论文部分内容阅读
Once one of the best in the world, Scotland’s education system has been steadily marching backwards for the past 10 years. From the outside, it seems baffling: why, given that Scottish spending per pupil is among the highest in the world, are things going so wrong? From the inside, it’s far easier to understand. You can explain it in three words: Curriculum for Excellence.
I’d heard stories about it before I started training as a teacher. By the time I qualified—in April last year—how I wished I’d listened to them. The story starts in 2010, when the new system was introduced with four aims: to create“confident individuals”, “successful learners”, “responsible citizens” and “effective contributors”. Perhaps the meaning of these phrases was clear to those who came up with them. But as I found out, many teachers can’t recall—let alone explain—them.
Picture a grey Glasgow sky and underneath, a cosy school staffroom. “What are they called again? Successful contributors? Effective learners?” one teacher with 30 years’ experience asks. “No, no. It is the learners who are successful; the contributors are effective!” a student teacher replies helpfully.
The idea of teaching had been turned on its head. Rather than stick to a topic—like English or chemistry—we had to mix them up according to a bizarre formula created in the devolved1 parliament. In 1999, the new MSPs2 had been given power over the school system—so decided to use it. When the SNP3 came to power, the shake-up began. Devolution made a nation’s children into guinea pigs.
So instead of straightforward maths lessons, we’d have “interdisciplinary learning”. Bar charts would be shoehorned4 into lessons about Shakespeare. For a teacher to perform “active learning”, the “learners” had to be constantly entertained. Then came the demand for“collaborative learning”, which means group work, where nothing gets done.
Exams were to be judged by classwork, which of course created plenty of scope for foul play5. And not only by pupils. One experienced teacher told me of “the pass factory” in her school, a place where pupils go for unlimited attempts on core assessments. Gaming the system6 is particularly noticeable in middle-class areas, where children pay for private tutors in order to be coached through exams. In some cases, tutors actually write the coursework for them.
In English, graphic novels crept7 their way into classrooms. Literature and media studies were fused. Presumably to cater for this, Penguin8 even published an emoji series of Shakespeare’s plays. This is new, certainly, but is it progress? Glaring ignorance of world geography or history is not just permissible, but expected. In history, for example, it’s normal for pupils to study the Second World War year after year, and merely be assessed at different levels, constant assessment being the SNP’s only guarantee. The number of pupils studying French or German has halved. 据我所知现在已有不少老师辞职。有个老师是法国人,他拥有索邦大学的哲学学位。他因教学质量问题与我们学校产生分歧之后,毅然放弃了他的教学实习。同样还有一位中学老师,因为“压力山大”,现在宁愿去教少年犯也不愿回到课堂。一位曾经壮志满怀的小学老师对我说,“我宁愿做任何事——任何事——也不愿回去教书了。”最近一次统计表明苏格兰大约有700个空缺的教职。这意味着大约2.1万名学生没有老师。
在我学校的教师办公室里有一张海报,上面写道:“当一名教师很容易,就像骑自行车。除非自行车着火了,你也就着火了,一切都着火了,你就身处地狱。”有时候在课间休息时,我会坐下来盯着这张海报看。我并不觉得好笑;因为想到老师,想到学生,他们都是这明显走向失败的教育体系的最大受害者。
1. devolved:(职权)已移交的,权力下放的。20世纪以来,苏格兰独立运动愈演愈烈,迫使英国中央政府将权力让渡给了苏格兰地方政府,“权力下放”成为当代英国政治发展的重要组成部分之一。1997年,英国工党执政,为顺应长期以来地方自治的呼声和兑现大选时的承诺,拉开了英国“权力下放”的帷幕,展开了“地区化”的进程。后文devolution为其名词形式。
2. MSP: Member of Scottish Parliament,苏格兰议会议员。
3. SNP: Scottish National Party,苏格兰民族党,是以苏格兰为基地的英国中左翼政党。该党宣称以苏格兰独立为主要政治目标。现任党魁为尼古拉·斯特金(Nicola Sturgeon)。
4. shoehorn: 把……硬塞进。
5. foul play: 欺骗手段,违规行为。
6. game the system: 指利用体制规则来获得他人没有的优势。
7. creep: 悄悄而缓慢地移动。
8. Penguin: 企鵝出版社,由埃伦·雷恩爵士于1935年创建,目前已经成为世界上著名的英语语种出版商。企鹅出版最新的小说和非虚构类图书,领域涵盖历史、科学和参考书,还包括文学奖得主的图书以及畅销书。
9. excrement: // 排泄,为表讽刺之意,此处excrement与excellence在读音上对应。
10. school placement: 即teaching practice,教学实习,是职前教师教育(initial teacher education)的重要环节。
阅读感评
∷秋叶 评
历史悠久而曾经卓有成效的苏格兰教育体系曾经培养出18世纪欧洲启蒙时代著名思想家大卫·休谟(David Hume, 1711—1776)、《国富论》作者亚当·斯密(Adam Smith, 1723—1790)以及20世纪两位诺贝尔奖获得者。到了知识经济成为国家核心竞争力的21世纪,虽然教育经费不断增加,改革措施频繁推出,苏格兰的教育体系却似乎每况愈下,以致被英国其他地区甩在后头,这确实令人难以接受!
原文作者在很大程度上将此糟糕状况归咎于2010年苏格兰在中学范围内开始实施的所谓“卓越课程”(Curriculum for Excellence)计划。查阅有关资料,该课程计划的教育目的“旨在帮助青少年获得21世纪生活所必须具备的知识、技能与品质,包括学习、生活与工作的技能”;其教育目标是造就“成功的学习者、自信的个体、负责任的公民与有效的贡献者”。为达此教育变革的目标,苏格兰教育部门认为学校课程须有连贯性,更有弹性以及内容更为丰富。他们还特别指出,这里“课程”一词并不仅仅指课堂教学,而是包括在青少年接受教育的全程中计划提供给他们的所有内容。该课程计划把学习分为以下四种情境(contexts of learning):课程领域与科目(curriculum areas and subjects)、跨学科学习(interdisciplinary learning)、学校氛围与生活(ethos and life of the school)与个人成就获得机遇(opportunities for personal achievements)。同时,还提出了八大课程领域与科目——表达艺术、健康教育、语言(包括英语、盖尔语、现代语言等)、数学、宗教与道德教育、科学、社会科学、技术,其中尤其强调学生的语文、数学能力的培养及体育与身心健康的发展,并由此提出了教师在做课程计划时应遵循的七大原则——挑战性兼趣味性(challenge and enjoyment)、宽泛性(breadth)、循序渐进(progression)、深度(depth)、个性化与选择(personalization and choice)、连贯性(coherence)与相关性(relevance)。最后,他们还为课程的各个领域及不同阶段提供了具体的学生水准基点(benchmarks)与相关文件,作为各级各类中学实施教改的参照。从以上内容大致可知,该教改计划融合了在西方有悠久传统的人文教育——旨在实现受教育者人性的提升与理想人格的发展,与现代的通识教育——旨在让受教育者掌握人文、社会科学与自然科学的基础知识,造就知识宽厚、具有跨学科视野与能力、全面发展的人才,而这确实被普遍认为是21世纪的教育发展大趋势。另外,从内容的丰富性与表述的具体性来看,似乎比我们领导人在上世纪80年代提出的“教育要面向现代化、面向世界、面向未来”具有更强的可操作性。
然而,事与愿违,这“卓越课程”在具体实践过程中却异化成了人人避之不及的“废物课程(curriculum for excrement)”。按原文作者的看法,其症结在于:一、教育目标空泛而抽象,内涵难以阐释;二、从专业性学习跨越到跨学科学习,让人无所适从;三、教师主导下的“自主性学习”(active learning)、“合作性学习”(collaborative learning)等手段,效率低下;四、过去的一次性学生独立测试变成了目前无限次基于课堂任务的评估,结果是给各种违规行为大开绿灯。考试失去了严肃性与挑战性,人人得以通过;五、教学水准下降、学生能力平庸化。例如,为了整合文学与媒介,原本的少儿读物图画小说进入了课堂。这很新奇,但绝非进步;世界地理与历史知识的教学受到忽略;修法语、德育的学生数减少了一半。总之,这个所谓的“卓越课程”,非但没能造就学生的“卓越”,反而让他们的知识浅薄、能力下降,愿望与现实背道而驰!
I’d heard stories about it before I started training as a teacher. By the time I qualified—in April last year—how I wished I’d listened to them. The story starts in 2010, when the new system was introduced with four aims: to create“confident individuals”, “successful learners”, “responsible citizens” and “effective contributors”. Perhaps the meaning of these phrases was clear to those who came up with them. But as I found out, many teachers can’t recall—let alone explain—them.
Picture a grey Glasgow sky and underneath, a cosy school staffroom. “What are they called again? Successful contributors? Effective learners?” one teacher with 30 years’ experience asks. “No, no. It is the learners who are successful; the contributors are effective!” a student teacher replies helpfully.
The idea of teaching had been turned on its head. Rather than stick to a topic—like English or chemistry—we had to mix them up according to a bizarre formula created in the devolved1 parliament. In 1999, the new MSPs2 had been given power over the school system—so decided to use it. When the SNP3 came to power, the shake-up began. Devolution made a nation’s children into guinea pigs.
So instead of straightforward maths lessons, we’d have “interdisciplinary learning”. Bar charts would be shoehorned4 into lessons about Shakespeare. For a teacher to perform “active learning”, the “learners” had to be constantly entertained. Then came the demand for“collaborative learning”, which means group work, where nothing gets done.
Exams were to be judged by classwork, which of course created plenty of scope for foul play5. And not only by pupils. One experienced teacher told me of “the pass factory” in her school, a place where pupils go for unlimited attempts on core assessments. Gaming the system6 is particularly noticeable in middle-class areas, where children pay for private tutors in order to be coached through exams. In some cases, tutors actually write the coursework for them.
In English, graphic novels crept7 their way into classrooms. Literature and media studies were fused. Presumably to cater for this, Penguin8 even published an emoji series of Shakespeare’s plays. This is new, certainly, but is it progress? Glaring ignorance of world geography or history is not just permissible, but expected. In history, for example, it’s normal for pupils to study the Second World War year after year, and merely be assessed at different levels, constant assessment being the SNP’s only guarantee. The number of pupils studying French or German has halved. 据我所知现在已有不少老师辞职。有个老师是法国人,他拥有索邦大学的哲学学位。他因教学质量问题与我们学校产生分歧之后,毅然放弃了他的教学实习。同样还有一位中学老师,因为“压力山大”,现在宁愿去教少年犯也不愿回到课堂。一位曾经壮志满怀的小学老师对我说,“我宁愿做任何事——任何事——也不愿回去教书了。”最近一次统计表明苏格兰大约有700个空缺的教职。这意味着大约2.1万名学生没有老师。
在我学校的教师办公室里有一张海报,上面写道:“当一名教师很容易,就像骑自行车。除非自行车着火了,你也就着火了,一切都着火了,你就身处地狱。”有时候在课间休息时,我会坐下来盯着这张海报看。我并不觉得好笑;因为想到老师,想到学生,他们都是这明显走向失败的教育体系的最大受害者。
1. devolved:(职权)已移交的,权力下放的。20世纪以来,苏格兰独立运动愈演愈烈,迫使英国中央政府将权力让渡给了苏格兰地方政府,“权力下放”成为当代英国政治发展的重要组成部分之一。1997年,英国工党执政,为顺应长期以来地方自治的呼声和兑现大选时的承诺,拉开了英国“权力下放”的帷幕,展开了“地区化”的进程。后文devolution为其名词形式。
2. MSP: Member of Scottish Parliament,苏格兰议会议员。
3. SNP: Scottish National Party,苏格兰民族党,是以苏格兰为基地的英国中左翼政党。该党宣称以苏格兰独立为主要政治目标。现任党魁为尼古拉·斯特金(Nicola Sturgeon)。
4. shoehorn: 把……硬塞进。
5. foul play: 欺骗手段,违规行为。
6. game the system: 指利用体制规则来获得他人没有的优势。
7. creep: 悄悄而缓慢地移动。
8. Penguin: 企鵝出版社,由埃伦·雷恩爵士于1935年创建,目前已经成为世界上著名的英语语种出版商。企鹅出版最新的小说和非虚构类图书,领域涵盖历史、科学和参考书,还包括文学奖得主的图书以及畅销书。
9. excrement: // 排泄,为表讽刺之意,此处excrement与excellence在读音上对应。
10. school placement: 即teaching practice,教学实习,是职前教师教育(initial teacher education)的重要环节。
阅读感评
∷秋叶 评
历史悠久而曾经卓有成效的苏格兰教育体系曾经培养出18世纪欧洲启蒙时代著名思想家大卫·休谟(David Hume, 1711—1776)、《国富论》作者亚当·斯密(Adam Smith, 1723—1790)以及20世纪两位诺贝尔奖获得者。到了知识经济成为国家核心竞争力的21世纪,虽然教育经费不断增加,改革措施频繁推出,苏格兰的教育体系却似乎每况愈下,以致被英国其他地区甩在后头,这确实令人难以接受!
原文作者在很大程度上将此糟糕状况归咎于2010年苏格兰在中学范围内开始实施的所谓“卓越课程”(Curriculum for Excellence)计划。查阅有关资料,该课程计划的教育目的“旨在帮助青少年获得21世纪生活所必须具备的知识、技能与品质,包括学习、生活与工作的技能”;其教育目标是造就“成功的学习者、自信的个体、负责任的公民与有效的贡献者”。为达此教育变革的目标,苏格兰教育部门认为学校课程须有连贯性,更有弹性以及内容更为丰富。他们还特别指出,这里“课程”一词并不仅仅指课堂教学,而是包括在青少年接受教育的全程中计划提供给他们的所有内容。该课程计划把学习分为以下四种情境(contexts of learning):课程领域与科目(curriculum areas and subjects)、跨学科学习(interdisciplinary learning)、学校氛围与生活(ethos and life of the school)与个人成就获得机遇(opportunities for personal achievements)。同时,还提出了八大课程领域与科目——表达艺术、健康教育、语言(包括英语、盖尔语、现代语言等)、数学、宗教与道德教育、科学、社会科学、技术,其中尤其强调学生的语文、数学能力的培养及体育与身心健康的发展,并由此提出了教师在做课程计划时应遵循的七大原则——挑战性兼趣味性(challenge and enjoyment)、宽泛性(breadth)、循序渐进(progression)、深度(depth)、个性化与选择(personalization and choice)、连贯性(coherence)与相关性(relevance)。最后,他们还为课程的各个领域及不同阶段提供了具体的学生水准基点(benchmarks)与相关文件,作为各级各类中学实施教改的参照。从以上内容大致可知,该教改计划融合了在西方有悠久传统的人文教育——旨在实现受教育者人性的提升与理想人格的发展,与现代的通识教育——旨在让受教育者掌握人文、社会科学与自然科学的基础知识,造就知识宽厚、具有跨学科视野与能力、全面发展的人才,而这确实被普遍认为是21世纪的教育发展大趋势。另外,从内容的丰富性与表述的具体性来看,似乎比我们领导人在上世纪80年代提出的“教育要面向现代化、面向世界、面向未来”具有更强的可操作性。
然而,事与愿违,这“卓越课程”在具体实践过程中却异化成了人人避之不及的“废物课程(curriculum for excrement)”。按原文作者的看法,其症结在于:一、教育目标空泛而抽象,内涵难以阐释;二、从专业性学习跨越到跨学科学习,让人无所适从;三、教师主导下的“自主性学习”(active learning)、“合作性学习”(collaborative learning)等手段,效率低下;四、过去的一次性学生独立测试变成了目前无限次基于课堂任务的评估,结果是给各种违规行为大开绿灯。考试失去了严肃性与挑战性,人人得以通过;五、教学水准下降、学生能力平庸化。例如,为了整合文学与媒介,原本的少儿读物图画小说进入了课堂。这很新奇,但绝非进步;世界地理与历史知识的教学受到忽略;修法语、德育的学生数减少了一半。总之,这个所谓的“卓越课程”,非但没能造就学生的“卓越”,反而让他们的知识浅薄、能力下降,愿望与现实背道而驰!