A high-school student was making a video with his phone in class, uninterested in what was going on. His behavior showed a lot about the situation in the class. He panned clockwise from the back of the class. One student had both feet nonchalantly on top of their desk as they swiped through their cellphone. Beside them, another student lay asleep on the ground, with their head resting on a balled-up jacket.
When the student filming swept the camera’s gaze toward the front of the class, the teacher was in the middle of a math lesson. Her focus was limited to the few diligent students in the front rows who were trying to pay attention. In the rear, several students were not in their seats and were all over the place. Some were bent over their desks asleep. Others, if their heads were not buried in their phones, were staring off into space.
The scene reminded me of a school auditor friend who had a different perspective on such behavior.
He said he once went to a junior-high school to conduct a classroom evaluation, and a female teacher, who was giving an English lesson, seemed to be absorbed in her lesson, despite most of the back half of the class being asleep.
After class, my friend asked the teacher: “Didn’t you see the students sleeping in the back of the room?”
“I did,” she said.
“Then why didn’t you wake them up?” my friend asked.
The teacher ran one hand over her belly, saying: “I am eight months pregnant and my students tower over me when they get up from their desks. If one of them became violent, what do you think could happen?”
My friend was speechless.
Students’ motivation for their studies are low. They go to class with no drive and do whatever they want. Educators are afraid of them becoming violent or of their parents suing the institution. They ignore what goes on in the classroom and pretend that everything is fine. The sense of powerlessness among educators contributes to the helplessness, but the more worrying aspect is the thought of where such students might end up.
Do they realize what they are doing?
Many parents with socioeconomic means send their children to expensive private schools, not just to increase their exam scores to get into better K-12 programs and universities, but also because private schools are much stricter about students’ routines, morals and ethics. Parents want a safe learning environment and structure to cultivate good behavior, including self-respect, discipline, obedience and orderliness to sculpt good character.
In contrast, public schools are burdened with too many skewed guidelines and frameworks, leading to teachers being caught between upholding student’s rights and steering them on a path toward success. Teachers in such a situation tend to protect their meal ticket and abandon the principles of education.
Videos of bullying at schools and disorderly classrooms are bringing to light one aspect of the severity of how schools “socialize” students. Children, whose brains have not fully developed, seem to be much more malicious and cruel than adults. They do not have the drive to study and are unwilling to pay attention. To them, turning up satisfies their basic responsibility.
Many problem students come from troubled families. They ought to be the focus of schools that profess to inspire and build character.
If teachers cannot manage their classrooms, these students might be destined to become “reservist soldiers” for fraud rings or gangs. The situation should be sounding alarm bells.
Shiao Fu-song is a teacher at National Taitung University.
Translated by Tim Smith
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS