https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=678706358838522&set=a.109833145725849.5623.100000974924946&type=1&theater
這是我個人的看法: 在台灣(和很多亞洲國家)，即便是在X軸的中間，其實只是官方的做法定位在中間，不像在右邊的國家有明確的能力分班制度。因此，台灣雖然明定禁止能力分班以及以分數排名次，但私底下大家都在比這些，禁不勝禁。有明星國小、國中、高中，高中入學比分數，大學、碩士班入學，還是比分數和名次。這是我說台灣實際上是在右下角的理由，如果少數東歐國家不算的話。
我個人其實也不反對在有足夠的資源條件進行能力分班，前提是有足夠的師資和教育經費。沒有這些前提的能力分班，往往只是強化競爭和保證初期競爭優勝者能夠持續收到好的教育資源，犧牲掉的是競爭(分數)之外的項目以及初期被淘汰的學生。
在台灣，缺乏學習動機的學生比比皆是，這跟很多事情有關。我們的教育有沒有讓學生渴望學習? 似乎沒有，有不少台大的老師和我都看到這樣的問題。
原文說明：
In highly stratified systems, there may be more incentives for schools to select the best students, and fewer incentives to support difficult students if there is an option of transferring them to other schools. In contrast, in comprehensive systems, schools must find ways of working with students from across the performance spectrum. School systems that continue to differentiate among students in these ways need to create appropriate incentives to ensure that some students are not “discarded” by the system.
PISA 2012 results also show that students in more comprehensive systems reported that making an effort in mathematics and learning mathematics are important for their future career. This does not necessarily mean that if stratification policies were changed, students in stratified systems would be more motivated to learn, since PISA does not measure cause and effect. However, policy makers in highly stratified systems need to consider not only the equity aspect of education outcomes but also non-cognitive outcomes, such as students’ attitudes towards learning.
Reflecting these results, Poland, for example, reformed its education system by delaying the age of selection into different programmes; and schools in Germany are also moving towards reducing the levels of stratification across education programmes.
沒有留言:
張貼留言