Last Monday, school authorities in Taipei City, Taipei County and Keelung City announced that they would arrange joint entrance exams for senior and vocational high schools starting in 2011. The announcement implies that the region’s “one-guideline, single textbook” policy is just a step toward establishing jointly organized exams.
The Taipei-Keelung region is pushing the textbook policy and joint exams to reduce student pressure, but looking at news reports about the plans, one cannot help but worry.
The president of a prestigious senior high school for girls said the exams would have little impact on enrolment and a teachers’ representative said allowing students to move from district to district would resolve the heavy imbalance suffered by public senior and vocational high schools in different regions of Taiwan.
However, by opening only 10 percent of its seats to students from other cities and counties, the Taipei-Keelung region is purposefully blocking most students from central and southern Taiwan. These policies are meant to combat an expected rise in competition for continued studies.
This is understandable. The problem has never been the current policy. The current system with one textbook compiled by the Ministry of Education was similar to the proposed “one-guideline, single textbook” policy. Were students under less pressure then?
The scoring system of a joint entrance exam together with the standardized answers from the “one-guideline, single textbook” policy would offer a precise screening system. This kind of system, which ranks students from highest to lowest based purely on test scores, is a key component in “promotionism” — seeking advancement to higher levels of education without regard to personal interests or quality of learning.
With “promotionism” guiding education, changing from a system that allows multiple textbooks to a system that allows only one textbook will do nothing to relieve student pressure.
Since the pressure to advance is not quantifiable, it is difficult to prove that joint exams and a single textbook will fail to relieve student pressure. On the other hand, it is also difficult to prove the opposite.
Still, pinning the hope for relieving student pressure on these measures sacrifices educational diversity. A look at daily life shows that not everyone likes to eat rice, but when the educational authorities demand that all students use the same textbook, they ignore individual differences and may even destroy a child’s future.
Taipei City, Taipei County and Keelung City defend their policies by saying that a single textbook does not necessarily lead to uniformity and that the problem can by resolved by teachers using diverse teaching methods. This claim, however, intentionally overlooks how textbooks direct the curriculum in Taiwan.
If teachers could direct the curriculum, any textbook would be equally effective, which raises two questions: How would a single textbook system relieve student pressure and why should the Taipei-Keelung region push so hard for it?
Whether the region’s joint exam and textbook policy can relieve student pressure remains uncertain. But the region’s educational authorities are playing with the core of education — diversity. In this educational reform, the Taipei-Keelung region is showing a lack of fundamental thinking on ”promotionism” by recklessly pushing for jointly organized exams and a single textbook. Whether deliberately or inadvertently, they will end up increasing “promotionism.”
Hsu Yue-dian is director of the Department of Law at National Cheng Kung University, and Ling He is a doctoral student in the department.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think