Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
1
Yong Zhao, Fatal Attraction: America’s Suicidal Quest for Educational Excellence
Keynote delivered on April 25, 2015, at the Network for Public Education 2015 Conference in Chicago
https://vimeo.com/126604445
Transcribed by Mercedes Schneider
Completed May 14, 2015
Good afternoon. It’s great… you know, these kinds of gatherings, most of us, you did this in China, in
Asian countries, would end up in jail. [Audience laughter.] Seriously, seriously. We are deliberately
challenging the government. This is very serious, so, guys, better watch out with the airport tomorrow,
you better consider. But, as I was telling Diane, I came to this country, this is the hope of this country:
the individuals who think they can do something about something they don’t like, their government. We
need a lot more of this; it’s happening [but] not happening fast enough.
I was very surprised over the last many years. As an immigrant I had to do this myself. I thought you
guys were taking care of this country for me [laughter] [so] I had to do it myself. I’ve gotta do
something.
[Points to projector screen] This is, uh, you can download. Those are the slides I use. This website, if you
feel like to Tweet or follow me on Twitter, that’s fine. I don’t really tweet anything controversial, nothing
[laughter] but just follow me anyway. It’s good, it’s always good to have. And, if you are on something,
you can email me.
This gathering this morning, I was hearing some of the comments about what we do, what kind of
discourse we should have. But before that, I want [to] tell you that I have a personal problem with No
Child Left Behind. I still think George Bush owes me money. [laughter] It’s a real story. It’s real. I have
two children, and this is my daughter (shows slide of a girl blocking photo with her hand; no face visible)
[laughter] And right now, she’s applying for college now. I have another child now who lives in Chicago.
My son, he just, uh, this morning I heard someone, undergraduate from the University of Chicago. My
son just graduated from Chicago, from University of Chicago and now is working in Chicago.
The story, I said Bush owed me money, is this: My son had been [in] public school in Michigan for a long
time and was perfectly happy, and one morning, about eighth or ninth grade, I forgot, says, we went to
the quintessential American restaurant, Cracker Barrel, [laughter] [to] have a great American breakfast,
and we were talking about education, and he said, “Dad, I really know how to get the best scores.”
Anyone from Michigan here? MEAP. We used to have the MEAP test. So, saying that, “O man, I know
how to get [a] perfect score on the MEAP.” I said, “How do you do that?” He said, “Well, you just write
one statement and the three supporting statements.” I said, “Man, they’re ruining your education.” I
said, “We’ve got [to] get out of here.” [laughter] That is why, so I had to send him, honestly, to a private
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
2
school [3:00] and that’s really why Bush owes me three years of tuition. [laughter] That’s how I [got]
started with this whole thing.
And then, you know, right now in the US, what are we trying to do in education reform? The most
popular phrase today in the US is called “readiness.” [laughter] Right? Readiness, readiness everything.
Ready for college, ready for career, ready for kindergarten, I mean, really, every “ready” for something
else, just not life. [laughter] Ready to die. It’s like a “ready” for death, you know. We have all these
standards, there’s “readiness.” So, it’s been ready, a lot of us, so, what is the purpose of education? I
think that’s what we want to talk about. What is the purpose of, is the purpose of education to always
be ready for something you will never be? So, now, you know, everybody likes the Common Core. I’ve
been going around debating with people. They love the Common Core [for] all kinds of reasons: Because
it gets you ready for life and a career, college, right? So, I have a son who was ready for college. He went
to college; he got into Chicago and was very good, competitive. But he was so ready that he got in, but
he was not ready enough that he didn’t get any money. I had to pay for everything. [laughter] That’s,
that’s another thing about life, life is really funny. As a professor, sure you know in education, we are,
this is the worst part of living in America, when you are in the middle, right? We make enough money
not to qualify for any assistance, right? And, but we don’t make enough not to care about the money.
So, we, he graduated two years ago, and, by the way, in the middle, he was going to become, you know,
like any Chinese kid would try to be, you know. You want to study economics. [laughter] So, that’s, uh,
the kind of predetermined pathway for China so you can be ready for a banking job. [5:00] And so you
can be ready to make some money.
I didn’t object to that. It’s fine. Go for it. But then he went to Chicago. He’s somewhere nearby. I hope
he’s not here, but I will share his story, anyway. [laughter] He said after two years, he said, “Dad, I’m
not going to study economics anymore.” I said, “Why?” He said, “Well, there are too many darn Chinese
there, and, uh…” [laughter] “and, uh, they all are better at, you know, than me in math.” I said, “Okay,
fine. Okay.” And, I said, “What are you gonna do?” He said, “I’m going to start something else.” I said,
“What are you going to study?” He said, “I’m going to study, uh, uh, um, art.”
You know, that’s a very alien concept for a Chinese, but, [laughter] and so, I said, “What kind of art?” He
said, “I’m going to do art history.” I said, “Why not? Why not?” I said, “Why not?” Right? I said, “Why
not? No problem at all.” And, that’s, that’s, that’s fine.
He graduated two years ago with honors. He really was passionate about that, but, uh, so, we were
talking about this graduation, and he said, “Dad, I kind of feel sorry for you.” I said, “Why?” He said,
“Well, how are you going to explain to your parents that I majored in art?” I said, “Your friends…”…
because that’s considered a Chinese family shame. [laughter] Because, they only believe… well, you
cannot do anything else [so] you majored in art. They wouldn’t believe anyone would choose to do
something like that. I said, “Don’t worry. You know, that’s fine.” He said [I] must feel like such a failure
as a Chinese person. And I said, “No. You live in America, and a failed Chinese might be a successful
American.” [laughter and applause] That might work. And, uh, I also told him that if you look at me, I
was born and raised in a Chinese village, I’m the most unsuccessful Chinese peasant. I’m a failed Chinese
peasant. I said it didn’t work out for me because…. And so, the whole thing, but, I said, one condition, I
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
3
said, “Whatever you do, it doesn’t matter. Now, you’ve done everything everybody else asked you to
do. You were college-ready; we paid for you, and you were ready to graduate with honors. Just can you
do one thing: Not return to my basement?” [laughter]
So, that’s what I call the “readiness”: Out-of-basement readiness is the best kind of readiness for
education. [laughter and applause]
Now, what does that mean? What does that mean? That means something actually fairly simple: Every
individual be, develop the capacity to live independently, as a contributing member of a society.
Financial independence, psychological independence, and social independence. That you are actually a
member of a society. I don’t care what you do, to do something. By the way, he is happily out of my
basement now. He is in here (Chicago) working in the Arts Club of Chicago. Visit him, you can see, over
there, and you will find out there are not many Chinese working there. [8:00] [laughter]
But, uh, now, with that, so actually, so I want to come back to talk about outcomes. Why I titled this,
called, “America’s Suicidal Quest to Outcome.” As you know, historians will tell you that-- I think Diane is
a great historian [who] will tell you—civilizations really do not die from murder, not this invasion or got
killed by others, it is really we die by suicide. We kill ourselves. And this is a perfect example of a, some
kind of a suicidal mission. Many of you may have seen these stone statues. [Easter Island slide on screen]
This is from the Easter Islands. Many stories [of] what happened there. One of the stories is about, it
was a thriving civilization two thousand years ago, before the Europeans arrived. It was really good, but
on the island, the tribes there got into this thing called Race to the Top. [laughter] And they all, or Race,
Race to the Big. They had somehow believed, whoever can build a bigger, more gigantic, more
significant, more magnificent stone head, it shows how well the tribe is doing. But, more importantly,
it’s going to invite gods to deliver them future prosperity. That’s how they believed it.
And, so, then every tribe got into this. They abandon everything, all focus their resources on building the
best, the most magnificent stone head. As you can imagine, they abandoned agriculture, farming; They
focus all their resources, and they build this thing. [pointing to slide] So, they neglect everything else. In
the end, it caused deforestation, desertification, [unintelligible], and, mostly, it destroyed trees because
they have to cut down trees to transport these big stones, erect the big kind of statue. That’s how it
happened.
American education has done this since 1983, A Nation at Risk. I can go back [to the] 1950s. We’ve been
going after the wrong goal. We’ve been building these gigantic statues, which is called “test scores.” Can
you imagine making our school system today, we have [been] basically trying to say, “Whoever can
produce the best test score is the better teacher, the better system, and whoever has the better score is
the better student. But that’s what we’re talking about. I think that [in] our discourse this morning, we
talk about, the discourse that got us on the wrong path is the narrow definition, the mistaken definition
of what educational outcomes should be. I think that my “out of the basement” readiness is much
better than career and college readiness [applause and laughter] because [11:00] you may be ready for
college, but college is not guarantee for “out of basement” readiness. You know, in the US today, we
have over 50 percent of recent college graduates are back in their parents’ basement. We call that they
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
4
are “unemployed” or “underemployed,” right? And they’re not only back in your basement; they owe
some people money, right? [laughter] We have an average college debt of over twenty thousand dollars
in the US. That’s scary. That’s very scary.
Remember, these children are not necessarily miseducated—are not necessarily poorly educated-they’re miseducated—they’re educated with something that doesn’t exist. But let me go back to say,
how were we, we’re so infatuated with test scores. But do test scores mean anything? You would say,
“no.” But why don’t we believe this? So, you know, there’s several words I think this morning when
Diane talked about Lakeoff’s [?] talking, there’s several phrases we should try to get out of our system.
For example, it’s called, “underperforming.” What does it mean? You know, really? It’s based on test
scores. Underperforming. We are an underperforming system, you know, so horrible. We use that to
define. And other words, I hate these words: “evidence based.” What evidence? Whose evidence? What
evidence? You know, we talk about this as though it’s good. “Data driven.” What data? Do you see? But
sometimes we accept these words as if they are automatically great. You know, we think, “That’s it.
That’s good.” You know, all these terms we use, and it’s very scary in many ways.
So, what we talk, when I was doing this research, trying to get my money back from George Bush, I was,
and I was trying to understand this whole thing. So, what got sent America down this wrong path is
precisely when they look at a number of the scores, either students, or individuals, or systems. [13:00]
And the scores, what made America, if you look at scores, I think this morning when Diane and I talked
about America, if you look at test scores as [an] indicator, you know, American education is really unlike
what the popular media says: “It’s in decline. It’s getting worse every day.” American education based
on test scores is not getting worse, is not in decline. It has always been horrible. [laughter] Has always
been, if you measure this thing. That is what Diane talked about this morning. If you look at some of
these test scores, we have had horrible, horrible test scores for [a] long time: 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and,
uh, this is the data. [slide on screen of America’s ranking on international test scores can be seen at
minute 14:07] You can have an interesting look at this thing. You just track all these international test
scores. They have never been good. There was never a “good old day” in American education in the
past. Never.
But the question you want [to] ask: Why is America still here? (Question is projected onto large screen.)
[laughter and applause] This actually is a Canadian question. They are constantly, the want to know all
the time, “Why are you guys, why are you still here?” is that they are…. Not only here; according to a
list, Obama, we are actually doing pretty good. That’s the State of the Union address; Obama says,
“America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world,” which is true. This is fact, more
factual than some of Obama’s other facts. [laughter] But this is real. What happened there? How do you
explain this? It doesn’t really matter, we look at gaps. The gaps are true, but they don’t really matter.
And Eric Hanuskek, who admits Americans [are an] anomaly. He was trying to predict the reason PISA
scores is [growth?] and development, he cannot in fact explain America. Anomaly. What happened
there?
And then look at, many people admire China. Remember when we talk about China? China has been
Number One, you know, ever since China participate[d] in testing. Well, China, by the way, until 2009,
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
5
China did not really participate in international tests as a nation, not counting Taiwan or Hong Kong.
They are politically part of China, at least the Chinese believe they are part of China, but anyway. So, this
[is] the first time that they took this thing called the PISA. It scored Number One in all three categories in
Shanghai. People try to dispute, “Oh, they lie, they [use] bad sampling.” Maybe all of this [is] true. But
even if it is true, what does it mean? [16:00] And China has had a second round, really, that’s 2012, it’s
the same thing that’s participate this year. Chinese always can do this well. I’ve been saying this thing: If
you measure by test scores, America is always about China surpassing self. China surpassed America
before there was an America. [laughter] You know, China’s been doing this tests, we’ve been doing this
since, like 600. You know, just doing this a long time, long time ago.
So, when you look at, this kind of, this data, you want to say what matters. And, of course, after the data
came out, our beloved, or, not-so-beloved Marc Tucker came out with this great book called, Surpassing
Shanghai. Don’t ever buy it. It’s really a horrible book. [laughter] And, uh, they, uh, they, even the title is
horrible. I mean, it’s like “surpassing Shanghai.” This is something I’ve always, is really bothered me a lot
about, when I just happened [to] arrive here, you say “Shanghai is better,” you mean I should move
back? [laughter] It’s a, that’s a personal struggle for me.
Most important, if you look at a lot of the response from the US has been amazing, amusing, and very
astonishing, and actually, quite scary. Arne Duncan, reading this data coming out of China, said, “This is
a” what? “this is, this is a wake-up call.” By the way, if you look at media, Arne Duncan has had many
“wake-up calls.” [laughter] Is he awake? [laughter] No! You get a wake-up call, you don’t have to wake
up. That’s the thing, It’s, uh, I love the politicians want to that say, “It’s another wake-up call.” Um. Like
early morning, it’s the alarm clock [motioning arm like hitting snooze button] ah, I’m not going to wake
up. I’m going to continue to do this thing. But, yet, you know.
And, uh, and President Obama, of course, has said the Sputnik moment has arrived. Some of you [are]
old enough. Remember Sputnik moment? [Audience answering.] The Soviet Union, right, yeah, okay?
Good. The Soviet Union hovering over. Who were, by the way, making color TVs. It was much better
than [their] satellite. But then it was, scared Americans. At that time (the time of Obama’s comment),
2008, 2009, China was really on the rise in the Olympic games, was, so many people were believing
China had everything right. Even Thomas Friedman said, “Can we be China for a day?” Really. He wrote
in the New York Times. He said, on NBC. He said the same thing. So, everyone was admiring China, and,
not only us, many people. In Australia, the Au Gratis [?] did a report. I was actually helping them
coordinate a summit with their, in Melbourne, and their producer report[ed], said that Chinese kids are
two years ahead in math than Australian kids, which is true. By the way, a lot of data is true. But truth,
what does it mean? That’s a different story. So, listen, it’s very scary.
Anyone here from Pennsylvania? [19:00] Remember your former governor, Ed Rendell, okay? Ed
Rendell, from Pennsylvania. [In] 2009 or 2010, I think the Eagles had to postpone a game, right?
Remember that? Okay. Remember that time, right? And you had to postpone a game. Snowstorm.
Football, Eagles, Philadelphia, Rendell. Nothing to do with China. But purely because China’s kids score
so well, it has everything to do with China now. So he went on radio, this governor, two-term governor
went on radio [and] chastised all Pennsylvanians, and this is what he said. Actually, to not only
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
6
Pennsylvanians but Americans. He said, “You know, we’ve become a nation of wusses. [laughter] The
Chinese are kicking our butt in everything. If this was in China, do you think the Chinese would have
called off the game? [continued laughter] People would have marched down to the stadium. They would
have walked and they would have been doing calculus on their way.” [laughter] This is, uh, the
infatuation is amazing. Remember, [simply ?] two test scores, or three test scores. That’s it. Really, this
is fabulous.
And not only Pennsylvania. If you moved across [the] Atlantic, go to our mother country, England, they
were as stupid as us. [laughter] But, uh, secretary of education Michael Gove visited China and
Singapore, and he wrote in the Telegraph, “I’m happy to confess, I’d like for us to have a cultural
revolution just like the one [had] in China.” [laughter and moans] He needs a history lesson, but
(continuing quote) “Like Chairman Mao, we’ve embarked on a long [march ?] to reform our education
system.” So, you guys say to this, “Why? Why?” And how did the Chinese react to this? Nothing.
Nothing. The Chinese say, “We hate our system, and we don’t want the PISA,” and so, China never did
have a big party to celebrate. [Slide on screen reads, “Why Didn’t China Have a Big Party?”] They did not
say, “This is something that’s worth celebrating. No, we don’t...” And the Chinese know very well that
their education system is not very good because they look at a different set of indicators. The former
Chinese premier at the time, Wen Jiabao, said, “We want our Steve Jobs.”
Steve Jobs is not necessarily, you know, everybody loves him, not necessarily. But the idea is that we
need entrepreneurial, creative people. So, China had a big argument, a national debate, almost, and
said, nothing. There’s no real debate in China; that’s why “almost a debate.” [laughter] So, people asked
the question: Why can’t China have a Steve Jobs?
Theoretically speaking, if smart, intelligent, or extremely exceptional people are born [22:00] randomly
distributed in any population, China, with 1.3 billion people, should have four Steve Jobs born. [laughter]
Four times the population of the US. What happened to the four Steve Jobs, the baby Steve Jobs?
[laughter]
It was squeezed out. So, this is the same thing. So, if you are look at this thing, a lot of people criticize
American education for lowering test scores, for spending more but having less scores.
What is it that cultivates something? Why is [the] US still here? Why China can’t have a baby Steve Jobs,
or Steve Jobs, as grown up?
So, this is the question I want [you to] think about, and now, you’ve stand long enough. You can come,
[let’s] sing a song together. This is good. Okay. If I can make this work. [Adjusts computer to project song
and lyrics to “Rudolph, the Red-nosed Reindeer.”] Can you sing a song together? [Do] you want [to]
stand? Stand up, Come on. Sing a song. [Audience participates in singing part of “Rudolph.”]
Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer had a very shiny nose, And if you ever saw it, you would even say it
glows. All of the other reindeer used to laugh and call him names. They never let poor Rudolph join in any
reindeer games.
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
7
That’s enough. This is public education. We’ve got to take it very seriously. [laughter] [If] you guys have
too much music, [it] might hurt you. [laughter]
Rudolph is Steve Jobs.
Remember Rudolph? Rudolph found out, why did people laugh at him? His nose is different. You notice
that? And then Rudolph did not get to play the reindeer games. We are just trying to remediate his
literacy. [laughter] We want to hook Rudolph on phonics all the time. [laughter] That’s the idea. Rudolph
goes to special ed. [laughter] An education system, because what do we do in our education? Education,
we use authoritarian prescriptions of curriculum and testing to identify kids, to select kids. If you happen
to be doing what I want you to do, you’re gifted and talented. [25:00] Education has been trying to
define children by their deviation from our authoritarian prescription of what we mean by “education.”
And that’s our trouble. That’s where we come. [applause]
So. This is what our traditional education paradigm has been. It’s always about forcing people to do
what some body of people prescribe them to do. And we happen to reduce that in this country to very
few subjects, to only cognitive factors and testing. [Motions to the “Rudolph” lyrics.] And this is a great
model of homogenization. The more successful you are at doing this, the more successful you are at
getting rid of Steve Jobs. Or Rudolph. This is what we do. And today, we continue to fix this model
because the best result of this model is good test scores. You know, a good system is supposed to
produce higher average, smaller variation. And we ignore what you are and who you are. We say it’s all
effort, it’s all teaching, with, actually, [the] Asian system never recognizes your innate differences, your
family conditions. There [are] inherent social injustices in our systems, and we’ve bought the idea,
saying, “It’s all effort. You haven’t tried hard enough.” Or, “Your parents don’t care about your
education.” We have these excuses.
Everybody cares about education. But the problem is that we define “education” in our own way. So, if
you look at this system, that’s why we have the worst test scores, America. This is what [is called] a
“sausage-making” model. You get rid of these people (the “Rudolphs”). And, so, why is [it that]
America’s test scores [have] never been good compared [to] other countries?
Because America is not a very successful “sausage maker.” It’s, uh, American education is what I call “a
broken sausage maker that makes some bacon.” [laughter] That, uh, Rudolph just escaped the system.
He escaped the system. Why, how did this happen? [Motions to new slide] You know, this is from the
book of [the] race between education and technology from two, actually, economists from Harvard,
talking about the traditional virtues of American education, which, by the [way], explains our not-soexcellent test scores but why the country is still here. It, what this is what you can see: This is what I call
the “traditional,” the “traditional virtues.” And we are committing a suicide by destroying the traditional
virtues. Public education. Public provision. That is, we allow everybody—we even allow Rudolph—to join
the reindeer games. It’s a, that’s amazing, right? [28:00]
In other countries, you can’t. Other countries’ selection system: “If you don’t pass my kindergarten
readiness test, you don’t get to come to kindergarten.” By the [way, the] reason it really irks me when
people talk about “kindergarten readiness assessment.” Oregon, Oregon, we’ve got Oregon here, right?
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
8
Oregon was… our governor was so proud of kindergarten readiness test. I said, “Last time I checked,
kindergarten is not a job yet.” [laughter] You know, kindergarten should always be ready for me, my
children. [applause] Right? Our schools… [continued applause] college education institutions are there
to create opportunities for the individual, no matter who they are and where they are, and public
education does that. Public education has done that. We are, in the US, one of the very, very few
systems that allow everybody to play in the system for twelve years. That’s something amazing. We do
not select. We do not judge, and that preserves the diversity of talents. Anyone get[s] to do it.
Once we privatize, once we allow people to select, no matter in what name. Not in the name of
“cognitive readiness,” in the name of “social-emotional readiness,” it’s not working. Once you begin to
select, you exclude people, and you exclude people normally too early. You don’t know who they might
become. Look at back, look at your students. Who is going to become the next great person? We have
no idea. And that’s why this is beautiful. We have the public provision, we have the public-funded—
provision is important—not only “public-funded,” but “provision”—because any privatized entity can
have the right to choose to reject.
We are not running a country club. We are running a public education system. [applause]
And that, that is, [continued applause] that is for the prosperity of the nation and the [common good ?]
of the individuals. No one has the right to judge another person’s life too early… another thing, two big
things right here I want you to focus on: It’s called “local control and decentralized system.” Local
decentralization does not necessarily do very well in terms of efficiency but does greatly to preserve the
viability. People have said now, American have condemned, America say now, “Teachers have too
autonomy. Districts have too much autonomy. What if they do the wrong thing?”
Who is going to judge? Do you trust these Washington to make the right decision [rather] than the
local? By the way, I’ve always said a good government is a government you can ignore—it’s over there.
[waves hand] They always, well, government, they always make the wrong decision, and, uh, so when
we admire the Chinese system for so efficient, actually Jeb Bush wrote this one in an article, said, “You
know, were still debating about the Common Core; China, they’ve got millions of children going to
school. [31:00] No one debates what’s the standards.” That’s precisely the problem. [laughter] That’s
precisely the problem.
So, local control allows professional autonomy over the accounting of education. We define, that’s
called “diversity.” And we have an open, forgiving system. Anyone can bring advice, can have a choice.
Now, we’re trying to fix all of this. You know, “open, forgiving” is really amazing. It allows you the ability
to make mistakes; correct them, change them. You guys still haven’t told your parents everything you
did, you know, in school. [laughter] It allows you forgive your youthful transgressions, to explore, to find
out what you may or may not be good at, what you may or may not be passionate about. And this [is]
what I explain this one.
Now we are destroying, in essence, all of this. All of these things. But. Those things are what will build
for the future. So, I am going to take you to the next one to talk about: You know, one of the arguments
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
9
today is to talk about “global competitiveness.” Our education reform is justified on the basis of global
competitiveness, about 21st-century skills, all those things, talking about.
Basically, what’s, what’s the 21st century like? Why aren’t our children out of our basement? Why do we
have a “boomerang” generation? You know, in a boomerang generation, you threw them away; they
come back [and] never leave. [laughter] That’s the, why do we have that? What is actually happening,
and why American education needs [to] build on its strength, [to] move forward, and at the same time,
need to change? But the change is not to fix the past. We are “fixing the past.” We are trying to make
our curriculum more homogeneous. We’re trying to test our children and narrow the goal to truly buold
this gigantic stone statue but when we should have thought about Rudolph again.
Do you remember the next line of Rudolph? Do you remember that?
[audience begins to sing it, an Zhao plays song and projects lyrics on overhead screen]
Then one foggy Christmas Eve, Santa came to say, “Rudolph, with your nose so bright, won’t you guide
my sleigh tonight?” Then, how the reindeer loved him, as they shouted out with glee….
Those reindeers are really nasty. [laughter] Then suddenly, Santa likes him, now we all like him, right?
That’s like test scores: Now you get an A, good student now, [motions like clapping] you get awards.
That’s the kind of stuff we do.
But I have to tell you that the “foggy Christmas” has arrived for everybody. You know, we start thinking
about what we have as students. Look at every individual student. Every individual student is unique,
unique in many different ways. They’re unique in terms of their cognitive or general abilities. We now
accept the idea about multiple intelligences. We accept that. People are talented in different domains.
That’s why I never go [to] try to get a football scholarship for myself. I won’t even try. [laughter] I know
what I’m good at, you know? People are differently talented. Talented means they have different
possibility or aptitude [to] acquire different things.
People are differently motivated. They are motivated by different kinds of things. For example, some
new theory explains some people are motivated by power. J. Edgar Hoover and people I don’t want to
name you know, you know, [in this same] movement. Some people are motivated by independence;
some, by curiosity. Some, by order: That’s the ones [if] we go home [and] put your book in the wrong
place, your spouse will yell at you. [laughter] And, uh, some people [are] motivated by physical activity.
But if you do not accept the different kind[s] of motivators, you will be very hard to understand. If you
are motivated by one type [and] others motivated by others, it’s very hard for you to explain. For
example, I never understand why people go skiing. [laughter] It’s torture. Why would you do that?
[laughter] I [am] happy to stay [by a] fireplace, enjoy my warmth and comfort. You go skiing, pay a lot of
money and risk getting killed. [laughter] Why would you do that? Now I know: They are just born to be
motivated by physical exercises.
Now, everybody has a unique profile of motivators, unique profile of talents. Then you add something
else: Education. Nurture. You are born in different environments. Even if you could be talented in music,
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
10
if you had no access to music, you cannot develop. [36:02] You wouldn’t even know that. I could have
become a Justin Bieber [laughter]. But I never had, I never had the, I never had a chance. I couldn’t do it.
I never had access to music. So, imagine when you cut music, you might have kind of destroyed, well,
Justin Bieber is not a good example, [laughter] but, you might have destroyed somebody. Don’t you
know this process?
And then, we have another issue, too. [We all get] good [at] different time[s]. We all know this: If you do
not put effort into something, you will never be good at it, even if you are talented, interested, but you
have no effort. You cannot be born to be great. It’s a ten thousand hours, five thousand hours, whatever
you’ve got to put on. But human life—do you not notice that you don’t have many “ten thousand hors.”
If you spend time on this, you won’t spend time on something else. You can’t develop this. Now, you
cannot be great; you can be mediocre. So, now, think about this: If you happen, if we happen to spend
the ten thousand hours on something that you are good at, something you are interested in, you get
great talent. But if I force you to spend time [on] something you have no interest [in], [that] you hate
and something you are not good at, you at best become mediocre. Michael Phelps would be a great
example. The great swimmer, Michael Phelps? You know that? If you force him to read, or write, and,
you know, say, “Before you can swim, you must get your literacy, your reading up there,” what would
have happened? He would still be “hooked on phonics” in some basement. [laughter] That’s how it
could have happened.
Now what we have to think about, why did we, in [the] education system, what has happened here?
And why do we do this model in a traditional way? The model, this traditional model of education is
trying to homogenize people because we are preparing people for [a] different society. So, this model,
this is something I want to really encourage [you to] think [about], produce[s] better scores, if you are
good at this thing. Imagine: Same curriculum, same teaching, you exclude people who are not good at
this thing, you have good scores. You have narrowed the variation. But has tremendous [what I] call
“side effects.”
When we talk about education, we think most of them are simply innocent. Like, Common Core. People
say, “Oh, it’s better math scores, better math standards, English standards. That might even be true.
Might even be true. But it consists of two subjects [to] judge everybody, everybody goes through a
system, is wrong. That’s why I’ve debated with many people. [applause] Not over the, not over the
subject standards themselves, but over the philosophy of two subjects. To me, I’ve [argued this] I am not
against standards. I’m not even against the Common Core if they are not “common” or “core.”
[laughter] It’s a, if they are not “common” or “core,” I am fine. But to make something “common” or
“core,” that’s the problem. It’s called “side effects.”
You know, in medicine, we always talk about side effects. That is, when you gain something, you lose
something. You know, when you buy Tylenol—by the way, you should always read those warning labels.
[laughter] The warning label says, “Cures runny nose but may cause a bleeding stomach.” [laughter]
Right? Did you read those things? You read? In education, in policy and practice, educational research,
have you ever seen a warning label accompanied with a book, a program? When vendors come to
school to sell you this and they show you all these charts: “Look, we close [the] achievement gap this
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
11
fast, and we do these things.” All of the early reading programs I’ve seen, they should come with some
label like this: “You know, this may increase your testing scores in reading but may make your children
hate reading forever.” [applause] And [there is] enough evidence on the global scale of how, when you
choose something, you lose something, so when you celebrate this rise in test scores, ask, what did you
give up? Did you cut out other curriculum? Did children lose something else?
Here’s an example: I love to show this, this statistic. American students-- I don’t have to embarrass you
any more-- have always scored worse than Asian students. 2003 was no exception (referring to slide on
screen); this is TIMSS, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. American students, as
usual, scored way below Asian students—Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan. But, on the TIMSS, they ask
another question called “confidence”: “Do you feel”—basically it says, “I always do well in math.”
Strongly agree, agree, strongly disagree. As you can expect, American students [respond], “We may be
stupid, but we’re very confident.” [laughter] That, all good. All good. We “out-confident” everybody. We
out-confident people. We’re pretty good. We love this stuff. [continued laughter] By the way, this is not
only American students. This is ah, ah, actually, it is a global trend. (Cartoon on screen: Picture of a
student telling his teacher, “It may be wrong, but it’s how I feel,” in response to writing on board, 7 x 5 =
75.) Cultures that produce high test scores have produced less confident people, students. Less
enjoyment. It is not just one time; it’s historical.
This is 2003. In 2011, we have found the same pattern: Look at all the East Asian countries, Korea,
Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan. Shanghai did not participate in TIMSS, but, uh, their scores are
much higher than US, England, Australia. It’s basically, I can this is, I really want to call, a “utensil effect”:
Use chopsticks and score very high. [laughter] If you use a spoon and a fork, you may not. [laughter] But
at the same time, you look at confidence and interest. [42:00] You notice that? (slide on screen showing
inverse effect of test scores to confidence level) Now, puzzling. Puzzling. This by the way, is not only on
the TIMSS; it’s on the PISA test, as well.
The PISA test has the same thing. For example, Finland. You know, Finnish students lack interest in
science. They have high scores. PISA has the same negative correlation of cognitive test scores and noncognitive variables. And when people look at this data, this is how we explain why we are pursuing the
wrong goal. We look at this test data, American politicians and researchers, so-called researchers, I
would say, they say, what do, how do you explain this? “Basically, it says American students are too
happy for their own good.” [laughter] “They are confident, but they are bad.” So, why are they so bad
but they are so confident? “Because they don’t know how bad they are.” Why don’t they know how bad
they are? “Because we have lower standards.” That’s the, remember, that’s the logic. “So, I notice we
don’t test them enough. We’ve been lying to our students”—Arne Duncan’s line—right? “We’ve been
lying.” That’s the argument: “But that’s why we ought to raise standards, we want to test more.”
We really want to tell our kids, “You’re bad. You’re worse. You’re worse than people in your
neighborhood school. The other countries, you know, you’re worse than kids in countries that don’t you
don’t even know existed.” [laughter] That’s why we are now, it’s very dangerous. I hope we can watch
this one: This country, US, trying to, bringing PISA for every state, as PISA has a school program now.
This is very scary.
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
12
And now, Asian systems do not take this very seriously at all. They look at the factors, they interpret in a
different way. They said, “How come our children score so well but have no confidence?” If you haven’t
enough of confidence, you cannot be creative. You cannot be entrepreneurial. That’s what they want.
All Asia said, “If you are not interested in science, it’s like, less likely for you to become a true scientist.
So, that’s what Asian countries’ worry about. That’s why they have this reform; they want to change it.
And this change has become extremely important when the “foggy Christmas” has come. [44:05]
Because when the foggy Christmas has arrived, even Rudolph has become useful.
Now, what’s the foggy Christmas like? Well, it’s two things that’s really changing us, affecting [us]. Big
fact one, this is what Americans… by the way, most politicians recognize. The first one is called, “the
arrival of the second machine age.” That is, uh, this is in contrast [with] the first machine age by steam
engine. The second machine age is digital technology that is redefining the value of talents. Machines
now can do a lot of human jobs. We have this. We have this. Automation has replaced a lot of jobs. It’s
going to replace even more jobs. You know, we used to have a lot of, ah, tax accountants. We have
Turbo Tax. You, you notice that? All this, it’s massive. America is, is at the risk of having a surplus of
lawyers, which is almost [an] impossible phenomenon for America [laughter], but, you know, we, we
are, we’re still suing each other as much as possible, but we, you know, just don’t need many legal
workers. Digital databases allow you to search. You don’t have to go through the same kind of books. It’s
changing. We have Google Car coming, which [means] we don’t need the taxi drivers for in the future.
You know the Google Car thing? It’s happening a lot. So, are we educating our children to have, to
compete with machines? Lot of reasons now our kids are back in our basement: We educate them for
jobs that can [be] replaced by machines. If they are not replaced by machines, they’re outsourced.
Globalization.
Because [of] globalization, this is another interesting question: We talk about “global competitiveness,”
out-educate, out-compete other countries, this is Obama’s words, but what does [it] mean? If China
spends ten thousand dollars [to] produce the high test scores, if America spends ten times more [to]
produce the same test scores, they have the same talents, of course they were to go buy the tenthousand-dollar test score. America, even if we could score as well as Asian countries, but they cost less,
it wouldn’t work. We’ve got to seek something different. Do something different.
Last thing. So what is the “different”? The first thing that’s different is diversity of talents. Rudolph has
become valuable because society has changed. We have arrived at [a] different society now. What’s the
society? Number one, things called, we called the “age of abundance.” Age of, means we have increased
productivity, we have more disposable income, we have more leisure time. We consume different
products and services. My village in China [is] still in the age of necessity. Everybody still worr[ies] about
food, shelter, and clothing. Today in America, we don’t. We worry about something else. Thus, gives rise
to a different kind of talent. The kind of talent I would call is this: the traditionally useless people, like
Rudolph [47:00], red-nosed reindeer, have become useful. Traditionally undervalued talents have
gained value.
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
13
One of the best example[s] of traditionally useless people who have become useful is Kim Kardashian.
[laughter] What does she do? Nothing. She is a celebrity for nothing. She is famous for being wellknown. That, that, that’s what she does. [laughter] But she, she is out of her parents’ basement.
[laughter and applause] You may not like her at all, you may not like her at all. I don’t think anyone here
likes her, and I don’t even know her. I don’t, never watcher her. I was, I co-existed with her in the
elevator. That’s all I did. I met her. So, she never met me. But that’s fine, so. [laughter]
What does she provide? She is valuable because she has something unique to offer for a very small
group of people. We also have con-- you know, you may laugh at her-- we all consume some sort of
“Kardashian” in our mind. We consume psychological-spiritual ideas. For example, actually, example, the
best one as I gave you is this. It’s embarrassing for me, but I will tell you anyway. This is a shampoo. You
know this? [shows picture of shampoo aisle at a typical American grocery store] When I came from
China [in] 1992 to [the] US, I couldn’t buy shampoo because I did not know what kind of hair I had.
[laughter] You know? It’s, ah, oily, normal, or dry. I had, ah, a bar of soap for every inch of my body. Was
fine. There was no problem [in] China.
Why do we need this? You know why you need this, right? Even if I, I couldn’t even read that, you know.
It may work for a different kind of hair, but the shapes of the bottle, the color of the bottle, do you really
need this? No. You don’t. But we want this. We want choice. That’s psychological. That’s spiritual.
Today, like even food. Food is not a necessity anymore. You are in Chicago. The money you spend, the
less food you get. What’s the point? [laughter] Why, why, why [are] you doing this stuff? It’s a, it’s
[laughter] answer number one: Whoever can create new options, new activities, new services, [means
?] I’m a “need.” Machines can be programmed to do that, but human beings are the ones [who] can
vary. We can create. We can combine. That’s, that’s, that’s the new thing. That’s what human beings are
different from others.
So, today we have arrived at the time that every talent is valuable when fully developed. If Kim
Kardashian is useful, anyone can be useful. [laughter] That’s what our number one [is]. That’s [what]
was our traditional thing. We allowed everyone to flourish. Now, we have to deliberately cultivate that.
Deliberate[ly] cultivate. [50:00] And also, we have to think about other things today. For example, we
know very well creativity is important, but creativity wasn’t important before. Create, we suppress
creativity. There’s another “side effects.” Our children are born with a lot of creativity. Everyone is born
to be creative. That’s a human being. You know, that’s our gift, to be able to adapt, to learn and relearn,
and to develop new things.
But school has typically tried to suppress. So, a lot of times, the short-term learning has always become,
direct instruction may give you the short-term gain but cause long-term damages. There’s a lot of
studies showing now, for example, if you are going to teach children how to play [with] the toy, they
lose curiosity, lose creativity. And this, if you want to read this, there’s two studies showing this thing.
And if you allow children [to] explore more, they may not test very well, but they maintain creativity and
maintain curiosity. So this is why in our schools right now, our school is, has been, the best creativity
candy machine you can have. I’ve always said American schools do not teach creativity better than any
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
14
Asian systems; we kill it less successfully. And, you know, when children are born [till] age five, basically
in divergent thinking measures, 98 percent of them are creative at the genius level. Five years in our
school—not in yours; in someone else’s school that’s doing Common Core stuff, but, uh, and the, the—
we lose 60 percent. Then we gradually lose more, and by the time you get [to] 44, we really lose a lot.
And creativity can bounce back, actually, for after retirement. George Bush is painting now. [laughter]
That’s a, that’s, now, it shows a lot about how do we lose creativity and how to regain creativity. So, so,
how do we do it? Creativity is not only, psyc, cognitive; it’s very psychological. Creativity is very domain
specific. There’s no generic creativity. You cannot be creative in everything. Time, effort, work is there.
Another element we, we need our students to think about [52:00] is the element of entrepreneur
thinking. By the way, some people think I am promoting entrepreneurship, like, uh, the bad ones. I want
to talk about entrepreneur thinking. And, uh, many of you probably [think], “Why [are] you talk [about]
entrepreneurs!” There are many bad entrepreneurs, and there are also many good entrepreneurs. And
entrepreneurs are not only in business. There the [word ?] entrepreneurship has been redefined to
include social entrepreneurs, policy entrepreneurs, intrapreneurs. You are all entrepreneur-thinking
people. So, entrepreneur, it’s, as a spirit basically means if you’re not happy about something, do
something about it. That’s all. That’s basically it. It’s a, but people don’t like these ideas. I said, you
know, you can have all kinds [of] entrepre, entrepreneur people are basically [those who] say that,
“Let’s take action.” You are policy, you are social entrepreneurs. You are defend[ing] a system. And what
makes entrepreneurs, ah, you know, high quality? We talk about confidence—that’s why Asians—
friends. Networking of people. Taking risk[s]. We are all taking risk[s]. We have unearthed
opportunities. All of these things.
We have to make sure, in the age of globalization, what can our students, our education do? Our
students are fortunate to be born in this country. They are fortunate to have all of this investment in
them. They should not be competing for the same jobs as Chinese, as Indians, as Filipinos,
Scandinavians, all this way. They should be working with them to create new opportunities for
everybody. Jobs lost is, actually, creates new opportunity. We need to reorient our education to think
about, “How do we help our children regain opportunities?” They do not fight in the future world. They
create the future world. And that’s why we need a different type of education.
So, America has to end this, has to think about, instead of try[ing] to pursue gigantic stone heads as test
scores, we educate our children to do a lot more—which are not very measurable. And they are not
here at all. That’s why I’ve spend most [of] my time last year trying to write a new book called, Counting
What Counts, to figure out, what really matters? All those things. And not all of these things can be
measured. Not all of this can be measured, so we have to redefine the outcome of education. Not, when
you use the term “education,” not every “education” is education. Education sometimes can be simply
indoctrination. Can be oppression. Education, I hope after today, to serve our children, to serve our
country, make the world a better place.
We will not commit this suicide. We will preserve our traditional virtues of public education, public
provision. We will restore professional, professional autonomy. We will want [to] educate our children
as individuals, as individual students. Education is to create opportunities for every individual student.
Yong Zhao NPE 04-25-15
They are not an average. They are not a probability. Our children need to be improved as individual
human beings, and they will stay out of your basement. Thank you. [applause]
15