论文部分内容阅读
读了赵亚欣同志的《职工补课之我见》(《北京成人教育》1988·1期)一文,大有同感,我也认为“双补”在许多地方是失败的,是流于形式、走了过场。这些问题在进入中级文化教育及中级技术培训中已明显地显示出来了。是什么原因使“双补”流于形式,走了过场呢?笔者以为有以下几点: “双补”理应侧重于“补”。可足不少地方的职工的素质低得连真正的初小水平也不具备,等于从头学起。补课的时间有限,上面规定的及格率又是死的,达标的
I read a comrade’s speech entitled “My View on Staff Rectification” (“Beijing Adult Education”, Issue 1988.1), and I also think that the “double complement” failed in many places and is a mere formality. Transitions. These problems have been clearly demonstrated in entering intermediate-level cultural education and mid-level technical training. What is the reason for the “double fill” flowed into the form, went through the field? I think the following points: “double fill” should focus on “fill.” The quality of workers in quite a few places can not be as good as that of a genuine elementary school, which amounts to starting from scratch. Make-up time is limited, the above pass rate is dead, up to the standard