Education Is Too Important to Leave Unchanged — Post 1
I have often been asked: Which country has the best education system?
My response is usually another question: Best for what?
Producing high test scores? Sending students to prestigious universities? Developing unique talents? Preparing competitive workers? Or cultivating people capable of living together peacefully and creating a better world?
The answer depends on what we believe education is for.
Unfortunately, we have become much better at measuring educational performance than questioning educational purposes.
We have developed sophisticated assessments such as PISA and TIMSS, national examinations, school rankings, and countless indicators of educational success. We can compare countries, rank schools, evaluate teachers, and calculate learning gains.
Every few years, governments celebrate or panic over international rankings. Politicians demand reforms. Experts explain why Singapore, Estonia, Finland, or whichever country is attracting attention has discovered the secrets of education. Delegations travel the world searching for higher test scores.
None of these efforts is necessarily misguided. But the more successful we become at measuring and improving educational performance, the easier it is to forget that what we measure may not be what matters most.
Meanwhile, humanity has become extraordinarily powerful. We can explore Mars, transplant hearts, and create machines capable of remarkable intellectual achievements. Yet we still struggle to live peacefully with one another, protect our environment, and create societies in which everyone can flourish.
We have become extraordinarily good at changing the world. But have we become equally good at making it a better place?
Shouldn’t education have something to do with that?
Consider some of the contradictions we have normalized in schools.
Uniqueness: Every child is unique. Therefore, everyone must master the same curriculum and pass the same examinations. Apparently, uniqueness is wonderful, provided it is standardized.
Creativity: Think outside the box. But make sure your answer matches the marking guide.
Collaboration: We tell students that collaboration is essential for success in life. Then we assess success primarily by what they can accomplish alone.
Problem solving: We want creative problem solvers. So we give students problems someone else has already identified and solved, and reward them for arriving at the same answers.
These contradictions would be amusing if they did not have such profound consequences.
Now AI promises to make teaching more efficient, assessments more precise, and instruction more individualized. We may soon ensure that every child masters the same curriculum at their own pace.
What an extraordinary achievement: using revolutionary technology to make standardized education more efficient.
But is that the revolution we need?
Improvement is not transformation. Making a train travel faster is hardly helpful if it is heading in the wrong direction. It merely gets us to the wrong destination sooner.
I have spent decades researching education, experimenting with schools in different countries, and writing more than 40 books and nearly 200 articles. Judging by how little some things have changed, I clearly haven’t been very persuasive. Perhaps I should have tried writing fewer books and asking more uncomfortable questions.
But these experiences have strengthened my conviction that improving the existing system is not enough. We need a fundamentally different education paradigm.
In the coming weeks, I will share short, occasionally humorous posts questioning cherished educational assumptions, exploring alternatives, and sharing lessons from real experiments—including successes, failures, and ways to begin transforming education without waiting for the entire system to change.
The question I invite you to ask: What if the greatest danger is that we succeed at making the wrong education system work perfectly?
For Readers Who Want to Explore Further
1. Zhao, Y. (2020). Two decades of havoc: A synthesis of criticism against PISA. Journal of Educational Change, 21, 245–266.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-019-09367-x
A critical examination of PISA’s assumptions, methods, and influence on educational policy and practice.
2. Zhao, Y., & Zhong, R. From meritocracy to human interdependence: Redefining the purpose of education. ECNU Review of Education (published online in 2025).
https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311251351988
An argument for moving beyond standardized merit and individual competition toward developing unique strengths, meaningful contributions, and human interdependence.
