The Ministry of Education has introduced wide-ranging educational reform measures in recent years. Course content and teaching methods have changed, as have the systems for gaining entry to both senior high school and college.
As a result, the pressure on students has increased, forcing them to attend more cram schools. They even have to haggle over every point at their regular schools. But their aca-demic ability has deteriorated. The much-publicized "Constructive Mathematics" for elementary school students, for example, has been severely criticized recently because teachers and parents have found that stu-dents' ability in mathematics has declined. Meanwhile, the new Diversified Enrollment Scheme is unfair to the poor. First-year junior high school English textbooks are so difficult that students who cannot afford to attend language schools may simply not stand a chance. In such circumstances, fairness in education is eliminated.
As of this year, the Nine-Year Educational Program -- which aims to integrate elementary and high school systems -- is being applied to the first year of junior high school. Although all subjects have been integrated into seven major categories, teachers still follow the old method and teach them separately. Otherwise, they simply wouldn't be able to complete their duties under the new program. Chemistry teachers, for example, can't teach biology courses because they are not biologists. According to a newspaper report, one school requires all art teachers to teach music. As a consequence, one art teacher who didn't know how to teach music had no choice but to take an extended period of leave. A child cannot relive his or her childhood and teenage years if mistakes occur. Today's parents can do nothing when their children are treated like guinea pigs.
What are the ideals of education reform? What are the educational goals? What needs to be changed and how? Not only parents and students but also teachers and scholars are unclear about these questions.
What, moreover, is the theoretical basis for the way reform has been implemented? Was thorough research conducted before the system was introduced? Or was it just introduced as a result of arbitrary decision making? If the reforms were based on a comprehensive design, why has the college application process this year been a big mess? Why have the new Basic Competency Tests for junior high school students become yet another gigantic joint entrance examination? Why have the enrollment schemes broadened the gap between rich and poor? Why have students' abilities in mathematics and Chinese declined, and college students lost their enthusiasm for learning?
The ministry is the department in charge of education reforms. The brilliant suggestions of scholars will come to nothing if the ministry doesn't take them into consideration. The ministry should be held responsible for the success or failure of reforms. Its reform policy, affecting the futures of countless students, is a major aspect of public policy and should be opened to discussion. Once the policy has been made, the government should clearly inform us of its ideals and goals and the reason for adopting such methods. Only when it does can the public work together toward the ideals and goals of education reforms and examine the appropriateness and effectiveness of reform plans.
As education reforms are often questioned, it is to be hoped that the government will adopt a more cautious and open approach to introducing reforms that have a major bearing on the nation's future.
Shen Mei-chen is a lawyer.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS