If we put the hope of changing the fate of rural children on this big screen and give super high school a chance to wash away, it will only make it more difficult to achieve educational equity.
Using technology to replicate the super high school model is worrying
I read some discussions after the article was published, and different opinions are mainly expressed in two aspects. First, the online live broadcasting class is also a top student selected from numerous middle-level students. Its coverage is very small, so its symbolic significance is greater than its practical significance. Second, the report unilaterally exaggerates the function of large-screen live broadcasting, ignoring the National College entrance examination in minority areas implemented in recent years. The special enrollment plans for rural areas and poor areas of higher education institutions such as North China University of Qing Dynasty are divided into different policies. Of course, there are also reports pointing out that live webcasting is a commercial operation, the report lacks vigilance on this point.
These criticisms are well-founded. The commercial operation of this project is true, but at present, it seems that the cost of government purchasing services has not been passed on to schools and students. The first two criticisms both think that the report exaggerates the current role of this project, but also affirm its future and direction. If investment is further increased and technology is further matured, it may benefit more. Students, play a greater role.
However, considering Chinese education according to this logic, the problem seems to be very simple. Super high schools are successful samples. The government, businesses and super high schools cooperate to copy the super high school curriculum by various means, including new media. The unfair education between urban and rural areas can be solved easily.
However, anyone who knows a little about Chinese society should know that super-high schools everywhere are the result of the deformity fostered by unfair education. It is precisely for the needs of political achievements that governments at all levels use administrative power to centralize the allocation of local educational resources, formulate various policies and create super high schools, which objectively adds to the unfairness of urban and rural education.
These so-called super middle schools include not only Hengshui and Maotan factories, but also some famous middle schools in the first-tier cities. These super high schools are treated differently in public opinion, and the former seems to be ridiculed. But in fact, it is not difficult to find that this kind of ridicule may also be a step of laughter.
Because we must focus on the competitive indicators of the entrance examination rate, there is no fundamental difference in the mode of running a school. Except for Tsinghua University, Peking University, a large number of students in the super high schools in big cities have the opportunity to enter the Ivy League schools every year, so that the super high schools in these big cities have more arrogant capital.
I have worked in many colleges and universities successively, and not a few graduates have come into contact with these super high schools. I have some direct feelings about the educational model and teaching effect of these super high schools. Its hard for me to agree with the educational ideas of these schools, let alone to think that the school-running mode of these schools represents the direction of basic education in China. Therefore, I think it is worrying to use new media and new technology to promote and replicate these super high schools mode of running schools.
The profiteer of that screen or the merchant and the super high school
As mentioned above, the formation of every super high school is the result of resource support. These super high schools should have been the goal of education reform and the problem to be solved in education reform. In recent years, there has been a consensus of public opinion in the relevant discussions. But this kind of reform involves all aspects, touches too many interests, calls for more reform and does less. Most places are turning around in situ without substantive advancement. How to find the breakthrough point of reform is a hard bone indeed.
However, what is more disturbing is that if we are moved by This Screen May Change Fate and regard the course live broadcasting created by the joint efforts of local government, business and super high schools as the direction of reform, the ultimate result may be that the real profits are still made by business and super high schools. This conspiracy, under the guise of educational equity, may only create new forms of injustice on the basis of consolidating privileges, and each screen may only allow rural children to see illusory hopes.
I do not intend to criticize this report, but if we put the hope of changing the fate of rural children on this big screen, abandon the reflection on the root causes, give super high school a chance to wash away, and let super high school become a real winner, it will only further increase the difficulty of achieving educational equity.
It should be noted that in recent years, a large number of non-governmental forces have invested in teaching experiments and explorations, and many people from all walks of life have made many effective innovations to solve the educational problems in China. Only when we face the dilemma with a more open attitude, fully mobilize the strength of the people, support and absorb the innovation of various forces, formulate and promote public policies that are really conducive to educational equity, can we find the key to solving the difficult problems of Chinas educational reform. Only when new technologies and new media contribute to educational reform can it be truly possible.
Source: Author of New Beijing News: Wang Tianding, Editor-in-Charge: Han Jiapeng_NN9841