Conformism or innovation?

(Baonghean) - The development of the Project for Fundamental and Comprehensive Reform of Education and Training is currently in its final stages. This is because, in about two years, specifically after 2015, the education sector must comprehensively reform the curriculum and textbooks for general education according to the National Assembly's Resolution of 2000. And as the final stage approaches, there are increasingly more contributions, discussions, and even criticisms.

Recently, debates have emerged on online forums regarding the ideal length of general education: 10, 11, or 12 years. One viewpoint suggests a 10 or 11-year system, while the other advocates 12 years. The 10 or 11-year option has the advantage of reducing schooling by one or two years, thus decreasing investment from the government and parents. This would alleviate some of the financial burden on education.

Secondly, shortening the duration of high school would allow students to enter university earlier. This option is feasible if the curriculum is sufficient to provide students with adequate basic knowledge. The other viewpoint, advocating for maintaining the current 12-year curriculum, argues that this amount of time is necessary to equip students with the essential knowledge required for higher education. The final two years of high school should not only supplement basic knowledge but also include career guidance, allowing students to assess their abilities and choose vocational training, professional secondary education, or higher education. In short, both viewpoints have valid points.

Another, more macro-level viewpoint argues for the need to develop a clear educational philosophy. To this day, we still lack a suitable educational philosophy to serve as a long-term guiding principle. This sounds convincing. However, examining the current state of education at the secondary and even college/university levels, it can be asserted that our current educational methods are heavily rigid and mechanical, failing to stimulate creative thinking and student development. This is because, even at the primary school level, our children are forced to adapt to and comply with rigid and highly mechanical methods of education. Specifically, they must memorize model essays and math problems provided by teachers without any creative input. Reading their notebooks reveals this rigid and mechanical approach. For example, when describing a doctor, the students all ended their essays with: "I dream of becoming a doctor when I grow up." When describing a female worker, their essays concluded with: "I dream of becoming a street cleaner when I grow up." Even when describing their grandmother, the ending was: "I dream of becoming a grandmother when I grow up"...

In short, after three or four essays, it was evident that when describing any profession, the students all concluded with the same sentence. This is because, according to them, "the teacher told us to do it this way. We just memorized it, and whenever we encountered a question, we just followed it." Having been exposed to this kind of learning from a young age, it will be very difficult for these students to break free from this rigid mindset when they grow up.

Therefore, whether education should last 10, 11, or 12 years, and how to build an educational philosophy, are issues that need thorough discussion. But most importantly, it is crucial to determine from the outset whether to choose a rigid, mechanical approach to education or a creative one, in order to guide textbook development and shape teachers' teaching styles. Current practice shows that the world's leading developed countries are those with education systems that highly stimulate the imagination and creativity of their students.

So, should our education system follow a rigid, mechanical path, or one that is creative?

Duy Huong