The new version of "Curriculum and Standards" was released

Education has two attributes: one is a "private" matter and the other is a "public" matter. By "private" nature, we mean that education is about the growth of each child and the future of each family; by "public" nature, we mean that once education is regulated and established by the state, the primary purpose of education is to serve the development of the country. The nature of "public affairs" means that once education is regulated and established by the state, the primary purpose of education is to serve national development. The many problems and controversies arising from the "education reform" are rooted in the difference between "public and private needs".

Because of the two attributes of education, it has always been a hot topic of public discussion and a focus of deepening reform. The problem is that education is a serious topic that can be discussed extensively, but not "nonsense" or "credulous".

You know, education is about all aspects, irresponsible misinterpretation, or even "ulterior" intentional misinformation, it is likely to make the "masses" of unknown understanding bias, resulting in "education decision The "deviation" of the "education decision", then affect the growth of children and the future of the family.

For example, after the "double reduction", the Western concept of "happy education", which is widely promoted by many so-called "education vloggers", is a typical misinterpretation and misinformation of the national education reform. The result is that the "spirit of hard study" has been shaken in the student body (as a junior high school teacher, I know this firsthand).

We, especially the "Big V", should at least have the two basic conditions of "being well-informed and respecting objective facts" before expressing our opinions on education.

Now that the 2022 version of the Curriculum and Standards has been released, all sorts of "bullies and snakes" are out in force, and all kinds of so-called "expert" interpretations are flooding the platform. Many of the "vloggers" have made statements that are so categorical and so vowed, but unfortunately, they have violated the "two basic conditions" and are misinterpreting the new version of the "program and standards", taking advantage of the "fever of education". The "hot flow of education", "insufficient information about the spectators", and "the contradiction between the public and private needs of education".

The author consolidates and analyzes the most influential "misinterpretations" in the past few days, with the hope that the result - everyone will have a better understanding of the 2022 version of the "curriculum and standards". "At least not misleading" understanding.

First, there is no basic knowledge of the 2022 version of the Curriculum and Standards.

It is ridiculous that many so-called "education experts" do not know what kind of program it is when discussing the 2022 edition. The most outrageous point is that "core literacy is talked about under the curriculum plan" and "subject setting and class time are talked about under the curriculum standard", which is a misrepresentation.

The 2022 version of the Curriculum and Standards is, strictly speaking, two programs.

The first one is the "Compulsory Education Curriculum Program (2022 Edition)", which replaces the "Compulsory Education Curriculum Experimental Program (2001 Edition)". In other words, the curriculum has not been changed for more than 20 years, and it is time to change it. The most hotly debated issues on the Internet, such as "subject setting and class time allocation", are clarified in the "curriculum program", not in the "curriculum standards".

The second proposal is the "Curriculum Standards for 16 Compulsory Education Subjects (2022 Edition)", which replaces the "Curriculum Standards for 19 Compulsory Education Subjects (2011 Edition)". In other words, the "Curriculum Standards" have not been changed for more than ten years and must be changed to adapt to modern educational reform and development. The term "curriculum standards" is short for "curriculum standards", which is what we often hear the term "new curriculum standards" indicates, of course, now say " New Curriculum Standards" which means the 2022 edition. The "curriculum standards" talk about "core literacy", "curriculum objectives", and "curriculum content" for each subject.

To make the most common analogy, the curriculum plan is the general outline, and the curriculum standards are the sub-outline refinement. If even these most basic common sense issues are not clear, I do not know how these so-called "education V", "education experts" are writing the text, which has to be more perfunctory, more irresponsible.

The so-called "English significantly reduced class time, out of the mainstream, the high school examination into an elective course is not far away."

Third, the proportion of art subjects has increased, the spring of art learning and training has arrived, and the burden of parents has shifted from subject training to art training, not reducing but increasing.

The basis for this misinterpretation is that arts subjects take up 9%-11% of the class time, which is more than the traditional subjects of English, physics, and chemistry, after language, mathematics, integrated practice, labor, physical education, and health. In addition, the new "Curriculum Plan" says: "Reform the arts curriculum, grades 1 to 7 with music and art as the main line, integrating dance, drama, film, and television; grades 8 to 9 are divided into optional offerings."

So, "The spring of art is here, the spring of art training is here, parents have to prepare early so that their children have to go to art training institutions from a young age, otherwise it will be difficult to cope with the requirements of the middle school examination."

It is undeniable that the art subjects, which were the accompaniment of the original compulsory education, did not receive enough attention and were seriously squeezed out of class time. That's why the new "Curriculum Plan" has refined the curriculum for art subjects. This is very much in line with the general idea of the national compulsory education reform in the past two years, that is, "five education together"!

Therefore, the new version of the refinement is actually to restore the original art subjects, to put it bluntly, called "the origin of the source".

As for the so-called art, the test is difficult, parents need to let their children go from childhood art training and other comments, which is also "bad intention".

The new program proposes two very important points, in summary.

First, the arts curriculum assessment focus on process evaluation and attitude evaluation, the score is not the only criterion. In the words of everyone understands, art exams and sports exams are at the bottom of the test (as long as you have a good attitude, basically will let you pass), not like language, mathematics, or foreign as a differentiated tests (through the test to open the gap, selection, and triage), not very difficult.

Second, the test is consistent, that is, what the school teaches, what the test, what the school does not teach, the test will not test. As long as you usually have the right attitude and study hard in school classes, you can learn all the things that will be tested in the exam. Therefore, art exams are not very professional, there is no need to go to off-campus art training to take the exam. By the way, the state attaches so much importance to arts learning, it is not necessarily a good thing for off-campus art training institutions.

Education, or to fully understand clearly, respect objective facts, and speak with a conscience. We condemn intentional misinformation, but also be careful not to give a rhythm.