education to be under any more "local" control than parents? In his own anecdote, he shows how local control failed to work. Common Core does not suggest such a limited education where boys are taught only one skill and girls only taught one other skill, both of which later prove inadequate in changing times. To attempt to defeat Common Core by such an anecdote seems clearly to be a Straw Man Logical Fallacy. You are not defeating the point under consideration, but substituting a vastly inferior point to defeat.

Aristotle believed that virtues were the means between two extremes. To endorse an excessive Federal control of education might lead to inflexibility which is damaging. And yet, to endorse too little oversight allows for a different set of abuses. The debate shouldn't be between "Common Core is a panacea" and "Common Core is evil." There should be a way to find a balance of concerns, I think.

Zhao asks if truly creative people are passionate about what they are interested in or about what the State feels they should know. And here, he has a solid point. It is far easier to work with the interests and proclivities of the student. By easier, I also mean more effective. I believe that P. T. Barnum wrote about this in his book, The Art of Money Getting.

 The safest plan, and the one most sure of success for the young man starting in life, is to select the vocation which is most congenial to his tastes. Parents and guardians are often quite too negligent in regard to this. It very common for a father to say, for example: "I have five boys. I will make Billy a clergyman; John a lawyer; Tom a doctor, and Dick a farmer." He then goes into town and looks about to see what he will do with Sammy. He returns home and says "Sammy, I see watch- making is a nice genteel business; I think I will make you a goldsmith." He does this, regardless of Sam's natural inclinations, or genius.

Barnum, P. T. (Phineas Taylor) (2005-07-01). Art of Money Getting Or, Golden Rules for Making Money (p. 6). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.

Clearly, Zhao has a defensible point in asserting that education must address the strengths and interests of the child in question. He questions whether Common Core can accomplish this. In that, he has what seems to me a defensible argument, especially when one considers his anecdote and experiences with education in China.

And yet, I have also read "The Advance of Science in the Last Half-Century" by Thomas Henry Huxley. And in that book, Huxley explains that the greats like Newton studied science from a pure perspective without paying attention to what advances may come from it. While those who studied electricity did so from curiosity, this information drastically changed the world. Without pure scientific research, great advances cannot easily happen.

Zhao might think this supports his point, which it does to a good extent. Newton explored science because he thirsted for knowledge. Contrariwise, this also supports Tucker in a manner. You cannot know where a child's proclivity may lie. So, if you teach him a broad spectrum of knowledge, it may well be that one bit or another ignites a spark within him. When he goes on to higher education, like College, he may be better able to capitalize on this and individualize his education. Alternatively, once that spark is ignited within him (or her) she may be inspired to study independently and achieve much despite being unable to afford a traditional college education.

My stipulation here is that a student may sometimes need a certain broad exposure to knowledge and education in order to find where their interests lie. A reasonable set of standards can try to establish a broad base of information upon which the student can build what they will. Providing a standard base to children all across American can help ensure that every citizen starts with this broad base of knowledge and can use it as a personal resource. Spark needs tender to ignite. Making sure everyone is provided with a similar store of tender seems just.

Everyone is free to do extra learning on their own.

Zhao: Where do the children learn these and other “unrelated things” when they are pushed aside by the Common Core?

Where do they learn them, currently? You cannot make an argument against Common Core in this way unless the current system is demonstrably better. Is there any reason to believe that Common Core is less suitable to teaching the "unrelated things?" Zhao says they are "pushed aside by Common Core" which implies they are currently being taught. I don't believe that is self-evident.

Zhao: I am very appreciative of Tucker’s understanding of my background but I am not convinced that the U.S. is immune to the same problems China has suffered from testing. 

Immune, probably not. Although, I would think we possess more than a few rather significant differences from a country run by Mao. I doesn't seem as if Zhao can recognize differences between setting standards via Common Core and through a Communist totalitarian regime completely taking over the education system.

Zhao continues to point out the expected emphasis on testing. He mentions some evidence of dishonesty and cheating on standardized testing. I am fully prepared to accept the probability of this being true. I believe that excessive testing wearies our students and takes from them any love they may have for learning. Accepting Common Core does not make inevitable an excessive level of testing and, I fear, No Child Left Behind has already created such a system. You'd have to explain how Common Core is worse than the existing testing. You can't just purport that it will be worse, you need a reason for believing this.

The end of the article seems to devolve into both sides asserting that one thing or another "simply is not true."

Tucker: It is simply not true that our inability to predict the jobs people will have to do in the future and the demand of creative, entrepreneurial young people relieves us of the obligation to figure out what skills and knowledge all young people need to have before they go their separate ways, or the obligation to translate that list of skills and knowledge into standards and assessments that can drive instruction in our schools.

Zhao: It is simply not true that the Common Core will prepare our children for the future. To conclude, I quote a comment left on my Facebook page by one of my personal heros, former president of America Educational Research Association (AERA) and widely respected educational researcher Gene Glass: “Common Core Standards are idiots’ solution to a misunderstood problem. The problem is an archaic, useless curriculum that will prepare no child for life in 2040 and beyond.”

Of the two, Tucker is stronger here. Any difficulty that the Common Core standards would have in predicting the jobs people will have to do in the future would be shared with local teachers with more autonomy. Despite the difficulties or even the impossibility of the task, at the Federal or at the Local level, someone has to do exactly this. So, Tucker's "it simply isn't true" is hard to fault.

Zhao, on the contrary, asserts something which cannot be supported as "simply not true." Common Core could do a better job of preparing children for the future than the existing system. As standards must adapt and change with the time in order to be relevant (see Zhao's own record of continuing efforts to upgrade the standards with time) it seems clear that failure to update the standards will eventually cause those standards to become outdated.

He further closes with a style that seems very familiar. He insults. "Common Core Standards are idiots." There is no more reason to accept such a bold assertion coming from Gene Glass, whom Zhao respects than from Zhao himself. As such, it is base name-calling and I would have thought beneath Zhao's education. We need reasons to believe Common Core is bad.. not just fears that it is bad and comparisons to a system put in place by Communists in another country.

So, with respect for Yong Zhao's education, his articles seem full of suspicion, fear of tyranny, and concerns over things that might happen without anything concrete better to offer. He is better educated and better reasoned than other opponents to Common Core, but at the root his opposition is very similar to theirs. Knee jerk reaction against change and government involvement. I can understand why he might have such a response, but it doesn't mean that his background should determine American educational policy.