THE POOR ACADEMIC performance of some high school and university students has attracted a lot of criticism from both the ruling party and the opposition. In response, the Ministry of Education may revisit a system that would allow senior high schools to make students who perform badly repeat a year. Premier Liu Chao-hsiuan (劉兆玄) even proposed that a joint graduation exam be instituted to improve performance.
Although nobody opposes such improvements, it is worthwhile to look at just how this system would help improve grades.
In East Asia, where diligence is strongly emphasized, whenever we think about improving grades, we think of strict implementation of curriculums, more exams and the elimination of poorer students.
Not many people realize, however, that some of the major problems with Taiwan’s secondary education system are that it rejects the idea that students have different academic levels, inflexibly follows standard curriculums and places excessively high demands on students.
These problems mean that the education system has a damaging effect on some students and does not help improve their grades or performance.
Differences in talent, learning environments and personal habits can make a big difference to grades even in elementary school. Later in junior high, the differences are more obvious as courses become more difficult, especially in key subjects that require long-term accumulation of knowledge, such as mathematics, physics, chemistry and languages. Different academic levels between students cannot be eliminated merely by students working harder or by teachers trying harder. The only way to solve these problems is to design different courses for students at different levels.
With Taiwan’s competitive entrance exams, students who performed poorly were often abandoned by being placed in classes organized according to the “ability-grouping system.” This system was later seen as undesirable and abandoned.
In today’s “mixed-grouping system,” teachers can only use intermediate-level textbooks and cannot teach content that is harder or too easy. As a result, gifted students get bored and less gifted students fail to follow the material.
For the latter, time is wasted in the classroom and the humiliation of failing tests is an everyday problem. School becomes a source of pain and learning loses all sense of fun. How can such students retain an interest in learning? How can we possibly expect them to acquire knowledge?
As students enter senior high school or vocational high school, an ability-grouping process takes place in the joint entrance exam. In theory, teachers are finally able to teach according to student ability. Unfortunately, all schools must follow the standard curriculums released by the ministry; no adjustments are allowed.
Worse, vocational school students are encouraged to advance to higher education just like students in regular high schools. It is very difficult for vocational school students to succeed in gaining access to higher education. The classes they need to take are often too difficult and allow no adjustment for student or teacher.
How are students meant to learn if they do not understand the content of lessons? In many cases it is a miracle if students do not skip class.
Some students in less well-off colleges and universities do not even know the English alphabet. They are accused of not studying hard enough, but don’t realize that the high schools they attended should take the biggest proportion of the blame.
It would have been impossible for high school teachers not to know that their students could not memorize the alphabet, yet they continue to do nothing to remedy the situation and blindly go about teaching advanced grammar. This is an absurd situation.
But whose fault is it really? Similar problems exist in the teaching of mathematics, physics and chemistry. It is therefore necessary for the education system to install curriculums that accommodate intermediate levels; otherwise, low-achieving students will have virtually no chance of catching up. It is normal for students to have different levels of proficiency. The key point is: Are we willing to face these differences?
The education system ignores difference and tortures low-achieving students with lesson materials that they do not understand. This means that the students only grow more confused as they proceed through the school system.
The old saying of “pulling at seedlings to help them grow” is most poignant in this case.
We can change the situation by recognizing that diversity exists. Lower-achieving classes should adopt easier class materials. Although the level would be lower than the ministry’s standard curriculum, such students could at least learn something because the courses would be more comprehensible.
For example, lower-achieving vocational high school students could study junior-high school English instead of pretending to learn what is forced upon them in the current system. When they graduate, they would at least have the English proficiency of a junior-high student.
It may sound odd, but attaining this level of English is better than failing at a higher level or not having any English at all. The same theory applies to other key subjects. This would leave most students with their feet on solid ground in each subject.
Teaching of such classes would not be haphazard. Stricter demands could be placed on students of all levels according to their abilities. The word “strict” here refers to the aptitude of teaching and an insistence on meeting criteria that would encourage students to study.
Lower-achieving students often have weaker motives to learn. Stricter attention to their circumstances are thus recommended. If students are taught according to their proficiency, a push for stricter requirements would see their performance improve.
The goal of education is not to have students meet the same standard, because this is impossible.
The real goal of education should be to help each student improve according to his or her own ability. Denying student diversity deceives everyone.
In this light, the answer to whether a joint graduation exam is necessary is quite clear.
Huang Su-jen is an associate professor and chair of the Department of Sociology at National Taipei University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
The Executive Yuan and the Presidential Office on Monday announced that they would not countersign or promulgate the amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) passed by the Legislative Yuan — a first in the nation’s history and the ultimate measure the central government could take to counter what it called an unconstitutional legislation. Since taking office last year, the legislature — dominated by the opposition alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party — has passed or proposed a slew of legislation that has stirred controversy and debate, such as extending
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators have twice blocked President William Lai’s (賴清德) special defense budget bill in the Procedure Committee, preventing it from entering discussion or review. Meanwhile, KMT Legislator Chen Yu-jen (陳玉珍) proposed amendments that would enable lawmakers to use budgets for their assistants at their own discretion — with no requirement for receipts, staff registers, upper or lower headcount limits, or usage restrictions — prompting protest from legislative assistants. After the new legislature convened in February, the KMT joined forces with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and, leveraging their slim majority, introduced bills that undermine the Constitution, disrupt constitutional
RSS