Newspapers have reported results from a major educational study that found students who rank in the top 10 percent of the Basic Competence Test for junior high school and who entered high school in the same region perform better on the General Scholastic Ability Test for college matriculation than those who attend elite high schools.
A closer look at the study, however, reveals a number of problems.
Students who moved locations to enter 27 elite high schools and those who remained in the same area to enter 21 community high schools in fact belong to groups that are not so easy to compare.
"Elite" and "community" high schools were not clearly defined in the study. Although it was not reported in the study which schools fall under the "elite" category, it can be assumed that the elite high schools in the sample do not necessarily offer better quality education than local schools.
In other words, as far as the quality of students is concerned, those who choose to enter high school locally were not necessarily academically worse off than those who attended elite high schools in other districts. The research hypotheses of the study are plainly questionable.
Experience tells us that there might be a number of less accomplished students among those attending elite senior high schools as well as excellent students among those attending local schools.
In other words, those attending local schools are not necessarily performing below the level of those at elite schools in other districts.
There was also a huge discrepancy in the samples used for the two groups: the first consisted of 14,620 students and the second of only 2,480. This gap certainly leaves room for doubt.
The use of such samples leads to suspicions that the study was based on preconceptions that elite high schools are supposed to be superior to community high schools. But as the schools selected for the samples didn't match, it is difficult to accept the conclusion drawn by the study that community high school students performed better.
If the study was intended simply to highlight advantages of attending high school in one's own area, I'm sure the findings would be acceptable to the general public, and that this would also provide evidence to support the Ministry of Education's policies of integrating high schools in local communities and implementing its 12-year compulsory education agenda.
It is not at all certain, however, that we can use this study to prove that attending community schools gives better results.
I basically support a policy of encouraging students to attend high school in the local community, but elite high schools play an important role for those few gifted students that need a competitive environment to tap more of their potential.
I ask therefore that we stop scapegoating elite schools.
Tsai Ping-kun is principal of the National Taichung First Senior High School.
Translated by Ted Yang
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS