What Works May Hurt: A Critical Review of Side Effects in Education

Introduction

Yong Zhao’s article, What works may hurt: Side effects in education (2017), presents a compelling critique of the education system’s neglect of side effects when adopting new policies and practices. Drawing parallels with medical research’s rigorous evaluation of both intended and unintended outcomes, Zhao argues for a paradigm shift in educational research. He advocates for studying side effects alongside effectiveness to create a more balanced, evidence-driven approach. This review delves into Zhao’s arguments and evaluates their application in three key areas: competency-based education, America’s obsession with test-based accountability, and the broader call for a culture of side effect awareness.

Competency-Based Education: Benefits with Unintended Consequences

Zhao’s examination of competency-based education highlights its promise and peril. Designed to tailor learning to individual student needs and foster specific skills, competency-based models often seem like the solution to diverse educational challenges. However, Zhao argues that these interventions can inadvertently narrow the curriculum and diminish creativity. His concern resonates with broader educational critiques that emphasize holistic development over rigid standardization.

Competency-based models, though well-intentioned, may produce “bite-sized” learning modules at the expense of deeper intellectual exploration. Zhao’s call for acknowledging such risks aligns with his thesis that educational interventions, like medical treatments, must account for unintended consequences. The systemic over-reliance on “what works” metrics without assessing collateral damage has created a cycle of short-term gains at the expense of long-term development.

Key Insight: Holistic evaluations of competency-based systems must balance effectiveness with creativity and critical thinking to mitigate these trade-offs.

When Risks Outweigh Benefits: Test-Based Accountability

Zhao’s critique of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) encapsulates the dangers of prioritizing metrics over meaningful education. While test-based accountability aimed to close achievement gaps and improve outcomes, it created significant side effects:

1. Unethical Practices: High-stakes testing pressured educators into unethical behaviors like cheating and manipulating results.
2. Exclusion of Vulnerable Students: Disadvantaged learners were marginalized to enhance institutional performance metrics.
3. Curriculum Narrowing: Excessive focus on literacy and numeracy reduced resources for arts, sciences, and holistic development.

Zhao’s analysis exposes how the singular pursuit of “what works”—in this case, raising test scores—blinded policymakers to these adverse effects. His invocation of Campbell’s Law, which predicts the corruption of quantitative indicators when used for decision-making, underscores the inevitability of such consequences under NCLB.

Key Insight: Zhao’s argument compels educators to consider whether the potential damages of test-based accountability outweigh its modest benefits.

A Call to Action: Institutionalizing the Study of Side Effects

The final segment of Zhao’s article proposes actionable steps to integrate the study of side effects into education:

1. Regulatory Mandates: Academic journals and organizations should require research to report side effects alongside benefits.
2. Consumer Advocacy: Educators, parents, and policymakers must demand transparency about risks.
3. Proactive Monitoring: Educational programs should include systematic evaluations of both positive and negative outcomes.

Zhao’s vision mirrors practices in the medical field, where side effects are as critical to understanding a treatment’s viability as its benefits. By shifting education toward a culture of holistic evaluation, Zhao hopes to end ideological battles over interventions and foster meaningful progress.

Key Insight: Embracing Zhao’s recommendations would promote informed decision-making, reduce harmful interventions, and encourage innovation in educational research.

Conclusion

Yong Zhao’s What works may hurt offers a transformative perspective on education policy and research. By likening educational interventions to medical treatments, Zhao underscores the necessity of evaluating side effects as rigorously as benefits. His critique of competency-based education and test-based accountability highlights the systemic flaws of focusing solely on “what works,” while his call to institutionalize side effect awareness provides a roadmap for improvement.

To advance education, stakeholders must embrace a culture of comprehensive evaluation that prioritizes long-term outcomes over short-term metrics. As Zhao aptly notes, only by addressing both effects and side effects can education truly progress beyond the cycles of pendulum swings and ideological wars.

Citation: Zhao, Y. (2017). What works may hurt: Side effects in education. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. Link