|
Ditch detailed rules for textbooks
By Chou Chih-hung 周志宏
The Ministry of Education has stirred up a lot of controversy with its plan to make “minor adjustments” to course outlines for senior-high school subjects related to language and society. Demonstrations have taken place and teachers of civics and history in senior-high schools signed a petition calling for such decisions to be made through legitimate procedures instead of behind closed doors — the first time they have ever done such a thing. This incident has once again brought to attention the way in which school curricula can be used as political tools.
This is not the first controversy to arise over senior-high course outlines. Every time a curriculum is revised, there is sure to be a repeat performance of disputes between people with differing political standpoints and ideologies, and such differences are especially sharp when the proposed changes encroach on the areas of historical interpretation or value judgements.
Curriculum changes are often made in the name of academic expertise when the real motives are political. There is little or no public participation, expert research or dialogue involved in the review process, so it goes without saying that disputes will arise.
Regarding the current adjustments to senior-high course outlines, setting aside the question of what necessity or justification there may be for revising them, it can at least be said that the legal authority for making such changes at this time can only be derived from Article 8, Paragraph 2 of the Senior-High School Act (高級中學法), which is soon to be abolished, and not Article 43 of the Senior-High School Education Act (高級中等教育法), since it has not yet come into force.
Once the current law has been scrapped and the latter has been fully instituted, will the public be able to reject these curricula on the grounds that they were revised on the authority of a defunct law?
It should be noted that senior-high course outlines are different from those prescribed for elementary and junior-high schools. In Taiwan, the elementary and junior-high school education is defined as “national education,” meaning that they are compulsory stages of education based on the public’s right to demand educational provision, and on the duty of the state and other levels of government to provide it.
State educational provision must comply with the principle of substantively equal access to education, so there must be a certain degree of consistency in the educational content. This might be why it is necessary to set course guidelines.
However, this can only be done to fulfill the basic requirements of state educational provision, rather than limiting the public’s freedom of study, parents’ right of choice in education, teachers’ freedom of teaching, textbook writers’ freedom of authorship and the public’s freedom to establish and direct private schools.
For all these reasons, course outlines can only be guidelines. They cannot define all aspects of course content from the general down to the smallest details. They cannot contravene the principle of political and religious impartiality enshrined in the Educational Fundamental Act (教育基本法), and without a clear legal authority, they cannot be legally enforced or binding.
The General Guidelines of Grade 1-9 Curriculum of Elementary and Junior-High School Education (國民教育九年一貫課程總綱) are generally regarded as being only administrative regulations. Some people say that they are no more than administrative guidelines, and that is also an acceptable view.
In contrast, when it comes to the senior-high school stage of education, people have the freedom of adaptive choice, meaning choice of educational content to fit students’ individual aptitudes and the educational opportunities offered by the state are meant to help people make diverse adaptive choices.
At this stage, there is no need for courses to be consistent. The only concerns are about whether course content complies with the demands associated with higher education and whether content can satisfy the needs of the job market.
Setting course outlines can only satisfy the considerations of fair access to further education, and the concerns of textbook reviews, but it sets limits on the ability of senior-high schools to develop and revise courses in their own ways. As time goes by, business and industry will undergo rapid changes, schools will enjoy more autonomy in admitting students and the proportion of students admitted through examinations will fall.
In view of these trends, senior-high course outlines should be “adjusted downward” rather than “slightly adjusted,” meaning that the amount of course content that is regulated should be gradually reduced to increase students’ freedom of study, teachers’ freedom of teaching and schools’ scope for independent course development and revision. This would effectively increase people’s ability to make adaptive choices.
The most that course guidelines need do is to regulate the basic abilities that senior-high students need to have when they graduate and the basic areas of knowledge to be covered by different subjects. Course outlines should be no more than academic guidance and they could be gradually phased out altogether.
They certainly should not be so detailed as to regulate the wording, phrasing and value judgements of school courses in an attempt to mold students’ minds in one way or another.
However, the Senior High School Education Act, which will soon take effect, appears to go in quite the opposite direction since many of its provisions, such as Articles 6, 8, 43 and 46, seek to bolster the legal status and binding nature of course outlines.
This is the real cause for worry. Once course outlines are given a stronger legal status and binding nature, disputes about curricula are sure to get even fiercer than they are now.
Chou Chih-hung is a professor at National Taipei University of Education.
Translated by Julian Clegg
source: Taipei Times
|
