Starting this academic year, the Ministry of Education has implemented the 12-year compulsory curriculum — also called the “108 curriculum” — for first-year elementary, junior-high and senior-high school students. The new curriculum has been in the pipeline for five years and has a budget of NT$45 billion (US$1.49 billion).
Unlike the previous nine-year curriculum, which focuses on mastering different subject areas, the new curriculum aims to foster students’ overall core competency, so that they can each learn based on their unique proclivity and talents, and develop a passion for life-long learning.
It is hoped that such a reform can better realize the talents of every student in a nation that has one of the lowest birthrates in the world, thus boosting its global competitiveness.
While the 108 curriculum recognizes the pitfalls associated with past educational reforms, its implementation faces serious challenges.
First and foremost is the readiness of teachers. Despite the ministry’s claim that about 80 percent of teachers have been trained in preparation for the new curriculum, it is far from certain that such training is sufficient to ensure a fundamental change in the day-to-day practices of teachers.
A recent survey conducted by the King Car Cultural and Educational Foundation found that only 10 percent of the teachers surveyed think they are ready to carry out their new mission. Part of this is perhaps due to the vagueness surrounding the concept of core competency.
Core competency involves a person’s knowledge, ability and attitude. It is not as easy to measure as quantifiable outcomes, such as standardized test scores.
Naturally, teachers might stick to doing what they are familiar with. As a consequence, any changes in pedagogical practices are likely to be incremental, rather than transformative.
Being a parent of a first-year junior-high school student, I have witnessed firsthand the amount of homework they need to complete to cope with the demands of the school the next day. The heavy study load and intense pace of learning is vastly different from the vision set out by the ministry.
Another big challenge is overcoming the deep-rooted, often unquestioned, practice of exam-based learning and teaching. At a recent parent-teacher meeting, the main concern for parents and school administrators with regard to the new curriculum was not about how students could learn better, but how the new curriculum would affect their chance of getting into a good senior-high school.
Despite the ministry’s goal of gradually reducing the importance of exams, most people still consider doing well on the standardized tests as the best guarantee of getting into a good high school and a reputable university.
With this fixation on the outcome of competitive national exams, how can teachers, students and parents be expected to devote time to the seemingly “useless” pursuit of proclivity and passion?
The imposition of testing as a common pedagogical practice instills passivity among students (Why study when there are no exams to study for?) and encourages selective learning (Is the material going to be in the test?).
Thinking in the language of numbers, or test scores and rankings, dangerously narrows the purpose of education and is detrimental to the exploration of a student’s interests and the cultivation of their competency.
Steve Jobs, the cofounder of Apple Inc, dropped out of college after six months and never graduated.
He often credited it as one of the best decisions he ever made, as it allowed him to “drop in” on courses that really interested him.
Giving advice to college graduates in a commencement speech in 1995, Jobs said: “You’ve got to find what you love, and that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do.”
If we are genuinely serious about educational reform, we need to shake off the shackles of the exam-based system that has been so deeply ingrained, not only in our schools, but also in our minds. Business as usual in the classroom might give us a sense of security, but such security actually involves a greater risk is today’s increasingly uncertain world.
Cheng Shiuh-tarng is an English teacher in Kaohsiung.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
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 last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS