Before the break of dawn, the streets are full of countless teens rushing to class with backpacks in hand — a scene that has long been part of Taiwan’s educational landscape. Recently, a citizen-initiated petition signed by more than 10,000 people calling for delaying junior-high and high-school class starting times to 10am and ending at 4pm has once again drawn society’s attention to students’ health and daily routines, triggering debate over topics from sleep and biological clocks to the pressures of the academic system.
Supporters and opponents of the petition have their own perspectives, but what is truly worth reflecting on is whether Taiwan’s education system has become trapped by its own structure and lost sight of what genuinely serves the well-being of students.
On the surface, the proposal’s focus appears to be on students’ sleep issues, but it in fact highlights the education system’s neglect of the physical and mental development of adolescents. According to medical observations, adolescents generally undergo a phase of biological clock shifts, tending to go to bed late and wake up late. Forcing them to wake up early can cause chronic sleep deprivation, leading to poor concentration and emotional instability. Some doctors have pointed out that allowing students to get a full eight hours of sleep each night would significantly improve learning efficiency and mental health, rather than arbitrarily treating 7am or 8am as the ideal starting point.
However, many principals and teachers have expressed reservations about the proposal, saying that the curriculum is densely packed and requires 35 classes per week. Simply delaying the start time to address sleep deprivation would require schools to compress even more content into an already tight schedule, potentially compromising the quality of instruction.
Some have argued that, rather than changing the schedule, we change the system itself because sleep deprivation has a variety of causes — cram school culture, addiction to digital devices and intense academic pressure are the main culprits behind students’ unbalanced routines. Time is merely a surface-level manifestation of these issues.
There also exists a deep divide between parents and public opinion. On one hand, some parents assert that students are not machines — frequent all-nighters and an exam-driven education system leave students physically and emotionally exhausted. Thus, they believe that delaying school start times could give students some much-needed breathing room. On the other hand, some parents worry that a later start time might not align with family schedules, and students might just spend their extra time at home glued to their phones or sleeping in — both unhelpful to discipline and growth. Opponents also warn that reducing class times would only worsen educational inequality, particularly for underprivileged students.
Particularly noteworthy is that the petition’s suggestion to cut “nonessential” courses has left educators puzzled. What exactly constitutes a “nonessential” course? Class meetings, weekly assemblies, art and music — such subjects cultivate democratic values and aesthetic appreciation. Would they be the first to go?
When the curriculum places emphasis on “core competencies,” yet policies pressure schools to revert to cramming and memorization, such a system attempts to force growth, but ultimately stunts true development.
Of course, not all opposing voices completely lack constructive input. Many school principals have suggested looking at the methods employed by Europe, the US and Japan, where school starts at 8am or 9am, and trimming some afternoon classes to give students more room for self-study and extracurricular activities. This approach could potentially offer flexibility, while taking into account student schedules and school operations.
Rather than simply asking if school start times should be delayed to 10am, perhaps we should ask a more pressing question — does the education system serve students?
Chang Ruay-shiung is a former president of the National Taipei University of Business.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
A 50-year-old on Wednesday last week died while under anesthesia at a Taipei cosmetic clinic shortly after undergoing a penis enlargement procedure. The surgeon was arrested for suspected medical malpractice, again bringing to the surface shortcomings in the regulation of cosmetic medicine. Media reports said the clinic owner and surgeon, surnamed Ting (丁), was previously convicted of negligent homicide for a postsurgical death and had been charged with coercion and aggravated assault after allegedly stopping a patient from calling for an ambulance. He had also been fined for failing inspections and had allegedly permitted people without medical licenses to assist
It was most annoying last week to read Chairman Xi Jinping’s (習近平) fulsome encomium to the People’s Liberation Army during the Eightieth Anniversary celebrations of victory over Japan in World War II. Comrade Xi’s soaring rhetoric was stuffed with “martyrs, sacrifice, solemnity and unwavering resolve” in praise of the “Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War.” His aspirations overflowed with “world peace” and love of the United Nations, of which China is a founding member. The Liberation Army Daily said that every word from General Secretary Xi Jinping “resounded in his powerful voice, illuminating the
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently sat down for an interview with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson in which he openly acknowledged that ChatGPT’s model behavior is indeed influencing the entire world, and that he himself is responsible for the decisions related to the bot’s moral framework. He said that he has not had a good night of sleep since its launch, as the technology could bring about unpredictable consequences. Although the discussion took place in the US, it is closely related to Taiwan. While Altman worries about the concentration of power, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already weaponized artificial
When a Reuters reporter asked Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lin Jian (林劍) about Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung’s (林佳龍) European tour, Lin Jian expressed displeasure, referring to Lin Chia-lung as “merely a local foreign affairs official in China,” and reiterating the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) oft-used claim that Taiwan is a Chinese “province.” This response is a political falsehood. Although such statements have become standard fare in the CCP’s external messaging, they expose its deepest anxieties. The CCP fears confronting international reality and is even unnerved by the prospect of Taiwan’s subjectivity on the world stage. The CCP
RSS