Six-part Harmony

Recently, I’ve written about seemingly disparate but related conversations. As if these conversations are individual musical notes, they fill my mind with a unified sound even as they retain their distinctiveness. Today’s discussion is an example of the six-part harmony I hear.

In Reuters, Lesley Wroughton’s article, “Okonjo-Iweala: World Bank Must Mirror Global Shift” reports on Iweala’s view that increased globalization should justify a shift in institutional leadership at the World Bank. That this is the “first time the [top] post has been contested” should come as no surprise. The world is increasingly interconnected; geopolitical shifts, multinational corporate efforts, diplomatic reach into realms that previously lacked engagement, and the increasing global presence of universities are all indicators of important global shifts. Yet, the process for selecting a leader of the World Bank has not changed. In “The World Bank’s Quota System for Leaders” Uri Dadush and Moisés Naím lament the opaque process for selecting leaders and the Reuters article notes, “[u]nder an informal agreement between the United States and its allies in Europe, Washington has laid claim to the top post at the World Bank since its founding after World War Two.”

In another Reuter’s article, Roman Kozhevnikov reports on a recent conference where Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad weighed in on the shifting balance of global power. His assertion that “the United States could no longer dictate policy to the rest of the world” was complemented by his commentary on the US role in Afghanistan, US relations with Pakistan, thoughts on NATO’s role in the region, and a declaration for building a railway between Afghanistan, Iran and Tajikistan. The US representative at the conference “left the hall when Ahmadinejad began to speak and returned after the conclusion of the speech.”

“When Other Voices are Drowned Out” is a New York Times editorial that delineates the consequences of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case. “This naïve, damaging view” has privileged the political assertions of the elite (via unlimited financial contributions to Political Action Committees or PACs) to the relative exclusion of engagement by the so-called 99% who cannot command unlimited funds. This shift has effectively constricted the discussions of national significance. Indeed, “financing a PAC is equivalent to financing a campaign.”

Adam Lee contrasts the laws of obedience hailing from religion with those of free thinking. In “How Religion’s Demand for Obedience Keeps US in the Dark Ages” Lee quotes various religious leaders and even provocative pundit Stephen Colbert who satirically noted, “If every rule made sense, they wouldn’t be learning respect for authority, they’d be learning logic” as examples of the rigidity of rules and the ways in which they restrict critical thinking. Indeed, Lee’s timeline of historical events and his alignment of blind faith and obedience with maintaining the status quo in oligarchies are convincing. He contrasts rigid structure with democracy, a relatively new way of governing societies in which power is believed to be dispersed amongst the citizens. Lee encourages his readers to “throw off that ancient and limiting mindset… act and speak as we choose” so that “humanity as a whole will prosper.”

Finally, and for now, “Overcoming the Stress of ‘Englishnization’ is an article written about a case study conducted by Tdsedal Neeley, “Language and Global ‘Englishnization’ at Rukuten” that describes the efforts of multinational corporations to mandate English as the language of business. Basically, when non-native English speakers were made to communicate only in English, they experienced high levels of anxiety and decreased self-confidence in their professional ability. Neeley explains, “There’s this universal experience of status diminution when people compare their native/formally trained language to this new language.” She continues, “[N]o matter how fluent some people are in English, they believe they’ll never be as sophisticated, as influential, or as articulate as they are in their native language.”

How in the world do such different “notes” harmonize in my head? After all, these segments represent taxonomical dissimilarity . However, thematically, the connections seem clear (to me!). The changing geopolitical topography noted in Wroughton’s article regarding candidacy at the World Bank is illuminated by the critique of the Bank’s organizational structure – its inherent hierarchy and nepotism – noted by Dadush and Naím. The inconsistency between the geopolitical reality and the organizational structure at the World Bank as noted by the authors, effectively obscures or silences the reality of new, different and multiple actors having a voice in global institutions. Similarly, the New York Times editorial laments the consequences of PACs, the powerful elite, shaping the political landscape in the US. Those silenced in the US represent the non moneyed and the majority of potential voters. This silence is evident in Kozhevnikov’s article as he takes notice of the US delegate who took leave when Ahmadinejad began to speak. Lee’s article about religion and obedience is essentially about the historic ways in which power has silenced disparate voices in order to retain the status quo. Neeley’s case study makes clear, such silencing occurs when people are not confident their communication is effective. In Neeley’s study, such silencing has consequences that lead to anxiety, which can have dire consequences on workplace performance. Here it is necessary to note, the silence may be countered with deeper, ongoing and more meaningful integration into the English language as part of the process of cultural osmosis.

The “notes” come together in harmony, to reveal a cohesive understanding of seemingly disparate voices. Duke Ellington was a master at illuminating individuality while advancing a singular mission or composition. Individually, each note articulates a single point-of-view; together, the harmony resonates broadly. In a jazz ensemble, this diversity is also captured in instrumental sections. In the present scenario, the diverse notes or voices represent cacophony while the voices of the powerful “few” move towards a particular type of cohesion; one that lacks diversity and is unified against the many. This is bad in music because it indicates monotonality; in business, it represents a lack of competition or monopoly; in language, it is monolinguistic; in politics, dictatorship.

As diversity in voices enriches music; so, too, does it enrich business, culture, politics and associated organizational structures. Harmony, the balancing of individual voices to create a rich sound, requires coordination and diversity. The silencing of voices, literally and metaphorically, is not only unimaginative but leads to no good place.

No Rhythm, No Rhyme

I participate in a lot of Blogs on Business, Education and International Relations. What’s always surprising to me is that people say the “same thing” repeatedly. We all want to be better and do better and we are looking for ways to achieve this utopian goal.

Oddly, I have found, business leaders (at least those who participate on the blogs I read) aren’t simply or exclusively profit-driven money fiends. The stereotypical 1% attitudes are missing. Don’t get me wrong, there have been some pretty nasty comments made amongst participants but they take the form of being sexist or elitist in terms of expressing educational or imagined intellectual superiority, not capitalist. While I’m tempted to begin a rant on the relationship between sexism, elitism and capitalism — I’ll refrain (for now) because I have more to say about engagement.

Engagement is understood as being vital to continued growth. I’ve written here about engagement pertaining to diplomacy and emerging markets. So, for now, I’ll focus on my observation on disparate entities saying the same thing but within their own circles, not across perceived (and so very real) disciplinary lines.

Take Jerry Weissman’s article, “When Someone Asks You a Question, Respond” for example. Jerry is frustrated with people not answering direct questions. I feel his pain; I mean, really, what gives? He uses a number of examples including some from the current US presidential race to finally tell us, “You must respond to all questions.”[1] In “Education Keeps America Safe” Condoleezza Rice and Joel Klein lament the lack of foreign language training in the US and using the case of Iraq note, “of 250 intelligence personnel, fewer than five had the aptitude to put pieces together to form a conclusion.”[2] Peter Campelli finds fault in the US “plug ‘n play” approach to hiring. “Here” he says, “the story is about getting a ‘just-in-time’ workforce, finding the precise workers we need just at the time we need them but letting them go when our needs change and then replacing them with new ones.”[3] International Education advocate Vincent C. Jonson recommends, “mainstreaming global and cross-cultural learning on all campuses across the higher education spectrum; making study abroad the norm, rather than the exception; and ensuring that foreign language instruction actually produces graduates who can effectively communicate in a foreign language”[4] as ways to improve overall competitiveness, build a stronger educational system and prepare workers for meaningful participation in the global economy.

… but these people aren’t talking to one another.

No rhythm, no rhyme people. Each person is sending out a “call” for help but there’s no meaningful “response” and so no rhythm (or conversation) is created or sustained. Rice and Klein’s understanding of international education and foreign language training is related toJohnson’s and both are related to Campelli’s dilemma with “plug ‘n play” hiring because the goal is for all is to create a sustainable workforce, long term and there is much agreement on what is needed. Expanding globalization can lead to increased GDP and I’ll just bet expanding or deepening the integration between seemingly disparate fields can increase innovation and lead to, at least, increased GDP.[5]

For all the talk of diversity and engagement, the rhythm section isn’t working together, there’s no collaboration just a lot of talk while each person plays solo. Call-and-response hails from the blues and shapes the jazz music we love to hear where instruments trade off on the melody. Call-and-response also shapes hip hop (S/O to C.O.D.E. Mizells blog) as is indicated in the rhyming pattern that creates the rhythm but I’ll let Ben tell you more about that. Know the culture people, no rhythm no rhyme…

Engage the Struggle, Let’s Swing!

Francis Fukuyama is an incredibly smart guy. I enjoy reading his work because he is thoughtful and insightful and makes really good points. But as has been the case since first reading The End of History, I read his work intrigued and pretty much buying into his ideas and then WHAM! I remember why he irritates me so. His article, “The Future of History” in the January/February 2012 edition of Foreign Affairs is case and point.

Take this quote, where Fukuyama is discussing the trends (I’m already mildly irritated by “trends”) in left-wing thought in the past few decades: “The academic left replaced [Marxism] with postmodernism, multiculturalism, feminism, critical theory, and a host of other fragmented intellectual trends that are more cultural than economic in focus.” (60) Yes, Francis, these areas are more “cultural than economic in focus” and the ideas expressed emanate from the actual people who have been historically marginalized and not simply or exclusively the people who study their consumer behaviors. Culture is inclusive, economics is exclusive; culture endures, economics fluctuates. And Francis, people are more than the sum of their buying power; or lack thereof, which brings me to my second point of contention. I struggle onward…

Francis defines multiculturalism as the study of a group “that validates victimhood of virtually every out-group.” Well, yes but not quite. First, multiculturalism is not about validating “victimhood” its about integrating discourse with voices of the historically marginalized. If that discussion identifies various “wrongs” levied on segments of society, good; in identifying the problems, we can move to correct them. Also, think about the miner’s canary; in hearing the song that alerts us to danger, we can all be saved from toxins in the air. Ugh! And I struggle some more.

Second, but related to my first point, the study of culture and so-called “out groups” is an effort to be more inclusive. By listening to more and diverse voices, we enrich conversations in any number of areas; say policy or civil or human rights or example. When more voices are integrated into such conversations, policies or laws can be created or enforced that will shape the lives of the people who live under their mandates. Take the new diplomatic strategy articulated by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for instance. She recognizes our “increasing global interconnectedness” and says diplomacy must reach “beyond governments to citizens directly.” Guess what? Most of those citizens will fall into these so-called “out groups” and the goal is to bring those people in – do you see? Business leaders are doing the same thing. I’ve written here about Navi Radju and Jaideep Prabhu’s idea of reaching the “next billion” customers and about how hierarchy can hurt strategy execution. Here’s the thing: when you segregate yourself from the next billion or keep corporate strategy boxed up into the corner office suite, your reach is limited. While such segregation from the masses worked well for a while, exclusion is no longer a viable strategy for diplomacy or business. How’s that for a novel idea? Francis drives me nuts!

Then he says, “it is impossible to generate a mass progressive movement on the basis of such a motley coalition [of postmodernists, multiculturalists and the like]: most of the working- and lower-middle-class citizens victimized by the system are culturally conservative and would be embarrassed to be seen in the presence of allies like this.” OMG and WTF?! First, name-calling is seldom productive (unless we’re playing the dozens but that’s a cultural thing and Francis seems to prefer economics) so I take issue with the “motley coalition” thing. Ok. Breathe deeply…  When we take the smack out of it, the “motley coalition” is a heterogeneous grouping of people who are highly educated and/or well read and well versed in the fields noted. This is precisely the goal – to diversify conversations. A homogenous group makes me think oligarchy and surely, that’s not what we want. Diversity and democracy go hand in hand. Second, if the so-called “working-and lower-middle class citizens” are “victimized by the system” shouldn’t we work to fix that? Shouldn’t their voices be integrated into discussions about policy and civil and human rights, for example? How could their experiences be instructive to discussions on education, healthcare? Who are their representatives locally, regionally or in Washington? Third, if these victimized people are “culturally conservative”; then, by moving them from out-group to in-group status do we make them more liberal? Would they be “embarrassed to be seen in the presence of allies” who, like them, had suffered historic wrongs or indignities but who, by forming a critical mass of like-minded people, were empowered and could realistically impact a change in policy or laws that could alter their status as victims? I’m thinking Menocchio and the critical thinking that lead to his self-awareness and death. Yes, empowering the historically marginalized could indeed mean the death of hierarchy as we know it so the effort to protect “working-and lower-middle-class citizens” from embarrassment has the intriguing consequence of protecting the status quo. This is anti democratic, Francis, and it is sooo 16th century!

That’s all for now in terms of identifying my points of contention with Francis Fukuyama’s essay. Here’s the bigger thing: Francis wants “An Ideology for the Future”; one that will “ reassert the supremacy of democratic politics over economics and legitimate anew government of the public interest.” He wants, like me, a “serious and sustained critique” of notions such as “ aggregate income [being] an accurate measure of national well-being.” Like me, Francis knows there’s a problem because “schools for the well-off are better than ever” and he is bothered that “elites in all societies use their superior access to the political system to protect their interests.” The details of how he articulates his views irk me but when I struggle though the would-be obstacles, I find various points of meaningful commonality. It is on these points we can work together to effect change. Struggle is necessary is discourse and in jazz bands because it creates the conditions for improvisation; and it is here, when each voice is articulated and validated that innovation occurs. Struggle is necessary in a jazz band because the rhythm section — drums, bass, piano — must reconcile the tension that sustains the rhythm so the band can swing. Engage the struggle and make it meaningful, let’s swing!


I found a new site and blog space today that I really like, NAFSA: Association of International Educators  (founded in 1948 as the National Association of Foreign Students Abroad). Well, I feel as if I’ve found long-lost relatives.

In “We Have a Listening Problem” blogger Vincent C. Johnson says: “At any given time, much of the U.S. foreign policy agenda consists of dealing with what we refer to as the unintended consequences of past agendas. They may be unintended, but in many, if not most cases, they were not unanticipated. Most policy failures were not only predictable, but predicted. We just didn’t listen.” WOW and WOW again.

I’ve written here about learning foreign languages, educating culturally, learning music, the relationship between jazz and business, yadda, yadda… but Vincent hits the nail on the head so succinctly… “we have a listening problem” and all the current fuss with corporations reaching “next billion” customers globally in rural areas, emerging markets and such and investing so heavily in R&D (see my article on Jazz and Emerging Markets) is a matter of finally listening to what people ALL OF THE PEOPLE say they want, need, and desire. Now, imagine if we had listening in their languages in years past? Talk about opportunities wasted, time lost, relationships squandered.

The same is true for our diplomatic efforts. In her article “Leading Through Civilian Power” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton discusses the importance of not simply (and unimaginatively and arrogantly) engaging a nation’s elite and government officials but engaging citizens. Listening to citizens, imagine that.

I rant here all the time about educational testing, the focus on math science and reading,  and cognitive ability… I know language training requires lots of cognitive skills ( you know that too) and I am irritated by the fact that we don’t take areas other than math, science and reading seriously. We are missing so much! Language training requires applying skills that are learned, demonstrating cognitive ability is meaningful and has practical value beyond test achievement.

Cultural education is key because music (just because that’s my thing, there are other ways to educate culturally) requires listening. The blues has a call-and-response pattern that hails from African-American culture. One needs to LISTEN to the call in order to create the appropriate response. Improvisation requires musicians to LISTEN to the song, the key and time signature and creatively articulate an individual response to what is heard. The musician can’t just play whatever s/he wants because s/he is part of an ensemble or band and they’ve agreed to play a certain score in a certain time and key signature. The musician must LISTEN and then respond.

Be like musicians, LISTEN and hear the sound of WORLD PEACE.

Jazz Ensembles, Diplomacy and Emerging Markets

Collaboration is all the rage. As we figure out how to exist in our increasingly interconnected world, thought leaders have come up with a compelling idea – collaborate with one another to create more unity, deepen understanding and realize our shared objectives. Louis Armstrong did this in his hometown of New Orleans, on the riverboats up and down the mighty Mississippi, and he certainly did this in Chicago when he arrived as a relative – but exceptionally talented – newbie filled with anxiety and confidence to play in Joe Oliver’s Creole Jazz Band in the early 1920s. While the US acknowledged the power of jazz to infiltrate communist philosophy (see Penny Von Eschen’s definitive work in this) during the Cold War era, American Culture centers were disbanded once the ideological war had been “won.” Although President Bill Clinton played a mean tenor saxophone, it was the “Dynamic Duo” – President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton – who reinserted the idea of meaningful collaboration into US foreign policy. You see, jazz ensembles have been practicing collaboration and managing the tricky terrain of uncertainty for decades, well… about a full century now, and the music’s culture represents more than a mere dilettante excursion into the nostalgia of a once popular genre of music. Jazz ensembles offer a model for collaborative enterprise, engaging change and managing uncertainty. Multinational corporations are taking notice – so should we.

In her December 2010 article for Foreign Affairs, “Leading Through Civilian Power,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton advances an argument in support of development and diplomacy and outlines a strategy for the joint enterprise.[1] She says, “increasing global interconnectedness now necessitates reaching beyond governments to citizens directly and broadening the U.S. foreign policy portfolio to include issues once confined to the domestic sphere, such as economic and environmental regulation, drugs and diseases, organized crime, and world hunger.” (15) Instead of the typical hierarchy that engages only elites (government officials), Clinton articulates a horizontal strategy that recognizes citizens and engages broad and diverse population bases. In this effort, the needs of the people can be heard and integrated into a plan for disseminating goods and services. This effort implies an inherent uncertainty that comes from engaging previously unrecognized people, forming relationships with them and integrating their needs and desires into larger policy objectives.

Jazz ensembles share much with Clinton’s vision for deeper integration and multilateral discourse. In a jazz ensemble, the structure is horizontal and like Clinton’s idea of moving from solely engaging governments to reaching citizens, jazz structure allows for the deepest integration of diverse sounds. Instrumental sections are arranged in a basic format (reeds up front, brass in back, rhythm to the side) that can be changed according to the conductor’s desires. Chair positions within sections indicate pitch or playing part –  part of an effort to integrate or diversify the sound and enrich its texture, broaden its reach, and illuminate the variety of talent. Improvisation is not a privilege awarded to the best or “elite” performers but is expected of everyone. Furthermore, collective improvisation (such as that typically in New Orleans jazz) is a scenario where everyone is playing his/her own rhythm changes at the same time. The chaos or cacophony that this might suggest is similar to engaging the multiplicity of citizen voices in the diplomatic approach advocated by Clinton. Managing such diversity is tricky business (consider this a hallmark of democracy because dictatorships need not entertain such diversity of pinion and bureaucratic red tape is streamlined) because there is a great deal of uncertainty; one just never knows how humans will behave or what they will say. In a jazz ensemble personnel can be added or reduced laterally in order to balance the sound, there is a place for everyone. Prophetically, Clinton’s 2010 article anticipates the US Occupy Wall Street protests and their focus on the 99% as opposed to the elite 1% where wealth is concentrated. In the interconnected world in which we live, horizontal strategies or structures that encourage broad and active engagement seem most promising for engaging multilaterally.

As it happens, this strategy of active engagement, expanding reach, and diversifying also works in business. Employees who are asked for their opinions feel validated and part of the corporate team. Such buy-in expands the company’s strategy to greater numbers of employees who develop or strengthen a vested interest in the company, neutralize the inherent hierarchy, and feel empowered as thinking individuals. In a Harvard Business Review survey, one of the important takeaways was that Advisory Council members found “the biggest execution challenge is making strategy meaningful to frontline workers.” The findings suggest that, “leaders should consider making strategy formulation more bottom-up and should communicate more clearly – throughout the ranks – abut what the company is trying to achieve.”[2] This, of course, has benefits for the company’s bottom line as Richard Florida and Roger Martin found their research.[3] Likewise, in “Mobilizing for Growth in Emerging Markets” Navi Radju and Jaideep Prabhu note, the strategy of focusing on the elite fails to help multinational corporations reach the “much larger population” or “prepare them for the far greater challenge (and opportunity) of reaching the urban and rural poor” – those customers deemed to be the “next billion.” Diplomacy and Development swing to the rhythm of jazz.

The relationship between development and economic well being is considered vital to sustaining world peace. Clinton asserts, “Economic growth is he surest route out of poverty, and expanding and strengthening middle classes around the world will be key to creating the just and sustainable international order that lies at the heart of the United States’ national security strategy.”[4] As multinational corporations increase “their capabilities in emerging economies by opening more R&D labs, factories and sales and marketing offices that can design, develop and sell locally relevant products and services”;[5] they expand the base, increase the potential for creating and sustaining a middle class, and increase the potential for peace building. Opening R&D offices in the local markets is key because it demonstrates a commitment to better know the people being served. R&D is an investment of time and while companies are committed to increasing profits, the investment of time and associate capital and human resources suggests companies are moving to privilege the long-term benefits of establishing relationships over turning quick profits. In this way, companies like nations can be more successful or competitive long term. Radju and Prabhu note, “These challenges require multinationals to move beyond the value chain localization they’re accustomed to and embrace a ‘network orchestration’ strategy that brings together local and global innovation partners.”[6] The idea of orchestration is on point but not classical orchestration with its rigid framework and written scores with strict performance mandates, but jazz because it is flexible, engages change and requires improvisation. In dealing with diverse citizenry, one should expect flexibility to work better than rigidity… besides, I think we’ve tried that approach already!

Hierarchal systems create inequality and nurture silence. When the top tier of an organization makes decisions, they are expected to trickle down to the bottom tier of employees who will carry out directives but this does not happen efficiently. Moreover, this method segregates people and ideas. While asking employees to “exercise judgment and [involve them in] decision-making” can lead to “innovation and enhance productivity”[7]; too often, “business leaders just don’t care why employees do anything as long as they follow the company’s rules, processes, cultural norms and laws.”[8] Not only is it insulting to expect humans to automate their behavior and so discard the ability to think critically, it promotes dictatorship because individual rights and opinions are not realized or valued. Additionally, influential educational studies[9] that align cognitive ability with GDP coupled with the US mission to increase testing in math, science and reading as indicators of cognitive ability, and student (and teacher) success, moves the nation’s students from innovation to automation; making them ideal candidates for working in a hierarchical system but ill prepared for jobs requiring critical thinking and creativity. In the same way, jazz musicians are ill suited for work in classical orchestras (though not at all due to talent or musical ability). Clinton’s development strategy insists on deeper integration of ideas and people. Jazz bands function successfully this way as well. Multinational corporations such as Nokia, GE and Xerox that have implemented similar strategies have met with admirable success.

Network orchestration would benefit from modeling jazz. “Premised on local and global partners working together to achieve innovation” jazz orchestration would encourage “collaborating with local partners” and give an opportunity for multinationals to “learn about local problems and gain insight into solutions, while at the same time taking into account [issues that arise].”[10] The foreign expertise that is necessary to such development and diplomacy efforts is run-of-the-mill or jazz musicians whose travel schedules can rival that of diplomats or the most successful corporate CEOs. With this in mind, increased cultural intelligence is necessary for successfully engaging not only a nation’s elite but also the entire populace. Guess what? Math, science and reading won’t lead us into success in developing this skill (though they will certainly help make connections meaningful). Managing uncertainty and being flexible will require people-to-people skills. People matter in diplomacy, business and jazz.

Strategies offered by Radju and Prabhu for multinational business success are instructive: (1) Extend innovation partnerships beyond the usual suspects. Engage everyone, hear every voice, integrate various ideas into strategies for success. Work multilaterally. (2) Engage innovation partners strategically with a larger purpose. Don’t let profits rule the day, build relationships that can be sustained over time and profits will, likely, be sustained over time and workers at every level will be aligned with a defined purpose. Consumerism helped destroy US integrity during the era of Cold War cultural diplomacy; let’s not make that mistake again. (3) Trust but verify in a transparent manner. Be nice. Play fair. (4) Assign partner network managers. Assign section leaders who have superior practical knowledge of the instruments (regions, populations, demographics) in their groups; let them articulate their needs and respond accordingly.[11]

[1] Hillary Rodham Clinton, “Leading Through Civilian Power: Redefining American Diplomacy and Development,” Foreign Affairs (November/December 2010), 15.

[2] Harvard Business Review, “How Hierarchy Can Hurt Strategy Execution” (July – August 2010), 74 – 75.

[3] Accessed on March 4, 2012, Florida and Roger Martin, “The US Needs to Make More Jobs More Creative.”

[4] Clinton, 18.

[5] Navi Radju and Jaideep Prabhu, “Mobilizing for Growth in Emerging Markets”

[6] Ibid.

[7] Florida and Martin

[8] Accessed March 4, 2012, Scott Keller and Kaleen Love, “Change Your Employees’ Minds, Change Your Business”

[9] See my February 22, 2012, post “Education, Testing and the Problem with PISA” and specifically the Stanford University study conducted by Eric Hanushek and Lugder Woessmann.

[10]Navi Radju and Jaideep Prabhu

[11] Bold suggestions taken from Navi Radju and Jaideep Prabhu’s article.