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 gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
Taiwan no longer wants to merely manufacture the chips that power artificial intelligence (AI). It aims to build the software, platforms and services that run on them. Ten major AI infrastructure projects, a national cloud computing center in Tainan, the sovereign language model Trustworthy AI Dialogue Engine, five targeted industry verticals — from precision medicine to smart agriculture — and the goal of ranking among the world’s top five in computing power by 2040: The roadmap from “Silicon Island” to “Smart Island” is drawn. The question is whether the western plains, where population, industry and farmland are concentrated, have the water and
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
RSS