An alarming wave of misconceptions and misunderstandings has been washing through public opinion about numerous initiatives to alleviate the academic burdens on pupils, including school closures at 3:30 pm and “essential-quality-oriented education”. It’s time to unpick some of these myths.
First of all, it must be made clear that to reduce pupils’ academic pressure does not mean that state-run schools should step back from where they stand, reduce the difficulty of curricula that they offer, or relent on requirements for pupils to work hard, spend the necessary time revising and take exams.
In China, compulsory education comprises up to 6 hours of in-class instruction and additional hours of extra-curricular revision. The 6-hour requirement was designed to allow pupils time at home to go over what they have learnt at school, on their own. Ending classes at 3:30 pm is a departure from this objective. Little wonder that many consider that students going home at 3:30 pm is as a sign that state-run schools are taking a back seat in education. That should and will not be allowed to happen. As a cornerstone of socialist educational missions, i.e., ensuring universal access to quality education, state-run schools should not relinquish their dominant position in the provision of the best education to after-class tutoring agencies. Instead of stepping back after 6 hours of in-class instruction, it behooves state-run schools to guide the proper organization of out-of-class tutoring activities.
Another common misconception is that by cutting back on school hours and the difficulty of curricula, initiatives to reduce the study burden on pupils will drastically dent the competitive edge of younger generations in relation to their international peers. Existing science syllabuses taught at compulsory education level were in fact designed after extensive comparative research into those offered by many OECD countries, including the US, Russia, Germany, France, the UK, Japan, Korea, Australia and Singapore, and their difficulty is average or above average by international standards. Meanwhile, school days have been extended from 6.7 hours in 2010 to 8.1 hours in 2015 for primary students, and 7.7 hours to 11 hours for junior high school students, according to two nationwide surveys by the China Youth & Children Research Center.
These misconceptions could have been avoided if some more effort had been invested in communicating the basis of introducing the various initiatives to alleviate the academic burden on school children. As such, below is a proposal for a five-point approach to prevent further misunderstanding.
Adjust time allocated to each discipline. Schools should reduce the number of hours spent on general knowledge courses and book-learning to give pupils more time to develop moral, physical, aesthetic and practical capacities.
Encourage innovation in teaching and guidance methods. Teachers should develop innovative approaches to teaching to allow pupils to learn at their own pace, stimulate interest in learning, and equip them with skills to learn autonomously.
Improve efficiency. Teachers must discard inefficient and robotic training methods and instead explore new approaches that stimulate pupils’ creativity and critical thinking.
Respect individuality. Teachers should provide differentiated tutoring to pupils instead of sticking to one-size-fits-all teaching solutions. They should reduce the amount of mandatory schoolwork for all, and encourage variety in self-directed learning activities.
Adopt a step-by-step approach. Teachers should pace dissemination of knowledge and encourage students to build on a gradually acquired solid foundation. Keeping students busy at schoolwork until midnight is counterproductive, as they will end up falling asleep in class the next day. In addition, exams should not be used as a tool to rank students but as a means to diagnose what they’ve acquired and what should be improved.
(Zhang Zhiyong, NPC deputy and inspector of the Shandong Educational Bureau)
