Abstract: Education reform in China and the U.S. over last decade reveals us three theories on the limitation of education reform. First, it’s impossible to ensure that no student falls behind, although we could build the best education system through a top-to-down administration approach. Second, it’s impossible to employ a common curriculum ideology or method to make all students develop their capabilities through a top-to-down administration approach. Third, it’s impossible to develop the best teaching method to ensure all students achieve excellence. It’s significant to know these three limitations for China’s future education reform. We need to raise the question positively, know the limitation theories and understand education diversification.
Keywords: Education reform; limitation theories
We need to positively raise the question
On January 23, 2001, former President George W. Bush of the United States of American released the Education Reform Act of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The full name of the NCLB Act is “to close achievement gap among primary and middle school students through accountability system and flexible choice and ensure that all students are on track.” This Act is a significant reform targeting at American basic education. After a decade of reform, Mr. Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, announced statistical result of a survey: in 2011, according to the standard of NCLB Act, 82 percent of America’s schools were defined as failure and 100 percent would fail to reach the goal. The No Child Left Behind makes all children fall behind. This Act only engages in reading and math. The Act specifies that state governments need to set the minimal standards and organize the tests. After ten years of reform, the NCLB Act has affected all communities, schools, classes and families. The NCLB Act has received unprecedented criticism. This reform is considered “a failure” by both the ruling party and opposition party.1
As stated by Ms. Pat Wingert, a reporter of News Weekly, “Legislating change has not been easy. Since 2001 and the passage of former president George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind, states have been encouraged to hire teachers with degrees in the subjects they teach. As recently as 2008, however, only about 25 percent of science and math teachers at all grade levels held an undergraduate or graduate degree conferred by a math or science department or school. That is partly because of poor teacher retention.” Thus, “President Obama has proposed infusing our school system with a fresh supply of talent. His prescription: making it a priority to prepare 100,000 highly effective math and science teachers by 2020 and raising learning standards in all 50 states.” 2
On June 8, 2001, upon the approval of the State Council, the Ministry of Education, Mainland promulgated the Notice of the Outline of the Curriculum Reform of Basic Education (Pilot) (hereinafter, the Outline). The Outline launched a new round of curriculum reform. This “New Curriculum Reform Movement” launched by a top-to-down administration approach is known as the 8th curriculum reform. This large-scale reform is influential with a large amount of investments. In a short period of several years, all middle and primary schools and all subjects get involved in this movement. For local education administrations and all middle and primary school principals and teachers, they must actively participate in the movement of new curriculum reform, following the consistent national “curriculum standard” and “new teaching materials”. According to the statistical data collected by the Online Survey of Teacher’s Comments on New Curricula in 2011 and the Analysis of the Status Quo of Learning Methods by Primary and Middle School Students and Recommended Solutions, the author of this paper conducted a systematic analysis and concluded the findings.3 According to the statistical data, China’s education reform over last ten years basically fails. However, our key media claims that “the ten-year curriculum reform should not be simply assessed by success or failure.” 4 The Movement of New Curriculum Reform keeps going.
Some Chinese officials and experts responsible for new curriculum reform always associate Curriculum Reform with their performance. Thus, they spare no effort to “defend” for the “positive image” of curriculum reform. In my opinion, this is incorrect. Curriculum reform is an “academic issue” rather than a “political issue”. We need to understand the nature of curriculum reform pragmatically and realistically. People should be allowed to explore and criticize the reform. People exploring reform should not be labeled; and people criticizing reform should not be exaggerated. The principles stated in the Outline are reasonable. However, there are many misunderstandings in practice. Some principles are even not feasible. It’s meaningless to complete an impossible task, which wastes resources and time. Such “pilot education reform” shall be avoided. In my opinion, this is mainly because people haven’t realized the limitation of education reform. To understand the limitation is a theoretical and ideological issue, rather than an issue about reform or against reform.
In the paper - The U.S. Education Reform - proposes a question, “The U.S. is the most powerful country in the world with cutting-edge modernization in all endeavors, leading in the world over last 100 years. The American experience provides a reference for other countries. So we would like to ask why such powerful country needs to face a series of endless failures. 5 Such question inspires us to seek answers. However, as most of analyses are passive in reality, we need active exploration. The feature of American education reform lies in confessing failure and then transferring failure to success. Although they acknowledge that education is a puzzle for America. All presidential candidates claim to be a president for education in the campaign. For less than 300 years since the foundation in 1776, American education, higher education in particular, has successfully become the most powerful in the world.
We could also propose a similar question: As a country with long-history civilization, China has long-standing education tradition. The concepts of “teaching without discrimination” proposed by Confucius, “heuristic teaching”, “teaching students in accordance with their aptitude”, and “unity without uniformity” have become a pursuit for global school educators. However, why China encounters education failures over last century? Why the 1958 education reform failed? Why school education system was harshly criticized and collapsed during the Cultural Revolution lasted for ten years? Why the new curriculum reform implemented in the first decade of the 21st century is still controversial? We also need to find answers for these questions. As most of analyses conclude negative results, positive exploration and research are needed. Chinese education reform is featured of learning from others while ignoring our own situation, and “acknowledging failure” only after a long time. We normally forget that education has always been valued as a national foundation for last 2000 years since Confucian education theory was proposed. China’s education tradition is highly recognized in the world.
In the contemporary era, both America and China are confident states. It’s not good to mention failures frequently. It may spread pessimism or increase discontent about the government. Also, different people have different views. We need to propose powerfully positive questions, neither looking backward nor forward. To some extent, it may be more than simply assessed by success or failure. Instead, we could identify the issues from success while seeing hopes from failures. As such, both government and people are satisfied and the development of pedagogy is promoted. This paper seeks to explore in this aspect.
Now, I would like to propose a positive question: the U.S. is the most developed capitalist country, while China is the developing socialist country experiencing the fastest growth in the world. In education reform, both countries mobilize a large number of scholars and educators to implement a 10-year reform, involving over 100 million of students. Initially, the “ideology” of education reform was recognized by most of educators. Well, what positive experience and achievement came from the process of reform and reform consequences?
It’s realistic and significant to propose and explore such important question.
The U.S. is a powerful and large education state, while China is a large education state and striding towards a powerful education state. Here, “large” implies “quantitative” meaning, while “powerful” refers to “qualitative” meaning. Basic education reform mainly solves the following question: based on ensuring students’ physical and psychological health, laying good foundation for students and training students’ innovative spirits. Laying good foundation includes basic knowledge, basic capability, basic habits and basic methods. Laying foundation in these four aspects is conducive for training innovative spirits. Meanwhile, to develop students with innovative spirits refers to independent thinking, finding good role models, aspiring to success and life-long learning. With these innovative spirits, students could lay good foundations. Laying foundation and innovative spirit are mutually promoted. Without laying good foundation, there will be no innovative spirit. Without innovative spirit, there will be no laying foundation. These two factors are indispensable.
Overall, paying attention to student’s innovation is a distinctive feature for American basic education. The main method is to “inspire interests, respect personal choice, cooperate in exploration and freely develop”. Comparatively, Chinese education is featured as “emphasizing basic education”. The main methods are “extensive teaching and practice, rigorous requirements, examination and fair competition.” According to the statistical data, American basic education has advantages in innovation, while many students perform poorly in basic knowledge. Conversely, Chinese basic education is good at basic education. However, many Chinese students lack innovative spirits. So, both American and Chinese basic education reform have evident disadvantages in education purposes and methods. Two countries try to overcome their respective disadvantages.
Education reform in Taiwan is similar to the curriculum reform implemented in Mainland. The education reform movement is advanced under a slogan of “mobilizing government administrative power through the political means.” The main goals of education reform are to 1) discard credentialism, and 2) object to professionalism and knowledge-based education.7 In Taiwan, the gist of the Nine-Year Integrated Curriculum is to discard previous curricula of consistent progress and standard, and implement teacher and student-based curriculum and student-based explorative teaching so as to achieve the personalized and adaptive education.” 8 The education reforms adopted in Mainland China and Taiwan are advanced by the from-top-to-down administration approach. Both education reform in Mainland and Taiwan intend to overcome the disadvantages of exam-oriented education and against knowledge-based education through reducing teacher’s teaching. Student-centered and independent learning approach is emphasized, aiming to improve student’s innovative spirits and practical capabilities.
Both American and Chinese basic education reforms have reasonable targets. The U.S. emphasizes disciplinary instructions and knowledge examination in education reform, aiming to improving poor examination results caused by free-style education. In response to the disadvantages of exam-based education, China reduces knowledge teaching and teacher’s teaching with an emphasis on “independent, cooperative and explorative learning”. In both education reform conducted for ten years in the U.S. and China, “from-top-to-down” and “administration regulation” are common features for both education reforms. In addition, both reform missions are inspirational: the U.S. is committed to achieving “No Child Left Behind” while China is devoted to realizing “For the development of every student”. Both slogans are blameless.
We need to know the limitation theory
From the education reform conducted in China and the U.S. over last ten years, we realize three limitations of education reform. The theory of limitation is also known as a negative theory with an emphasis on the impossibilities, inspiring us to know which are possible. The limitation theory has significant scientific and philosophic meaning. As long as understanding the limitation theory can we obtain real freedom, seek truth from facts, emancipate the mind, reform and open up, or develop scientifically.
This is similar to what scientists, engineers and innovators had researched, experimented, tried and manufactured the perpetual motion machine through the exploration over 400 years since the 15th century. In the 19th century, people finally found that it’s impossible to realize the perpetual motion machine of the first kind and thus summarize the First Law of Thermodynamics. Then, people found that it’s impossible to realize the perpetual motion machine of the second kind and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Next, people found that it’s impossible to achieve absolute zero and summarized the Third Law of Thermodynamics. Actually, it proved that the perpetual motion machine of the third kind was impossible. 9
Inspired by the Law of Thermodynamics, Einstein invented special theory of relativity and general theory of relativity based on the limitation theory. Theoretically, the limitation theory is directly summarized from numerous historical and practical experiences. Theory is a result of intuitive thoughts. Theory is not assessed by any logic channel. The principle is a starting point of theory. Theory is axiomatic freely created by human beings. If the principle could be deducted from inferences, then advanced inferences will become new principles. The limitation theory has theoretic significance. This is the basic scientific methodology adopted by Einstein.10 In my opinion, it is significant for natural science, social science and liberal science to focus on the research on limitation theory.
Two highlights could be concluded from the NCLB education reform conducted for ten years in the U.S. First, the national curriculum standard is confirmed, covering all basic education stages from kindergarten to Grade12. The American reform intends to improve teacher’s skill and strengthen subject teaching through “standard, examination, accountability and award”. Second, examination is organized by the state governments. Reading and math, two basic subjects, are test subjects. The progress of student’s reading and math achievement more or less affects the performance of state governments, schools and teachers. Such approach is featured as “one standard applied to all students with severe punishment”. American states develop many examination methods to strengthen “knowledge examination”.
Chinese new curriculum reform over last ten years has two theoretical highlights. First, “Three-Dimensional Goal” (knowledge and skill, process and method, emotion, attitude and moral value) is set as the overall goal for all students. Second, schools are required to change student learning method to an “independent, cooperative and explorative” manner. Students are asked to play a more active role in the class. The innovative spirit and practical capability are emphasized. Teachers are asked to reduce their teaching at the class. Instead, students are required to actively explore knowledge by themselves.
Why both American and Chinese education reforms fail? We have gotten the statistical data and theoretic analysis, so it is really no big deal whether the failure of education reform is acknowledged. “Failure teaches success”. Failure and success could be mutually transferred. Facts will speak for themselves. Here, my research question is whether education reform leaves us any positive consequences. Yes, it does. It’s significantly meaningful to draw on lessens from failed education reform. My new contribution is: the practice of American and Chinese education reform makes us realize the limitation theory of education reform. This is a significant epistemological value.
The first limitation theory of education reform is that education reform of the first kind is impossible, namely, it’s impossible to ensure that no student falls behind, although we could build the best education system through a top-to-down administration approach. This is similar to impossible perpetual motion machine of the first kind.
Over last ten years, the American education reform intends to realize the education reform of this first kind. It fails because it is impossible. Such education reform shall be avoided.
The second limitation theory of education reform is that education reform of the second kind is impossible, namely, it’s impossible to employ a common curriculum ideology or method to make all students develop their capabilities through a top-to-down administration approach. This is similar to impossible perpetual motion machine of the second kind.
The Chinese curriculum reform over last ten years intends to realize the second kind of reform. It fails because it’s impossible. Such education reform shall be avoided in the future.
Due to education diversity and complexity, we must formulate diversified curriculum standards. Accordingly, we need diversified assessments and implement diversified education reform. There is no a consistent curriculum standard and assessment suitable for all regions, schools, teachers and students. This is the intrinsic basis of the limitation theory of education reform. The repeated failures of education reform in the world over last 100 years empirically verify the limitation theory of education reform. From those plain, basic, natural and effective education concepts such as “teaching without discrimination”, “heuristic teaching”, “teaching students in accordance with their aptitude”, and “unity without uniformity”, it can be inferred that no one reform approach could ensure the success of education reform.
If it’s impossible to succeed by adopting a top-to-down administration approach, how about the down-to-top grassroots approach? Many facts show that it’s impossible too. Thus, we must add a new limitation theory.
The third limitation theory of education reform is that education reform of the third kind is impossible, namely, it’s impossible to develop the best teaching method to ensure all students achieve excellence. This is similar to the impossible perpetual motion machine of the third kind.
Over last ten years, some schools adopt grassroots approach, intending to realize the education reform of the third kind. It fails because it’s impossible. Such education reform shall be avoided in the future.
In China, some school presidents launch a targeted education model in line with the characteristics and situation of their schools and students. They ask all teachers to follow such model. Such practice is alright and may achieve good results. However, some local education officials widely promote a school’s successful model to other schools. They try to promote certain models through a top-to-down administrative approach. However, such promotion is ineffective and costly without any practical meanings. It is a kind of bureaucracy. Actually, this is not innovative because some people have done this before. It’s not easy to make innovations in education history. We should give the respect to the education history.
We all oppose against the exam-oriented education. However, people oppose the exam-oriented education but adhere to assess the curriculum reform achievements by the result of exam-oriented education. This is neither logic nor rational. It is not scientific only looking at student’s achievements while ignoring the efforts made by teachers and students. It’s not worthwhile to spare no efforts on just improving student’s achievements. The Education of Metasynthetic Wisdom proposed by Mr. Qian Xuesen is inspirational for us.11 Academic result is important for school education. However, physical and psychological health is more important than it. No one teaching method is suitable for all. School president shall encourage teachers to explore their own teaching method and style suitable for themselves. It’s not necessary to establish a universal teaching model and ask all subject teachers to compulsorily follow it. School presidents could launch multiple targeted teaching models for teachers to select.
In her book the Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education, the American educator Nel Noddings criticized the viewpoints of Mortimer Adler, “all children receive the same education from primary school to high school.” “All children are capable of learning”. These propositions are naïve and dangerous. Noddings wrote, “We actually waste public funds and talents when we assert that liberal education is the best education for everyone.” She further noted that, “This is similar to the famous quotation of Robert Maynard Hutchins ‘The best education for the best group is the best education for all’. In this sentence, all three “best” do not stand up to scrutiny. I have illustrated that why liberal education is not the best education for everyone. Actually, I doubt that this world has no a best education for everyone at all.” 12
Here, Nel Noddings has realized the limitation theory of education reform. Namely, it is impossible to achieve the best education by launching top-to-down liberal education. However, she constructs another model - the curriculum system based on the concept of learning to care. In my opinion, this down-to-top model is not the best either. Such learning to care model even cannot be built. So, Nel Noddings has not really realized the limitation theory of education reform.
It easily falls into formalism and bureaucratism, if we promote the best education system through a top-to-down administration approach. However, if we develop the best education system empirically from down to top, it would simplify the complex education issue, falling into subjectivism and metaphysics. Both of approaches are impossible to succeed.
In my paper Three Notices to New Curriculum Reform, I offer some suggestions to China’s new curriculum reform: notice to dialectical thinking, avoiding extremism; notice to laying a good foundation, avoid aiming too high; notice to the stable development, avoiding advancing rashly. 13 Extremism, aiming too high and rush to success are doomed to failure. In my paper An Analysis of Soft Landing of New Curriculum Reform, I criticize two unscientific and irrational theoretic highlights. 14 Fundamentally, it’s impossible. In my paperEducation Theory Built by Teaching Efficiency and Mathematical Modeling15, I further propose three limitation theories regarding teaching efficiency. Three theories on teaching efficiency indicate three impossibilities in teaching. In school education, it will be inefficient if only asking students to study by themselves; it will be inefficient if only asking teachers to teach; it will be inefficient if teacher’s teaching fails to transfer to student’s self-learning initiatives. These three theories are a complete system. It’s significant to realize the limitation theories in education system reform at the macro level, curriculum reform at the middle level and classroom teaching reform at the micro level.
We need to understand education diversity
Global management system is transferring from a centralized top-to-down hierarchical system to a decentralized down-to-top democratic system. Education reform also needs to avoid the centralized top-to-down approach, while advocate a diversified down-to-top democratic approach. This is “harmony in diversity” proposed by Confucius, which gist is diversification. In the biological world, the best biological world is comprised of diversified species. This is also true for human society. In school education, diversified teachers mean high-quality teaching. Education is not only a science, but also an art. Education needs diversification too. It is doomed to fail by merely adopting one education system, one curriculum concept and one teaching method.
I had worked at University California San Diego Campus and Harvard University as a senior visiting scholar for one year. As far as I know, some high schools and primary schools adopt the package-shift mode in the U.S. Under this mode, a teacher teaches several courses. If he is familiar with the subjects, he could teach well. If not, he could not teach well. For this case, teachers would ask students to learn by themselves, known as an “independent, cooperative and explorative” method. They goof off at the class. Even without implementing the package-shift mode, some teachers have no university degree in some subjects. But, they are still asked to teach these courses, in particular for such subjects as math, science (physics, chemistry and biology). In most cases, such teachers cannot control the class and give students good instructions. Teachers normally make students learn in an “independent, cooperative and explorative” manner. Class atmosphere is lively, but students could not gain too much knowledge. This teaching method may be effective for some top students, while most of students at middle and lower range perform poorly. For them, such “intendment, cooperative and explorative” method is a waste of time with low learning efficiency and quality.
Some Chinese experts and parents highly praise American independent, cooperative and explorative teaching method and want to learn this method. Actually, “Study for Revolution” adopted in the Cultural Revolution was similar to such kind of method. As teachers were not qualified to teach, they had to ask student to learn by themselves. This is just an expedient method but not an effective method at all. Teachers should be qualified to teach. Knowing how to teach is a basic requirement for teachers. As told by our ancestors, “the teachers were the one who could propagate the doctrine, impart professional knowledge and resolve doubts”.16 This is a classical concept that can stand the test of time. Maybe, we could increase one based on this concept. Teachers are the ones who could propagate the doctrine, impart professional knowledge, motivate interests and resolve doubts. Of course, students should be allowed to learn in an independent, discussion, cooperative and explorative manner. However, it’s impossible for basic education method to transfer from “propagating the doctrine, impacting professional knowledge, and resolving doubts” to “independent, cooperative and explorative” learning.
China’s new curriculum reform over last ten years emphasizes the “independent, cooperative and explorative” learning model. Most of teachers recognize this “new ideology” implemented through a top-to-down administration approach. Many capable teachers have accumulated extensive experience. These teachers could ensure teaching quality no matter what teaching method is adopted. We cannot use these teachers as an example to illustrate whether the curriculum reform succeeds or fails. In addition, some disqualified teachers prefer to this “independent, cooperative and explorative” method. If students don’t want to learn because teachers teach bad, letting students learn by themselves may have some gains. Some teachers who are capable of teaching well, but don’t want to be tried or to put in time and energy also like adopting the “independent, cooperative and explorative” teaching method. In order to ensure students to achieve good results in examination, schools have to hand over teaching tasks to parents, indirectly increasing pressure on the “society”. Thus, all kinds of home tutoring and training courses are available in China.
In the lower-level of basic education, in particular for lower grades in primary schools, some teachers “hand over” tasks of training basic knowledge and skills to parents, such as reading, writing, handwriting and math. Many tasks of teaching kids are assigned to parents. Some parents are happy to take these tasks. They spend time and money to learn with their kids together. Those students could catch up with the class and achieve good results. Some parents are busy but wealthy. They hire home tutors to teach their children or send their kids to all kinds of training courses. Those kids may achieve good results. However, they are overwhelmed by various training courses and become sick of study. Some parents are busy for their work while their economic condition is not good, in particular, for migrant worker family. They cannot afford to hire home tutors or send their kids to training courses. These kids from the disadvantage families lose at the starting point. Without solid foundation, it’s hard for them to make innovation. As such, the gap between the wealthy and poor families is widened. This situation is against the equal education and coordinated development between urban and rural areas emphasized by the Chinese government. Equal education does not mean a consistent curriculum standard implemented in the whole country. It’s irrational to implement a same teaching method, a same examination syllabus and a same assessment.
China has millions of teachers and 220 million students. Teacher’s skills and proficiency are varied. In terms of probability statistics, the proficiency of teachers and students is normally distributed. Disqualified teachers should talk less at the class. Talking too much is a “suffering” for their students. For most students, ordinary and qualified teachers should present briefly and succinctly at the class, and the high qualified teachers should present extensively, make students learn more in a short period of time. As teacher’s proficiency demonstrates a normal distribution, different requirements shall apply to different teachers.
For students, students performing poorly shall be taught according to their aptitudes. They need more teaching and tutoring. Ordinary and excellent students also need extensive teaching and critical thinking. For top students, teachers should guide them to think and learn independently, with less teacher’s involvement. The proportions of the extent of teacher’s teaching against the extent of student’s self-learning are varied in different regions, schools, subjects and grades. How many minutes should be taught in a class should not be specified. As student’s proficiency is normally distributed, we cannot apply the same standard for all students.
“Assess teaching by learning, less teaching while more learning” proposed by new curriculum reform shall not be applied to all schools without considering actual situation. Such concepts as “learning first, teaching followed” are completely wrong. In schools, teaching and learning are happened concurrently. Learning is occurred in teaching, while teaching is delivered in learning. Teaching and learning are inseparable. These “New Concepts” proposed in curriculum reform had been advocated, criticized or experimented by our predecessors. Indeed, we need knowledge innovation. However, existed knowledge should not count as innovations.17
Education is a complex huge system. People haven’t found a general way to solve such complex huge system yet. The American education reform intends to use a top-to-down curriculum reform to realize No Child Left Behind, while Chinese curriculum reform tries to adopt a down-to-top approach to let every student grow. Some experts and principals seek to let all students achieve excellence through a down-to-top teaching reform. All these efforts fail because they violate the rule of education diversity.
How could education realize “teaching without discrimination”, “heuristic teaching”, “teaching students in accordance with their aptitude”, and “unity without uniformity”? “Teaching without discrimination” requires democratic education. “Teaching students in according with their aptitude” requires scientific education. “Unity without uniformity” requires diversified education. In short, education needs all kinds of reforms. Does America realize teaching without discrimination? No. They have always investigated education equality issues. Does China realize it? No. The gap between urban and rural areas is wide. We need to carefully solve these significant issues.
In Building A Better Science Teacher, the author writes, “They have been spurred into action by the U.S.’s economic downturn and growing competitiveness in China, which includes its students’ top scores on international tests. President Barack Obama and major roles all claim that the U.S.’s lagging performance in science and math education will be a dire threat to the country’s future competitiveness. According to results from two Nation’s Report Card tests released earlier this year, only 32 percent of U.S. eight graders are proficient in science and 35 percent are proficient in math. Meanwhile students from Shanghai earned top scores on the 2010 Program for International Student Assessment test in math and science, whereas Americans placed squarely in the middle of the pack.” 18
The American people dare to face the reality, which deserves our learning. The American says, “Students from Shanghai earned top scores on the 2010 Program for International Student Assessment test in math and science, whereas Americans placed squarely in the middle of the pack.” Does it mean Chinese curriculum reform succeeds? As we all know, the whole nation carries out the curriculum reform according to the Outline promulgated by the State Council. Only Shanghai formulates its own curriculum standard and primary and high school textbooks are newly developed. Shanghai launches its own new curriculum reform. Shanghai doesn’t engage in two concepts - “three-dimensional goal” and “independent, cooperative and explorative learning” emphasized in the new round of curriculum reform. Obviously, the curriculum reform design by Shanghai meets its own needs. So, it’s impossible to apply the Outline to all cities and rural areas. The limitation theory of education reform is validated again.
The new curriculum reform carried out in China for ten years yield some positive results. Namely, let us know the limitation theory of education reform. The first law of education reform: it’s impossible to ensure that no student falls behind, although we could build the best education system through a top-to-down administration approach. The second law of education reform: it’s impossible to employ a common curriculum ideology or method to make all students develop their capabilities through a top-to-down administration approach. The third law of education reform: it’s impossible to develop the best teaching method to ensure all students achieve excellence.
It’s significant to know these three limitations for China’s future education reform.
Notes:
1Wang,J,W., Liu,N., 2012,教改在美国[The US Education Reform, Principal], (9),P71-93.
2Pat Wingert, September 2012,美国科学教育之痛[Building A Better Science Teacher], Scientific American (Chinese version).
3Zha,Y,L., 2012,十年新课程改革的统计诠释[The Statistic Interpretation of Ten-Year New Curriculum Reform], Education Science Research (Beijing), (11): 5-15.
4Dong,H,L., 2011 ,“教师对新课改的评价”的网络调查结果表明 十年课改:超越成败与否的简单评价[The Online Survey Result on Teacher’s Comments on New Curriculum Reform, Ten-Year Curriculum Reform: Beyond Simple Assessment of Failure or Success], October 16, 23:08, Source: People’s Daily Website.
5Wang,J,W&Liu, N., 教改在美国[The US Education Reform], Principal, 2012 (9): 71-93.
6有教无类[In teaching there should be no distinction of classes] Wei Linggong · The Analects of Confucius. “I do not open up the truth to one who is not eager to get knowledge, nor help out any one who is not anxious to explain.” Chapter 7 Shu Er · The Analects of Confucius. “The superior man is affable, but not adulatory; the mean man is adulatory, but not affable." Zi Lu · The Analects of Confucius. Although Confucius didn’t mention “teaching students in accordance of their aptitude” in the Analects of Confucius, Confucius fully considered this principle in his teaching. He gave different answers for different students asking for what benevolence is. Both Zhu Xi and Cheng Yi praised Confucius to teach students according to their aptitude. This is an important feature for Confucian teaching method.
7Wang C,S., 台湾的教改与“我们的课改”[Taiwan Education Reform and Our Curriculum Reform], Education Journal, 2010 (3).
8Liao,H,Y., September 2012,找准科学教育的重点[Identifying Correct Priority for Taiwan Education Reform], Scientific American (Chinese version).
9中国大百科全书[Encyclopedia of China], Physics, 1987, The First Law of Thermodynamics, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, The Third Law of Thermodynamics, p. 881-885,Encyclopedia of China Press. 简明不列颠百科全书[Concise Encyclopedia Britannica], 1986, volume IX, Perpetual Motion, p. 180-181,Encyclopedia of China Press.
10Zha,Y,L.& Zha,Y., 爱因斯坦与教育[Einstein and Education], 2008, p.28-33, Sichuan Education Press.
11Chen,H,X. (editor),2007集大成 得智慧——钱学森谈教育[Metasynthetic Wisdom: Qian Xuesen’s Education View], Shanghai Jiaotong University Press.
12[U.S.] Nel Noddings, 2011,学会关心:教育的另一种模式[Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education] (2nd edition), Yu Tianlong translation, p43-57,Education Science Press.
13Zha,Y,L., 2005,对新课程改革的三点提醒[Three Notices to New Curriculum Reform], Education Science Research, (11) or高管专供信息 教育版[Special Information for Senior Managers], 2005(11), printed by Xinhua News Agency Information Center.
14Zha,Y,L., 2007,论新课程改革的“软着陆”[An Analysis of Soft Landing of New Curriculum Reform], Education Journal, (2).
15 教学效率数学模型建构的教育原理及意义[Education Theory Built by Teaching Efficiency and Mathematical Modeling], Modern Remote Education Research, 2012 (4): 3-8.
16Han,Y ., 师说[On Teaching].
17 Zha,Y,L., 2009, 课程改革的辩与立[Argument and Proposition of Curriculum Reform], Chongqing University Press.
18Pat Wingert, September 2012,美国科学教育之痛[Building A Better Science Teacher], Scientific American (Chinese version).