Rethinking the notion of the high-performing education system: A Daoist response

Abstract

This article challenges the dominant notion of the ‘high-performing education system’ and offers an alternative interpretation from a Daoist perspective. The paper highlights two salient characteristics of such a system: its ability to outperform other education systems in international large-scale assessments; and its status as a positive or negative ‘reference society’. It is contended that external standards are applied and imposed on educational systems across the globe, judging a system to be high- or low- performing, and consequently worthy of emulation or deserving of criticism. Three cardinal Daoist principles that are drawn from the Zhuangzi are expounded: a rejection of an external and oppressive dao (way); the emptying of one’s heart-mind; and an ethics of difference. A major implication is a celebration of a plurality of high performers and reference societies, each unique in its own dao but converging on mutual learning and appreciation.

Introduction

A major research focus in international and comparative education, as evidenced in the articles published in this journal, is the role, significance and impact of ‘international large-scale assessment’ (hereinafter ILSA) (e.g. Lockheed and Wagemaker, 2013; Rutkowski and Rutkowski, 2013; Schmidt and Burroughs, 2013; Teltemann and Jude, 2019; Winthrop and Simons, 2013). Contemporary education policymaking is situated within a context of the global influence of international large-scale assessments. Consequently, the notion of the ‘high-performing education system’ (hereinafter HPES) has become a recurring topic in the academic and popular discourses. Education systems around the globe are constantly being appraised and judged based on the performance of their students in ILSA. A high-performer, accordingly, is an education jurisdiction that produces students who are highly proficient and surpass their peers in global assessments (Tan, 2019a). To date, there is an impressive body of literature that documents, analyses and critiques this dominant notion of HPES as well as associated terms such as ILSAs, reference societies, datafication and global educational governance. In particular, scholarly criticisms of ILSAs especially the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and its organiser, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), are also prevalent (see the collection of essays in Meyer and Benavot, 2013; Rutkowski et al., 2014).

I concur with the objections raised by fellow academics regarding HPES and ILSAs, having forwarded some of these arguments myself (Tan, 2017, 2019a, 2019b). But a survey of the extant works shows that most scholars work within, and implicitly accept, the prevailing definition and assumptions concerning HPES. My intention in this essay is to employ a different – and I hope, novel – approach in critiquing the concept of HPES by drawing upon the wisdom traditions. Among the intellectual traditions, Daoism has been selected for my exploration as there has been relatively limited attention paid to the applicability of Daoist ideas to contemporary education. Such an oversight is regrettable as Daoism, despite being more than two millennia old, can offer fresh insights to current educational issues, as I shall demonstrate later. Challenging the dominant understanding of HPES as revolving around student performance in global standardised tests, I propose an alternative interpretation of HPES from a Daoist perspective. This essay draws on a Daoist classic Zhuangzi which is named after the philosopher Zhuangzi from the 4th century BCE, arguably the most famous Daoist thinker after Laozi. Scholars believe that the Zhuangzi is not written by Zhuangzi alone but also by other unknown writers over a long period (Chong, 2011; Graham, 1986). Hence I follow Chiu (2018) in using the name ‘Zhuangzi’ as referring to the writer(s) of the Zhuangzi text rather than the historical figure. The methodology adopted for my analysis is philosophical retrieval and reconstruction (Yu et al., 2010). As explained by these authors, philosophical retrieval analyses classical texts for the purpose of extracting salient principles, values and presuppositions. Philosophical reconstruction extends the exploration by attending to the spirit or implications of the texts so as to make them ‘more tenable, sophisticated, and compelling for contemporary consideration’ (Yu et al., 2010: 2). Philosophical reconstruction is similar to Richard Rorty’s approach of rational reconstruction in the sense that it is ‘self-consciously anachronistic’ (Tien, 2004: 51).

An explanation is needed on the theoretical framework adopted for this study. I follow Zhu (2020) in aiming to go beyond (new) orientalism to foreground reciprocal learning in the field of policy referencing. Policymakers and scholars who subscribe to (new) orientalism tend to perceive East Asian countries as both an inspiration and a threat to non-western education systems. Researchers have observed how HPES in East Asia are consequently externalised to legitimise the educational reform agenda in Anglophone societies such as the UK, the US and Australia (for details, see Auld and Morris, 2016; Forestier and Crossley, 2015; Takayama, 2018; Tan, 2019a). Instead of (new) orientalism, Zhu (2020) argues for reciprocal learning that calls for two-way learning, thereby transcending the limits of the traditional educational policy borrowing/lending paradigm. My reconceptualisation of the notion of HPES from a Daoist viewpoint serves to illustrate reciprocal learning by calling attention to the alternative and rich resources from non-western traditions. Doing so ‘will enable decolonisation in comparative education (Chen, 2010), which might enrich our frame of reference and learning objects among different countries’ (Zhu, 2020: 11). The article proceeds as follows: a discussion of the prominent notion of HPES in the contemporary educational setting; an exposition of relevant ideas from Zhuangzi; and major implications.

The notion of a high-performing education system

A HPES is essentially ‘one in which students’ achievement at the top is world class, the lowest performing students perform not much lower than their top-performing students, and the system produces these results at a cost well below the top spenders’ (Tucker, 2011: 4). There are two salient characteristics of a HPES. First, a HPES is ‘high-performing’ primarily because its students have delivered unrivalled results in ILSAs. There are currently three influential ILSAs: PISA, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). The most widely publicised ILSA is arguably PISA that assesses the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students every three years in science, mathematics and reading. TIMSS focuses on achievement in mathematics and science every four years at the fourth and eighth grade levels whereas PIRLS attends to reading achievement at the fourth grade level. The main standard to qualify an education system as high-performing – and by implication, a ‘good’ education system – is impressive student performance in these global assessments. I should add that the HPESs are lauded not only for their impressive performance in the standardised assessments but also for their other achievements such as teacher quality, principal quality, instruction, school finance, school organisation, accountability and autonomy, and coherence of system (Liang et al., 2016; Mourshed et al., 2010; Tucker, 2011). But their performance in ILSAs is the starting point and necessary condition for them to gain international recognition and accolades. A few countries have distinguished themselves by outperforming others in these three ILSAs. Among them are Finland (for PISA) and East Asian systems such as Shanghai/China (PISA) and Singapore (for PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS).

The second essential characteristic of a HPES is that it is upheld as a ‘Reference Society’ (hereinafter RS). RS was first coined by Bendix (1967, 1978) who underscores the usefulness of understanding the values and institutions of other jurisdictions and their implications to one’s country (Waldow, 2017, 2019a). He uses the term RS for instances where ‘intellectual leaders and an educated public react to the values and institutions of another country with ideas and actions that pertain to their own country’ (Bendix, 1978: 292). Extending Bendix’s works, Waldow (2019b) points out that a RS can be positive or negative; examples are the construal of Finland as a positive RS and East Asia as a negative RS for the educational stakeholders in Germany.

Positively, a RS is ‘a model nation from which to borrow elements’ (Waldow, 2019a: 2). In this sense, a RS serves as a model for a ‘follower society’ to ‘utilise advanced ideas and techniques in order to “catch up”’ (Bendix, 1967: 334). The RS ‘resides within the space of immanent normativity, always holds a message on what is possible and, therefore, bears the mark of what works’ (Simons, 2015: 721). Testifying to the influence and certification of the ILSAs, countries such as the US, the UK and Australia are ‘looking East’ towards Shanghai and other top-performing East Asian societies (Sellar and Lingard, 2013). ILSAs, especially PISA, have propelled a global race to learn the ‘best practices’ of HPES as countries keep track of the ranking of education systems in ILSAs. International organisations such as OECD which stipulate and maintain the standard are perceived as possessing ‘putative universal, independent, expert knowledge’ (Carvalho and Costa, 2015: 644). In contrast to a positive RS, a negative RS is projected as an ‘anti-model’ to delegitimate policy agendas and prevent policy transfer from a country or region (Waldow, 2017). For example, Takayama (2018), commenting on the status of East Asian jurisdictions as negative RSs, attributes it to a global history of colonial difference and racialisation in Eurocentric imaginaries. Whether positive or negative, the use of a RS exposes the existing beliefs and assumptions of the country doing the referencing rather than the country or region that is referenced (Saraisky, 2019). Waldow (2017: 654) contends that ‘prior, stereotypical perceptions of countries seem to be decisive for how countries are viewed by the media and whether they become positive or negative reference societies’. These prior beliefs and prejudices are the subjective standards applied to a HPES that account for their overall image in the eyes of the beholder.

Although the theory and practice of a RS are not new, it has gained traction in light of unrelenting international comparison and competition among education regimes (Schriewer and Martinez, 2004; You and Morris, 2016). Observing that nations referenced others based on historical relations such as colonialism or trade networks in the past, Sellar and Lingard (2013: 480) point out that reference systems today ‘are being reconstituted within the global education policy field and in respect of performance on international comparative tests, which are helping create that global field’. In particular, PISA results are regarded as the objective and universal yardstick ‘to help governments “borrow” policies from effective education systems, often referred to as “reference societies,” in the hopes of emulating their high-achieving success within their own national education context’ (Volante and Fazio, 2017: 3). The currency of RS is aided by a grand narrative that links such a society to the needs of a global knowledge economy. As spelt out by Auld and Morris (2016: 203):

The story logic follows an economic rationale and is identified as follows: (1) education’s primary function is to prepare individuals/nations to compete in the global knowledge economy; (2) outcomes measured by international surveys (e.g. PISA) provide a reliable proxy for the quality of a system’s human capital; (3) reform must therefore focus on improving education outcomes relative to international competitors (the development of world class schools); and (4) this requires the identification (and transfer) of ‘what works’/’best practices’ in high-performing systems.

It follows that a RS is an idealised knowledge society that comprises an essential part of a futurist discourse (de Roock and Espeña, 2018; also see Carvalho, 2012; Philip, 2010). But given that a RS can be positive or negative, scoring high in ILSAs in itself is not sufficient to make an education system a role model for others. Rather, as noted by Parcerisa and Verger (2019), the making of a RS involves the fluid and complex processes of meaning-making as well as the prior perceptions and even stereotypes of the RS in question. It needs to be pointed out that not all educational jurisdictions, including the HPESs themselves, respond in the same way towards the status of HPES. For instance, the responses in Singapore and Canada towards their own students’ impressive performance in PISA are largely muted, whereas mixed receptions in mainland China are displayed, ranging from celebration to self-reflection and criticism (Tan, 2017).

Researchers have critiqued the dominant definition of a HPES and its relations with ILSAs. I shall not rehearse the details here but shall instead focus on criticisms that pertain to the two salient characteristics of a HPES mentioned earlier (for further details, see Tan, 2019a). The first line of critique concerns the definition of a HPES as an education jurisdiction that has achieved unmatched test scores in ILSAs. Researchers have questioned the adoption of a single and simplistic measurement of a HPES based on summative, standardised and largely written assessments. For example, Serder and Ideland (2016: 345) contend that achievement in ILSAs only reflects ‘an attribute of the ensemble of test items and students’. Relying on and linking high performance to quantitative measurements, ‘testing becomes synonymous with accountability, which becomes synonymous with education quality’ (Smith, 2016: 7). PISA is a ‘counting tool’ (Morgan, 2017) that subjects education systems to external accountability in a testing environment. The second category of criticisms is about a HPES being projected as a RS. Casting doubt on the usefulness of learning ‘best practices’ from positive RSs, Gorur and Wu (2015) maintain that these practices could well be found in low-performing systems too. Other scholars also draw attention to the difficulties of transporting policies and practices from HPESs due to historical, economic, political and socio-cultural variations (Carvalho and Costa, 2015; Feniger and Lefstein, 2014; Steiner-Khamsi, 2009). Furthermore, the recognition and exaltation of an education jurisdiction as a positive RS does not necessarily mean that its elements are being adopted by the follower country. Rather, externalisation (Schriewer, 1990) may take place where the policies of a RS are utilised to validate or scandalise domestic developments. In other words, a RS constitutes a projection in international modernisation and reform processes that is discursively constructed within a jurisdiction in accordance with its localised needs and conditions. Rather than reception or submission to external models, policymakers harness and (re)conceptualise the RS as a strategic device to enrich domestic political debates or legitimate certain options for reform.

Overall, what is inherently problematic about the dominant understanding of HPES is the adoption and imposition of external standards. First, an education system is labelled high-performing or low-performing on the basis of an ‘objective’ standard of student achievement in ILSAs. In addition, what makes a HPES a positive or negative RS depends on another standard, this time the varying perceptions and assumptions of a country doing the referencing. In both cases, an external and normative standard is imposed on a HPES, variously judging it to be worthy of emulation or deserving of castigation. To further analyse the objections to, consequences of and alternatives to the dogmatic application of an external benchmark, the next section turns to the views of Zhuangzi.

A Daoist response to the notion of HPES from the Zhuangzi

Three cardinal Daoist principles derived from the Zhuangzi are relevant to our discussion of a HPES: a rejection of an external and oppressive dao (way); the emptying of one’s heart-mind; and an ethics of difference.

A rejection of an external and oppressive dao (way)

First, Zhuangzi objects to the embrace of a uniform and external standard that appraises, controls and oppresses others. A representative passage is found in chapter 23 where it is stated, ‘We try to control others, using ourselves as the regulating standard’ (all citations from the Zhuangzi are taken from Ziporyn, 2009). Zhuangzi elaborates in another passage:

You use the Course to browbeat the world, insisting that people believe in it. Because you try to control others, you have allowed yourself to be controlled (7.6).

The word ‘Course’ in the above passage is dao (way) which is a guiding discourse or ‘a programme of emulation and study by means of which a particular set of skills could be cultivated’ (Ziporyn, 2009: 214). During the time of Zhuangzi, different and competing formulations of dao exist that aim to inform and direct humans on what is true (shi) and false (fei). Each dao is analogous to a computer software that programs a set of true/false distinctions. Williams (2017: 178) comments, ‘To believe these things is to be “programmed” to believe these things’. In the context of a HPES, the preeminent dao, as mentioned earlier, is outstanding student performance in ILSAs. As noted by de Roock and Espeña (2018: 304), PISA and other ILSAs are assumed to contain the bases for truth statements, with data from OECD ‘heavily referenced by a wide range of stakeholders, from the media to policymakers’.

The Zhuangzi records a number of stories involving animals, plants and mythical beings that critique the imposition of one’s own standard on others. The insistence on the universality and truth of the standard leads to the denigration of things that do not fit the requirements. This is illustrated in the example of a Stink Tree which is dismissed by its owner Huizi as useless because its odd structure makes it unsuitable for human use. In a conversation between Zhuangzi and Huizi, the latter shares his frustration with the Stink Tree:

I have a high tree which people call the Stink Tree. The trunk is swollen and gnarled, impossible to align with any level or ruler. The branches are twisted and bent, impossible to align to any T-square or carpenter’s arc. Even if it were growing right in the road, a carpenter would not give it so much as a second glance (1.14).

The reference to alignment in the passage is significant as it denotes the assessment of the tree in accordance with the external standard determined by carpenters. Clarifying this passage, chapter 9 records the carpenter boosting, ‘I’m good at managing wood! I curve it until it matches the arc, straighten it until it corresponds to the line’. Zhuangzi posits that the carpenter’s authoritarian and presumptuous thinking is ‘the same error’ made by ‘those who “govern” and “manage” the world’ (chapter 9). Such a mindset hinges on ‘drawing a straight line upon this earth and then trying to walk along it – danger, peril!’ (4.19). The assumption held by Huizi is that a tree is ‘useful’ only in so far as it conforms to human standards and needs, such as being made into a table or chair. The Stink Tree represents an education system that is low-performing as it fails to ‘perform’ as expected by the powers to be.

The Zhuangzi also highlights the dire consequences when an external standard is forced on something or someone. In the story of the Stink Tree, the tree is being dismissed as useless. In other stories, the repercussions are more destructive such as the confusion of a bird from the forest when it is captured (chapter 19) and the death of wild horses when they are controlled, managed and reined in by humans (chapter 9). It is worth focusing on the fictitious story of three emperors:

The emperor of the southern sea was called Swoosh. The emperor of the northern sea was called Oblivion. The emperor of the middle was called Chaos. Swoosh and Oblivion would sometimes meet in the territory of Chaos, who always attended to them quite well. They decided to repay Chaos for his virtue. ‘All men have seven holes in them, by means of which they see, hear, eat, and breathe,’ they said. ‘But this one alone has none. Let’s drill him some.’ So each day they drilled another hole. After seven days, Chaos was dead (7.15).

It is noteworthy that Chaos is depicted as virtuous and is looked up to by the other two emperors. By not having the ‘seven holes’ found in a human being, Chaos represents a primordial being that is untouched and free of human standards, contrivance, biases and strife. The act of drilling the holes in Chaos signifies the imposition of external standards and norms by the other two emperors on him. The two emperors had perceived and judged Chaos through the lens of their existing value system and presuppositions concerning a ‘good’ or ‘normal’ person. Their act parallels the conception of positive and negative RS from the viewpoints of the country doing the referencing. The coercive transformation of Chaos results in his death which speaks of the detrimental effects on people and things when a single criterion is foisted upon others. The story of Chaos and other similar stories demonstrate that an ‘imposition on others of our standard of good, the obligations and responsibilities conceived from the perspective of “I,” is at the core of these tragedies’ (Zhao, 2015: 75).

The emptying of one’s heart-mind

Second, Zhuangzi calls for the elimination of an intrusion of external standards by emptying one’s heart-mind (xin). The emperor Chaos represents this state of emptiness as he is portrayed as primitivist, pristine and child-like. Chaos’ heart-mind is empty in the sense of being free of social and physiological human identity, desires, ambitions and agendas which are products of human constructions (Moeller, 2017). To empty one’s heart-mind is to forget our taken-for-granted categories, norms and practices. To put it simply, we need to ‘abandon knowledge’ which is ‘an instrument of conflict’ and a ‘deadly weapon’ (Sturgeon, 2015: 904). The knowledge in question comprises the external standards and accompanying norms, practices, value judgements and logics. This is elaborated in 6.53–6.56 in an imaginary conversation between Confucius and his disciple Yan Hui:

Yan Hui said, ‘I am making progress.’

Confucius said, ‘What do you mean?’

Yan Hui said, ‘I have forgotten Humanity and Responsibility.”

Confucius said, ‘That’s good, but you’re still not there.’

Another day he came again and said, ‘I am making progress.’

‘What do you mean?’

‘I have forgotten ritual and music.’

Confucius said, ‘That’s good, but you’re still not there.’

He returned another day and said yet again, ‘I am making progress.’

‘What do you mean?’

Yan Hui said, ‘I just sit and forget.’

Confucius, jolted as if kicked, said, ‘What do you mean, you sit and forget?’

Yan Hui said, ‘It’s a dropping away of my limbs and torso, a chasing off of my sensory acuity, which disperses my physical form and ousts my understanding until I am the same as the Transforming Openness. This is what I call just sitting and forgetting.’

Confucius said, ‘The same as it? But then you are free of all preference! Transforming? But then you are free of all constancy! You truly are a worthy man! I beg to be accepted as your disciple.’

In this passage, Zhuangzi uses Confucius and his disciple Yan Hui as mouthpieces to convey Daoist ideas. The message here is the utmost importance of discarding the worldly norms and practices of humanity, responsibility, ritual and music. Relating this passage to the topic of HPES, we need to empty ourselves of the evaluation and judgement of an education system as high- or low- performing on the sole basis of the student achievement in ILSAs. By the same argument, we should not judge a RS as positive or negative on the account of what we assume to be ‘humane’ and ‘responsible’. The terms by which education jurisdictions, together with the policy actors, perceive and rank each other lock them into what Berkson (2005: 321) describes as ‘constructed (not natural) roles, ways of acting, and obligations’. Returning to the story of Chaos, the attempt of the two emperors to re-make Chaos are ‘well-intended but counterproductive efforts of Confucian social cultivation, which, from a Daoist perspective, will unavoidably bring about social unrest and psychosomatic decay’ (Moeller, 2017: 789).

It should be clarified that Zhuangzi is not repudiating benevolence, duty, normative behaviours and music in general. Rather, his target is the artificial, divisive and dehumanising values and structures created by followers of Confucius. What Zhuangzi is against is a dogmatic insistence on and obsession with fixing ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ through external standards of social norms and rituals (Chiu, 2018). That is why Zhuangzi deliberately uses Confucius as the spokesperson and even ends the story with a twist by making Confucius learn from his own disciple. The ultimate goal is to forget these social constructs and reach the state of Transforming Openness. As explained by Confucius in the above passage, a person who has attained this state is free of all preferences by transcending the artificial and divisive categories and labels invented by humans. At the same time, such a person is free of all constancy as one is no longer fixated with aligning oneself to a single standard of rightness or wrong and instead constantly adapts oneself to surrounding changes. Zhao (2015) elaborates,

With a thinking, judging, and evaluating mind, we differentiate things, we set up boundaries and develop attachments and preferences, which eventually bring us constraints, inequalities, and unfreedom. To cut people loose from their attachments, Zhuangzi attempts to break down the boundaries erected by our minds and desires, and ultimately to put aside and to lose the minds and wills altogether so that we can get back to the primordial mode of living, being in unity with the whole (hun dun) [Chaos], or as an infant, for whom there is no intelligibility, representation, conception, and language (Zhou, 2015: 75).

An ethics of difference

Third, rather than prescribing and clinging onto one dao (way), Zhuangzi advocates an ‘ethics of difference’ (Huang, 2010) that foregrounds the flourishing of differing daos. Returning to the story of the Stink Tree, its owner undermines its worth as he fails to consider other true/false (shi/fei) valuations of the tree. Williams (2017: 183) notes that ‘Zhuangzi uses these commonplace instances to demonstrate that openness to differing daos – and their respective shi/fei distinctions – can lead to consequences that are not available to someone who is not so open’. Daoism promotes a shift in perspective: from applying external standards such as student performance in ILSAs and local (mis)conceptions and presuppositions of RS to appreciating a thing based on its dao. From a Daoist viewpoint, everything has its own dao which is ‘the way each thing already is’; that is, its natural attributes and strengths. Doing so will allow ‘all creatures to delight in themselves’ (7.5). In Chapter 9, Zhuangzi asks rhetorically, ‘Do you suppose the inborn nature of the clay or the wood wants to match a compass, T-square, arc, or line?’ The dao propagated in the Zhuangzi refers to ‘the process of producing not only valued things but also value perspectives and hence all the diverse values themselves’ (Ziporyn 2009: 214).

Zhuangzi invites us to look upon the world from the perspective of dao in order to recognise and fulfil the creative possibility of each thing (Chai, 2019). Instead of forcing everyone to adhere to one external standard, the Zhuangzi recommends ‘follow[ing] the rightness of the way each thing already is without allowing yourself the least bias’ (7.4). He teaches in chapter 19 that we should ‘nourish a bird as the bird itself would want to be nourished’, such as letting it perch in the deep forests, rather than nourishing it with what a human wants such as feasting on fine meats and music. He adds that ‘self-cultivation is impossible if individuals embody norms that are discontinuous with their nature’ (Singh, 2014: 217). When comparisons and competition are forgotten, all things are free to be guided by their nature, act in an effortless way and be harmonised with the larger natural world (Berkson, 2005). Returning to the story of the Stink Tree, Zhuangzi responds to Huizi’s derogatory comment about the Stink Tree as follows:

You . . . have this big tree, and you worry that it’s useless. Why not plant it in our homeland of not-even-anything, the vast wilds of open nowhere? Then you could loaf and wander there, doing lots of nothing there at its side, and take yourself a nap, far-flung and unfettered, there beneath it. It will never be cut down by ax or saw. Nothing will harm it. Since it has nothing for which it can be used, what could entrap or afflict it? (1.15)

Zhuangzi’s point that the tree ‘has nothing for which it can be used’ is a reference to the norm held by Huizi and the masses concerning trees. Here Zhuangzi is advising Huizi to give up the conventional view of a tree as being useful only if it can be turned into a practical item for human use. The standard espoused by Huizi disregards the other possible uses of the tree which are more in line with the dao of the tree. Zhuangzi’s recommendation acknowledges and appreciates the natural function of the tree in providing shade while preserving the survival of the tree and its harmonious co-existence with human beings.

The ethics of difference propounded by Zhuangzi acknowledges the place and flourishing of different daos. The objective is not to force everyone to ‘walk in one straight way’ (4.19). Instead, we need to allow and encourage everyone to walk in their own ‘zigzag stride’ (4.9). The analogy is a person who navigates the forest skilfully, not by insisting on walking in a pre-determined way and stepping on the brambles and thorns, but by walking in a zigzag stride in harmony with nature (4.19). That is why Zhuangzi describes a consummate person as one who focuses on ‘taking action but not relying on it for any credit, helping things grow but not controlling them’ (chapter 19). Recognising the legitimacy of different daos has the added advantage of enabling one to concentrate on doing what one is good at without the pressure to conform to an external standard. This point is noted in chapter 19 of the Zhuangzi:

When a man shoots an arrow to win a tile he is skillful. But if he is trying to win a silver buckle he starts getting nervous. And if he’s competing for gold he almost loses his mind. His native skill is the same in each case, but because he has something to lose, he over-values the external. Whenever the external is prized, the internal gets clumsy.

The above passage can be applied to the current global educational race of education systems outperforming one another in ILSAs. An alternative to the adoption and imposition of external standards in a climate of competition is an ethics of difference where all things differ in terms of their natural dispositions but are of equal value (Huang, 2010).

Implications: Rethinking the notion of HPES

Two major implications from our exploration of a Daoist response to the notion of HPES are highlighted here. It is helpful to recall the two defining characteristics of a HPES: such a system is ‘high-performing’ primarily because its students have delivered unrivalled results in ILSAs; and it is a RS in the sense that it is ‘a model nation from which to borrow elements’ (Waldow, 2019a: 2). The first implication from our discussion of Zhuangzi’s philosophy is a re-conceptualisation of a HPES and its relation with ILSAs. A Daoist conception of a HPES is not a high-performing system in global standardised assessments, but an education system that performs in accordance with its dao. Instead of limiting HPES to an elite group or education systems and judging some other systems as low-performing, a Daoist construal envisions a plurality of HPES, all shining based on their internal standards of excellence. A broadening of the concepts of performance and HPES also challenges what we assume to be ‘low-performing’ education systems and students. We need to avoid the error made by Huizi who condemns his Stink Tree for being useless and the two emperors who view Chaos as lacking the seven holes. To do so, we need to question our taken-for-granted criteria, beliefs, frameworks and logics regarding what is right and wrong (shi/fei). There is therefore no single and uniform interpretation of a HPES. What is important is for a schooling system to identify, develop and promote its own dao based on its natural characteristics and tendencies. This means that some education jurisdictions may be high-performing on account of the naturally outstanding capabilities of its students in domains such as literacy and creative problem-solving in ILSAs. But other education systems may also be high-performing, albeit in other areas such as innovation, the arts, social activism and community service. Instead of external standards, each education system determines its own internal standard of excellence in accordance with its historical, cultural, political, economic and social histories, evolution and traits.

Following Zhuangzi, what is important is for policymakers and other educational stakeholders to reflect, identify and strengthen the unique characteristics, strengths and capabilities of their education system and students. For example, education systems that manifest schooling features such as the value of education, high status of teachers and an emphasis on content mastery could focus on how to enhance these qualities for teaching and learning. Education systems that have a history and culture of creative exploration, individual creativity and openness to new ideas could leverage on their traits to advance the best interests of their students. It should be added that a focus on the dao of an education system does not mean that the system is essentialised and unchanging. We should not generalise and stereotype education systems by using labels such as ‘rote-learners’ or ‘good in math’ to caricature East Asian learners as doing so contradicts the Daoist principle of eschewing artificial and impositional constructs. It is also essential to attend to the individual and developmental needs and interests of the students within an education system, enabling and empowering them to achieve their own daos. An all-embracing form of education system is recommended where each child is encouraged to discover and develop their natural talents, inclinations and skills.

The second major implication pertains to the concept of RS, which is the second defining characteristic of a HPES. As noted earlier, the dominant understanding of RS is either a model for others to ‘utilise advanced ideas and techniques in order to “catch up”’ (Bendix, 1967: 334), or an ‘anti-model’ to delegitimate policy agendas and prevent policy transfer from a country or region (Waldow, 2017). From a Daoist perspective, a RS is not necessarily one that has earned the title of HPES as a result of participation in ILSAs. Rather, a RS can be any education system that provides a platform of learning for other systems. A Daoist application of an ethics of difference means that all education systems are RSs for one another, albeit in different ways, to varying degrees and at different times. Instead of a global educational race where there are winners and losers, the educational landscape becomes one of mutual learning where various education regimes are open to new ideas and practices in a collaborative environment. The Daoist caution of imposing one’s own standard on others implies self-reflection and self-correction of prior (mis)conceptions, propensities and biases that contribute to the making of positive and negative RSs. Instead of exalting or disparaging a RS as positive or negative based on existing worldviews and norms, what is recommended is an appreciation of each other’s daos. In short, Zhuangzi’s ethics of difference propagates a respect for and proliferation of the unique natural tendencies of all things so that the wellness of all is enhanced (Huang, 2010).

A Daoist orientation of HPES and RS is instructive in illustrating reciprocal learning which was mentioned at the start of this essay. Zhu (2020) posits that the traditional approach of (new) orientalism which is privileged by Anglo-American academics has unfortunately stereotyped and divided western education and ‘other education’. A more useful construct in analysing policy transfer and referencing is reciprocal learning that stresses mutuality and complementarity. In critiquing HPES and RS which are concepts from the western literature and proposing a Daoist interpretation, I have utilised reciprocal learning by combining Chinese and western scholarship. Specifically, an expanded and more balanced understanding of HPES and RS support the ‘Asia as method’ paradigm in education (Chen 2010; Zhang et al., 2015). As articulated by Zhu (2020),

the task of Asia as method is to multiply frames of reference in our subjectivity and world-view, so that our anxiety over the West can be diluted, and productive critical work can move forward (Chen, 2010, p. 223). Following Chen’s thinking, reciprocal learning can work as an ‘imaginary anchoring point’ (Chen, 2010, p. 212) and challenge the traditional, widespread, one-sided flow of educational ideas from West/North to East/South. When the West looks East, it will diminish the hegemonic discourse embedded in the educational discourse (Zhu, 2020: 11).

Conclusion

Problematising the notion of HPES, this article has challenged the dominant understanding of such a system as revolving around student performance in global standardised tests. With reference to the Zhuangzi, three arguments have been made in this paper. First, the Zhuangzi objects to the imposition of external standards or points of reference that control, stereotype and oppress others. The external standards, whether originating from the organisers of global assessments or local education systems, are applied to education jurisdictions against a backdrop of inter-country competition and comparison. As a result, education systems are judged variously as high- or low- performing, worthy of emulation or deserving of criticism. Second, Zhuangzi argues for the elimination of an imposition of external standards by emptying one’s heart-mind. This entails forgetting prevailing measurements, norms, prejudices and assumptions. Third, rather than prescribing one dao for all things, Zhuangzi advocates the appreciation of differing daos in an ethics of difference. The significant implication from our analysis of Zhuangzi’s ideas is a celebration of a plurality of HPESs and RSs, each unique in its own dao but united in mutual learning. The methodology of philosophical retrieval and reconstruction utilised to analyse the Zhuangzi calls into question a view of Daoism as simply an escapist cultural criticism of an intellectual leisure class that is characteristic of premodern agrarian societies. It casts light on Daoism as a living philosophy and a way of life that offers fresh insights for international and comparative education (for further discussions of the educational relevance of Daoism, see Tan, 2019c, 2020a, 2020b)). Such an approach enables us to formulate a Daoist notion of a RS – one that is salient to a globalising world-economy marked by the reproduction impulses of highly differentiated late-industrial societies. It is hoped that the arguments presented in this paper will prompt further discussions, debates and recommendations on the discourses surrounding HPES and RS as well as the modern educational relevance of wisdom traditions.