Nearly 300,000 junior-high school graduates participated in the two-day Academic Proficiency Examinations on Mother's Day weekend. Ten years after education reform began, it inspires mixed feelings in me, one of which is irony, to witness scenes both inside and outside the examination halls that are essentially no different from those seen before the reform began -- nervous students and parents in no mood to celebrate Mother's Day and high-ranking government officials making the usual rounds.
A primary goal of education reform is to reduce pressure on students. The use of the proficiency exams from last year, however, has not only failed to reduce that pressure, but has in fact intensified it. This year, the problem of junior-high school students taking leave to attend cram schools has become more serious. Reportedly, school administrations are resorting to practically every conceivable means to keep their students in school -- from extending hours to giving additional quizzes -- to help them to maximize their exam scores. The problems that used to bedevil the old Joint Senior High School Entrance Examinations persist, but in a worse form.
Minister of Education Huang Jung-tsun (黃榮村) once said that the nation would never revert to the old system under which entrance exams shackled the students' minds. I agree with him. But the new approach is simply not much better. It has in fact produced a whole new set of problems.
For instance, in the past, joint entrance exams were separately conducted nationwide by several regional examination districts. While all the districts were broadly similar, differences in the characteristics of local communities nevertheless existed. Students competed only against other students in the same district. This arrangement was more congruent with the goal of developing community-based senior-high schools.
In contrast, the new proficiency examination has become the largest entrance exam to be jointly conducted across the nation. In other words, the country has been turned into a king-size testing district. Fierce competition is now underway between all students.
The education ministry's biggest mistake lies in not giving up its preoccupation with tests. In fact, the recruitment of students is a matter for the schools. What the education ministry should be doing is making sure that the students learn effectively, and that the enormous annual education budgets are appropriately distributed and utilized. To guarantee the quality of educational provision, perhaps the education ministry should learn from Western Europe and the US by establishing a standard test, scores in which will serve only as one of a number of criteria for school admission.
The education ministry should also help private organizations establish performance testing centers that will test the students at their request.
Schools could undertake recruitment either independently or in collaboration with one another, depending on their needs and the communities they serve. They could also require applicants to take additional aptitude tests or subject tests whenever they deem necessary.
The ministry should enhance its supervision over school administrations to ensure openness and fairness in student recruitment. It should also establish a special unit to monitor recruitment affairs. Irregularities should be severely punished.
Our experience over the past two years is that the proficiency exams are failing to solve all the problems associated with the joint entrance exam. They also do not tally with the spirit of the education reform. It is to be hoped that new reforms will be carried out soon to save our children.
Huang Der-hsiang is chair of the Graduate Institute of Education at National Changhua University of Education.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS