The President Must Understand the Importance of 12 Year Compulsory Education

The President Must Understand the Importance of 12 Year Compulsory Education
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 8, 2010

On August 28 and 29, the Republic of China government held a two-day National Conference on Education. According to reports, about 900 people participated. The participants offered 10 major recommendations, and 28 minor recommendations. The recommendations included everything but the kitchen sink, from college to kindergarten, from teacher training to educational curricula. The conclusions were made into a four hundred plus page conference report. The conference cost several million NT, lasted two days, mobilized several hundred participants, and published a incoherent grab bag of suggestions no is ever going to read. It was nothing more than an expensive show. It showed that the educational bureaucracy doesn't have the first clue where education ought to be headed. Political observer Jaw Shau-kong recently suggested that 80 percent of the cabinet ought to be replaced, members of the Culture and Education Directorate included.

Vanishing junior colleges and how junior high students should be promoted to senior high are issues of the greatest concern. Ironically, these issues of obvious importance were given short shrift. The top ten recommendations of the National Conference on Education include: contemporary citizenship, the educational system, universal participation in sports, entrance exams, higher education, cultural diversity, teacher education, the knowledge-based economy, cross-Strait and international relations, and lifelong learning. This laundry list allowed no conflicting points of view. It was all talk and no action. It offered platitudes about room for improvement, and reached no conclusions of significance. These issues are not unworthy of discussion. But they hardly required a conference attended by over 900 people.

Path-breaking issues require genuine vision and a broad perspective. They inevitably provoke disagreement over the details. The ruling administration was terrified of making any commitments to the public, because they feared controversy over minor differences. Therefore they issued ringing declarations concerning utterly non-controversial matters. This is what was so pathetic about the educational conference.

The educational conference issued 10 major resolutions, and 28 minor resolutions. If one had to pick a single issue, the one with with the greatest impact on people's lives and the most far-reaching consequences for Taiwan, it would have to be 12 year compulsory education. The National Conference on Education promised that these issues would be studied by an inter-departmental group, and that a timetable for their implementation would be announced. This is truly discouraging. Leave the long term aside for the moment. Three and a half years ago, Premier Su Tseng-chang was premier. Lin Wan-yi was Commissioner of Culture and Education. The two boldly promised to promote 12 year compulsory education. The Executive Yuan announced a timetable for the implementation of all necessary measures. Su Tseng-chang is no longer in office, and the ruling party has changed. But aren't governmental policies supposed to have continuity? The plan was passed by the Executive Yuan. Can it really be terminated at the drop of a hat? The Ma administration says it is postponing the implementation of 12 year compulsory education for two years. Doesn't it owe the public an explanation? Is something wrong with the previous plan? If so, what is it? If educational reform programs must return to square one each time the Executive Yuan undergoes reorganization, what does that say about our commitment to educational reform?

Those who truly understand education know that the most important reason to promote 12 year compulsory education is to remove the bottleneck between junior high and senior high. What junior high and primary school students are taught is general knowledge. They are given a very basic civic education. The purpose of this civic education is to instill an attitude of tolerance for diversity. A civic education is the foundation of modern citizenship. Conceptually speaking, students never should have been graded on the basic principles of civics. Fifteen year olds should never have sorted on the basis of test scores at such an early stage. Students should never have been forcibly herded into certain specialties based on their academic scores. If they are, it will merely encourage students to engage in rote memorization. The result will be rigid thinking, the proliferation of cram schools, the homogenization of education, and the the inhibition of students' social development and aesthetic sensibilities. The consequences are difficult to enumerate. But they will surely manifest themselves in children after they mature. Premature specialization undermines social harmony and is unconducive to national prosperity. In a competitive society, no one objects to specialization. But modern society has an entirely different understanding of specialization. No one favors indiscriminately forcing immature 15-year-old children into this or that specialty based on general education academic scores.

No nation with a per capita income of 20,000 USD has a system like ours. None of them engages in large-scale screening between junior high and senior high. We urge President Ma to discuss the core problems of education with educational experts, to listen to their presentations, and truly understand the key issues in secondary education. Only then will he understand the importance of 12 year compulsory education. The Ministry of Education has raised the issue of inequality between high and mid level occupations. It has raised the issue of recruiting by a small number of elite senior high schools. It has raised the issue of educational funding. But none of these anywhere as serious as 12 year compulsory education. Implementation is more important than believing. Beginning is more important than planning. Getting up and doing is preferable to sitting and talking. One cannot refuse to eat because one might choke on one's food. This cannot be an excuse to delay 12 year compulsory education.

Twelve year compulsory education should have been implemented long ago. Plans were drawn up long ago. A timetable was proposed three years ago. Now the government is refusing to proceed merely because its leader has yet to fully comprehend the importance of 12 year compulsory education. Conferences held within the system will invariably issue recommendations that its leader wants to hear. Therefore the key question is: Just what is President Ma's understanding of 12 year compulsory education?

總統應了解12年國教重要性
2010-09-08
中國時報

八月廿八、廿九日兩天，台灣召開了兩天的「全國教育會議」。據報載，約九百人參與這次盛會，而會議也做成了十大項、廿八小項建議，內容包山包海，上自大學下至幼教，前起師培後迄學制，編篡起來大概又是四、五百頁的結論書。支出數百萬經費、花了兩天時間、動員數百人參與、彙整出沒有人要讀的雜亂意見，除了淪為「大拜拜」之譏外，也凸顯出當前教育主事者對於教育問題根本欠缺方向感。日前趙少康先生說，八成閣員需要撤換，文教首長大概非屬例外。

最諷刺的是，對於明顯重要、最受各界關注的議題，諸如大專院校的退場與國中升高中的學制方式等，卻稀釋在十大項建議之中，而未受到足夠的重視。全國教育會議的十大項結論包括現代公民、教育體制、全民運動、升學制度、高等教育、多元文化、師資培育、知識經濟、兩岸國際、終身學習，其中一大串都是沒有什麼意見衝突的、口說無憑貴在執行的、永遠都有改善空間的，有沒有結論意義並不大。這些雜沓議題不是不能談，但絕對犯不著召開九百多人的會議來談。

相對而言，真正有遠見、有視野、有開創性的議題，難免都有枝節意見歧議。主政者因為小歧異而不敢對人民給予承諾，卻對沒有爭議的瑣碎方向慷慨陳述，這就是教育會議令人悲哀之處。

如果要在這次會議大小廿八項決議中挑出對人民生活影響最大、對台灣未來改變最深遠的一項，無非就是十二年國教。全國教育會議結論說，該議題要召開跨部會研商小組，將來再宣布實施期程；這真是非常令人錯愕的結論。遠的不談，三年半前在蘇貞昌做行政院長、林萬億任文教政委時，就曾經浩浩蕩蕩宣布推動十二年國教。當時，行政院也研擬宣布過相關的配套與期程。雖然蘇貞昌下台了、政黨輪替了，但不是說政府施政是延續的嗎？為什麼堂堂行政院院會通過的案子，可以說停就停呢？馬政府在把十二年國教期程宣布往後拖兩年之際，是否也該對外說明，以前的方案究竟有什麼不對，有什麼不好呢？如果每一次行政院改組，就要將教改方案重起爐灶，那麼我們究竟要改還是不要改呢？

真正了解教育的有識之士都了解；要推十二年國教的最大理由，就是要解決國中升高中虛耗式競爭的瓶頸。國中、國小學生所學習的內容，都是非常基本的通識，是基礎公民教育的內涵，其目的是要培育孩子們健康、包容、多元的理解。　公民教育是現代國民的基礎，在概念上原本就沒有「公民基本智識哪個孩子優、哪個孩子劣」的分殊必要。一旦要在這不該分殊的十五歲階段以基測或採計學校成績的方式強行分流篩選，就會促使學童們反覆記誦練習那些「基本」知識。其結果，當然就是思考的僵化、補習的盛行、智育一元的突出、群育美育的抑制。這些後遺症難以一一名狀，卻絕對會顯現在孩子們長大後的種種表現。提早分流不但傷害社會的和諧、也不利於國家的發展。在競爭的社會，沒有人反對分流；但是在現代人本的理念之下，卻沒有人贊成對未成熟的十五歲孩子依據基礎通識濫行分流。

全世界所有人均國民所得近兩萬美元的國家，沒有一國像台灣這樣，還在國中升高中階段做大規模篩選的。我們建議馬總統花些時間，與真正了解核心教育問題的專家談一談，聽一聽他們的簡報，從概念上確實掌握當前中學教育的關鍵問題，如此才能把握推動十二年國教的重要性。至於教育部所提現有高中職不平等的問題、少數明星高中招生的問題、所需教育經費的問題，相對而言都不嚴重，而且是執行重於理念、起步重於規畫、坐而言不如起而行，不能因噎廢食，做為拖延十二年國教的藉口。

總之，十二年國教台灣早就該做了，早可以規畫了，三年前就提出期程了。現在的政府不做，只因為領導者還沒有真正了解十二年國教的重要性。體制內的會議總是會得出合乎長官意旨的結論；所以問題的關鍵是；馬總統對十二年國教的理解究竟是什麼？