I am neither an educational scholar nor a linguist, so I will refrain from judging the technical merit of the late Mr. Hồ Ngọc Đại’s reading method or the “Educational Technology” (CNGD) curriculum. Instead, I focused on the core philosophy behind the Experimental School (Trường Thực Nghiệm) model and discovered something profoundly shameful about our society’s approach to progress.
If you strip away the terms “Experimental” and “Educational Technology” and analyze the core tenets of the school’s philosophy, you find a framework that is both progressive and timeless:
- Joyful learning: School must be a source of happiness (The motto: “Every day to school is a day of eager joy”).
- Challenging authority: Students are not subjected to imposed thought (A teacher’s praise should be based on merit, not personal bias or favors).
- Alternative approaches: Students learn different methods of thinking (e.g., studying the binary system before the decimal system).
- Early literacy: Students are encouraged toward early literary immersion (reading The Tale of Kieu, Hugo, Balzac).
- Valuing passion: Students are encouraged to think differently and pursue individual passion (“Being happy fixing a screw is better than being a doctor consumed by depression”).
- Experiential learning: Learning happens through doing and role-playing (e.g., taking the role of the antagonist to understand the villain’s psyche) rather than rote memorization.
- School-sufficient learning: Learning must be completed in school, minimizing homework. (The founder argued parents, unfamiliar with the method, cannot teach it at home).
- No grading or ranking: The system abolishes numerical grades and student ranking in primary school—a standard still debated today.
The liberal arts paradox
Does this sound familiar? This is the exact philosophy of Liberal Arts Education pursued by modern universities worldwide. While institutions like Fulbright and Broward College in Vietnam currently boast about teaching liberal arts, this Vietnamese model was practicing those core tenets 40 years ago.
The shame is twofold:
- Institutional failure: This philosophy is still labeled “experimental” after four decades. Are we so intellectually primitive that we still fear the mass implementation of such a progressive model? Are we so conservative and afraid of making a mistake that we confine a breakthrough idea to the margins?
- Political self-sabotage: Many progressive educational changes in Vietnam are intentionally labeled “pilot programs” because linking them to “educational reform” invites political suicide. Reform involves too many agencies and is politically volatile, unlike building roads or houses. Current and former education ministers cannot be condemned as overly conservative; they fear the inevitable public backlash.
The cost of ignorance
The final shame is the state of our public discourse. I am ashamed that our society is so ready to savagely attack change and difference. We engage in emotionally driven, ad-hominem arguments (“đá người,” attacking the person instead of the ball). Most damningly, few leaders possess the courage to stand up and defend the good, the progressive, and the different.
I am most ashamed by the profound ignorance of some of our leaders and managers. Many exploit this controversy to boost their own prestige by ignorantly tearing down the experimental model. They make unfounded, reckless statements about the curriculum. As the proverb states, “He who knows should speak; he who doesn’t should listen.” Why do they not consult experts before commenting? They fail to recognize the immense positive or negative impact of their words.
I sincerely hope more schools embrace this philosophy. If the philosophy remains, the curriculum can be easily updated. The debate should never be about the textbook; it must be about making this humane, progressive philosophy the official mandate for national education.
