Last Monday, school authorities in Taipei City, Taipei County and Keelung City announced that they would arrange joint entrance exams for senior and vocational high schools starting in 2011. The announcement implies that the region’s “one-guideline, single textbook” policy is just a step toward establishing jointly organized exams.
The Taipei-Keelung region is pushing the textbook policy and joint exams to reduce student pressure, but looking at news reports about the plans, one cannot help but worry.
The president of a prestigious senior high school for girls said the exams would have little impact on enrolment and a teachers’ representative said allowing students to move from district to district would resolve the heavy imbalance suffered by public senior and vocational high schools in different regions of Taiwan.
However, by opening only 10 percent of its seats to students from other cities and counties, the Taipei-Keelung region is purposefully blocking most students from central and southern Taiwan. These policies are meant to combat an expected rise in competition for continued studies.
This is understandable. The problem has never been the current policy. The current system with one textbook compiled by the Ministry of Education was similar to the proposed “one-guideline, single textbook” policy. Were students under less pressure then?
The scoring system of a joint entrance exam together with the standardized answers from the “one-guideline, single textbook” policy would offer a precise screening system. This kind of system, which ranks students from highest to lowest based purely on test scores, is a key component in “promotionism” — seeking advancement to higher levels of education without regard to personal interests or quality of learning.
With “promotionism” guiding education, changing from a system that allows multiple textbooks to a system that allows only one textbook will do nothing to relieve student pressure.
Since the pressure to advance is not quantifiable, it is difficult to prove that joint exams and a single textbook will fail to relieve student pressure. On the other hand, it is also difficult to prove the opposite.
Still, pinning the hope for relieving student pressure on these measures sacrifices educational diversity. A look at daily life shows that not everyone likes to eat rice, but when the educational authorities demand that all students use the same textbook, they ignore individual differences and may even destroy a child’s future.
Taipei City, Taipei County and Keelung City defend their policies by saying that a single textbook does not necessarily lead to uniformity and that the problem can by resolved by teachers using diverse teaching methods. This claim, however, intentionally overlooks how textbooks direct the curriculum in Taiwan.
If teachers could direct the curriculum, any textbook would be equally effective, which raises two questions: How would a single textbook system relieve student pressure and why should the Taipei-Keelung region push so hard for it?
Whether the region’s joint exam and textbook policy can relieve student pressure remains uncertain. But the region’s educational authorities are playing with the core of education — diversity. In this educational reform, the Taipei-Keelung region is showing a lack of fundamental thinking on ”promotionism” by recklessly pushing for jointly organized exams and a single textbook. Whether deliberately or inadvertently, they will end up increasing “promotionism.”
Hsu Yue-dian is director of the Department of Law at National Cheng Kung University, and Ling He is a doctoral student in the department.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath