【國外編輯部專欄】印度技職教育的瓶頸與挑戰

 

作者/Santosh Mehrotra

編譯/李育嘉

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

印度技職教育的瓶頸與挑戰

印度的技職教育須盡快擴張,以因應五六百萬青年勞動力和多變的經濟。然而有53%的印度勞動力若不是文盲,就是只接受過基礎教育。除此之外,只有近10%的人擁有職業相關技能。如果排除掉農業勞動力的話則上升到20%,僅計算工業勞動力的話甚至來到44%。這個百分比的增長看似漂亮,但跟狀況相近的國家對比下來卻相形見拙,還須再加強。

印度的職訓可分成四類,第一類為侷限於職前教育的產業培訓機構,過去7年內增長至12000所,其中有2000所為公立,其餘為私立,大部分的私立機構尚未受到官方承認。第二類是自2010年起由國家技能發展局(National Skill Development Corporation, NSDC)(註1)輔導且大量成長的職訓中心。雖然由政府贊助,這些中心還是以營利性組織為雛型。第三,高中11和12年級設有技職相關課程,但僅有5%的適齡學生會申請。自2012年起,印度政府已經頒布新的教育綱要,國中9和10年級也將引進技術課程。最後一類是公司內部的在職訓練,但僅有16%的大公司會提供,中國的企業則有85%。

印度勞動力中大多數人都是靠自己摸索學習技能,擴展職訓課程和建立承認原有技能並結合學習的系統屬當務之急。我帶領政府團隊所制訂的國家技能認證綱要(The National Skills Qualification Framework)便是職訓課程發展的依歸。

相較他國,印度勞工的生產力相對低。如果印度想成為全球生產大國之一,勢必得提高生產力。政府、業界、私立職訓中心三方應相互配合,創造出一個重視生產和技術的環境。

要增加人口紅利(註2),就要先了解印度現在面臨的技術斷層。過去十年經濟起飛,非農業的職缺和勞動力等比成長,但勞動力素質才是重點。如果技術密集的產業找不到能勝任的勞動力,製造商會逐漸轉向資本密集,如此一來,印度經濟成長的模式便會受限於印度本身的優勢,也就是勞動力的增長。

印度的學徒制度僅有大公司提供,意謂著全國四億八千五百萬的勞工裡,只有不到三十萬名的正式學徒,其餘皆為非正式學徒,常常被上司剝削。

業界唯有投入更多的資源和心力在職業教育和訓練,才能改善現有的不足。不論企業規模大小,應設法提供完善的內部訓練和改善人資政策,將雇用專業人員列為重點項目,並建立獎勵制度。除此之外,推薦合適人選任職於職校和教育機構,提高具實務經驗的老師的比例。


註1:NSDC是一家公私合營企業(政府持股49%、私人持股51%),執行全國性教育訓練計畫,目標是在未來10年內培育5億名具備技能素質的人力投入21項產業。該21項產業分別為汽車及零組件業、電子業、紡織業、皮革業、生化業、珠寶業、營建業、食品加工業、手工業、建材業、IT軟體業、外包業、觀光旅遊業、物流業、零售業、房地產業、媒體業、醫療美容業、金融業、教育業及其他等。來源:全球台商網

註2:所謂「人口紅利」,是指一個國家的勞動年齡人口佔總人口比重較大,撫養率比較低,為經濟發展創造了有利的人口條件,整個國家的經濟呈高儲蓄、高投資和高增長的局面。一國人口生育率的迅速下降在造成人口老齡化加速的同時,少兒撫養比亦迅速下降,勞動年齡人口比例上升,在老年人口比例達到較高水平之前,將形成一個勞動力資源相對豐富、撫養負擔輕、於經濟發展十分有利的「黃金時期」,人口經濟學家稱之為「人口紅利」。 來源:台灣維基


[作者介紹:Santosh Mehrotra ]

新德里Jawaharlal Nehru大學經濟系教授。著有India’s Skills Challenge: Reforming Vocational Education and Training to Harness the Demographic Dividend

 

參考資料

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

India’s Skills Challenge: Reforming Vocational Education and Training to Harness the Demographic Dividend

The Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) system in India   needs to expand very rapidly if it is to serve the interests of the 5-6  million youth joining the labour force every year, and of an economy that is both growing rapidly as well diversifying fast.

However, the majority of India’s workforce either has less than primary education or is illiterate (53%). Moreover, less than 10% of the workforce has acquired vocational skills, although that proportion is higher if we take only the non-agricultural workforce into account (20%), and even higher if we take only the industrial workforce into account (44%). While the increase in percentage seems good it is far below comparable countries and needs to increase.

India’s skill development system has four parts. First, a very narrowly based pre-employment training system of Industrial Training Institutes (grown to about 12,000 in the last 7 years, of which 2,000 are public, the rest private). Second, there are a rapidly growing number of formal vocational training providers  that are being incubated by the National Skill Development Corporation after 2010, based on a for-profit business model, though somewhat subsidised by government. Third, vocational education is offered in senior secondary schools in classes 11-12 (which barely enrol 5% of the relevant age cohort); since 2012 government secondary schools have also begun to offer vocational education in classes 9-10, thanks to the introduction of the National Skills Qualification Framework. Finally, there is the in-firm training provided on recruitment by companies (but only 16% of Indian companies provides such training, and that too only large ones, in contrast to 85% of firms in China).

India must therefore expand TVET to cater to the majority already in the labour force who have informally acquired skills, so that recognition of prior skills and learning becomes systemic. The National Skills Qualification Framework (the base document for which was drafted by a task force of the government led by the author) makes provisions for this monumental task.

The productivity of India’s workforce is lower than many comparator countries. If India is to become a major manufacturing power, productivity in the economy needs to improve significantly. We have to create an ecosystem that promotes and rewards skills and productivity;  Government, industry and private vocational training providers need to work together to realize this objective.

To realize India’s demographic dividend we need to meet India’s skills challenge. Since economic growth took off over the last decade, non-agricultural jobs have been expanding at a rate roughly comparable to the rate at which the labour force is growing. However, it is the quality of jobs that are a matter of concern. If skilled workers don’t become available to industry at a rate comparable to the growth of demand for skills, manufacturers will increasingly resort to more capital-intensive technologies, which will lock India into a pattern of growth that is synch with its comparative advantage – relative abundant labour power.

Only large firms offer apprenticeships, and in a country with a workforce of 485 million, there are under 300,000 formal apprentices. The rest are all informal apprentices, who tend to be exploited by their employers. Changes are certainly needed in the Apprenticeship Act 1961.

While some progress towards reforming TVET in India has been made, a huge and broad ranging agenda for reform lies before the government and industry.

Industry needs to get involved to a much greater extent than ever before in TVET. Both large industries, many of which are engaged in in-house training, as well as small and medium enterprises, will need to find ways to increase in-firm training. Industry must make hiring formally trained skilled personnel an integral part of its human resource policy and include processes and practice to reward skills. Industry will also need to offer its human resources to vocational secondary schools, industrial training institutes and private vocational training providers, so that the number of instructors with practical experience increases by a very large number.

[ Author: Santosh Mehrotra ]

He is Professor of Economics, Centre for Labour and Informal Sector Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. Previously, he was Director-General at the National Institute of Labour Economics Research and Development (NILERD, earlier called Institute of Applied Manpower Research), Planning Commission of India.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:flickr@GlobalPartnership for Education

原文刊登於《NORRAG NEWSBite》,經作者Santosh Mehrotra授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

芬蘭教育的成功並非奇蹟

 

作者/Pasi Sahlberg

編譯/李明洋

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

芬蘭教育的成功並非奇蹟

芬蘭自從2000年的PISA開始,以及其後歷屆PISA的優異表現,不僅讓芬蘭人對自身的教育成就改觀,也讓全世界對芬蘭的教育成就改觀。

無論是國內或國外的教育工作者莫不想瞭解,到底芬蘭教育和其他國家有何不同。結果卻是令人感到相當驚訝,因為芬蘭既沒有針對自己的教改政策進行研究,也沒有透過研究所產出的觀點來主導教育政策的執行。相反的,芬蘭的研究者乃是參照理論及借鏡他國的經驗(來進行教改)。即使如此,或是正因如此,芬蘭的教育體系乃經歷了轉型,並從中獲取了3個重要的啟示:

首先,芬蘭教育體系的成功是參酌自他國教育體系的經驗。芬蘭現代化的公共教育係1860年代,由德國和瑞典的教育體系所演化來的。學校教育的架構、課程、職業訓練乃至於就業的整套構想和模式,都深受這兩個國家的理論和實務影響。

雖然在芬蘭的教育體系中,諸如高中階段的模組化課程、以表現為本位的職業認證,以及依學生需求外加10年級課程等設計,皆為芬蘭自己的發明,然而,現今芬蘭在教學方法、學生評量,以及學校領導等方面,絕大多數都是來自於國外。

自從1980年代開始,美國的教育思潮也對芬蘭教育產生重大影響。事實上,我也是將美國教育中諸如合作學習等偉大的創新引進芬蘭的人士之一。芬蘭當局也頗常參考”經濟合作與發展組織(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD)”、歐洲委員會(European Commission)和聯合國教科文組織(United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, UNISCO)的構想。簡而言之,芬蘭人一直都向世界各國的教育學習。

其次,芬蘭的教育政策均是在中央教育當局、地方教育主管機關,以及代表教師的芬蘭教師工會(Finland’s Trade Union of Education)三方面的密切合作下所訂定與付諸施行。早從1990年代初,這三方面歷經了4年的協商與規劃,將芬蘭的諸多教育政策予以落實。而在規劃與討論期間,商業領袖、非政府組織、研究者和家長也都參與其中。於是,在凝聚各方的共識之下,芬蘭的決策者乃遵照著各方的期盼與願景,讓改革朝向永續發展的方向前進。正因如此,雖然芬蘭從1970年代迄今,已換過了20幾位教育部長,但教育政策的主要原則卻變化不大。

最後,芬蘭的教育政策中,最為關鍵的就是要提供公平和積極的學習機會給每一位孩童,使其享有安全且幸福的福祉。每一所芬蘭的學校都提供孩童足夠的營養,使其健康、安全且快樂地成長。芬蘭教育當局無視於國際慣例,例如他們不贊同透過考試及排名來提升教育品質,而是著重於教師培訓和師資穩定;他們看重和教師及工會代表之間的相互合作;他們重視及早和持續介入學習障礙學生的學習;他們強調全方位的教育課程;他們也公平地分配經費給全國各地的學校。

有許多人認為,不可能在要求學生(學習成效)卓越的同時,又能落實公平的教育。就芬蘭的經驗,如同加拿大和日本,只要(主政者)睿智地規劃,以及持續致力於教育專業人才的培育,要讓教育臻於卓越將是可能的。就像過去,很多人不相信,甚至連芬蘭人也不相信芬蘭擁有成功的教育體系,但是PISA的結果終讓這些質疑的人閉上了嘴。

雖然芬蘭在教改過程中,有許多措施是刻意為之的,但其中也有著運氣的成分。蘇聯在1990年代早期垮台後,造成了嚴重的經濟蕭條,但這樣的結果卻促使芬蘭人重新反省過往的教育思維,於是開始廣設學校,給予教師專業自主權、落實個別化的課程,以及在中學階段規劃具彈性的學習管道。

芬蘭堅持走自己的路,著重的是公平、專業及合作,拒絕標準化測驗及學校和教師的績效責任制。當初,芬蘭的教學與課程乃借鏡於美國、加拿大、德國、英國、瑞典及其他國家,如今,芬蘭則成為其他國家制定教育政策時,汲取經驗的對象。

 

【作者介紹:Pasi Sahlberg】

Pasi Sahlberg為芬蘭籍教育學者,擔任芬蘭國際行動與合作中心(Finland’s Centre for International Mobility and Cooperation)主任,並兼任Helsinki及Oulu大學教授。此外,亦是國際著名教改學者,曾任職於世界銀行(World Bank),並被許多國家聘請為教育改革顧問。著有暢銷書”Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland“及該書續集”Finnish Lessons 2.0: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland?”

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

FINLAND’S EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS IS NO MIRACLE

Finland’s stellar results for the first cycle of pisa in 2000 and for each subsequent cycles of the triennial international test have dramatically altered domestic, as well as international opinion. Educators at home and abroad have been forced to assess what Finland does differently. What may come as a surprise is that Finland has neither engaged in researching its own, unique reform measures, nor generated change-knowledge to steer education policy implementation. Instead, Finnish researchers have relied on the theories and insights of their international peers. In spite of this, or perhaps because of it, we experienced a transformation of our education system, from which three important lessons have emerged.

First, part of Finland’s success has stemmed from studying other education systems. Since the birth of public education in the 1860s educational ideas and models from Germany and Sweden shaped Finnish education system and policies. The very structure of schools, curricula, and vocational learning-for-work programs were influenced by theories and practices in these and other countries. Although there are some Finnish inventions in the current education system—such as modular rather than annual curricula for upper-secondary students, performance-based vocational qualifications, and a supplementary year of school between lower and upper secondary school for those in need—most innovation in current pedagogy, student assessment, and school leadership originates beyond our borders.

Education ideas from the United States have played an especially significant role since the 1980s. In fact, I am one of the domestic messengers who imported great American educational innovation, including cooperative learning, to Finland. Finnish authorities have likewise made significant use of ideas from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or oecd; the European Commission; and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, or unesco. In short, the Finns have been open to learning from other education systems.

Second, formulation and implementation of education policies have been built upon close cooperation with education authorities, municipalities that govern the schools, and—through Finland’s Trade Union of Education—teachers. Since the early 1990s, education development strategies have been implemented through four-year development plans that are a result of a consultation process with these parties. The voices of other stakeholders—business leaders, non-governmental associations, researchers, and parents—are always included in these development plans. This consensus-based policymaking process has guaranteed sustainability of reforms and maintained the focus on a singular, shared vision of ongoing reforms. There have been over 20 different ministers of education and government coalitions since the 1970s in Finland, but the main principles of education policy have changed little.

Finally, the key driver of education development policy in Finland has been providing equal and positive learning opportunities and secure well-being for all children. Nutrition, health, safety and overall happiness belong all Finnish schools. Finnish authorities, in this regard, have defied international convention. They have not endorsed student testing and school ranking as the path to improvement, but rather focused on teacher preparation and retention; collaboration with teachers and their union representatives; early and regular intervention for children with learning disabilities; well-rounded curricula; and equitable funding of schools throughout the country. Many have argued that it is not possible to achieve excellence in student learning and equity in education simultaneously. The experience in Finland—as well as of that in Canada and Japan—shows that with smart and sustainable efforts and professionally committed personnel in schools that excellence is possible. Even to many Finns success once seemed unlikely, but the pisa results have silenced those in doubt.

While most elements of Finnish education reforms have been deliberate, there has also been a measure of good luck. The deep economic and financial crisis after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s created an opportunity for Finland to question its conventional thinking about education. This opened the doors to a rapid increase of school and teacher autonomy, customized curricula, and flexible learning pathways in secondary education.

By rejecting standardized testing and concomitant school and teacher accountability measures, Finland has instead charted its own path by focusing on equity, professionalism, and collaboration. Much as Finland has learned from the United States, Canada, Germany, England, Sweden, and other nations about pedagogy and curricula, Finland may now be looked to for lessons about educational policy.

 

【Author :Pasi Sahlberg】

Pasi Sahlberg is a Finnish educator and scholar. He worked as a teacher, teacher educator, and policy adviser in Finland and was actively engaged in planning and implementing education reforms in Finland in the 1990s.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

更多關於芬蘭教育

【國外編輯部專欄】主題式跨界學習 芬蘭教育再進化

先求平等再講卓越的芬蘭教育

美國人何以一再忽視芬蘭教育的成功?(上)

美國人何以一再忽視芬蘭教育的成功?(下)

 

圖片來源:The Atlantic

原文刊登於《pasisahlberg.com》,經作者Pasi Sahlberg授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】職涯研究與建議,趁早開始或不要開始

 

作者/Natal’ya Galliott

編譯/陳孟嫻

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

職涯研究與建議,趁早開始或不要開始

Most career advice starts late in high school. This is too late for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds.(from www.shutterstock.com.au)

最近一期澳洲失業率調查顯示15至19歲年輕人的失業率為20.1%,該數值為澳洲全國失業率6.3%的三倍,然而在全球金融危機首年,這個年齡階段的失業率僅10.7%,約為現在的一半。

此現象代表著平均在五位積極求職的年輕人中,有一名無法找到工作。然而隨著找工作的時間越長,也意味著求職者越難進入職場。

雖說有些年輕人有父母的經濟援助,但統計數據顯示:弱勢青年相對而言比較難在離開學校後找到好工作或對社會做出經濟貢獻。

那些在升學、找實習或求職上遭遇困難的年輕人,一般在學術表現上也較不如人。他們在同年齡的勞動市場中是比較吃虧的一群,主因是現今的勞動市場對「低技術勞工」的需求早已大幅下降了。

政府正在研究如何讓學生們去思考自己想以甚麼工作維生,還有為什麼會想以這份工作維生。而在離校前已深思熟慮過他們職涯選擇的學生被認定在未來升學或職場上都有較高的成就。

 

為什麼有些學生無法確定自己的志向?

經研究調查新南威爾士州的700名高中生,發現不確定職涯規劃的學生們擁有相似的人格特質。

其中一個因素是過去的學業成就。舉例而言:有學術性入學測驗的的學校的學生普遍對於未來職涯有更明確的想法,而入學測驗成績在前三分之一的學生更優於其他學生。在後三分之一的學生則是較不清楚自己的職涯規劃。

其他因素還包括地區別和職缺種類。在都會區學生清楚未來職涯的比例較高,然而在都會區以外以及偏遠地區的學校發現學生對未來較沒有想法。

令人驚訝的是,在912年級中對於職涯不確定的學生們被指出從未參與職涯教育課程。這已經違背了澳洲課程評估與報告機構(Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority )的建議了!

這些不確定的學生也指出他們從未參與過任何學校規劃的職涯體驗活動。職涯體驗活動對於學生了解自身的職涯喜好是很有幫助的。

這些學生進一步指出,他們其實並不喜歡學校,學校沒有足夠的選修科目可以選擇。很多例子都是學生選擇了其他人建議的選修課程,而非自己真正有興趣的科目。

 

需要細心灌溉才能使種子發芽茁壯

為了幫助弱勢青年增進未來職涯發展,澳洲政府開始強迫學生留在學校並鼓勵他們朝大學發展。

然而更有效的方法是,能讓這些孩子對於他們未來的職涯感到興趣,還有讓學校的課程和現實工作更相關。

紐卡斯爾大學(University of Newcastle) 的研究員指出,年輕的學生比年長的學生擁有更遠大的抱負。他們認為應該在小學就該趁早給予學生引導,而非任其一路掙扎到高中。

如果能讓學校科目跟職場工作有更多關連性,學校教育會更有意義。教育體制應該確保學生在選擇選修課程前得到足夠的職涯教育,讓學生在正式做選擇前有更多的嘗試。然而目前很少教育機構做得到這點。

除了趁早提供職涯輔導,選修課程的選擇也應該忠實反映學生的需求及興趣。但礙於目前教育體制的諸多問題,在實行面是有困難的。

學術導向的學生滿意傳統學術科目如英文、歷史、科學、物理,資源弱勢的鄉下學校反而該提供更多樣化的選擇提升學生的學習意願。

如果學生無法找到任何有興趣的科目卻被強迫一直待在學校,這會是件危險的事情。對於這些學生,上學是索然無味的,他們因為無法享受任何科目帶來的樂趣而無從表現自我,非常有可能因此產生低自尊心、低學習成就,以及低職涯期望。

 

[ 作者介紹] Natal’ya Galliott

澳洲麥覺理大學教育博士候選人,現為中央昆士蘭大學法商學院講師。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Career studies and advice: start early or don’t start at all

Most career advice starts late in high school. This is too late for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds.(from www.shutterstock.com.au)

The unemployment rate for 15 to 19-year-olds is currently 20.1%in Australia. This is over three times the national rate of 6.3% and almost double the unemployment rate of this age group during the first year of the Global Financial Crisis, 10.7%.

This means that one in five young people is actively looking for a job. The longer they are unemployed, the harder it is to join the workforce.

Those who can turn to their mums and dads for financial support, do. However, statistics show that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds have the most difficulty in gaining meaningful work and contributing to our economy after leaving school.

Young people who experience difficulties making the transition to further education, training or work also tend to be less academically inclined. This makes it difficult for them to compete in contemporary job markets, as the demand for low-skilled labour is much lower than it was in the past.

Governments have been considering how to get students to think about what they want to do for a living and why. Students who think critically about their career choices well before they leave school are thought to benefit from improved further education and employment outcomes and make better choices than those who don’t.

Why some students are career uncertain

This is confirmed by a survey of over 700 high school students in NSW. Importantly, it found that students who were uncertain as to what they’d like to do in their future career share some important characteristics.

Prior academic achievement was a factor. For example, students attending academically selective schools were more certain about their future career path than students in non-selective schools, as were students who rated their academic ability in the top third of their grade. Students who ranked themselves as being in the bottom third of their grade were more likely to be uncertain about their career.

Location and job availability also appeared to have an effect. Higher proportions of students located in urban schools were certain of their future career, whereas students from outer-metropolitan and rural schools were much less certain.

Somewhat unexpectedly, those uncertain about their careers across all year groupings (from Years 9 to 12) reported never having access to a career education session. This is despite the recommended provision of career education to high school students in Years 9-10 by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA).

These uncertain students also reported that they did not participate in school-organised work experience programs. These might have helped them determine their career preferences.

They also reported they didn’t enjoy school and there were not enough elective subject choices. In many cases, they made their subject selections on others’ recommendations and not because they were interested in them.

Good seed makes a good crop if looked after

In order to help disadvantaged youth improve their career prospects, Australian government initiatives attempt to force students to stay at school and explore the option of attending university.

However, something more effective is needed if we’re to get these kids interested in their careers and how their school studies relate to real work.

Researchers from the University of Newcastle note that younger students tend to have higher aspirations than older students. They recommend intervention as early as primary school, rather than waiting for students to flounder through high school.

Educating students, parents and teachers about the link between school subjects and possible career pathways can make school more meaningful. The education system should move towards ensuring that students are provided with career education sessions before they make their elective subject choices, enabling them to make informed decisions. At the moment, this rarely happens.

In addition to earlier provision of career advice, the choices of elective subjects should reflect students’ needs and interests. This is problematic because of existing problems in the education system.

While many academically inclined students are satisfied with traditional academic subjects such as English, history, science and physics, schools in disadvantaged communities must appeal to a much broader range of tastes, despite limited resources.

If students can’t identify any interesting subjects and are forced to remain at school, they are set on a dangerous path. School suddenly becomes less enjoyable, they underperform in subjects from which they derive no enjoyment and, as a result, they are likely to have low self-esteem, poor educational outcomes and poor job prospects.

 

[ Author ] Natal’ya Galliott

PhD Candidate in Education at Macquarie University

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:《The Conversation

原文經合作媒體:《The Conversation》授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

備受爭議的德國教育體系

 

作者/V.A.K.

編譯/李明洋

對每一個積極又先進的國家主事者來說,公平地讓每位國民接受高品質教育是責無旁貸的任務,而透過教育的薰陶,即能確保國家社會的融合。無論是否具備公民資格,都享有不容剝奪的受教權。然而,當外界針對德國教育體系的公信力與透明度提出批判時,德國當局卻是視而不見,充耳不聞。

就在不久前,我閱讀了許多德國報紙的社論,其中有不少文章公開批評現今的德國學校體系充斥著歧視與不公,受害者不只是移民家庭的子女,也包括那些家境較貧困的孩子。其次,當我在語言研究所進修學位的時候,授課的教授也告訴我們,德國的教育體系中有很多愚蠢的地方。

有人說,每件事情都有正反兩面。我也如此認為,德國的學校體系一定也有著不為人知的一面。所以,我們不妨就從最根本的地方開始說起吧!

究竟德國的學校體系和其他國家有什麼不同之處呢?當然,每個國家的教育都會有自己的一套和風格,所以各地的教育政策不盡相同,即使如此,我認為教育的目標仍舊是相同的,亦即要讓每位學生接受均質的教育。德國學校體系和其他國家最大的差異就在於德國各個州的教育體系均不相同,換句話說,德國共有16個州,所以共有16個不同的教育體系同時在德國境內運作。這樣的情形可以說是極其特殊的多樣性呢?還是模糊不清的一團亂呢?這個問題確實很難回答。

此外,德國和世界上許多國家的學校體系還有一個非常不一樣的地方,那就是德國從基礎教育階段開始就劃分為極其複雜的3個層級,第一個層級稱之為主幹學校(Hauptschule),從5年級讀到10年級;第二個層級稱之為實科學校(Realschule),也是從5年級讀到10年級;第三個層級稱之為文法學校(Gymnasium),則是從5年級讀到12年級或13年級。

當孩子升上小學四年級的時候,就要開始分流(stream)。什麼?這麼小的年紀就要分流?這實在很難想像,但這套教育體系確實就是活生生的出現在這個國家。而根據學生的聰明才智,將他們分配到適合的教育路線(即一般所謂的分軌,tracking),這就是當外界批判這套體系時,德國教育當局最常用來辯解的理由。但是問題在於,教師要如何在短短的兩個小時內,判斷一個年僅10歲的四年級孩童到底適合走哪條路線呢?這實在是非常可笑!因為令人沮喪的是,有很多孩子直到年紀比較大之後才會展現出真正的才能。所以,如果孩子因為某種原因使其在有限的時間內表現失常,那麼他(她)就會被剝奪就讀文法學校(Gymnasium)的資格,使其未來的職業選項被殘酷地予以窄化。導致孩子表現不佳的原因可能成千上萬,在現實生活中,他(她)的聰明才智可能很高,但如果只是因為在篩檢期間過度緊張而影響表現呢?那是否就意味著他(她)已經沒有機會進入好學校讀書呢?

教師根據學生的表現,決定他(她)應該進入哪一個層級的學校讀書。

文法學校是最被吹捧及最受歡迎的學校,可以說是所有德國父母期望子女得以就讀的夢想學校。我敢保證,當子女只拿到第4級的成績時,一定有為數眾多的德國父母感到憂心忡忡。文法學校的德文是”Gymnasium”,雖然在英文中的意思是”體育館”,但可別誤會,這和體育是完全無關的。德國的文法學校其實就是大學的預備高中,只有1/3左右的孩子會被選入文法學校就學,然後從5年級一直讀到13年級,接著參加高中會考(Abitur, 譯者註:亦即將高中學歷檢定及大學入學考試二合一的考試),以取得畢業證書,進入大學。

主幹學校其實就是個進行補救教育的學校。當學生完成學業時,多半是沒有證書,而且也要開始展開做粗工的人生了。

實科學校則是接收中等程度學生的學校。當學生完成10年級的學業後,也要參加會考或期末考,接著,就要到各個領域做學徒。有時,在實科學校表現優異的學生,還可以轉到文法學校就學。

雖然各州的教育體系或有不同,但上述的各種學校是目前德國教育的整理運作模式。不過,我的重點是,這樣的一套教育體系合理嗎?教育不是應該由中央政府統籌管理嗎?我的看法是,國家的(基礎)教育應該趨於一致,而不該由各州自行訂定規則。誠如俗諺所云”人多誤事(Too many cooks spoil the broth)”,過於複雜的教育體系只會衍生出更多的問題,而這也正是目前德國學校體系備受非議之處。所以,現在正是德國人著手將教育體系簡化的重要時刻!

再者,雖然德國高等教育的品質向來備受各方讚譽,但我覺得很有意思的是,一方面德國當局精心策畫,讓德國的高等教育達到了世界的頂點,但另一方面,這樣的教育體系卻又是一團糟。事實上,德國學校教育體系最被人所抨擊的就是在孩子年紀還很小的時候就實施分流制。明明孩子就是聰明伶俐,結果老師卻告訴家長,孩子不是讀文法學校的料,這是什麼意思?孩子不過是個四年級的孩子,這樣的結果難道不令家長心碎?如果說,判斷的標準是只採計孩子的表現,那或許可接受,但事實往往不是只由表現決定。

目前的情況是,如果某人是工程師,他的太太是醫師,除非孩子的智商真的比同儕還差,否則幾乎可以確定,他們的孩子在升上五年級時,絕對會被選去讀文法學校。然而,如果某人的女兒頗有天分,學業成就也很高,但最後卻只能去讀實科學校,為什麼會這樣?原來她是個土耳其裔,爸爸在開計程車,媽媽是個家庭主婦。這就是德國學校體系裡的歧視文化。當我的老師告訴我們這個現象時,我們全班同學都嚇了一大跳。而當我們追問:”難道我們不能對這樣的歧視提出抗議,對這樣的老師提出控訴嗎?畢竟在我們的成長過程中,所見過或所聽過的教師,對學生都是一視同仁的。”對於這樣的提問,我們的老師回答道:”你可以控告老師甚至是學校,但你卻無法控告這整個行之有年的教育體系。”我很無言。我只能說,這個國家是刻意地在妨礙眾多資質聰穎的孩童。這些孩子如果不是因為父母職業或出身卑微而被歧視的話,他們都是可以有一番輝煌成就的。這實在是非常不人道,真是讓人吃驚。

我的看法是,不管我們多麼努力地剷除納粹主義(Nazism),但我們依然無法將之連根拔除,在我們的社會上仍舊普遍充斥著這樣的思維。我不特定針對哪個國家,但只要哪個國家的社會仍存在著任何形式的歧視(文化),那麼就是納粹主義活躍的溫床。在德國,政府當局並沒有為學習障礙的孩子提供很多支持,這點從目前的學校制度,學生只要學習狀況不佳,哪怕是只有一科,也得被迫留級就可以得到證明。

就是這樣的學校體系迫使著許許多多聰穎的孩子極度沮喪,且對未來惶惑不安。第4級的成績實在不能用來判斷一個孩子的真正才能,畢竟他們的年紀還太小。德國這樣的制度無疑是自毀前程。不妨思量這些孩子的前途,如果我們的教育不要採取分流措施,不要給予孩子不公平的教育環境,而是賦予他們一個公平、一致,且充滿鼓勵的教育體系,那麼當他們長大後將形成一股強大的工作能量,對於德國這個快速老化及勞力市場畏縮的國家來說,必定會有卓著的貢獻。

令人慶幸的是,終於有政黨意識到潛藏在教育體系裡的這些黑暗面,開始著手糾正並針對某些核心措施進行改革。例如保守派的基督教民主聯盟(Christian Democratic Union, CDU)已提出一項草案,終結備受爭議的3層級教育體系,以及廢除各州主導教育事務的部門。在長達30頁的草案中指出:”目前我們的學校有太多類型,使得家長、學生和教師都備感困惑。這就是為何我們呼籲減少學校類型,並在各州推行兩軌制(two-way model)的原因。”

基督教民主聯盟在草案中要求,將主幹學校和實科中學合併成一種新的學校類型,德文稱之為”Oberschule”,意思就是高中(upper school)。事實上,某些州業已設立這種新式的學校。幾乎所有的主要政黨都將問題的矛頭指向程度最低的主幹學校,因為事實顯示,在競爭激烈的就業市場上,主幹學校的畢業生很有可能成為最弱勢的一群。而且相較之下,移民家庭的子女就讀主幹學校的比例乃高於德國本土出生的孩童。

德國是否要著手建立一個公平且一致的教育體制,還是要繼續堅守原本天怒人怨的教育路線,那就端看德國人自己的決定。德意志聯邦共和國(Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland)老是大談民主,現在全世界的眼睛都在看,正等著看德國是否會對教育進行徹底的改革。當然,要德國當局採行統一的教育標準,以確保16個州政府在教育措施上不得有任何歧視是需要時間的,而且德國聯邦政府和各州政府也必須在教育政策的執行上彼此地相互合作。

 

【作者介紹:V.A.K.】

本文作者隸屬於德國知名網路論壇trust 7的執筆作家。trust 7由Manuel DesdinDetlef von Hellfeld成立於2000年,旨在提供德國相關資訊給世界各地的人士,並提供諮詢服務,目前擁有來自世界各地的6000多名會員。

 

A critical overview of Germany’s much controversial school system

A fair deliverance of quality education is the duty of every responsive and progressive nation, thereby ensuring the process of assimilation through education. Right to education applies to all the citizens and non citizens, it is an inalienable law. However, it seems Germany has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the critics who raise fingers on the credibility and transparency of the alleged system of German schooling. In this topic we would discuss at length the anomalies and the loopholes, existing in the German schooling. Just before I embark upon the critical assessment of Schule politik, I would like to clarify that I have read numerous articles including many Deutsch newspaper editorials, which have openly confronted the present system of schooling which essentially promotes and practices discrimination not just towards children of immigrants but also towards children who don’t come from sound financial backgrounds. Secondly, like I had mentioned in the previous blog I completed my B1 from a language institute where we were also taught about the complex German school system and our teachers were kind enough to make us aware of the follies in it.

It is said, every story has two sides. I am sure, there would be another side to this story which is hidden from us. So we’d explore the facet best known. Let’s begin from the very beginning. How does German schooling differ from others? Well, every country has it’s own methods and style of teaching, hence school policies vary from region to region, but the goal is the same i.e. to impart quality education uniformly. The main difference lies here, which I personally find rather bizarre, the system of education differs from state to state in Germany oder die Bundesländer bestimmen in Deutschland die Schulpolitik. It suggests there are 16 different education systems operating across Germany, since there are 16 states. Is it a unique diversity or a delirious intangible mess?? Indeed, the answer is hard to find.

In contrast to the prevalent school system in most countries, Germany has a complex three tier high school system. Come fourth grade and the streaming of pupils begin. What?At such a young age?? It’s hard to imagine, but this is how the whole schooling structure is built up here. So according to their intelligence, they are filtered out and shown educational tracks that best suit their calibre. This is how schools defend themselves against criticism. The most sane questions that come to mind are, why this insanity or better still idiosyncrasy?? How can a teacher judge a child as young as a fourth grader as being meritorious or not in two hours? Ridiculous! and how absolutely demoralizing!! There are many children who show their real talent at a later age. So if my child for some reason couldn’t perform well in the given slot of time, he/she would be deprived of Gymnasium and thus his/her future career options are brutally narrowed down. There could be infinite reasons for the lack of performance of a child, he/she might be very intelligent in real life, what if he/she got nervous during the screening?? That means he/she has no chance of getting into a good school.

The three tier system involves:

  1. General secondary school or Hauptschule (grades 5 -10)

  2. The intermediate secondary school or Realschule (grades 5-10)

  3. The academic high school or Gymnasium (grades 5-12 or 13)

The children are assessed by their teachers who decide which school best suits a particular student based on their performance.

Gymnasium – it is the most sought after or preferred school ; the dream of every parent for their kids to be be selected for Gymnasium. I am sure, parents have a lot of anxiety when their children reach standard fourth. Like I said before, don’t be fooled by the common words in English and German. Gymnasium has nothing to do with physical education. It is college preparatory high school which is attended by students from grade 5 to 12 or 13. Yes! 13th grade does exist here. Holiness! Only about one third of the students are picked up for Gymnasium, who continue through the final grades. The mandatory requirement for the Gymnasiasten is to take a rather challenging exam known as Abitur in order to secure their diplomas. This diploma paves their way to University. Das Abitur braucht man normalerweise, um einer Universitat in Dutschland ein Studium zu beginnen.

Hauptschule – is primarily a remedial education. Hauptschüler leave school after the ninth standard, mostly such students don’t earn a diploma and thus end up taking menial jobs.

Realschule – sees the influx of more average students.Realschüler also take an Abschluss or term end exam before they leave school after 10th grade, after which they begin apprenticeships in a number of fields. The brighter ones may also get transferred to Gymnasium to finish their studies.

This is the pattern in which the entire Deutsch school system operates, obviously differing in each Bundesland (State). Now my question is, do you think the system is justifiable? And shouldn’t education be the portfolio to be handled exclusively by the central Government? With each State prescribing its own set of rules in schooling, the uniformity goes missing. My stance is very clear, there has to be uniformity in the system of education and states should not have any interference in it. There goes a saying ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’ likewise too many experiments with education system are only creating more ruckus and complexity in the face of pre-existant criticisms regarding the German schooling. It’s high time Germans start simplifying mechanisms.

Also, this article is only and only focussed on the school system which has severe yet workable indiscretions. Nowhere have I raised a finger on Higher or University Education. Infact, the latter is appreciable in many respects and Germany has always been known for the good quality higher education. I find it rather amusing, on one hand their Higher education is so well planned and has won laurels, on the other hand their school system is a complete mess. The system is criticized mainly because it starts streaming or filtering out pupils at a very young age. What if your child is intelligent and suddenly the teacher tells you that he/she is not a Gymnasium material? That too, when they are only in 4th grade. Aren’t you going to be shattered? Things would have been still acceptable if only the performance of the child was the sole criteria for judgement, but it is more than mere performance. If you are an engineer, and your wife; a doctor, rest assured your son despite being less intelligent than other students would continue with 5th grade in a Gymnasium. However, if your daughter is named Sena who is fairly intelligent and has a good score card in elementary school yet she lands up in Mittleschule. Why? She is a Turkish who’s dad is a taxi driver and mom; a housewife. This is where discrimination comes in schooling. When my teacher first told our class about this practice, we were completely taken aback. Upon asking her, “can’t we complain against such a teacher or sue the teacher who practices discrimination?? After all, we have grown up seeing and reading that for a teacher all the students are alike”. To which our language teacher replied – “you can sue the particular teacher or even the school. But you can’t sue the entire system and this is how it functions in Germany”. I couldn’t argue any more. All I can say is, the States are deliberately handicapping the future of so many bright children, who could have out shined others had they been not discriminated on the grounds of their parents’ occupations or their origin. Indeed! inhumane and very alarming.

My argument is straightforward, no matter how much we brush aside Nazism (which was nothing but cynical and extreme discrimination) it is still very much prevalent in our societies and we have failed to completely uproot its effects from our systems. Somewhere or the other, the demons of Nazism are let loose time and again. I am not pin pointing towards any specific country, but all those societies where discrimination exists, in any form, are active grounds for Nazism. The argument doesn’t end here, German schools don’t offer much support to students with learning disabilities. And the situation gets grimmer by the fact that students are held back or have to repeat the same class all over again, if they fail even a single subject in school.

This school system is sentencing many-many brilliant children to a life of utmost frustration, and a future of obscurity. Fourth standard is not an age to judge the true talent of a child, they are way too small. Just imagine, this way German states are darkening their own future. What prospective and powerful workforce these kids can grow up to be, and what immense contribution they could make to Germany amid its fast ageing and declining work force, if only they are led to fair, uniform and encouraging system of education, and not pulled down by the unfair practice of streaming.

But there is some good news, political parties have now identified the fraudulent practices in the education system and are working to rectify them and implementing some hard core changes in the entire system. The conservative Christian Democratic Union for instance, has proposed a draft to put an end to the controversial Germany’s three-tier system and abolition of state’s monopoly in education sector. Their 30 page draft says – “We currently have too many school forms that confuse parents, pupils and teachers alike. That is why we are calling for a reduction in school forms and the implementation of a two-way model in all states”. The CDU’s proposal demands for a merger of the lower two levels into a new school model suggested as ‘Oberschule’ or the upper school. In fact, some federal states have already introduced the new model. Nearly all the major political parties have collectively identified the lowest-level general secondary schools as problematic, mainly out of the fact, that graduates are more likely to be disadvantaged in the competitive job market. More children with migrant backgrounds are placed in these schools than their ethnic German counterparts.

It’s upto Germany to decide, whether to embark upon a fair and uniform system of education or to continue with the same practices which have not only earned the wrath worldwide but also locally. Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland which harps on democracy, has all eyes set on it, waiting for some radical reforms to be introduced in its schooling policies. It’s the need of the hour that Germany adopts federally unified educational standards to assure smooth and uniform functioning in all 16 states without any discrimination. Germany needs a culture of cooperation between federal and state governments for proper implementation of policies. The strict and often biased method of tracking down students in grade 4 builds an inequity in the system. However the proponents and the supporters of the current education policies are very clear and straightforward, ‘hard work is the key to success’. The system is very challenging for German students and it makes them put in their maximum effort. One has to work harder towards the goals in life. Since the system accepts only the creamy layer, so study hard and achieve greater milestones. According to them, the three-tier system grants educational diversity and individualized planning for the students. How policies would be moulded and improvised, only time will tell, but certainly ‘educational pragmatism’ can solve many related problems.

 

圖片來源:flickr@Chris Yarzab

原文經合作媒體:《trust7》授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】學生在專業發展上扮演何種角色?

 

作者/Suzie Boss

編譯/施文

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

學生在專業發展上扮演何種角色?

蓋爾‧夏肯斯想幫助蒙大那州的老師運用地理資訊系統(GIS)讓他們的學生學習批判性思考,為此她找了些專家規劃專業發展(professional developement)。

Chester-Joplin-Inverness高中的學生已將GIS落實各社區企劃,如做出精準的拓荒時代公墓地圖。由學生們規劃、實際動手操作,反過來替他們的老師上了一課。

「你聽過翻轉教室吧?」夏肯斯問到。「我稱這為翻轉教師。」由學生帶頭,這些平時在國高中小的老師,學習使用休閒型全球定位系統,透過腦力激盪將此系統與他們教授的科目做連結。

許多學生已開始積極參與他們老師的專業學習。舉個例子:在一場主題為設計思考的研討會上,學生們分享他們關於改善高中的想法。學生們的自身經驗分享有助於老師了解以使用者為中心的重要性,尖銳的問題也迫使老師們重新評估原先的教案設計。

在設計為期一學期的實驗性課程中,老師訪問學生他們最喜歡和最討厭的學習經驗。老師們訝異學生竟然在課外進行了許多自主學習,如自行安排暑期實習和線上學習等。

老師忙於規劃專題課時,學生也沒閒著,參與相關講習,試圖改善PBL教案。

我在上篇文章「自造者文化成功建立優秀的學習社群」中,提到費城的一所新高中正在推動自造者計畫,讓提倡自造者的「公共工作坊(Public Workshop)」帶領學生動手改善校園環境。

後來公共工作坊的總監艾力克斯(Alex Gilliam)透過email告訴我,那所高中的老師和學生代表還共同組成了一個專業發展會議。他說,首先他們會快速評估教室環境,我們再一起根據需求排定改造任務的先後順序。我們會優先改造最需要的部分,之後再以這些成品當作模型教材,訓練全體學生如何快速打樣和使用工具,並傳授基本設計概念。在一開始評估時我們發現需要工具箱和方便拿取的櫥櫃,所以之後的步驟便是將大家分成數個小組,讓各組試著自行摸索如何複製模型並成功打造一模一樣的成品。

這樣一來,學生教老師工具的使用方式和安全注意事項,老師教學生如何測量,而父母則能兩者都教,這樣的互動非常棒。

那你的經驗呢?

這樣的學習方式並不常見,原因可想而知。畢竟大部分的學校花在專業發展的時間有限,課程又往往超出學生能吸收的範圍。關於學生參與專業發展的優點,雖然我無法列出任何研究證據(不過若有人研究這個主題,我非常希望能深入了解),但這些故事讓我想問各位讀者幾個問題:你的學校有讓學生參與專業發展嗎?學校又是如何設計體驗過程呢?開放學生參與讓你學到什麼?學生對於能分享自己的專業知識及同老師一起學習,又有何反應呢?

歡迎大家留言分享自己的經驗!

 

【作者介紹:Suzie Boss】

是記者也是作家,著有Bringing Innovation to School: Empowering Students to Thrive in a Changing World,合著Reinventing Project-Based Learning: Your Field Guide to Real-World Projects in the Digital Age。PBL專題式學習的擁護者。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Should students have role in professional development?

When Gail Shatkus wanted to help Montana teachers understand how they might use geographic information systems (GIS) to get students thinking critically about local issues, she enlisted some experts to lead professional development.

Students from Chester-Joplin-Inverness High School have been using GIS for a variety of community projects, such as creating accurate maps of a pioneer-era cemetery. Who better than students to plan and facilitate hands-on learning experiences for their teachers?

“You’ve heard of flipping the classroom?” asks Shatkus, assistant professor at Montana State University-Northern and veteran career-technical education teacher at the high school. “I call this flipping the teacher.” With students leading the way, teachers from elementary through high school enjoyed the chance to learn how to use recreation-grade GPS devices and brainstorm connections to their curriculum areas.

Student Input: In Action

In a variety of contexts, I’ve been seeing more and more examples of students playing an active role in their teachers’ professional learning. For example: At a workshop to introduce teachers to design thinking, students shared their perspective about how to improve high school. Their stories helped teachers understand the importance of empathy in the user-centered design process. Students’ provocative questions got teachers thinking about everything from assessment to unit planning.

At a retreat to plan a new, semester-long experiential education class, students were interviewed by teachers about their favorite (and least favorite) learning experiences. Teachers were surprised at the amount of self-directed learning that was happening outside the classroom, from summer internships to online learning that students had arranged for themselves.

During staff planning time devoted to project-based learning, students took part in a critique session to improve PBL plans and fine-tune driving questions to increase engagement.

In my last post, How Maker Culture Builds Stronger Learning Communities, I described the maker projects under way at a new high school in Philadelphia where students are improving the built environment.

In a follow-up email, I heard from Alex Gilliam of Public Workshop about a professional development session at the same school, attended by both teachers and key student leaders. He described how it unfolded:

First they did a quick needs assessment of their classrooms, ultimately prioritizing top needs for which, together, we can create solutions. We will then turn the top choices into products and use them as professional development tools, to train the entire team in rapid prototyping, basic design skills, and tool use. Afterwards, we took a previously identified need — toolboxes and accessible storage — and, in small teams, had the entire group try to figure out how to copy and build our prototype.

This is a great example of students teaching teachers on tool use and safety, teachers teaching students on measurement, and parents teaching both. It was pretty awesome.

What’s Your Experience?

It’s easy to imagine why learning experiences like this don’t happen more often. After all, time for professional development is already too limited and overcommitted at most schools.

Nor can I point to any research about the benefits of inviting students to take part in professional development (although I’m eager to hear from anyone who is investigating this topic).

But these anecdotes have me wondering: Does your school involve students in professional development? How do you structure the experience? What do you learn from offering students a seat at the table? How do students respond to the invitation to share their expertise or learn alongside their teachers?

 

【Author:Suzie Boss】

Journalist and PBL advocate. Author of Bringing Innovation to School: Empowering Students to Thrive in a Changing World and co-author of Reinventing Project-Based Learning: Your Field Guide to Real-World Projects in the Digital Age

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:《edutopia.org

原文經合作媒體:《edutopia.org》授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

對第一沒興趣 上海可能退出PISA 2015

 

作者/Yong Zhao

編譯/李明洋

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

對第一沒興趣 上海可能退出PISA 2015

“對榮登國際評量第一不感興趣,致力於減輕負擔:上海可能退出PISA”是2014年3月7日,上海新民晚報的頭條。內容寫著,上海市巡視員尹后慶表示,”考慮退出2015年舉辦的下屆PISA”,因為”上海不需要所謂的’最牛學校’,需要的是把每一所學校都辦成遵循教育規律、遵循學生身心發展規律、為學生終身發展打好紮實基礎的學校。”

尹后慶指出,上海的教育缺失會因為榮登PISA世界第一而被蒙蔽,其中之一就是家庭作業量過多。例如上海的(中小學)教師”每天平均要花2至5小時的時間設計、批改、分析和講評作業;有一半以上的學生每天放學後做作業的時間要超過1小時;教師對作業量的估計明顯要低於學生和家長的實際感受;雖然作業的難度不算太高,但其中有許多機械的、重複操練的習題佔據了大量時間;還有,我們的教師比較習慣於用對和錯來批改作業,而學生卻十分希望教師能幫助他們解開答題的思路、弄懂存在的問題。

一位不願具名的PISA事務官員透漏,”做作業只是學生發展過程中的一個環節,他們的技能和各項素質的發展,還應從玩耍、上網和遊戲等各種活動中去獲取,而不能只知埋頭於做作業或大量地延長做作業的時間。

PISA中國項目組組長張民選教授則在2013年12月4日刊登的”新聞晨報”上表示,上海將不再參加PISA測試,而是要在將來發展出屬於自己的教育品質評鑑體系。張教授所提出的評鑑體系即所謂的”綠色評鑑(green evaluation)”。這個新的評鑑體系不再強調考試分數,取而代之的是教育品質的唯一評量,考試分數只是上海(以及全中國)用以評鑑學校的10項指標中的其中一項。”新的評鑑體系將評量學生的學習動機和參與度、師生關係、強身健體。”

上海是否及何時退出PISA仍未可知,因為這樣的舉動必須倚賴諸多因素,政治考量即為其中的影響因素之一。但很清楚的是,上海官員已意識到PISA給的並不是他們所要的。只是狹隘地以分數來定義教育品質將會蒙蔽教育的其他面向,而這些面向才是最重要的。

此外,根據一位上海教育政策研究者的說法,世界第一的頭銜似乎讓上海的教育官員大為頭痛。他認為,上海在PISA的成功反而適得其反。”我們非常清楚我們的教育是不行的,但是當你不自誇自己(的教育)是世界上最好的,人民就會離你而去。而現在,你宣稱自己(的教育)是最好的,人們就會開始質疑你,並且揭露一切你無法解決的問題。”中國政府不希望這種情況發生,”因此想要擺脫它。

【作者介紹:Yong Zhao】

本文作者Yong Zhao為國際知名教育學者、作家及演講者,專精於全球教育方法及應用,目前任職於美國奧瑞岡大學(University of Oregon),擔任教育測量、政策和領導學系教授,發表學術文章百餘篇,以及出版20餘本書,包括2014年出版的”誰害怕大惡龍:為何中國擁有世界上最好(最差)的教育體系(Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon: Why China Has the Best (and Worst) Education System in the World)“、2012年出版的”世界級的學習者:教育創新與學生創業(World Class Learners:Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students)“,以及2009年出版的”迎頭趕上或引領世界:在全球化時代的美國教育(Catching Up or Leading the Way: American Education in the Age of Globalization)“。此外,他尚有經營部落格: http://zhaolearning.com.。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

“Not Interested in Being #1:” Shanghai May Ditch PISA

“Not interested in #1 on International Tests, Focusing on Reducing Academic Burden: Shanghai May Drop Out of PISA” is the headline of a story in Xinmin Wanbao[original story in Chinese], a popular newspaper in Shanghai. Published on March 7th 2014, the story reports that Shanghai “is considering to withdraw from the next round of PISA in 2015” because “Shanghai does not need so-called ‘#1 schools,’” said Yi Houqin, a high level official of Shanghai Education Commission. “What it needs are schools that follow sound educational principles, respect principles of students’ physical and psychological development, and lay a solid foundation for students’ lifelong development,” says the article, quoting Mr. Yi.

One of the shortfalls of Shanghai education masked by its top PISA ranking, Mr. Yi, pointed out, is excessive amount of homework, according to the story. For example, teachers in Shanghai spend 2 to 5 hours designing, reviewing, analyzing, and discussing homework assignment every day. “Over half of the students spend more than one hour on school work after school [every day]; Teachers’ estimate of homework load is much lower than actual experiences of students and parents; Although the homework is not particularly difficult, much of it is mechanical and repetitive tasks that take lots of time; Furthermore, our teachers are more used to mark the answers as ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ while students are hoping their teachers can help them open their minds and point out their problems.”

“Homework is only one of the elements that supports student development,” an unnamed PISA official toldXinmin Wanbao. “Their skills and qualities should also be acquired from a variety of activities such as play, online activities, and games instead of merely completing academic assignments or extending homework time.”

“Shanghai will not participate in PISA forever,” Professor Zhang Minxuan, director of PISA in China, told another Shanghai newspaper Xinwen Chenbao in December 2013[original story in Chinese]. “It will develop its own [education quality] evaluation system.”

The evaluation system Professor Zhang alluded to is the so-called “green evaluation” I blogged about previously. The new evaluation system deemphasizes the significance of test scores. Instead of being the sole measure of educational quality, test scores become one of 10 indicators Shanghai (and China) will use to evaluate schools. The new evaluation system will measure student motivation and engagement, student-teacher relationship, and physical fitness, according to Xinwen Chenbao.

Whether or when Shanghai decides to drop PISA is unknown and dependent on many factors, political consideration being one. But it is clear that Shanghai officials have acknowledged that PISA does not give them what they want. Its narrow definition of education quality as test scores obscures other aspects of education that are much more important.

Moreover, it seems that the #1 status has given Shanghai education officials much headache, according to a leading education policy researcher in Shanghai, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity recently. He believes that Shanghai’s success in PISA has backfired. “People know very well our education is no good, but when you don’t boast as the world’s best, they leave you alone. Now you claim to be the best, people begin to question you and expose all the problems that you cannot solve.” The government does not want that and “thus wants to get out of it.”

 

【Author:Yong Zhao】

Yong Zhao speaks around the world on educational issues, particularly on issues related to globalization and education, creativity, global competitiveness, educational reforms, and educational technology.

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:flickr@Tzuhsun Hsu

原文刊登於《Yong Zhao》,經作者Yong Zhao授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

上海PISA奪冠的慘痛代價

 

作者/Jiang Xueqin

編譯/李明洋

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

上海PISA奪冠的慘痛代價

中國上海在2009年首度參與了OECD每3年即針對世界各國教育體系進行調查的”國際學生評量計畫(Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA)”,而當上海的青年學子在數學、科學和閱讀的表現,都遠勝過美國、德國和日本的同儕時,世界各國莫不感到震驚與敬畏。

這樣的成就,比起2008年的北京奧運、上海的摩天大樓,抑或呈2位數成長的經濟表現還要傲人,(似乎)證明未來是屬於中國的天下。

本週公布的PISA 2012結果顯示,上海的學校仍然排名第1,但是,誠如我在2009年上海首度奪冠時所說的,這個勝利的代價實在太大了。

中國的學校教育採取”自相殘殺”和”勝者全拿”的教育思維,不僅讓孩子不快樂與不健康,而且還導致作弊和賄賂,塑造的是一個既不公正,也不公平的教育體系。

我們只需要到上海任何一所高中遊歷一圈,就會瞭解何以上海得以在PISA奪冠:即便學校可能過度擁擠,人滿為患,大廳卻總是窗明几淨,課堂上學生正襟危坐,專心聽講,會議室裡則坐滿了具大學學歷且動機十足的教師,彼此交換心得,討論如何設計出更好的45分鐘課堂活動。

績效獎金是促使學校教育獲致成功的因素,每個月高達1萬人民幣(約合1640美元)的薪資,使得教師在上海穩居中產階級的地位。

根據PISA的結果顯示,上海學生表現出”高度的韌性(a high level of resilience)”,意思就是家境貧困學生的表現超出了原本預期的好。這在很大的程度上,是因為上海政府致力於不讓任何一個孩子落後:當局公平地資助各校,高成就學校與低成就學校組成夥伴關係,而且只要表現低落的學校改革有成,有功的行政人員皆可快速獲得晉升。

在我參觀過的一所上海初中,放學後,教師還繼續留下來教導學業低落的學生,校長則是當眾針對這些教師的表現大表讚揚。因為只要學生的考試成績夠好,這些教師就可以獲得行政人員發放的紅利,所以許多教師有財力可以開奧迪(Audi),然而,真正獲利,大撈一票的其實是接受感恩的家長金錢挹注的補習班。而且那位校長告訴我,依照她的經驗,最能預測學生學業成就的,其實是身家背景。她說,為貧困孩子補課只不過是治標,只是讓他們可以安然度過教育階段,好讓他們不至於拖累學校的整體表現而已

因為上海的學校這麼的好,所以家長就得有所付出。上海的房價是舉世皆知的昂貴,辦學優良的公立小學周邊房價高得驚人,一般人根本就負擔不起。一旦買不到學區內的房子,家長就只好想方設法去賄賂校方,好讓孩子進到學校裡讀書。

此外,由於上海小學的教室人數高達30到40人,所以許多家長千方百計地邀請教師吃飯,送禮,希望對方能夠多多關照自己的獨生子女。在上海,對於家境富裕的家長來說,行賄是他們最具優勢的利器,遠勝過週末的鋼琴課、補數學、補英文、私人家教、到美國參加夏令營、到歐洲度假…等這些讓子女贏在起點的各種優勢。

對學生來說,這場(人生的)競賽就是要看誰能夠進入上海最好的兩所大學:上海復旦大學和上海交通大學。

驅使學生競相追逐(進入名校)的原因不只是因為將來可以獲得一份好工作,而是因為在上海,只要考試獲得高分就代表你贏得了尊嚴,而且也證明了自己的身分地位和自我價值

有大量的社會科學研究的結果,包括Daniel Pink的暢銷書”Drive:The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us”告訴我們,採取績效獎勵(performance-based incentives)的手段來激勵學生和教師是最差勁的方法。因為激勵不該是讓學生備感壓力、孤單與不快樂,而且那也將扼殺學生與生俱有的好奇心、創造力和學習熱忱。

如今,高利害關係考試業已造就了中國的作弊文化。去年,中國當局由於試圖阻止一場考試作弊,結果竟然引發暴動,因為家長憤恨大家都在作弊,何以單單只有他的孩子被抓。

就在人們為上海PISA的勝利而興奮莫名時,卻也往往忘了所該汲取的教訓,那就是何以芬蘭能夠成為世界教育改革的真正典範。

雖然芬蘭在PISA 2012的數學項目排名第12,而不是第1,但是從我造訪這個國家的經驗中,我知道芬蘭教育成功地培育所有學生具有知識經濟的能力,而且沒有犧牲孩子的童年、好奇心與創造力。

上海的孩子下午4點放學後,還要去補習班上課,直到就寢前還要寫家庭作業。恰恰相反的是,芬蘭的孩子則是中午就放學回家,然後玩整天。我們從芬蘭學生在PISA的表現幾乎和上海學生差距不大就足以顯示,較長的上學時間,到補習班補習,以及寫家庭作業並不是真正在幫助學生學習,那不過是在取悅極度焦慮、過度要求,以及到處和人爭長短的父母

當然,真正關心孩子的幸福,而不是考試分數的中國父母,數量也在逐漸增加中。而那些深知上海PISA的代價如此巨大,接受過良好教育且家境又富裕的父母,則是移民國外或將子女送去讀私立的西式學校,這樣的情況在中國各大城市如雨後春筍般湧現。這對中國的教育改革來說,當然不是一件好事。

 

【作者介紹:Jiang Xueqin】
本文作者Jiang Xueqin(江學勤)為加拿大籍華裔學者,前北京大學附屬高中副校長暨該校國際部主任,現為清華大學附屬高中(Tsinghua University High School)副校長,著有”創新中國教育“一書。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

The costs of Shanghai’s education success story

In 2009, Shanghai participated for the first time in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the tri-annual survey of the world’s school systems.

And when Shanghai’s teenagers proved their math, science, and reading were much better than their peers in the United States, Germany, and Japan, the world was shocked and awed.

Here, much more so than the 2008 Beijing Olympics or Shanghai’s skyscrapers or China’s double-digit growth, was proof positive that the future belonged to China.

READ: Shanghai teens top international education ranking

The latest PISA results released this week show that Shanghai schools are still number one, but, as I argued after Shanghai’s first placing in 2009, the triumph comes at too great a cost.

The dog-eat-dog and winner-take-all mentality of China’s school system isn’t just making children unhappy and unhealthy — it’s also causing cheating and bribery, leading to an unfair and unequal school system.

The teachers

A tour of any Shanghai junior high school offers an easy explanation as to why Shanghai placed first on the PISA.

They may be crammed and overcrowded, but the halls are clean and tidy, classrooms packed with attentive and focused students, and meeting rooms filled with university-educated and highly-motivated teachers trading notes on how to better design their 45-minute lesson.

The incentives to succeed bind the school together, and guide it. Teachers are paid about 10,000 yuan a month ($1,640), which makes them solidly middle-class in Shanghai.

In their PISA performance, Shanghai’s students show “a high level of resilience,” which is to say that poor students do better than expected.

READ: Why Asian schools succeed

That’s in large part because the Shanghai government is committed to leaving no child behind: It funds all schools equally, partners high-performing schools with low-performing ones and offers fast-track promotions to administrators who can turn around bad schools.

In one Shanghai junior high school I visited, teachers stayed after school to tutor failing students — and the head teacher there honored those teachers in school assemblies.

But these teachers can drive Audis if their students do well enough on tests: Yes, administrators can give teachers bonuses, but the real money is in grateful parents and moonlighting at for-profit cram schools (after school tutoring programs).

And the head that honored teachers who tutored failing kids told me that in her experience, the best indicator of a student’s school performance is his/her socio-economic background. She said the tutoring of poor kids is just a bandage, a way to get them through the system and not have them drag the school down.

The parents

Because Shanghai’s schools are so good, Shanghaiparents have to pay — even if it’s not exorbitant tuition fees.

Shanghai’s real estate market is notoriously expensive, but it’s downright unaffordable in the neighborhoods of Shanghai’s very best public elementary schools, and when families can’t use real estate to buy into the best schools, they try to bribe their way in.

This culture of bribing public school officials means I can’t maintain friendships, make new ones, and date — a girl I dated in 2010 told me she’d give me 200,000 yuan ($32,800) to get her sister into my school.

And because Shanghai’s elementary school classrooms have 30 or 40 students, parents trip over each other in the mad rush to take teachers out to dinner and offer gifts in the hope that their only child gets a little more attention.

The bribery is on top of every other advantage that Shanghai’s wealthy parents have bestowed upon their only child: Weekend piano, math, and English classes, private tutoring, summer camp in America, vacations in Europe and above all a born-to-succeed attitude.

The students

For the students, the race is to see who can enter Shanghai’s best two universities — Fudan University and Jiao Tong.

But it’s just not the prospect of a good job that drives students on. Scoring highly on tests in Shanghai is like scoring a lot of touchdowns in Texas — it’s what wins you social respect, and soon comes to define your identity and self-worth.

There’s substantial social science research — popularized in books such as Daniel Pink’s Drive — that suggests performance-based incentives are bad for students and teachers.

Incentives do not just make students stressed, lonely, and unhappy — they also kill student’s innate curiosity, creativity, and love of learning.

And high-stakes testing has led to a culture of cheating in China. Last year, when authorities tried to stop cheating, a riot broke out — parents were angry that their children were being singled out when everyone was cheating.

The best model?

In the excitement over Shanghai’s PISA victory we tend to forget the real lesson to be learned: How Finland can be the real model for education reform in the world.

Finland, which ranked 12th in the 2012 math rankings, may not be number one, but, in my experience from visiting the country, it’s succeeded in equipping all Finnish students with the tools to succeed in the knowledge economy without sacrificing their childhood, curiosity and creativity.

After Shanghai children leave school at 4 p.m., they go on to cram school and do homework until bedtime. In stark contrast, when Finnish children leave school at noon, they just go play for the whole day.

That Finnish students do almost as well as their Shanghai peers on PISA suggest that long school days, cram schools, and homework are not really about helping students learn — it’s more about pleasing anxious, demanding, and hyper-competitive parents.

Of course, there’s a rising tide of Chinese parents who care more about their child’s well-being than his or her test score.

And these wealthy and well-educated parents who understand the costs and sacrifices of Shanghai’s PISA victory are emigrating abroad or opting for new private Western-style schools that have sprung up in major Chinese cities.

That’s bad news for Chinese education reform because those who are in the best position to make a stand are instead voting with their feet.

【Author:Jiang Xueqin】

Deputy principal of Tsinghua University High School

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:flickr@Tzuhsun Hsu

原文刊登於《CNN》,經作者Jiang Xueqin授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載