那些在數學和自然科學教育方面勝過美國的國家具有一些共同點︰他們將公立學校學生該學甚麼和甚麼時候學納入了國家優先考慮中。他們也花費了大量精力來確保每間學校都擁有能夠明確達至國家教育目標的高水準教學。但由於地域差異，相比之下這些國家會存在一個非常之不穩定的標準和測試係統。我們也同樣不可幸免地會受到教學風尚的影響。

 

其中一個最為臭名昭著的風尚源於二十世紀八十年代晚期。當時許多學校背離了需要操練和解答的傳統數學教學模式，而這種有時被戲稱為〞模糊數學〞的方法，居然讓孩子們在甚至不學習基本乘除運算的情況下對問題進行任意猜想。這樣下來對高階數學的掌握是不可能了。這種新的數學教學方法如諺語所說地一樣，〞見高不見遠〞，自然引起了不少非議。

 

很多人將這一不幸事件歸咎於在一九八九年由一個權威機構－全美數學教師理事會－所作的一篇報告。學校團體將其中的建議認為是反對機械式學習的號召。而就在上個星期，這個理事會自我矛盾地推出了重視各年級基本知識學習的新建議。

 

根據這個新（也許該叫舊）計劃，學生們將需要再次通過基本知識的學習－加減乘除之類－以打好基礎為七年級的代數學習作準備。這一新的改進被看作是對像新加坡一樣的國際數學強國靠攏。

 

鑑於我們國家常年抗拒從國外引入更優的教學方法，參照新加坡的計劃令人期待。但是想咬這個改進成功得話我們還必須先做一些事情。

 

首先，美國有必要中止讓非專業人士來教授大多數數學和自然科學課程的悲慘狀況，或是讓這些人先認真地學一學。

 

我們也需要解決當前學術成果的標準和衡量湊合了事的情況，並確保每個地方的學生都可以同時得到高水平的老師和高質量的數學和自然科學課程，就像預期目標中的一樣。

 

只有免為其難地進行這些基本而又關鍵的改革，我們纔可以繼續在信息經濟時代的國際競爭中不輸給那些我們不得不面對的對手。

 

 

The countries that outperform the United States in math and science education have some things in common. They set national priorities for what public school children should learn and when. They also spend a lot of energy ensuring that every school has a high-quality curriculum that is harnessed to clearly articulated national goals. This country, by contrast, has a wildly uneven system of standards and test that varies from place to place. We are also notoriously susceptible to educational fads.

 

One of the most infamous fads took root in the late 1980's, when many schools moved away from traditional mathematics instruction, which required drills and problem solving. The new system, sometimes derided as "fuzzy math," allowed children to wander through problems in a random way without ever learning basic multiplication or division. As a result, mastery of high-level math and science was unlikely. The new math curriculum was a mile wide and an inch deep, as the saying goes, touching on dozens of topics each year.

 

Many people trace this unfortunate development to a 1989 report by an influential group, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. School districts read its recommendations as a call to reject rote learning. Last week the council reversed itself, laying out new recommendations that will focus on a few basic skills at each grade level.

 

Under the new (old) plan, students will once again move through the basics - addition, substraction, multiplication, division and so on - building the skills that are meant to prepare them for algebra by seventh grade. This new approach is being seen as an attempt to emulate countries like Singapore, which ranks at the top internationally in math.

 

All these references to Singapore are encouraging, given this country's longstanding resistance to the idea of importing superior teaching strategies from abroad. But a few things need to happen before this approach can succeed.

 

First of all, the United States will need to abandon its destructive practice of having so many math and science courses taught by people who have not majored in the subjects - or even studied them seriously.

 

We also need to fix the current patchwork system of standards and measurement for academic achievement, and make sure that students everywhere have access to both high-quality teachers and high-quality math and science curriculums that aspire to clearly articulated goals.

 

Until we bite the bullet ton those basic, critical reforms, we will continune to lose ground to the countries with which we must compete in the global information economy.

Leets in Big Apple, in rememberence today....

 

儘管電影分級在文化的形成中扮演了重要的角色，但我們對牠的瞭解卻實在太少。到底是誰在決定一部電影被評為家長指導級或是十七禁級？他們使用甚麼標準來劃分？這些工作是如何進行的？以上問題均出自由Kirby Dick執導的一部具有啟發意義的新記錄片〈這部影片未分級〉的一係列問題中。Dick先生的電影讓大家清楚認識到電影分級的過程需要更加透明化和進行改革。

電影分級制度是由美國電影協會和全美影院所有者聯合會兩大行業組織來操作的。儘管制度是私有的，但自從分級制度對電影內容修訂產生重大影響以來，公眾都對牠很感興趣。製片人通常願意將電影進行大量剪輯和改變以求取得更具商業價值的評級。

Dick先生在記錄片中對分級制度的運作進行了調查。但結果看來並不怎麼樣。由於大多數評級人員是匿名的，所以公眾無法判斷他們是否水平合格或是公平公正。在影片中，Dick先生煞費苦心地試圖去確認評級人員的身份。有一件事是可以確定的，那就是︰雖然電影協會聲稱所有評級人員都是〞父母〞級的人，但可能有些父母，者可能還佔大多數，他們的孩子早就成年了。那照電影協會的意思這麼說來，不過是一些父母給另一些父母在作評級罷了。
Dick先生同時揭露了一些評級流程中的嚴重問題。當他對他自己影片被評為十七禁級而提出上訴時，他被嚴重警告不可以在他的辯詞中引證其牠影片的分級。他也注意到上訴委員會中一直有天主教和新教的代表－卻沒有其牠任何宗教。

在電影〈這部影片未分級〉中也指出了一些制度本身存在的成見︰比如電影公司製作的影片會比獨立電影得到更寬大的評級；比如相同內容情況下，同性戀題材的電影會比其牠影片更容易被評為十七禁級；另外制度對性內容的處理比暴力內容的處理粗糙得多。由於分級標準如此含糊不清，所以我們不難相信這些成見早已融入了評級決策中。

電影協會現任主席Dan Glickman在兩年前就任時接手了這套制度。他在最近一次採訪中說，分級制度正在進行重審和自我改進某些方面，比如說不允許上訴團體引證其牠電影和只允許天主教和新教派代表到上訴委員會。公開改革的確算是Glickman先生的功勞，但他是否應該想遠一點，比如說為匿名評級找一個正當的理由。

電影工業到底有沒有必要進行電影分級，這是值得疑問的。也許直接把有關電影內容的信息公佈出來，由父母自己作決定，這樣作來得更輕鬆。
如果電影分級仍然要繼續下去，評級過程就必須做到公平公開的原則。在影片〈這部電影未分級〉的揭露之後，電影協會如今的重任就是將其分級制度進行一次重要的昇級了。

BEFORE I STARTED THE 1ST TRANS, DEFINITELY I FOUND A TERRIBLE AD RIHGT RIGHT TO THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN'S ARTICLE IN TODAY'S A29 OP-ED PAGE OF THE NEW YORK TIMES. OUT OF ANY INDENTIFICATION OF AMERICAN, CHINESE, CHINESE AMERICAN OR AMERICAN CHINESE, I OPPOSED TAIWAN'S INDEPENDENCE, WHO'S A REGION OF REPUBLIC OF CHINA ONLY.

 

 

THE STUPID WORDS IN THIS AD ARE:

UNHuman Rights (reversed)

The United Naitons is founded on human rights.

With TAIWAN's exclusion, is the UN moving in reverse?

The United Nations' founding Charter is a pledge to

promote and encourage respect for human rights for all.

Yet the UN continually turns it back on the 23 million

people of democractic Taiwan. For the sake of their health,

education, living standard security, rights this wrong.

Support TAIWAN's

Participation in the UN

I tend to translate some articles in The New York Times to Chinese starting today.

So comments're welcomed.

But all copyrights belong to the Times, Not me.