Is the Executive Yuan Serious about its Pledge to Implement 12 Years of National Education?

Is the Executive Yuan Serious about its Pledge to Implement 12 Years of National Education?
Translation of a United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
February 28, 2007

"The lengthening of compulsory education to 12 years will be implemented within three years." Is this the key to Premier Su Chen-Chang's newest report on administration policy? Hardly. This is the policy Premier Li Huan announced many years ago. The year was 1989.

The government has been declaring that it would implement Twelve Years of Compulsory Education for nearly two decades. In early 2000, then Kuomintang presidential candidate Lien Chan made a similar policy announcement, declaring that "The time is ripe." And so it is with Su Chen-chang, who also claims that his proposal was not motivated by election concerns.

When we review the decision-making process, we do so not to poor mouth a major policy proposal put forth by Premier Su. Investing in education is never a wrong choice, and is a policy all citizens should welcome.

Twelve Years of National Education is easy to talk about, but hard to implement. It is easy to pander to voters by making empty promises, but after nearly 20 years of talk nobody has actually been able to do it. Clearly there are difficulties in implementation and differences in opinion that are not easily resolved.

When Premier Hao Pei-tsun succeeded Lee Huan, he resorted to more moderate methods, experimenting with a policy of exempting students from the need to pass senior high entrance exams. But where is his "Junior High Graduate Optional Schooling Plan" today? Touted as the basic post-junior high scholastic aptitude test, following the abolition of the Standardized Entrance Exam, hasn't it also forced ninth graders to study long hours cramming to make it into senior high school?

Obviously, when it comes to qualifying for senior high school, the slogan "Twelve years of National Education" is easy to shout, but the competitive pressures are not so easy to eliminate.

If the Su cabinet's policy of Twelve Years of National Education is for real, it must have the answer to a key question. According to news reports, former Minister of Education Huang Jung-tsun believes that funding is the major problem. Lin Wan-yi, the political affairs committee member responsible for project planning says the Executive Yuan has already earmarked the funds as subsidies for socially-disadvantaged students attending private schools. Frankly, given a policy of "The Poor must not be Poorly Educated," the biggest problem is not funding. The opposition parties in the legislature will not give the ruling government a hard time on this budget item. The problem is the Executive Yuan, which has listed the "Economically-disadvantaged, Privately-established Senior high School Student School Expense Subsidy" as its highest priority for the year. Obviously it doesn't think much of the Twelve Years of National Education policy. Is the difference in tuition really the issue that most worries senior high students attending private schools? Or is it disparities in school quality leading to disparities in the ability to compete for university admissions? If we fail to confront this central issue, then the issue of Twelve Years of National Education will remain rife with controversy and strewn with land mines.

On the face of it, the Twelve Years of National Education policy will allow everyone at the senior high level the opportunity to attend school. In reality the question is far more complex. Beginning in 1980s, the rate at which junior high graduates attended senior high school exceeded 100%. By the 1990s the recruiting quotas for senior high school and vocational school far exceeded their enrolled population. Private school vacancies reached as high as 10,000 per year. Obviously the problem was not too few schools, but that junior high graduates continued fighting each other tooth and nail qualifying for a tiny number of elite schools. Objective reality and parental perception remained unchanged. As long as the academic quality of senior high schools remained wildly uneven, students could not simply attend senior high schools in their local community and assume they would remain eligible for the university of their choice. The brutal reality was that students would find themselves handicapped during college admissions because economic disadvantages, regional disadvantages, and educational resource disadvantages forced them to attended less than ideal community schools. How can this be considered fair?

Educational Reform has been around for many years now. The trend has been toward "community high schools." This direction is correct. But the quality of community high schools has remained uneven, and the quantity of community high schools has remained inadequate. For this reason most parents push their children to get into elite schools, creating enormous pressure upon junior high students. Premier Su's proposal for Twelve Years of National Education includes a "Senior High Quality Improvement Plan." But if he wishes to implement such an ambitious plan in every school district across the land, can he really complete the process before 2009? Since the government has boldly promised to transform all senior high schools into providers of a "Basic Education for all Citizens," it must guarantee that such a "Basic Education" will provide all citizens with the same educational resources and the same quality schools. If it cannot fulfill its promise, if it allows students enrolled in "good school districts" to enjoy an unfair advantage and forces students enrolled in less than ideal community schools to flee to schools outside their district, then isn't Premier Su's "Basic Education for all Citizens" nothing but empty talk?

Whether the basic scholastic aptitude test will be held in 2009 remains in question. The Executive Yuan and the Ministry of Education have issued contradictory statements. Nor have the "Nationwide Regional Administrative Public Hearings to solicit Public Opinion" been held.

Is the Twelve Years of National Education plan scheduled for the year after next ready for implementation? Are the conditions ripe? The answer ought to be clear. Junior high students and their parents are going out of their minds with worry, and not without reason. They had better be prepared to "look after number one."

Original Chinese below:

行政院能否嚴肅看待後年實施十二年國教的承諾？
聯合報社論
2007-02-28

「延長十二年國民教育將在三年內實施」。這是行政院長蘇貞昌最新的施政報告重點嗎？非也，這是多年前的行政院長李煥所作的政策宣布，時間是民國七十八年。

政府宣示實施十二年國教，已近二十年之久。公元兩千年年初，當時具國民黨總統參選人身分的連戰，也作過同樣的政策宣布，並稱「實施時機成熟」；和今天的蘇貞昌一樣，也強調並非為了選舉考量才提出。

我們檢視這段決策過程，並不是為了唱衰蘇揆此一重大政策。事實上，投資教育自不會是錯誤的選擇，也是所有國民理應歡迎的政策。但十二年國教確係「知易行難」，容易討好選民，談了近二十年卻還做不到，可見其中必有執行上的困難，社會分歧意見尤其不易解決。當年繼李煥之後的行政院長郝柏村任內，以較為緩和改良的方式，實驗免試升學的「國中畢業生自願就學方案」，如今安在？號稱「取消聯考」之後的國中基本學力測驗，不是同樣造成國三學生「帶兩個便當上學」的苦讀局面？可見，在高中就學的問題上，「十二年國教」的口號容易喊，真正的競爭壓力卻不易消除。

蘇內閣這次對十二年國教政策如果要玩真的，首先須對問題關鍵有一番務實的認識。據報載，前教育部長黃榮村認為經費是最大的問題。負責規畫此案的政務委員林萬億則強調政院已編列經費，作為補助弱勢學生就讀私校的學費差額。老實說，在「窮不能窮教育」的前提下，經費問題反而並非真正的難題，在野黨在立院想必也不致太過刁難這筆預算。不過，政院把「經濟弱勢私立高中職學生學費補助」列為今年先行的目標，顯然有點小看了問題。就讀私立高中職學生最擔心的，難道是學費差額問題嗎？還是學校素質不一所造成的考大學競爭力差距問題呢？此一核心議題不去面對處理的話，十二年國教計畫仍將充滿爭議，且步步荊棘。

十二年國教政策，從形式上看，就是讓高中階段可使「人人有書讀」。但現實問題卻複雜許多倍。從民國七十年代中期開始，國中畢業生的「就學機會率」已超過百分之百；到九十學年左右，高中職及五專的核定招生名額都遠遠超過錄取人數，私校的學生缺額一年高達十萬之多。可見問題的關鍵絕非學校不足，而是每年眾多的國三學生仍在頭破血流地競爭少數明星學校。只要客觀現實和家長主觀認定上還存在著「高中好壞素質差距很大」的現象，學生就不容易安心地在社區高中就讀。更殘酷一點地說，處於經濟弱勢、地域弱勢、教育資源弱勢的學生，如果框限於不夠理想的社區高中就讀，因此削弱了升大學的競爭力，如何能稱公平？

教改實施多年以來，漸往「高中社區化」的目標推進，其實是正確的方向；但社區高中在質和量方面至今水準參差不齊，也因此仍見多數家長促使子女往明星學校「力爭上游」，致造成國中生的嚴酷升學壓力。這次蘇院長的十二年國教方案中也提出「高中優質化」的計畫，但這樣龐大的計畫，若要在全國各學區全面而普遍地落實，難道真是政院保證的二○○九年之前即可能完成？政府既然發下豪語要把全國的高中都變成「國民基本教育」，就要保證這樣的「基本教育」具有讓全國學子享受同樣教育資源、同等學校素質的權利；若不能做到此一要求，致使落戶在所謂「好學區」的學生享有優勢，而社區高中不夠理想的孩子不得不奮力申請跨區入學，則「國民基本高中教育」豈非空談？

至於國中基測在二○○九年到底考不考？政院和教育部至今說法不一，還有「全國分區辦理公聽會，廣納民意」等動作亦尚未開始。那麼，後年全面實施十二年國教的計畫到底是否已準備妥當、時機成熟，答案十分明顯；目前急得抓狂的國一學生和家長，應該要有些「自立自強」的心理準備了！

Introduction

Welcome to Dateline Taipei [http://datelinetaipei.blogspot.com/]

Dateline Taipei features editorial and opinion pieces from the Taipei based United Daily News and China Times, translated into English by Bevin Chu, author of The China Desk.

Dateline Taipei will critique some of these Pan Blue media editorial and opinion pieces. Dateline Taipei's criticisms may not always be kind to the authors, because even the Pan Blue media has begun to buckle under relentless pressure from the ruling DPP's "soft dictatorship."

Externally, this pressure manifests itself in the form of intimidation by the ruling DPP's "Anaconda in the Chandelier."

Internally, this pressure manifests itself in the form of gradual indoctrination by Taiwan independence Political Correctness.

The Pan Blue media's surrender, fortunately, is not complete, at least not yet.

Some Pan Blue media editorial and opinion pieces may reflect continued allegiance to the cosmopolitan Pan Blue values of political liberty and free trade. Those pieces will receive The China Desk's enthusiastic affirmation.

Other pieces may reflect pusillanimous surrender to the self-hating racism of the Pan Green camp's "Taiwanese, not Chinese" identity politics and nation building. Those pieces will receive Dateline Taipei's unflinching opprobrium.

A note on translation policy.

Sometimes the nominally "Pro Reunification Media" will carelessly, or worse, intentionally use terms such as "Taiwan" and "Taiwanese" as if they were interchangeable with "Republic of China" and "the Chinese people on Taiwan," or "citizens of the Republic of China."

Such mistakes, intentional or otherwise, will be translated in a manner consistent with the Original Intent of the Constitution of the Republic of China. Where the original text reads "Taiwanese," I will substitute "the Chinese people on Taiwan" or "citizens of the Republic of China." Where the original text reads "Taiwan" I will substitute "Republic of China."

This is not an attempt to deceive. This is an attempt to nip creeping "wen hua tai du" or "cultural Taiwan independence" in the bud. This is an attempt to demand strict adherence to Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law.

The original Chinese article will be displayed below the English translation. This will allow bilingual readers to compare and contrast the original text and my translation.