The Failings of Chinese Education

Arron, a Taiwanese guy, is highly creative. He loathed school. In fact, because he began to question the purpose behind the endless tests he was taking, his motivation sank to the point where he completely lost interest and quit.

Salvation only came in the form of study abroad. He went to Brisbane, Australia, where he found his niche amongst like-minded people and excelled. But the Chinese system had failed him.

I say “the Chinese system” because it is based on culturally defined beliefs which date back to the days of the Chinese imperial examinations. Open to all, the imperial examinations system served the empire well as all had an equal chance to gain power and position. Everyone who had access to education became a stakeholder. The grandchild of this system, still seen in effect throughout most of Asia, is based on learning by dictation, memorization and rote.

"The Chinese system failed him"

The system is failing because it is woefully and unquestionably outdated. It is failing because it is based on a fundamentally false understanding of the purpose of education. The system is unfit for the modern world. The Chinese education system, to be frank, is awful. It needs to change.

Learning from Finland

Rather than taking my word for it, though, consider a few facts from Finland. Finland has consistently had the best education system in the world for a number of years now. Finland completely abolished standardized tests in the 1980s.

Just stop for a second and think about this. Education without tests? This is unimaginable to a Chinese mind. Chinese education is tests. Tests are the whole point of learning, so how could Finland abolish theirs? And how could this have led to their developing a better education system than the UK or US?

"Finland abolished standardized tests in the 1980s."

A few more facts about Finland. There are no elementary and secondary schools. Only one school, where students remain until university so that they are not subjected to stressful, disruptive tests. Teachers become like “school moms and dads”, taking real responsibility for those in their charge and perfecting which ways of learning work for which kids.

No one gets left behind. Children are not split up into different levels according to their abilities in different subjects. If one of the children is struggling, help is given. An extra teacher comes in to support, working with the weaker students to make sure that they can keep up with their classmates. Importantly, also, children are not shamed for being less academically gifted than others. The Finnish admit that not all children are as academically gifted as others. They do not mistake this for a fundamental lack of value or worth in a child. And they do not criticize.

"Children are not shamed for being less gifted"

Teachers teach a meagre three classes a day. Teachers are also given a high degree of freedom to design their classes as they see fit, ensuring that quality rather than quantity is brought to the classroom, and classes are appropriate to the needs and personalities of the individuals within. Furthermore, the children themselves are given autonomy to learn in different ways. Those designing the system believed that curiosity is a natural trait of all children and the key involved finding how best to nurture that curiosity at school.

A System without a Purpose

By contrast, a 2005 report by a group of visiting American academics is damning:

“The Chinese system places undue emphasis on memorization of obscure facts”.

“The Chinese system places undue emphasis on the speed of memorization”.

“The Chinese system lacks any kind of second-chance opportunities”.

“The Chinese system hampers innovation”.

“The Chinese system does not promote the ability to apply knowledge in new situations”.

“The Chinese system does not promote the ability to think independently”

“The Chinese system does not produce graduates who are well prepared for a modern, fast-changing economy and society”.

In other words, the Chinese system is failing.

So What is the Point?

Consider the following:

The difference between Knowing and Understanding.

What is the point of learning endless reams of dates, numbers and facts without actually understanding the contexts which give them meaning? Nearly all facts from school are forgotten as we age anyway, but understanding why things occur stays with us. Schools in Taiwan focus purely on the former. They need to focus on the latter.

The difference between Understanding and Learning to Think for Yourself.

Time and again I’ve seen the surprise Westerners experience as they discover the lack of any ability to think in the Chinese. People who cannot think for themselves may have been useful in static, undynamic, hierarchical societies, but the world has changed and we’re not going back. What is necessary in real life now? Is just understanding the thinking of others even enough any more?

The Need to Learn How to Teach Yourself.

A skill entirely absent from any school curriculum in Taiwan or, I would wager, Japan, mainland China, Malaysia, or Indonesia. Remember, however, that school is only a means; it is not an end in itself. Remember that school does not last forever. Real life follows, and real life is tough. If your children are not equipped to learn for themselves, they will remain relatively ignorant while others grow.

There are Other Forms of Intelligence.

People can be brilliant is so many different ways. Creative, physical, practical, conceptual, dynamic. Everyone is different. But everyone has value, regardless of their academic prowess. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates didn’t even graduate. And you are condemning your children to shame because of a test which is ultimately pointless anyway?

If you do nothing else, think about what and how you are teaching your children. And do something to change it. Please. Childhood in Taiwan is a horrible experience. It need not be. Kids are forced to memorise masses of useless facts, all of which are later forgotten. Even most teachers hate it.

What is the point?

© 2010 Nathan R. D. Haslewood