張貼日期：Jul 13, 2010 2:15:28 AM
身為教師，只要對於孩子「好」的事，應該全力以赴。因此，對於「北縣辦理之英語活化」課程「反對」或「不贊成」的老師來說，很容易被貼上「不符合社會期待」的標籤。使得原本應屬於理性討論的教育議題，成為「泛道德」的論述。
中國郵報China Post在6月9日的社論，或許可提供給大家另一個角度，來看待此一問題。(可連結至http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/taiwan-issues/2010/06/09/259933/p2/Teaching-English.htm詳讀)
該篇社論有下列數點論述：
1.做為家長，我們都非常關心孩子的未來，尤其是學校中增加英語課帶來的影響。
2.增加3節英語課，並不表示英語可以學得更好或更多；英語學得好與否，還是取決於孩子的悟性與努力程度。因此，對於擔心因為英語課程加時而影響其它課程的家長，政府應該讓他們有選擇的機會。
3.過去，臺灣的英語課程從國中開始，很多人在成年之後繼續學習，英語一樣學得很好。愈早學習英語效果愈好的說法，畢不竟然。
4.英語說得好，未必可以使臺灣社會變得更國際化；很多低度未開發的國家，都以英語為國語或官方語言，可是卻和國際化扯不上邊，另如孟加拉就是一個例子。
5.我們支持學校英語教學變得更有深度，但不該是個值得爭論的議題。
Perhaps it's Taiwan's too-rapid democratization that has turned its people a little too pugnaciously argumentative for comfort. They tend to express disagreement or quarrel over almost anything that isn't or shouldn't be an issue. Democratization is evolved, and an instant democratization, like the one Taiwan has experienced, could cause friction.
Well, as things are going now, people love to jump at every opportunity to argue over non-issues ranging from a referendum on an economic cooperation framework agreement between Taiwan and China to the teaching of English in elementary schools in the island's most populous county of Taipei, which is set to get an upgrade to the exalted status of special municipality as New North City. Incidentally, no appropriate English name for the special municipality of Xinbeishi is available and we take the liberty to translate literally the name of the upgraded county. The citizens of the good old special municipality of Taipei, which they love to call Beishi meaning North City, don't like their upstart neighbor county to be so named, simply because by comparison, theirs must be regarded as Old North City.
Though we are not sure when people of Taipei, who think they are more sophisticated, will take on their neighbors in a heated argument over the rectification of names, parents in the yet-to-be-born special municipality of New North City are busily and hotly wrangling over whether their little ones should be given three more English lessons a week in school. They do not think they are fighting a Lilliputian war over whether eggs should be broken at the big or little ends. They are all seriously concerned about the future of their children, which they believe may be affected either beneficially or adversely by the added hours of English-teaching.
It all started when the Taipei County board of education decided in late spring that lower graders would start receiving three more weekly English lessons in the next school year, which begins in September. Taiwan's national education association, a grouping of schoolteachers, and concerned parents are up in arms against the “terrible” decision. Together with representatives of other non-profit organizations dedicated to children's welfare, angry parents and teachers took to the streets, laying a siege to the Ministry of Education, which they complained hasn't taken action to stop what they allege is the “kidnapping in fact” of the school kids for forced lecturing of day-to-day English. Officials of the county board of education are not backing down. They are strongly determined to enforce the new addition to the elementary school curriculum, come what may, albeit they are planning to hold at least three large-scale discussion meetings this week to win the understanding of the concerned parents and teachers.
Now, let's face the issue — or non-issue — fairly and squarely. We fully understand the concern of parents, teachers and members of the board of education. County educators are genuinely afraid schoolchildren can't improve their English “efficiency” sufficiently enough to survive tests in the not-to-distant future without additional tutoring. Teachers and parents fear the added schoolwork would crowd out other important inculcations to the great disadvantage of their children, who must go on all the way to college; but none of them should be worried.
Three more lessons a week may get young kids more exposed to English for everyday life, of course. But that doesn't necessarily mean they will learn better and more. Ultimately, it's the learners who may learn more or less, depending on their aptitude and diligence, not on the hours of instruction. Moreover, what they learn may be forgotten in no time if they are not given chances to put it to use in their daily lives. Do they have such chances? Unlikely. Then what's the use of giving kids three more English lessons a week? Crowding-out is just as unlikely to affect their study in such important subjects as mathematics and Chinese. And for those parents who do not want their children to stay three hours longer in school each week, the educators can easily satisfy them by making the additional lessons elective. So what's the fuss?
But one more question has to be asked. Why do lower graders in Taiwan have to be taught English in the first place? In the past, students wait until they are enrolled in junior high schools to begin learning English. Many of them have a very good command of English after they continued to study the language in adulthood. Does the learning of that now-universal language at a much more tender age help people acquire a working command of English faster? Not necessarily. Acquisition of that much English efficiency certainly helps a lot. Yet English proficiency cannot be translated into “internationalization” of our society, which is the very purpose our government has been doing whatever it can to achieve lest Taiwan should be left out in the economic globalization. The slogan is to get Taiwan “networked” with the world. Hence the relentless national campaign to learn English. Remember the previous Democratic Progressive Party government wanted to make English a “quasi-official” language of Taiwan?
Here lies something wrong with this national unity of purpose. We ask just one question: Is a country “internationalized” and “networked” with the world if its people can all speak English? English is a national or official language of many very slowly developing countries, like Bangladesh for instance. Practically none of them benefit from this so-called “internationalization.”
Don't get us wrong. We strongly support intensive English-teaching in school. We only wish there wouldn't be any more argument about whether schoolchildren should be given three more English lessons a week and how.