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
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.
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
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