I did not study at Experimental School, and I am neither an educator nor a linguist, so I honestly do not know whether Professor Dai’s reading/pronunciation teaching method is wrong or right. Over the past few weeks, I have read quite a few responses and shares from people who studied at and worked in connection with “Experimental School” and “Educational Technology,” and I discovered several things that made me feel extremely ashamed.
If you remove the words “Experimental” or “Educational Technology” and carefully read more about their philosophy, watching interviews of insiders, you will see several points below that are characteristic of the “Experimental” school:
- Going to school must be joyful and happy (Every day coming to school is eagerly a happy day);
- Do not impose thoughts on students (if a teacher praises you, it is not because the teacher “likes you,” but sometimes because the teacher “likes your mother”);
- Students are taught different approaches (for example, learning the binary system before learning the decimal system);
- Students are encouraged to read literary books early (reading “Kieu”, Hugo, Balzac, for instance);
- Students are encouraged to think differently (for example: doing what they like and are passionate about. Being happy while “turning screws” is still better than being a PhD tormented by depression);
- Learning by experiencing instead of learning by rote (for example, playing the role of the “villain” in a play to understand the inner mind of the “villain”);
- Learn enough at school so as to learn less at home (Professor Dai did say that the Educational Technology method needs to be taught by teachers. If parents do not know it, they cannot teach it, so there is no need to study at home);
- No grading, no ranking students (at the primary level) (This is a leap forward. Even now, people are still debating it).
Do you find this familiar? Do you find it progressive? Would you like and want your child to study like that? As for me, I really want to and always try to let my child study in such a humanistic environment.
This is precisely the “liberal arts” educational philosophy that universities in the US and around the world are pursuing. Are international schools teaching anything different? (I feel ashamed because, to be honest, I still haven’t been able to do these things for my children up to now. I still get scolded by my wife frequently for talking better than teaching my children).
I feel ashamed because it turns out people have been pursuing this philosophy for 40 years, yet up to now it is still not implemented on a large scale. Could it be that we are so ignorant that even now we only dare to call it “experimental”? Could it be that we are too conservative and afraid of making mistakes, so we don’t dare to popularize it and only dare to use the word “experimental” to introduce such a progressive model?
If it were me, I would thank Mr. Pham Vu Luan, former Minister of Education and Training, who had to bend the rules to allow the implementation of this model. And by the way, many progressive things in education in Vietnam have to use the word “pilot” because meddling with “educational reform” brings “too many cooks” to judge, so doing this is political suicide because it is not like building houses or constructing roads. Ladies and gentlemen, please do not condemn the Ministry of Education and Training as being too conservative. Even if they wanted to, they wouldn’t dare act aggressively if they get criticized like this at every little thing.
I feel ashamed because our society is still ready to torment and thrash changes and differences without mercy; because many of us still debate in a “play the man, not the ball” manner that is completely emotional. And it turns out that hardly any among our leaders dare to stand up to protect what is good and progressive.
And the final shame is that I see many of our leaders and managers are truly “ignorant.” There are many leaders and managers who take advantage of this incident to boost their own prestige by knocking down this educational model ignorantly (making statements without knowing what they are talking about), in an extremely reckless manner. They have unintentionally (or intentionally) hindered the progress of education and social awareness. (Out of respect for them, I will not state specific examples here.) As the ancients said, “If you know, speak up; if you don’t know, lean against the pillar and listen.” Why didn’t they think to consult specialists and researchers before speaking out? Are they aware of the level of importance of each of their statements, or are they just talking to “satisfy their mouths”?
Personally, I hope there will be many experimental schools across the country with the educational philosophy mentioned above. Truth be told, it would be best to make it widespread and directly replace the current “general education.” (As for whether the method is good or bad, scientific or not, I will not debate that). The philosophy of the people at Experimental alone is enough to earn my respect.
