Opinion: We Laugh at the Cultural Revolution, But Who Is Laughing at Our Education Reform?

When people talk about China's Cultural Revolution, the most profound memory is often not political struggle, but the collapse of education. Teachers were criticized, knowledge was devalued, ethics were dismantled, and tradition was seen as a burden. An entire generation's sense of right and wrong was reshaped by political power. The Cultural Revolution became a shared historical wound for the Chinese nation not only because it destroyed many lives, but also because it changed an entire generation's values.

Today, Taiwan certainly has no Cultural Revolution, nor Red Guards. Yet, as we look back on 32 years of education reform, a question worthy of deep societal reflection emerges: Is education reform quietly reshaping an entire generation's value system in another, more gentle, slower, yet equally profound way?

This is not equating education reform with the Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution was a political catastrophe, with human rights disasters and life costs beyond comparison. Taiwan's education reform, by contrast, was launched under a democratic system, with the original intent of educational democratization, diversification, and adaptive development. The two have entirely different historical contexts.

However, what truly deserves comparison is not the political system, but the essential function of education. Education has never been merely about knowledge transmission—it is also about cultural inheritance. It is not just about cultivating abilities, but also about shaping character. It is not only about teaching children how to succeed, but also how to be human.

The April 10, 1994 education reform launched a new era for Taiwan's education. Systems such as the nine-year integrated curriculum, 12-year national education, diversified admissions, competency-based curricula, and self-directed learning were successively introduced. Many reforms indeed reduced academic pressure and diversified learning methods. However, every reform has its cost. When 'autonomy' gradually supersedes 'self-discipline,' when 'rights' increasingly replace 'responsibilities,' and when 'anti-authority' gradually weakens 'respect for expertise,' the focus of education begins to quietly shift.

This shift does not show immediate results, but manifests in society only after an entire generation comes of age.

Surveys conducted over the years by Taiwan's Ministry of Education and teacher associations indicate that frontline teachers generally feel their space for reasonable discipline has shrunk. Legally, teachers still possess the right to guide and discipline. However, under the combined pressures of parental complaints, administrative accountability, media scrutiny, and legal risks, a culture of 'the less you manage, the fewer mistakes; if you don't manage, there's no problem' has gradually formed in educational settings. The law has not revoked teachers' authority, but institutional culture has diminished their willingness to exercise professional judgment.

As a result, a striking contradiction has emerged in education: students' rights are more protected than ever, yet the responsibilities they should bear have not deepened accordingly; parents find it easier to supervise teachers, while teachers find it increasingly difficult to demand accountability from students.

Even more alarming is that in recent years, issues such as school bullying, emerging drugs, e-cigarettes, juvenile fraud, and cybercrime have remained under high government scrutiny. The formation of these social problems involves multiple factors—family education, digital media, criminal organizations, and economic conditions—and cannot be simply attributed to education reform. However, the fact that schools, as crucial arenas for value formation, face challenges to their disciplinary functions and educational authority cannot be ignored. When teachers dare not manage, parents are unwilling to manage, and society is powerless to manage, criminal groups, algorithms, and online culture may rush in to fill the vacuum.

What is truly concerning is not that children no longer fear teachers, but that they are beginning to no longer respect expertise.

Today, many young people's worldviews are no longer shaped primarily by reading, but by algorithmic recommendations; their value judgments no longer come from family and school, but from short videos, influencers, and social media platforms. Teachers are gradually stepping off the stage of value formation, replaced by the economy of online traffic.

We once criticized the Cultural Revolution's 'overthrowing of teachers.' Today, of course, no teacher is paraded through the streets wearing a dunce cap. But teachers' professional authority may be slowly worn away through repeated complaints, public scrutiny, and administrative pressure.

We once condemned the Cultural Revolution for reshaping thought through politics. Now, we must be vigilant: is education, too, being assigned new value missions amid different political ideologies, cultural identities, and social trends, gradually drifting away from its core purpose?

Looking internationally, Japan emphasizes life education and collective responsibility, Singapore stresses character education and civic ethics, Finland promotes self-directed learning while still highly respecting teacher professionalism, and South Korea maintains school discipline. These high-performing education systems share a common trait: freedom coexists with discipline, innovation with responsibility, rights with obligations. No successful education system is built on weakening teacher professionalism or diluting ethical responsibility.

Sociologist Émile Durkheim pointed out that education's most important function is to internalize society's shared norms into individual moral consciousness. If education focuses only on cultivating abilities while neglecting character development, emphasizes autonomy without self-discipline, encourages criticism without reverence, society risks falling into a state of 'anomie'—normlessness. When shared standards of right and wrong gradually disintegrate, even the most perfect legal system can only endlessly chase emerging problems.

The competition among nations in the 21st century is no longer merely about GDP, semiconductors, or artificial intelligence. It is a competition of value systems and the quality of human capital. A society that can cultivate citizens who respect knowledge, uphold norms, take responsibility, and possess public spirit can maintain institutional resilience even with limited resources. Conversely, if education overemphasizes rights while neglecting responsibilities, values freedom while downplaying discipline, and encourages expression without cultivating discernment, no amount of technological investment or economic growth can sustain long-term national development.

The greatest lesson of history is not that the Cultural Revolution happened, but that any society may gradually lose its shared values due to an imbalance in education. What truly destroys a nation may not be war; what truly changes a people may not be revolution, but a decades-long, subtle educational transformation.

Therefore, what truly needs re-examination today is not whether education reform should continue, but whether it should return to education's most fundamental mission: while cultivating innovation, rebuild ethical responsibility; while safeguarding students' rights, restore teacher professionalism; while encouraging independent thinking, cultivate respect for truth, rule of law, and public order.

Because a nation's future is not determined by its curriculum, but by the people the curriculum shapes. And the height of a nation ultimately depends on what the next generation believes in, what they respect, and what they are willing to take responsibility for.

*The author is an adjunct professor at a university.