【國外編輯部專欄】美國教育體制扼殺創造力與創業精神

 

作者/Raul O. Chao/Cristina Lopez-Gottardi(University of Virginia)

編譯/吳姵瑱

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

美國教育體制扼殺創造力與創業精神

美國現今的教育體制扼殺了下一代發展創造力,缺乏創造力不僅是教育的問題,對國家未來的經濟也有嚴重影響。一直以來,美國以卓越的創造力與創業精神,獨樹一格。 然而,在過去幾十年間,小規模新創公司的數量持續下滑。越來越多研究報告指出,現今的教育體制無法幫助學童培養創造力、冒險精神、以及解決問題的能力,學生缺乏企業家精神,難以面對未來變動劇烈的就業市場。

根據美國威廉瑪麗學院(William and Mary College)教育學院所做的研究報告,K-12(12年初等和中等教育)學生各方面的創造力在過去幾十年間大幅下降。現在的兒童變得不善於表達自己的感受、缺乏熱情和想像力、比較沒有幽默感、整合能力不佳,欠缺觀察力與聯想力,也難以從不同的角度看待事情。

造成創造力與創業精神消失的原因相當複雜,一部分是因為隨著年齡的增加,社會意識增強,學生心態轉變成必須「符合社會期望」。但還有更多原因。肯●羅賓森(Ken Robinson)在他知名的TED演說〈如何逃出教育的死亡谷〉中,提出改革現有教育體制的觀點,因為現有的體制當初是為了因應工業化的需要。他呼籲大家應該要重新思索人類的無限能力,並依此改革學校教育。

羅賓森也提到,在現今瞬息萬變的世界,創意與知識同樣重要。如果小孩不願意或是害怕犯錯,他們就不會有創意思考的能力。社會總是將錯誤貼上負面標籤,這樣一來學校教育會慢慢扼殺小孩與生俱來的創意與冒險精神。

教育體制導致新一代缺乏創新和創業精神,這點直接反映在逐年減少的美國新創公司。Apple靈魂人物賈伯斯在1995年的專訪中,特別指出包容失敗以及冒險犯難的重要性。在既有的社會與教育體制下,大家都打安全牌避免犯錯、循規蹈矩,照著社會的期望生活。賈伯斯認為,這是一種狹隘的人生。他也提到,一旦你發現你能夠影響甚至改變既定規則,對社會有實質幫助,生命就變得寬廣得多了。

創意的力量,無限的可能

對於創意與冒險精神的正視與重視,對於全人類的未來扮演關鍵角色。下一代所面臨的挑戰與機會我們難以預見。肯定的是,創業精神不只有經濟上的影響力,更是人道精神的實質體現。實業家藉由提出解決方法,創造出創意商品、服務、事業、和科技造福社會大眾。

現行的教育模式獎勵在標準化考試表現優秀、符合社會期望又安分守己的學生。的確,勤奮努力是成功的必要條件,值得表揚,但不應該成為評鑑能力的唯一標準。絕大多數的實業家和發明家在成功前都經歷過無數次的失敗。我們何不教導我們的孩子先犯錯、多犯錯,讓他們從自己的經驗中學習成長,建立犯錯與嘗試的信心和勇氣。

美國政府與社會需要有更多的投資與實際行動,讓我們的下一代培養企業家的精神與思維,幫助學生找回失去的創意,同時對抗新創產業的衰退。社會大眾也必須認識創業精神對個人以及社會的正面影響,了解其帶動的機會與技術,相信自己也可以成為社會中創意思考的一員。

現在已經有一股改變革新的風氣。最近,維吉尼亞州立大學的Miller Center 與 Battern Institute 合作,由Steve Case和Carly Fiorina共同主持,成立提倡發展創業精神的教育中心(Milstein Commission entrepreneurship)。他們提議發展一套全國性K-12創業家競賽和相互對應的課程,讓所有的學生儘早接觸創業精神、培養創意思維。讓學子即使面對不確定的未來,也願意放手一搏,大膽嘗試。這個新的教育改革提案給學子機會推銷自己的創意,想出解決問題的方法, 更讓他們了解到自己也有正面影響社會和世界的力量。當我們的下一代有如此正面的期許和對自我能力的自信,我們便可以預見一個充滿希望的未來。

 

【作者介紹】

Raul O. Chao現為維吉尼亞大學達頓商學院的助理教授。

Cristina Lopez-Gottardi 現為維吉尼亞大學Miller Center公共政策計畫的研究主任。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

How America’s Education Model Kills Creativity and Entrepreneurship

The current model of education in the United States is stifling the creative soul of our children. While this is troubling for a variety of reasons, it also has significant economic consequences for the future of our country. America has long been unique because of its remarkable ingenuity, innovative capacity and entrepreneurial spirit. Yet over the last few decades, we have witnessed both a steady decline in the number of startups, as well as an increasing number of studies that suggest America’s education model fails to promote the kind of creativity, risk-taking, and problem solving skills necessary for entrepreneurship, and for a world and labor market that is in the midst of profound transformation. These are very worrisome trends.

According to research conducted by Kyung Hee Kim, Professor of Education at the College of William and Mary, all aspects of student creativity at the K-12 level have been in significant decline for the last few decades. Based on scores from the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, her study reveals “that children have become less emotionally expressive, less energetic, less talkative and verbally expressive, less humorous, less imaginative, less unconventional, less lively and passionate, less perceptive, less apt to connect seemingly irrelevant things, less synthesizing, and less likely to see things from a different angle.” That is depressing.

So why is this happening? The answer is complicated. It partly relates to the psychology of social conformity that generally increases with age and enhanced social awareness. But it seems that something more is at play. Sir Ken Robinson in his now famous Ted Talk, “How Schools Kill Creativity,” argues for the need to reform existing education models (that were originally designed to support industrialization), calling on us to fundamentally “reconstitute our conception of the richness of human capacity” and adjust our education systems accordingly. Robinson argues that because the world is changing in transformational ways, “creativity now is as important in education as literacy,” and should therefore be treated with the same status. And if our children are “not prepared to be wrong, [they] will never come up with anything original…” He further contends that as a society, “we stigmatize mistakes,” and the result “is that we’re educating people out of their creative capacities” and destroying children’s natural willingness to take chances.

Perhaps it’s no wonder our nation is facing a decline in new venture formation given that these are exactly the skills and traits needed to be innovative and entrepreneurial. A 1995 interview with Steve Job stresses the importance of tolerance for failure and the confidence to take risks. When asked about his vision of the world, Jobs replied:

“When you grow up you tend to get told the world is the way it is and your job is just to live your life inside the world. Try not to bash into the walls too much. Try to have fun, save a little money.

That’s a very limited life.

Life can be much broader once you discover one simple fact: Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you and you can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use.

Once you learn that, you’ll never be the same again.”

This awareness is critical to our collective futures. In many ways, our children face a future whose challenges and opportunities we can only imagine. Entrepreneurship isn’t just good for our economy. It is also a profoundly moral human activity. Entrepreneurs advance society by imagining and creating innovative solutions, products, ventures, services, and technologies that help us all.

And yet, by and large, and at a very basic level, our education model rewards us for staying within the lines, for doing well on standardized tests and assessments, and valuing achievement as defined by society. To be clear, there is no doubt that hard work and achievement are important and often essential values for success of any kind, but much is lost if our focus as a society ends there.

We know that most entrepreneurs and innovators fail numerous times before they succeed, so why not teach our kids how to “fail fast, fail often” so that they learn not from what a teacher dictates, but rather from their own experimental failures and successes. Let’s encourage our children to be comfortable with their failed attempts, and the learning that is revealed in the process.

In an effort to combat this dual trend of decreasing student creativity and start up decline, America needs to invest in empowering the next generation with entrepreneurial thinking. A vibrant, innovative society is predicated on a creative mindset. It’s also based on an awareness of the opportunities that entrepreneurship provides both for individuals and for society, the encouragement to pursue them and the skills and belief that you too can be an innovative member of society.

There are promising signs on the horizon. Recently the Miller Center at the University of Virginia in partnership with the Batten Institute for Entrepreneurship and Innovation completed itsMilstein Commission on Entrepreneurship, co-chaired by Steve Case and Carly Fiorina. They propose the creation of a national K-12 entrepreneurship competition and related curriculum to expose students at an early age and across a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds to the accessibility of entrepreneurship and the merits of taking risks and building something from the ground up even when success is not guaranteed. By taking their shot at pitching a novel idea, venture or solution, this program will give young people the simple but critical awareness Steve Jobs spoke about, that they too can change and influence things, and make the world better for future generations. Indeed, if our kids develop that self-awareness and internal locus of control, it will be easy to regain our hope for the future.

 

【Author】Raul O. Chao is an Associate Professor at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business

Cristina Lopez-Gottardi is Research Director for Public and Policy Programs at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.

 

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:《forbes

原文刊登於《forbes》,經作者Raul O. Chao/Cristina Lopez-Gottardi授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】盲目追求韓國SKY 造成社會的間接傷害

The Conversation
作者/David Santandreu Calonge

編譯/李苾琳

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

盲目追求韓國SKY 造成社會的間接傷害

成功教育背景等同於高社經地位的觀念,南韓比起其他國家更加重視。南韓把教育看作為社會流動的主要驅力,從小他們就有壓力,為了自己及家人,必須畢業於頂尖大學以順利躋身高社經地位。

競爭與用功讀書幾乎是深植韓國學子的心,所有孩童的生長環境(比如家長、家庭、教師)全指向一個共同目標:準備考試,而且只許成功不許失敗。學生走在被安排好的道路上,在教育的過程中,從第一步就有著明確的目標。

為什麼南韓學生老是稱霸排行榜?

根據國際教育改革專家邁可包伯(Michael Barber)表示,韓國文化認為後天努力能勝過先天遺傳,也堅信長時間的鑽研學習終將獲得回報。

研究發現,學習態度與亞洲父母強烈的信念,造就了他們下一代的學業成就。史丹佛大學研究指出,亞裔的學童會在父母的期望下產生尋求功成名就的動機。

接受東亞父母教養的澳洲學童遠較其他澳洲同儕辛勤,研究發現東亞裔的學童一週需花15小時進行課後學習(當地澳洲人僅9小時),也有較強烈的工作熱情與未來期望,高達94%的東亞裔學童欲就讀大學等高等教育。

不管是專家學者或是國家元首,從美國總統歐巴馬到澳洲前總理茱莉亞吉勒德,都經常引用『芬蘭學派』或『亞洲模式』作為改善教育的妙方。

比起韓國的孩子,美國的兒童在學校少花一個月以上的時間。對於此現象,歐巴馬表示:「無法好整以暇的面對21世紀的經濟體。」這種想法似乎越來越引起共鳴,也深入教育界各層的權力核心。

可以複製南韓的教育模式嗎?

「韓國的孩子最終都將與自由、個人選擇、快樂無緣;你只能接受產值、表現與服從。」耶魯大學的學者See-Wong Koo表示。這種說法卻與培生教育公司(Pearson)最近的教育專欄和經合組織(OECD)公布的教育排名中韓國名列前茅位等現象大相逕庭。

相對於芬蘭的教育體系,韓國教育壓力大、要求服從、競爭激烈又重視菁英。韓國教育強調高壓與高成就表現,特別是2014年11月針對640,621名學生所舉辦的長達八小時之suneung學術能力測驗(College Scholastic Ability Test)。

這對韓國的家庭來說是件大事,進入前三大最負盛名的頂尖大學:國立首爾大學、韓國大學和延世大學(三校合稱SKY,Seoul National, Korea和Yonsei),就能奠定他們這一生的社會地位,也能在家族企業或財團中獲得高薪的工作。

注重階級的韓國社會將各級教育,尤其是科學與工程領域,視為向上流動的關鍵。近年還產生了一個特殊現象:「豬媽媽」(Dwaeji Omma)。

豬媽媽無所不用其極,為了自己以及其它豬媽媽的小孩,鎖定韓國的常春藤名校。她們安排孩子求學中的所有活動,包括課外活動(即讀書學習)、在開放日參訪所有的名校,集合討論申請學校的戰略、以強硬手段遊說、甚至賄賂私校與老師以獲得走後門的入學機會。

應該以韓國的教育模式解救西方的教育弊病嗎?

韓國人不計任何代價追求成功,這些財務支出與社會成本導致龐大的經濟壓力。由於大學名額有限,韓國花在課後私人補習教學(hakwon)的費用高達200億美元以上,佔了家庭支出兩成之多。有75%的韓國孩子參加課後補習,主要集中在首爾的補習班集中地大棗洞(DaeJi Dong)。

研究發現,亞裔的美國學生比起白人學生,容易因為未達成父母期望及自我理想和父母發生衝突。

舉例來說,2014青年幸福指數指出,只有67.6%的韓國青年表示滿意自己的生活(經合組織平均為85.8%),最主要的原因就是學習壓力太大。

2013年研究結論指出,相較於充滿支持的教育環境,「虎氏育兒」(嚴格的家長教育,常見於亞洲文化)要求過多且效果低落。

經合組織成員國中,南韓自殺率(28.9%)最高。韓國小說家 Young Ha Kim在專欄寫道:「在10到30歲之間,自殺是第一大死因。」

韓國也有著家庭債務、抑鬱、離婚與酒精消費等等「之最」。有人認為韓國教育讓學生犧牲了健康與快樂,而產生無法預期的代價。

無論取得憑證認證、參加測驗還是入學考試,都培養了韓國學生創新和團隊合作的能力,以期能在日益艱難的當地就業市場或高等教育功成名就,

因此當其它國家還在欽羨南韓在各種排名的表現時,這種苦幹實幹的文化因素卻無法在任何地方複製,畢竟對社會產生的間接傷害也許非他國所樂見。

 

【作者介紹:David Santandreu Calonge】

David Santandreu Calonge現為南韓成均館大學客座教授。

教學領域:品牌、設計思考。研究專長:課程設計、(教育)破壞式創新。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

South Korean Education Ranks High But Its The Kids Who Pay

In Korea, perhaps more so than anywhere else, educational success equals socioeconomic status. South Koreans view education as the main driver of social mobility, for themselves and their family. Graduating from a top university is the ultimate marker of high status and the pressure is on from an early age.

Competition and studying hard to be the best is deeply ingrained in the psyche of Korean students; the entire environment surrounding the child (parents, family, and teachers) is actively involved and geared towards the same goal: to be test-ready and succeed. Students have a clear path and a clear purpose in mind at the start of their educational journey.

Why do South Korean students consistently dominate league tables?

According to global expert on education reform Sir Michael Barber, Korean culture “prizes effort above inherited ‘smartness’”, and believes long hours studying and hard work will eventually pay off.

Research has found the attitudes and strong beliefs of Asian parents make an important contribution to their children’s academic success. Researchers from Stanford University say Asian children find motivation to succeed in parental expectations.

Australian children with East Asian parents outperform their Australian peers, with researchers finding East Asian children spent 15 hours a week studying after school (9 hours for Australians), and have a stronger work ethic and higher aspirations (94% of them expect to go on to university).

Experts and heads of state, from US President Barack Obamato former Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard, often cite Finnish schools or the “Asian Model” as the panacea to improve our education systems.

The fact that American children “spend over a month less in school than children in South Korea” will, according to Obama, in “no way prepare them for a 21st-century economy”. This belief seems to increasingly resonate in the corridors of power in many parts of the educational world.

Is the South Korean educational model replicable?

“To be a South Korean child ultimately is not about freedom, personal choice or happiness; it is about production, performance and obedience,” argued Yale academic See-Wong Koo. This statement seems miles away from recent reports by education company Pearson and the OECD placing South Korea at the top of the education league tables.

While Finland is considered a non-competitive system of education, South Korea’s is often described as very stressful, authoritarian, brutally competitive and meritocratic. It emphasises high pressure and high performance, particularly for the 640,621 students who took the eight-hour long suneung(College Scholastic Ability Test) nationwide in November 2014.

This event is critical in the life of South Korean families – entry to one of the three most prestigious “SKY” universities (Seoul National, Korea and Yonsei) will basically determine social status for most of their lives and will secure a highly-paid job in one of the chaebols (family-owned business conglomerates).

Education at all levels and particularly in science and engineering, is viewed as a key to upward mobility in the still highly stratified Korean society. As a consequence, a new phenomenon has emerged in recent years: Dwaeji Omma, or “Pig Mums”.

A Pig Mum does her research thoroughly and keeps her eyes on the ultimate target: a Korean Ivy-league university for her child and her “adopted” children (those belonging to her Pig Mum network); she plans every step of her kid’s educational journey and all the extracurricular (studying) activities, attends all the best schools’ open days, organises strategic planning reunions, bullies, lobbies and even bribes private schools and private teachers to skip admission lines if necessary.

Should South Korea’s system be adopted to remedy Western education’s ailments?

The intense pressure to succeed no matter the cost is taking its financial and social toll: as university places are limited, Koreans spend over $18 trillion won (A$20 billion), around 20% of household income to pay for after-school private academies called hakwon. 75% of all children attend a hakwon, mainly atDaeJi Dong, Seoul’s study Mecca.

Research has found that Asian-American students are more likely to have conflicted relationships with their parents over unmet expectations and more self-image issues than white students.

The 2014 Youth Happiness Index found for instance that only 67.6% of Korean youth said they are satisfied with their life (OECD average is 85.8%), mostly because of study pressure.

The conclusion of a 2013 study was that Tiger Parenting (strict parenting, often in Asian cultures) is less effective and more demanding than a supportive parenting environment.

South Korea has one of the highest rates of suicide (28.9%) in the OECD. South Korean novelist Young Ha Kim wrote in an op-ed that suicide is the “No.1 cause of death for people between the ages of 10 and 30”.

Korea also ranks among the highest for household debt, depression, divorce, and alcohol consumption. It has been argued South Korean education produces overachieving students who pay a stiff price in health and happiness.

Neither does a focus on credentials, tests and entrance exams give South Korean students the skills (like creativity and teamwork) to succeed in higher education or in an increasingly difficult local job market.

So while other countries may envy South Korea’s positions in the league tables, there are cultural factors that mean this focus on hard work probably can’t be replicated elsewhere, and given the societal collateral damage, probably wouldn’t want to.

 

【Author:David Santandreu Calonge】

David Santandreu Calonge is currently Visiting Professor at Sungkyunkwan University (South Korea), where he teaches branding and design-thinking, and Director of the Da Tong project (Interdisciplinary Research and Projects) at Hong Kong Baptist University.His research interests are in the areas of innovative curriculum designs, and disruptive innovations in Education.

[/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

 

【國外編輯部專欄】主題式跨界學習 芬蘭教育再進化

The Conversation
 

作者/Pasi Sahlberg

編譯/繆謙伶

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

主題式跨界學習 芬蘭教育再進化

近年來,芬蘭教育的成功吸引許多國家爭相仿效。日前因為英國獨立報的報導,芬蘭的教育制度又再次受到全球矚目。

芬蘭未來將不再單獨教授歷史、物理等科目,取而代之的是整合的「主題式」課程。像是歐盟、社區與氣候變遷、芬蘭百年獨立史等課程主題,就囊括了跨學科的語言、地理、科學和經濟,讓學生能以有系統的方式學習與該主題相關的知識。

芬蘭之所以能這麼做,是因為芬蘭的教育制度有兩個最重要的特點。第一,芬蘭的教育治理(education governance)非中央集權,中央政府僅提供課綱及補足地方政府對學校的補助款,芬蘭320個自治市(municipalities)皆能自行規畫最適合當地的教育方式。

第二、芬蘭國家課綱的標準寬鬆,留給各地方學校和老師很大的空間,能依學生的學習狀況調整教學方式。所以各校的制度除了因地制宜,也會因為不同狀況而有所差異。

主題式教學

芬蘭的國家課綱(National Curriculum Framework,NCF)規定了學校教育的總體目標和教授科目,並訂出特殊教育、諮商輔導和學生評量的綱要。新課綱將在2016年八月生效,其中主要的更新內容就是「主題式」(phenomenon-based)教學,以跨學科主題取代個別學科的學習。

其實這樣的學科整合教學方式在芬蘭並非首見。早在1980年代,芬蘭便開始實驗淘汰科目別的上課方式,許多學校也因此保留了主題式教學的部分精神。過去習慣埋首於自己專業學科的老師,能因為新教改而有更多機會和其他學科的老師合作。

學校自訂課程內容

新課綱於2016年生效後,基礎教育(7至16歲)的學校必須提供至少一門跨學科的主題式課程,課程長度由學校自行規畫。芬蘭首都赫爾辛基已經決定市內所有學校的學生都要上兩年包含所有學科的主題式課程。

長年在「國際學生能力評量」(PISA)中表現不俗的芬蘭,最新2012年的表現卻明顯下滑,政府怎麼還敢堅持要在這時推動主題式教學呢?因為芬蘭的教育人士認為,學校應該教學生未來所需的知識,而非專注於提升考試分數。現在芬蘭的學子更需要完整的知識和能力,來面對各種全球議題。主題式教學既能促進各科老師的合作,也能讓學生的學習變得更有意義。

學生參與課程規劃

許多關於芬蘭新教改的報導都忽略了一個最驚人的面向,那就是學生必須要參與主題式教學時程的規劃;學校在評量學習成果時,也一定要開放讓學生表達意見。芬蘭有些老師認為新教改無法成功改善教學和學習效果,但也有老師認為新教改打破傳統學科的分野和各科老師各自為政的習慣,有機會徹底改變教育制度。2016年新課綱生效後,有些學校會藉此機會重新設計課程,有些學校僅會適度調整。無論如何,芬蘭的基礎教育目前還是會教授各門學科,只是方式不同罷了。

 

【作者介紹:Pasi Sahlberg】

芬蘭教育家、作家和學者,著有《芬蘭教育這樣改》一書。曾任芬蘭教育與文化部所屬之國際事物交流與合作中心(Center for international mobility and cooperation,CIMO)主任,現為美國哈佛大學教育研究所客座教授。個人網站:http://pasisahlberg.com/

 

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Finland’s school reforms won’t scrap subjects altogether

Finland’s plans to replace the teaching of classic school subjects such as history or English with broader, cross-cutting “topics” as part of a major education reform have been getting global attention, thanks to an article in The Independent, one of the UK’s trusted newspapers. Stay calm: despite the reforms, Finnish schools will continue to teach mathematics, history, arts, music and other subjects in the future.

But with the new basic school reform all children will also learn via periods looking at broader topics, such as the European Union, community and climate change, or 100 years of Finland’s independence, which would bring in multi-disciplinary modules on languages, geography, sciences and economics.

It is important to underline two fundamental peculiarities of the Finnish education system in order to see the real picture. First, education governance is highly decentralised, giving Finland’s 320 municipalities significant amount of freedom to arrange schooling according to the local circumstances. Central government issues legislation, tops up local funding of schools, and provides a guiding framework for what schools should teach and how.

Second, Finland’s National Curriculum Framework is a loose common standard that steers curriculum planning at the level of the municipalities and their schools. It leaves educators freedom to find the best ways to offer good teaching and learning to all children. Therefore, practices vary from school to school and are often customised to local needs and situations.

Phenomenon-based learning

The next big reform taking place in Finland is the introduction of a new National Curriculum Framework (NCF), due to come into effect in August 2016.

It is a binding document that sets the overall goals of schooling, describes the principles of teaching and learning, and provides the guidelines for special education, well-being, support services and student assessment in schools. The concept of “phenomenon-based” teaching – a move away from “subjects” and towards inter-disciplinary topics – will have a central place in the new NCF.

Integration of subjects and a holistic approach to teaching and learning are not new in Finland. Since the 1980s, Finnish schools have experimented with this approach and it has been part of the culture of teaching in many Finnish schools since then. This new reform will bring more changes to Finnish middle-school subject teachers who have traditionally worked more on their own subjects than together with their peers in school.

Schools decide the programme

What will change in 2016 is that all basic schools for seven to 16-year-olds must have at least one extended period of multi-disciplinary, phenomenon-based teaching and learning in their curricula. The length of this period is to be decided by schools themselves. Helsinki, the nation’s capital and largest local school system, has decided to require two such yearly periods that must include all subjects and all students in every school in town.

One school in Helsinki has already arranged teaching in a cross-disciplinary way; other schools will have two or more periods of a few weeks each dedicated to integrated teaching and learning.

In most basic schools in other parts of Finland students will probably have one “project” when they study some of their traditional subjects in a holistic manner. One education chief of a middle-size city in Finland predicted via Twitter that: “the end result of this reform will be 320 local variations of the NCF 2016 and 90% of them look a lot like current situation.”

You may wonder why Finland’s education authorities now insist that all schools must spend time on integration and phenomenon-based teaching when Finnish students’ test scores have been declining in the most recent international tests. The answer is that educators in Finland think, quite correctly, that schools should teach what young people need in their lives rather than try to bring national test scores back to where they were.

What Finnish youth need more than before are more integrated knowledge and skills about real world issues, many argue. An integrated approach, based on lessons from some schools with longer experience of that, enhances teacher collaboration in schools and makes learning more meaningful to students.

Students involved in lesson design

What most stories about Finland’s current education reform have failed to cover is the most surprising aspect of the reforms. NCF 2016 states that students must be involved in the planning of phenomenon-based study periods and that they must have voice in assessing what they have learned from it.

Some teachers in Finland see this current reform as a threat and the wrong way to improve teaching and learning in schools. Other teachers think that breaking down the dominance of traditional subjects and isolation of teaching is an opportunity to more fundamental change in schools.

While some schools will seize the opportunity to redesign teaching and learning with non-traditional forms using the NCF 2016 as a guide, others will choose more moderate ways. In any case, teaching subjects will continue in one way or the other in most Finland’s basic schools for now.


【Author:Pasi Sahlberg】Pasi Sahlberg is Finnish educator, author and scholar. His expertise includes school improvement,  international education issues, classroom teaching and learning, and school leadership. He is a former Director General of CIMO (Centre for International Mobility and Cooperation) at the Finland’s Ministry of Education and Culture in Helsinki and currently a visiting Professor of Practice at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education in Cambridge, MA, USA. More on his website: pasisahlberg.com

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

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

 

先求平等再講卓越的芬蘭教育

 

作者/Peter Wilby

翻譯/李明洋

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

先求平等再講卓越的芬蘭教育

想像一下,一個國家的孩子在7歲接受義務教育之前,除了玩之外什麼都不做。然後,他們全都就讀完全學校(comprehensives),一路讀到16歲。這段期間,不收學費,不能力分班,不能力分組,沒有督學,直到18歲畢業之前沒有考試,沒有校際排名,沒有補教業,也沒有制服。學生直呼教師的姓,甚至15歲大的孩子,家庭作業的份量絕不超過30分鐘。

國家課程只限於課程綱要。想要成為教師,就需經過5年制的師資培育,沒有任何捷徑。如果想要成為小學教師,就要徹底接受教育理論的洗禮。教師一天只上4堂課,而且他們的專業自主無可冒犯。教師的工作是如此的誘人或輕鬆,因此每個基礎教育學程只有10個申請名額,而且也只有10%到15%的離職率。

自2000年開始,芬蘭的孩子在閱讀、數學及科學等國際競賽的表現,維持穩定的領先地位。有超過60%的年輕人接受高等教育,而且一般大學和理工學院人數相當。即使是考試、績效責任,以及市場法則等全球運動的領頭羊,McKinsey管理顧問公司也不得不承認,芬蘭是最頂尖的。而根據世界經濟論壇(the World Economic Forum)的分析,芬蘭的經濟競爭力之所以位居世界第3,這都得歸功於她強有力的教育,得以將其嚴苛的勞力市場法規和高賦稅比率等弱點一一克服。

最近,現年53歲的前芬蘭數學教師,芬蘭最後一任的學校督學,也是國際知名的教育學者,目前任職於教育部國際中心的Pasi Sahlberg應邀訪問英國。他表示,在芬蘭國會1990年代決議要全權信任教師,不需要督導他們的工作之前,身為芬蘭學校督學的他,也只不過視察過一所學校。如今,他已成為芬蘭教育的全球代言人。他的著作”Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland?(借鏡芬蘭:世界可從芬蘭教改學到什麼?”[1]),已被翻譯成包括中文、俄文和阿拉伯文在內的15種語言,每天他會接受來自全球各地的邀請,舉辦2至3場演講或座談。

就在我與Sahlberg會面的前兩天,英國教育部秘書長Micheal Gove才剛宣布,要改造現行的”中等教育一般資格認證(General Certificate of Secondary Education, GCSE)”,恢復3小時的考試制度,讓英國重回昔日的輝煌傳統。Sahlberg從未見過Gove,不過如果他見到Gove,他會說什麼呢?”我會說,秘書長先生,我很害怕,因為證據已經非常清楚了。如果您依賴規定、考試,以及對學校實施外部控制,那是不可能會改善(教育現狀)的。GCSE計畫是倒行逆施的做法。”而對於Gove熱切仿效瑞典的大學院校和免費學校的做法,Sahlberg同樣也不屑一顧。他說:”現在,在瑞典的每個人都知道免費學校是個錯誤。不只品質沒有提升,而且也不公平。如果這就是Gove先生所想的,那就是他將會得到的。”

芬蘭並非一直都是教育界的巨星。早在1970年代之前,只有不到10%的人在18歲後繼續升學。學校的品質很差,跟英國1950年代差不多。當孩子11歲的時候,如果父母親付得起學費,他可透過考試進入私立的文法學校(grammar schools)。Sahlberg的雙親都是教師,他在芬蘭南部的一所鄉下小學讀書,他就是那個年代的最後見證者。就在Sahlberg結束學生生涯的1970年代,芬蘭深深地受到英國影響,開始設立了完全學校(peruskoulu),混合能力教學,改革教師培育制度,廢除厚達700頁的國家課程,以及中央教育權力下放給地方。而正當芬蘭持續落實教育普及化的理想時,英國卻在1980年代開始淡化完全學校的體制,保守黨引進了家長選擇權(parental choice),並且提供私立學校資金挹注。就跟瑞典的免費學校一樣,英國也有著冠冕堂皇的說法,商業領袖和政黨右翼份子抨擊完全學校壓抑了資優生,以及損害了國家的經濟發展。

然而,就在本世紀初,當國際學生評量計畫(the Programme for International Student Assessment, Pisa)的結果出爐後,這些批評者全都噤聲不語了。突然間,數以百計的從政者和教育工作者絡繹不絕地前往芬蘭,想一窺芬蘭成功的奧秘。芬蘭教育幾乎跟他的國際企業Nokia一樣成了國際品牌。Sahlberg表示,”PISA的結果遏止了擁護教育私有化和考試制度(national tests)的論述,…許多人認為,PISA拯救了芬蘭的教育體系。”

Sahlberg不願意將芬蘭經濟上的成就歸因於教育的功勞,他表示,”有些人有不同的看法,他們就認為芬蘭的教育之所以成功,是因為經濟的成功。”對於芬蘭人而言,平等(equity)才是教育最偉大的成就,亦即芬蘭學生最高和最低表現的差距,是世界上最小的。而之所以沒有人會去談論所謂的失敗的學校,是因為絕大多數的學校都差不多,沒有多大的差別。Sahlberg堅決地表示,”PISA並不是我們所要做的。排名不是用來評量學校體系的好方法。我們從來就沒有設定目標,要成為最好的教育體系,我們只不過是提供每個人良好的教育而已。在追求卓越(race to the top)之前,必須講求平等。”有人認為,學生的成就要端視於教育當局的控制,但Sahlberg對此提出批評,他認為政客若希望提升孩子,以擺脫貧窮,就(不應該只囿於教育領域,而)應該連同其他公共領域的政策都一起加以檢視。

芬蘭的社會非常均質,貧窮的比例很低,收入最高的前20%和最低的後20%,兩者間的收入差距相對小,約4個人可均攤一個窮人的所得,但英國則必須9個人才能均攤1個窮人的所得。此外,芬蘭人在國外出生的公民比率低於5%,比10年前還低。正因如此,批評者認為芬蘭讓所有孩子就讀完全學校並非難事;也有批評者認為,芬蘭和同為PISA前段班的韓國一樣,她的語言不論是書寫或是發音都幾乎相同,使得芬蘭和韓國年輕人在拼字的時候不會遇到多大困難,也因此不僅可以使讀和寫較為容易,而且還可省下更多時間給其他科目使用。

對於這些批評,Sahlberg不予置評,但他認為學校以外的因素對於學生的學習影響更大。他表示,芬蘭成年人是世界上最愛看書的人,他們比世界上任何一個國家的成年人更愛去圖書館借書,更愛買書,也更愛看報紙。”閱讀是我們文化的一部分。以前的芬蘭,如果某人沒有閱讀能力,那麼他(她)就不可以結婚。…(就以我為例),我必須閱讀聖經還有其他的宗教書籍,然後走到牧師的面前,回答他的問題,讓他知道我瞭解聖經的意思。唯有如此,才能證明我是否有資格在教堂裡結婚。當然,現在的人想到哪裡結婚都行,但是50年前若想結婚,除了教堂外,可沒多少選擇;100年前,根本沒得選。”

考試和競爭在芬蘭的(基礎教育)學校幾乎是消除殆盡,所以教師和學生可以齊力合作,自由地追求文化、創意和道德的提升。不過,等到結束完全學校的教育後,這樣的模式就會終止。在學生16歲畢業時,大約有超過90%的人,會進入分流體系,亦即”一般高中”和”職業學校”,進入職業學校的學生,通常日後會就讀理工學院,或直接進入職場就業。只有一般高中的學生,在畢業的時候要參加具有155年歷史的畢業會考(matriculation exam),這是進入大學就讀的最低門檻。考試內容至少含蓋4個科目,考題以申論題為主。如果想要就讀某些特殊科系,就要再參加各大學自行舉辦的各種考試。不過,Sahlberg認為,芬蘭並沒有捨棄競爭,只是將競爭挪到教育體系中的不同位置。雖然芬蘭讓孩子達到的成就,被公認為比世界上任何一個國家的孩子還要高,但這樣的成就,可能是因為孩子日後對自己的期望所造成的競爭壓力,而不是源自於閒散的學校體制。

我個人覺得Sahlberg是個怪異而又缺乏自信的教育大使,我想他應該會同意我的看法。他雖然宣揚所謂的芬蘭奇蹟(the Finnish miracle),卻又不相信那些證實芬蘭成功的數據。現在讓他擔心的是,芬蘭教育是否會因此而驕矜自滿。他說:”如果你問芬蘭人,2030年的芬蘭教育會怎樣,他們會說就跟現在一樣。……我們一點也不會去討論這些事。”

 

註釋

[1]中譯”芬蘭教育這樣改!全球第一個教改成功案例教我們的事“,商周文化2013年出版。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Finlands-Education-Ambassador-Spreads-The-Word

Imagine a country where children do nothing but play until they start compulsory schooling at age seven. Then, without exception, they attend comprehensives until the age of 16. Charging school fees is illegal, and so is sorting pupils into ability groups by streaming or setting. There are no inspectors, no exams until the age of 18, no school league tables, no private tuition industry, no school uniforms. Children address teachers by their first names. Even 15-year-olds do no more than 30 minutes’ homework a night.

The national curriculum is confined to broad outlines. All teachers take five-year degree courses (there are no fast tracks) and, if they intend to work in primary schools, are thoroughly immersed in educational theory. They teach only four lessons daily, and their professional autonomy is sacrosanct. So attractive (some might say cushy) is a teacher’s life that there are 10 applicants for every place on a primary education course, and only 10-15% drop out of a teaching career.

It sounds like Michael Gove’s worst nightmare, a country where some combination of teachers’ union leaders and trendy academics, “valuing Marxism, revering jargon and fighting excellence” (to use the education secretary’s words), have taken over the asylum.

Yet since 2000, this same country, Finland, has consistently featured at or near the top of international league tables for educational performance, whether children are tested on literacy, numeracy or science. More than 60% of its young people enrol in higher education, roughly evenly divided between universities and polytechnics.

Even the management consultancy McKinsey, which has spearheaded the global movement for testing, “accountability” and marketisation, acknowledges that Finland is top. The country’s defiance of current political orthodoxies appears to do little economic harm.

According to the World Economic Forum, Finland ranks third in the world for competitiveness thanks to the strength of its schooling, which overcomes the nation’s drawbacks, in the forum’s view, such as restrictive labour market regulations and high tax rates.

Advertisement

The story, at least for Guardian readers, sounds too good to be true. Is it possible to pick holes in it? I met Pasi Sahlberg, a rather dour (though not, I am told, by Finnish standards) 53-year-old former maths teacher and education academic, during his recent visit to London.

Sahlberg, who now heads an international centre at the education ministry, was Finland’s last chief inspector of schools in the early 1990s before politicians decided that teachers could be trusted to do their jobs without Ofsted-style surveillance. “I only ever inspected one school,” he says.

Now he has emerged as the global spokesman for Finnish schooling. His book, Finnish Lessons, has been translated into 15 languages, including Chinese, Russian and Arabic, and each day he receives two or three invitations from across the planet to give talks or lectures.

I met him the day after Gove had announced his plans to transform GCSEs, restoring traditional three-hour exams to their former glory. He’s never met Gove, but what would he say to him if he did? “I would say: ‘I am afraid, Mr Secretary, that the evidence is clear. If you rely on prescription, testing and external control over schools, they are not likely to improve. The GCSE proposals are a step backwards’.”

He is similarly dismissive about Gove’s enthusiasm for academies and free schools, largely modelled on those in Finland’s neighbour, Sweden. “In Sweden,” Sahlberg says, “everybody now agrees free schools were a mistake. The quality has not improved and equity has disappeared. If that is what Mr Gove wants, that is what he will get.”

Finland hasn’t always been an educational superstar. Before the 1970s, fewer than 10% continued their education until the age of 18. The schools were similar to those of England in the 1950s, only worse. After taking tests at the age of 11, children whose results were in the top 25% went mostly to private grammar schools – if their parents could afford the fees. Sahlberg himself, initially educated in a tiny village primary in northern Finland, where both his parents were teachers, was one of the last to go through this system.

By the time he left school in the mid-1970s, the move towards peruskoulu (or comprehensives), had begun, heavily influenced by British thinking. Mixed-ability teaching, teacher education reforms, abolition of the national curriculum (once 700 pages), and devolution of schooling to local authorities followed later.

While England began to dilute its comprehensive system almost as soon as it was established – in the early 1980s, the Tories introduced “parental choice” and offered subsidised places in elite private schools – Finland was further extending its ideal of the common school.

Like England, it had a vociferous lobby demanding a return to selection as well as Swedish-style free schools. Business leaders and rightwing politicians argued that comprehensives held back the gifted and talented and jeopardised the country’s economic future.

But the critics were silenced early this century when the first results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) emerged. All of a sudden, politicians and educators flocked to Finland in their hundreds, seeking the secret of its success. Finnish education became almost as big a global brand as Nokia. “Pisa stopped the arguments for privatisation and national testing,” says Sahlberg. “Many say it saved the Finnish school system.”

Sahlberg is reluctant to attribute Finland’s economic success to its schools. “Some would say it’s the other way round: we have educational success because we have economic success.” To him and other Finns, equity is the schools’ greatest achievement: the gap between high and low achievers is the smallest in the world and nobody talks of failing schools because there isn’t that much difference between schools’ results.

Sahlberg insists: “Pisa is not what we are about. League tables are not a good measure of a school system. We never aimed to be the best in education, only to have good schools for all. Equity came before a ‘race to the top’ mentality.” Like many other educational researchers, he argues that most pupil achievement is explained by factors outside of school authorities’ control and that, if politicians wish to elevate children out of poverty, they should look to other public policy areas.

Which leaves the question of whether Finnish schooling is exportable. Finland is an unusually homogeneous society: child poverty is low, and the ratio of income share between the richest 20% of the population and the poorest 20% is only a little over four-to-one, against nine-to-one in the UK. Its proportion of foreign-born citizens, moreover, is under 5%, and was much lower a decade ago.

All this, critics argue, makes it easy for Finland to put all children through comprehensives without social or educational strain. Other critics point to the Finnish language which, like Korean (South Korea is also near the top of the Pisa tables), is written almost exactly as it is pronounced. Young Finns and Koreans have little trouble with spelling, which not only makes reading and writing easier, but leaves more time for other subjects.

Sahlberg doesn’t wholly dismiss either of these arguments, but suggests that other influences outside the schools are more important. Finnish adults, he says, are the world’s most active readers. They take out more library books, own more books and read more newspapers than any other nation.

“Reading is part of our culture. At one time, you couldn’t marry unless you could read. If you belonged to the Lutheran state church, you had to go a camp for two weeks before confirmation, as I did. I had to read the Bible and other religious books to the priest and answer questions to show I understood them. Only then could I be confirmed and only if I was confirmed could I get a licence to marry in church. That is still the case. Now, of course, you can get married anywhere, but 50 years ago there were very few options other than marrying in church and, 100 years ago, none at all.”

There is another issue. Finnish education isn’t quite what it seems. Exams and competitive pressures may have been eradicated from schools, leaving teachers and pupils free for the co-operative pursuit of cultural, creative and moral improvement. But this educational idyll eventually comes to an abrupt end.

Pupils who stay beyond 16, as more than 90% do, move into separate (allegedly self-selected) streams: “general” and “vocational” upper secondary schools. Though there is some crossover between the two, the vocational school students usually go to polytechnics or directly into jobs.

Only the general school – catering for what, in effect, is the academic stream – offers the 155-year-old national matriculation exam, a minimum requirement for university entry. Wholly financed from student fees (in a system in which everything else, including school meals, is completely free until university graduation), the exam comprises traditional essay-based external tests covering at least four subject areas. To study a particular subject at a particular institution, students must take yet more exams set by the universities themselves.

As Sahlberg acknowledges, Finland hasn’t abolished competition; it has just moved it to a different part of the system. “It is getting tougher and tougher to reach the end points,” he says. “It is the Finnish compromise.”

In other words, although Finland unarguably achieves better results for more of its children than almost any other country in the world, success may (and I emphasise “may”) be attributable less to its laid-back school regime than to the children’s expectations of later competitive pressures. Exporting what appear to be educational success stories is a dubious enterprise, because it is so easy to misread how another country’s system works and to discount its cultural background.

Sahlberg, I think, would agree. He is an odd, diffident sort of ambassador, spreading the message about “the Finnish miracle” but not really believing in the data that supposedly proves that it works. His fear now is that Finland’s educational success is breeding complacency.

“Ask Finns about how our system will look in 2030, and they will say it will look like it does now. We don’t have many ideas about how to renew our system. We need less formal, class-based teaching, more personalised learning, more focus on developing social and team skills. We are not talking about these things at all.”

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

作者簡介

本文作者Peter Wilby曾擔任多家知名媒體記者,包括”The Guardian“、”The Independent“及”New Statesman“,專精於教育領域。

 

圖片來源:theguardian

本文轉載自小李的特教資訊站,未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】以色列對於技職教育的漠視

 

作者:Orna Raz

編譯:李育嘉

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

 以色列對於技職教育的漠視

1930後期,我的叔叔想加入吉布茨(註1),但是奶奶堅持要他先念職校,因為這對他的將來有幫助。之後叔叔念了Max Fein 職校,也順利成為一名焊工。幾年過去,他驕傲地告訴我他在職校的所學,對在吉布茨工作非常有幫助。

這個故事發生在以色列獨立前10年,以色列人非常清楚國家需要像我叔叔一樣的職校畢業生。

幾世代的技職教育,學生們在不同領域的訓練,是為了畢業後馬上就業;而有些學生選擇學術教育,以我的搭擋為例,他是Ort  high schools畢業,在大學念工程,但因為經費不足的問題,職校不再像過去一樣優質,變質成學科成績較弱的學生落腳處。

最近,職校議題在以色列總理本雅明·內塔尼亞胡(Benjamin Netanyahu)和部長西爾萬·沙洛姆(Silvan Shalom)之間爭論不休,情緒和偏見圍繞著此問題。

內塔尼亞胡希望提撥更多款項重建技職教育的品質,沙洛姆卻認為技職教育是歧視弱勢族群的元凶,尤其是對米茲拉希猶太人。沙洛姆認為技職教育就是次等教育,他甚至抨擊內塔尼亞胡「我還真想看你親自送兒子去讀技職教育。」沙洛姆希望以色列學生都可以從高中畢業,並通過入學考試進入大學就讀。

我鮮少同意內塔尼亞胡的話,當他說沙洛姆仍活在過去時,我覺得他這次是對的。教育對經濟、社會繁榮、社會流動都極有幫助。父母之所以願意投資小孩的教育,就是希望他們能有更好的將來。

不過,現在即使努力唸書考進好大學,也未必能夠找到穩定又有保障的工作,即使這些學生擁有學士、碩士甚至博士學歷。更糟的是,他們連支付房租都有問題。

在以色列律師、會計師已趨近飽和;藍領階級,如焊工、水電工,供不應求;結果這些技術人員反而薪資高出許多。

也許沙洛姆說的沒錯,沒有父母會將自己的孩子送入職校。但是我們不能一直活在過去的世界裡,一定要做些改變。如果我們願意投注更多資金在技職教育上,學校將會有所改善,之後我們的孩子、孫子接受的就不會再是畢業即失業的教育。

 

註1:kibbutz: 吉布茨的目標是混合共產主義錫安主義的思想建立烏托邦社區,社區里的人沒有私有財產,工作沒有工資,衣食住行教育醫療都是免費的。外人可以自願加入吉布茨,裡面的成員也可以自願退出,退出的時候可以領到一筆退出費以回報對社區的貢獻。不過近幾十年有些社區進行了私有化,生活方式發生了改變。(資料來源:維基百科)

 

【作者介紹:Orna Raz】希伯來大學英國文學博士。關注女性、文學、社會議題。現居以色列。

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

 “You Send Your Son To Welding School:” The Debate Over Vocational Education

In the late 1930s my 16 year old uncle wanted to join a kibbutz, but my grandmother demanded that he first study a vocation which would help him succeed in his new life. My uncle applied to the Max Fein Vocational School and became a welder.  Many years later he told me how proud he felt to be able to bring with him to the Kibbutz a useful gift of a vocation.

This event took place about ten years prior to Israel’s independence, and it was clear that people like my uncle, graduates of vocational schools, were exactly what our country needed.

For generations vocational schools educated children, trained them in different disciplines and enabled them to find a good job once they graduated. Some of them pursued academic studies, my partner for example,  a product of one of Ort  high schools, studied engineering at the university.

Yet with time vocational education fell from grace, was seriously underfunded, and as a result  its schools became a refuge for weak students who could not keep up with the academic programs of regular high schools.

The recent debate between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister Silvan Shalom over the role of vocational schools in Israel demonstrates the emotions and the prejudices surrounding this issue.

While Netanyahu proposed to allocate more money to the re-establishment of vocational education, Shalom sees those schools as a culprit in discriminating  against weak populations, especially Mizrahi students. For Shalom vocational schools mean low level and low tech skills. He lashed out at Netanyahu with the words: “I’d like to see you send your son to welding school”

Instead Shalom would like each student in Israel to be able to graduate from high-school,  to pass the matriculation exams and to go to university.

I rarely agree with Netanyahu, but in this case he was right when he said that Shalom was “living in yesterday’s world.” Until recent years education brought about economic prospects, social mobility and prosperity. Parents invested in their children’s education because they believed that it would be the key for a successful  future and expected their children to have a comfortable life.

But this was then, today those kids who work so hard to pass their matriculation exams and are accepted to college would probably not have an easy life. Many young people in Israel today do not  have a permanent or secured job with a B.A, M.A or even a PhD.  Moreover, often they are unable to afford even to rent a small place of their own.

It seems that in Israel there are too many lawyers and accountants who  cannot  find a job. But we do not have  enough welders, plumbers and other blue collar professionals, and those, in the words of Netanyahu, “welders and repair people make a lot of money.”

Perhaps Shalom is right and no one wants “to send his or her grandchild to such a school,” but something must change and we cannot continue to live in “yesterday’s world.”  If we allocate more money to vocational education, their schools could improve, and be able to offer our children and grandchildren the kind of preparation which will enable them to have a better future.

 

【Author:Orna Raz】 Orna has a PhD in English literature from the Hebrew University. She  wrote he doctorate about the British writer Barbara Pym and about educated women in Britain in the 1950s.  She is interested in issues concerning women, literature and society

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:Israel Defense Forces@flickr

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

The Times Of Israel中文網站: 以色列時報

 

【國外編輯部專欄】瑞士的學徒制度 (全球的模範)

 

作者/Christian

編譯/黃蘋

[tabs style=”nav-tabs”]
[tab title=”中文”]

瑞士的學徒制度 (全球的模範)

Swiss Apprenticeship System - Swissmem

 

Swissmem是瑞士一個機械及電子工程的組織

我很榮幸能參與七月二號swissmem industrietag組織在歐瑞康的蘇黎世展覽,今年的主題是有關技職教育的發展。

 

青年的低失業率

在Swissmem組織的主席Hans Hess開場之後,第一位講者是前瑞士協調中心教育研究院的主任Stefan C. Wolter教授。他非常有趣,在其他國家如何看待瑞士體制這個議題上,是擁有第一手經驗及洞見的人。

大部分講者的主題都是關於瑞士的雙教育體系。它給予青年學子們機會選擇教育結合學徒制度,而非僅僅一般的學術道路。當歐洲各國正在面臨25%的青年失業率,甚至像西班牙高達50%的青年失業,這個教育體系便是讓瑞士擁有低於百分之十青年失業率的原因。
然而,在工業方面,瑞士仍然戒慎恐懼。許多學生選擇普通中學教育(讓學生們準備去念大學),而較少學生去選擇與教育結合的學徒制度。

 

學徒制的優勢

Wolter教授了解到全世界正在把瑞士當成一個增進教育制度的榜樣。以下列出幾項學徒制的優點:

  • 可運用的知識
  • 強烈的工作倫理態度
  • 真實生活中解決問題的能力
  • 與不同年齡的人工作
  • 全球化的社會工作

Wolter表示,很少國家真的認同學徒制度的基本思想,他們通常只是想快速解決青年失業率的問題。

瑞士模式擁有流動性的明顯優勢(雖然其目前也正面臨著潛在性的問題)。學生們可先從學徒制開始,如果他們選擇去追求學術的頭銜或是職涯,再轉往大學去念書。
然而,學術往往不會轉移到產業中。一項工作通常只需要百分之十能穩定成功的員工擁有研發工程的學術背景便足夠了。

 

為什麼學徒制將會在許多經濟層面下失敗

根據Wolter指出,學徒制不能輕易被複製的原因主要和產業性質有關。瑞士以精密產業聞名,其中以手錶產業著名。因此,精密、細緻的組件是瑞士工業的基本要件。

當精密工業在1970出現危機時,許多員工失業,但卻在機器人及自動化工業中找到新的工作。瑞士產業在地理位置上主要提供組件給一些瑞士公司,例如: Swatch是全球最大的手錶組件供應商,且是瑞士主要的手錶產業代表。所以,即使你買了勞力士手錶,也有可能是出自於Swatch。

這讓人們可以轉移他們工作的能力到另一方面去。這也顯示出瑞士產業在危機中生存下來了。相反地,Wolter教授指出,每三百美金的iphone從中國進口到美國,其中只有美金十元是在中國完成。最貴的組件是由瑞士、德國、奧地利、韓國、台灣以及新加坡所製造。

相比於這些國家和中國,美國的貿易赤字明顯地不平衡。直到國家開始效仿瑞士的學徒制,去看其經濟成熟度和了解當地網絡產業的優勢,學徒制將會因為技能太難轉移而無法運作。

 

體制上的危險

現今體制在瑞士的威脅下,在與學徒制及學術的結合擴展相等的頭銜名號也有越來越多的趨勢。Lino Guzzella教授指出即使它讓學徒制更吸引人,但這個決定並不理想。他的理由是在本質下,這兩條路徑下讓人們發展出完全不同的經濟方向。

有趣的是,Guzzella清楚地闡釋大學有一個作用,就是去推動知識的界線,在理論上工作,在科學中突破。以他的觀點,大學需要成為獨立的產業。

理工大學必須和產業結合。再者,不同路徑上的流動性是被強調的。學者必須被鼓勵去尋求就業機會,而工業背景的人則須追求進一步的學術教育背景。

Swiss Apprenticeship System - Swissmem

 

流動性是主要的關鍵

從學者轉移到學徒是由一位東瑞士講者所提出。更小的州,就會有更多的工業。他描述了一個趨勢,即一群學生在體育館實現了他們幾年的研究,而不是遵循學術道路,反而選擇進入到業界工作。

在這些案例中,該州將會制定出一個快速的學徒制課程,以解釋在體育館做研究得到的知識。這即是其他州得去適應、以免青年感覺受困的彈性。

其中,許多歐洲國家有那麼高的青年失業率原因之一,就是候選人的學術頭銜普遍沒有可運用的工作技能,這些人沒任何他們獲得學分該有的效力。比起在邁向工作里程碑時失業,在職涯中去努力仍然相對簡單。

 

二零一四年二月九號投票的影響

最後一天的最後一個講者是瑞士國會議員以及前Swissmem主席,Johann Schneider-Ammann。

主要是談到聯邦政府如何處理瑞士移民的配額,他承認目前解決方法不是最佳的。瑞士工業知道這一點,尤其是在萊茵河上的工業部分,大部分都仰賴外籍勞工。

但是,Schneider-Ammann保持著樂觀的態度,瑞士仍是充滿著天賦。他強調我們必須找到確保人才的方式。他呼籲教育,尤其是學徒計畫能夠盡可能地和政治事務分離。

因為政治並不了解市場。百分比六到七的瑞士工業學徒仍然處於未被填滿的空缺狀態,而有能力填滿職缺的外國人卻會被身具工業背景下,看見他們經濟價值的人搶走。

Swiss Apprenticeship System - Swissmem
Photographs copyright by Swissmem

 

【作者介紹:Christian】

作家||業務顧問||營銷商||創業家||樂觀主義者||喜好葡萄酒||廚師||攝影師|| TEDster||酒吧老闆

 

[/tab]

[tab title=”English”]

The Swiss Apprenticeship System (A Model for the World)

Swiss Apprenticeship System - Swissmem

 

Swissmem is the Swiss association of mechanical and electrical engineering industries.

On July 2, I had the pleasure of attending the Swissmem Industrietag at the Messe Zürich in Oerlikon. The title of this year’s event was Königswege, Spannungsfelder und Entwicklungstrends in der Berufsbildung (high roads, fields of tension, and development trends in vocational education). Coming from an educational background, but more importantly believing that engineering and industry are important for economic and social success, the topic was of great interest to me.

 

Low Youth Unemployment

After the nice reception and opening words from Swissmem president Hans Hess, the first speaker was the director of the Swiss Coordination Center for Research in Education, Prof. Dr. Stefan C. Wolter. A really interesting man with first hand experience and insights into how other countries view the Swiss system. I would have liked to speak with him afterwards, but unfortunately I could not find him.

The topic on almost all speakers’ minds was about Switzerland’s dual education system. It gives youth a choice of pursuing an education together with an apprenticeship versus a purely academic path. This education system is one of the reasons why Switzerland has a youth unemployment rate of below 10 percent, while many other European countries are dealing with 25 percent and in cases like Spain even 50 percent youth unemployment.

However, even in Switzerland there are fears, especially in the industrial sector, that there is a growingAkademisierung (academicization). More students attend a Gymnasium (a high school that prepares students for university), and fewer choose to pursue an apprenticeship – which also comes with education.

 

Advantages of an Apprenticeship

Prof. Dr. Wolter knows that the rest of the world is looking to Switzerland as a role model for improving their own education systems. Among the listed advantages of doing an apprenticeship are:

  • Applicable know-how
  • Strong work ethic
  • Real life problem solving skills
  • Working with people of different ages
  • Socialization into the world of work

Wolter was quick to point out that while he has delegations visiting him weekly, few of the countries actually really subscribe to the underlying idea of the apprenticeship and are simply looking for a quick fix to their youth unemployment problems.

Where the Swiss model has its clear advantage (and this is where it currently also faces potential problems) is that there is mobility. Students can start with an apprenticeship, then move on to university if they choose to pursue an academic title or career. Academics, however, tend not to transfer into industry. A business typically only needs about 10 percent of employees with an academic background for its R&D and to warrant continued success.

 

Why the Apprenticeship System Will Fail in Many Economies

According to Wolter, a chief reason why the apprenticeship system cannot be easily copied has to do with thenature of industry. Switzerland is known for its precision tool industry which has roots in the watch industry. So working with tiny, delicate components is in the DNA of Switzerland’s industrial landscape.

When the precision industry had its crisis in the 1970’s, many workers lost their jobs but found new jobs in other fields of robotics and automation. Also, Swiss industry is geographically centralized as many Swiss companies supply components to yet other Swiss companies. For instance, Swatch is the world’s largest producer of watch components and supplies most of the Swiss watch industry. So even if you buy a Rolexwatch, you are probably still getting some Swatch in there.

This fact allows people to transfer their skills from one business to another. It also shows that Swiss industry survives by being on the cutting edge. In opposition, Prof. Dr. Wolter pointed out that for every USD 300 iPhone imported from China to the US, only USD 10 of work was done in China. The most expensive components are made in Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore.

America’s trade deficit is significantly more out of balance with these countries compared to that with China. Until countries looking to emulate the Swiss apprenticeship system see their economies mature and understand the advantage of having a local network of industries, the apprenticeship track will not work because the skills are too hard to transfer.

 

Dangers to the System

The current model is under threat in Switzerland. There is a growing tendency to want to extend equal titles to those having completed an apprenticeship and those going the academic route. As Prof. Dr. Lino Guzzella from the ETH Zurich pointed out, this is not a good decision, even if it makes apprenticeships more attractive. His reason is that in their very essence, the two paths are preparing people for two entirely different places in the economy.

It is interesting to note here that Guzzella made it very clear that universities have a role to explore and push the boundaries of knowledge, to work in theory and come up with scientific breakthroughs. In his own words, universities need to be independent of industry.

Polytechnic universities (Fachhochschulen) should work with industries, though. Again, mobility between the different paths was stressed: Academics should be as encouraged to seek employment in industry as those with industrial backgrounds should pursue further education in academics.

Swiss Apprenticeship System - Swissmem

Mobility is the Key

The idea of moving from the academic track to the apprenticeship track is something that a speaker from Eastern Switzerland addressed. The cantons there are smaller and more industrial. He described a trend that a great deal of students in gymnasiums realize a few years into their studies that they do not wish to follow an academic path but would prefer to move into industry.

In these cases, the cantons will work out a fast track apprenticeship curriculum to account for knowledge gained during studies at a gymnasium. This flexibility is exactly what other cantons need to accommodate the youth and prevent them from feeling trapped.

One of the reasons that so many European countries have high youth unemployment is the prevalence of candidates with academic titles and no applicable work skills. These youth do not receive any credit for what they have already accomplished. It remains easier to work one’s way up in a career rather than to be unemployed near the top.

 

The Impacts of Vote from February 9, 2014

The final speaker of the day was Swiss parliamentarian and former Swissmem president Johann Schneider-Ammann. Speaking mostly about how the Federal government is dealing with implementing the quotas on immigration to Switzerland, he acknowledged that the solution is not optimal. Swiss industry groups know this – especially in the Rhein Valley and other industrial sectors relying heavily on foreign workers.

Yet, Schneider-Ammann remained optimistic that Switzerland is full of talent. He stressed that we will need to find a way of ensuring that talent finds its place in the marketplace. He called for education, especially when it comes to the apprenticeship program remaining as separate from political affairs as possible.

Because politics does not understand the market. With 6 to 7 percent of industrial apprenticeship positions in Switzerland remaining unfilled and the ability to fill these positions with foreigners being taken away, those with industrial know-how will surely come to see their economic advantage.

Swiss Apprenticeship System - Swissmem
Photographs copyright by Swissmem

 

【Author:Christian】

Writer || Runner || Business Consultant || Marketer || Connector || Entrepreneur || Optimist || Wine Aficionado || Cook || Photographer || TEDster || Bar Owner

 

[/tab]
[/tabs]

 

圖片來源:《Newly Swissed

原文經合作媒體:《Newly Swissed》授權編譯,未經許可不得轉載

 

【國外編輯部專欄】中國人對創造力的濫用

 

作者/Yong Zhao

編譯/黃于馨

[tabs]
[tab title=”中文”]

 中國人對創造力的濫用

 

當今,中國發明已經成為全球熱門的話題。中國人以發明來跳脫『中等收入陷阱』是無庸置疑的,但是,能否成功創新仍舊是個問題。

創意是人的天性,假設創造力可以被平均分配,中國應該要俱有與人口等量的創意基因。因為中國的人口遠遠超過美國人口的三倍,應該也要有三倍像是史蒂夫·賈伯斯這樣的創意人才。但是,中國近代的科技貢獻卻不多,儘管中國的專利申請和科學期刊正以驚人數量成長,卻無法得到其他國家對他們在創新發明能力上的信服。

很顯然,中國在將創意潛能轉型為重要創新發明上失敗了。中國究竟怎麼了?創造力怎麼會在中國迷航呢?主要因素在於中國的獨裁主義精神,以完全服從獎勵和懲戒政策為旨。

很多人都認為服從會減少創造力,但,事實上服從卻能激起人民的創意。只是這樣的創造力並不俱有成效,反倒造成種種騙局,因為人民並非實際服從,而是僅止於形式上的順從。

舉例而言,中央政府反貪污政策中明訂政府官員不能喝昂貴的酒或在高級餐廳用餐,於是中國政府官員為了遵守政策,發揮創意,將昂貴的酒倒入一般飲料罐裡、把高級宴會地點移至農場舉辦、並讓五星級飯店主廚進駐地方烹煮工作餐;而當中央政府訂立耕地環境保護規則時,地方政府官員再度發揮創意,訂製綠色山水畫、以土壤鋪路種植蔬菜和大豆來展現他們對中央政府規範的服從。

『上有政策,下有對策』已經成為用來描述這種『欺君罔上』現象的普及名詞。中國地方當局表面上能如願完成中央政府的要求,獲得人民肯定,私底下卻浪費了大量資源及創造力。

而中國中央政府近期為了提倡創新,威逼利誘,只是中國人民卻又再一次以「創意」來達成政府的期望。

上個月,數名中國境內囚犯以自身專利發明獲得減刑。前任重慶市公安局長王立軍因為濫用職權被判監禁15年,他共取得254件專利,其中211件在一年內提出申請;另一位天津市公安局的吳長順則有35件專利被承認。以上大部分的專利都是攸關警察設備和配件。雖然這是一種營利手段,但是大部分專利都是用來添購公安局設備,因此兩人都得到特權和聲譽。

約十年前,陳進宣稱自己發明國際先進的電腦晶片漢芯一號(也稱作中國芯片一號),得到中國政府賜予地大量金錢和榮耀,然而,事實上陳進卻是運用「創意」,從摩托羅拉公司引進貨物,再僱用外籍員工來移除產品上的摩托羅拉標誌,並設法通過中國官員和專家的檢驗;而中國井岡山大學的一位教授也很有「創意」,在國際期刊發表超過40份的論文,一舉賺進數十萬人民幣,但是,這些論文後來卻被撤回,因為約有30份的作品是來自同一所學校的偽造論文。

中國人與生俱來的創意並不比別人少,也不是因為他們不願冒險或是有意詐欺,而是獨裁主義的完全服從精神左右人民的創造力。換言之,因為不能反抗國君,人民就會利用很有「創意」的方法來欺君。

中國的未來必須仰賴他們如何將創意成功翻轉為有建設性的創新能力。而最關鍵的,是中國當局能用多快的速度來改變獨裁體制政策。

 

【作者介紹:Yong Zhao】

Yong Zhao關注世界各地的教育問題,特別是在有關全球化和教育,創造力,全球競爭力,教育改革和教育技術的問題

 

[/tab]
[tab title=”English”]

Fooling the emperor: How is creativity misapplied in China?

 

China’s capacity for innovation has become a hot topic for China, the U.S., and the rest of the world today. There is no question that China must innovate its way out of the “middle income trap.” But whether the country – which over the last thirty years has proven to be able to make everything – can create anything new remains questionable.

The question is not about whether the Chinese people are creative. Creativity is human nature. Genetically speaking, creativity should not have any ethnic bias or favor any one nation. If creativity is evenly distributed, China should have its equal share of the same genetic stock of creativity as any other nation. Given that its population size is more than three times of that in the United States, China should possess three times the number of great creative geniuses such as Steve Jobs. It also claims to be the only ancient civilization that has a non-stop history of over five thousand years and the most powerful empire in the world, which should have given it more time to accumulate creativity and innovation.

But China has produced very few inventions in science and technology that matter much in the modern world, at least not enough protect the nation from Western aggressions backed by scientific and technological innovations. Even today, despite its stunning growth in patent applications and scientific publications, the country has yet convinced many of its ability to innovate and invent.

China apparently has failed to turn its creative potential into significant innovations and inventions. What happened to all the creativity China had? How does creativity get lost in China?

Speculations abound. No single reason can be used to answer such complex questions. But a major culprit is the authoritarian spirit that advocates complete obedience to authority and results in policies that rewards compliance and punishes defiance. While many people believe obedience results in less creativity, it actually can boost creativity, making people more creative. But the creativity is not productive, in fact counterproductive because it is applied to simply demonstrate obedience, without actual compliance, resulting in token compliance – a form of cheating.

For example, to show compliance to the government’s anti-corruption wishes, which include measures such as prohibiting government officials to enjoy expensive alcohol and elaborate banquets in luxurious restaurants, Chinese government officials have been found to be extremely creative: they put ultra-expensive alcohol such as Moutai in Coke bottles or ordinary drinking bottles; they move elaborate banquets to farm houses; they bring chefs from five-star hotels to cook their “working meals” in their local cafeterias. To comply with environmental regulations, local officials in more than one place creatively ordered mountainsides painted in green. In more than one provinces, local officials rushed to cover paved roads with soil and plant vegetables and soybeans to show the inspectors their compliance with government regulations about conserving farmland.

Shangyou Zhengce, Xiaoyou Duice, literally “the higher authorities have policies, the lower have countermeasures,” has become a common phrase to describe the phenomenon of “emperor-fooling.” This is why in China, the authority seems to always have their demands met and wishes granted by its people, albeit at great cost with wasted resources and creativity.

China’s recent campaign for innovation has met the same fate. To stimulate innovation, the government has employed all sorts of carrots and sticks. The Chinese people have again applied their creativity to realize the government’s wish.

Last month, a number of convicts received a reduction of prison term as a reward for their patented inventions. Former police chief of Chongqing Wang Lijun, now serving a prison term of 15 years for abuse of power was granted 254 patents, 211 of which were filed in one year. His counterpart Wu Changshun in Tianjin has 35 patents granted. Most of their patents were related to police equipment and accessories. They were commercialized but mostly purchased by their own departments, and earned them both royalties and fame.

About 10 years ago, Chinese governments showered money and glory upon Chen Jin, who claimed to have invented a sophisticated computer chip Hanxin #1 (or China Heart/Chip #1), which turned out to be a chip he bought from Motorola. However, he creatively hired some migrant workers to remove the Motorola label and managed to pass the inspection of Chinese officials and experts. A professor at Jinggangshan University found a creative way to have over 40 papers published in international journals, which earned him hundreds of thousands of RMB. But these papers were later retracted, together with about 30 from the same university, for fabricated and falsified data.

There are many more forms of creative and entrepreneurial token compliance. Fabricating research papers and faking journal publications for sale have become a multimillion-dollar enterprise in China, so has the creation and sailing of junk patents. Less courageous professors, medical doctors, nurses, engineers, and professional researchers resort to other forms of creative compliance: publishing the same paper in multiple places, splitting a paper into multiple publications, creatively modifying existing publications, or plagiarizing. As a result, China now receives more patent applications than the U.S. and publishes millions of scientific papers. But the majority of them are of low quality.

By nature, Chinese are no less creative than other people; nor are they less inclined to take risks, or more predisposed to cheating. The authoritarian spirit of absolute obedience to authority seems to direct creativity to risky cheating in order to realize the wishes of the high authority, which may or may not be shared by the people. In other words, while the emperor’s wishes cannot be denied, but people can creatively fool him.

China’s future rests on its ability to turn creativity into constructive innovations and inventions. But whether it can do so depends on how quickly it can change the authoritarian mindset.

 

【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:melenama@flickr

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