The RCEF Blog 博客

什么是RCEF模式？这是我在关爱这几天思考的最多的一个问题。

RCEF在扶持农村教育中已经积累了一定的经验，我们需要一个合适而且合理的模式去推广RCEF理念以及由此寻求实际工作的不断突破。在公立学校严密的等级观念和传统教育的指导下，我们基本达成共识：发展学生参与式的教育改革需要一定的时间去渗透甚至打破一些旧有的规则和观念。另一方面完全有志愿者组织的学校又面临着大跃进似的冒进思想，以及由高频率的人员流动和实验性的教育思维带来的管理上的困难。那么，类似关爱小学这种由村民自发组织的民办小学加少数志愿者的帮助能不能成为一个参考模式？在这种模式下，教师管理采用聘用制度，由当地的适当教育程度的年轻毕业生和少数离退休老教师组成。在此基础之上，由志愿者有步骤的循序渐进的把RCEF的一些先进的教育理念和方法传授给老师。此外志愿者也可以亲自参加教学活动，开设一些激发学生学习兴趣和引导学生掌握合理的学习方法的课程。

如果办学经费不是主要障碍，当地政府在主观上不反对。一些现有的但是不成功甚至濒临倒闭的小学校完全可以被改造成这种模式。根据关爱的经验，这种教育是不能够在学生的应试成绩上从周围的学校脱颖而出的。那么如何创造有号召力的社会效应而抢到生源呢？我观察到关爱学校的几个竞争优势。1.良好的食宿条件。学校的一日三餐安排的既丰富又好吃。2.教育模式。老师爱学生。学生在自由的环境中成长。3.开明的学校管理层。这是村民自发组织的学校的独特优势。4.踏实有激情的志愿者。Teaching Fellow项目的志愿者是不是能象现在我们国内几个志愿者一样既能上传又能下达，既能实干又有很好的总结能力，我们还要拭目以待。5.已有的学生项目。如与美国小学的笔友项目。6.其他。包括RCEF的持久关注，周边小学不会恶意竞争等等。

RCEF在这几年成长的过程中，没有仔细的讨论过自己是否情愿走这种微观操作的路。更没有讨论过我们作为一个组织是不是应该有自己的独特的模式。我们有过很多宏观讨论，对未来的设想也比较集中在“把更多的志愿者配送到更多的学校”一种比较被动的发展思路。很多没有到过中国的长期志愿者对“RCEF在做什么”和“我在RCEF做什么”这些问题的回答一般都比较空泛。有一些申请者问我，“我们RCEF在国内做什么”我的回答往往是“我们有三个学校六个志愿者，和一些支教活动。”虽然很有可能片面，但是我想很多人对RCEF都有这个印象。我们能不能把我们的经验和教训总结起来，把更多的精力放到如何真正的创新式的扶持中国农村教育？如何加大对我们RCEF在中国工作的关注度和投入？Diane, Jiang Peng, Sara, Steven,他们名字后边又会是谁呢？我们以及他们自己是不是在对后来人有一点点焦虑呢？RCEF能为这些付出了很多的志愿者做什么，他们在一年或者两年后会以什么形式与RCEF作别呢？他们的付出能为RCEF的理性发展提供什么思考呢？

Guanai: Three to four days. (2)

What is the RCEF model? This is the question I have paid the most attention to over the last few days at Guanai.

Through supporting rural education RCEF has already accumulated a definite amount of experience. We need a suitable and rational model to promote the RCEF concept as well as seeking continuous breakthroughs for our practical work. Under the direction of the strict sense of hierarchy in public schools and traditional education we have basically reached a consensus: educational reform to develop student participation requires a certain amount of time before permeating and breaking down old norms and practices. Another aspect is that schools solely organized by volunteer groups are facing great leaps forward in thinking; high frequency of staff turnover along with the experimental nature of educational thinking all of which create management difficulties. In this way can schools similar to Guanai primary school, formed by villager volunteer groups and adding the help of a small number of volunteers, serve as a model? Under this model the teaching management could adopt a recruiting system using young local graduates of the appropriate educational level and a small number of retired elder teachers. Based on this foundation the volunteers can pass on bit by bit their modern educational concepts and methods to the teachers. Moreover, the volunteers themselves can participate in educational activities and start some courses that stimulate students study interests and lead students to master rational methods of study.

If school running costs are not the main barrier and local government does not oppose then some existing but not successful schools or even those on the verge of closing down could benefit completely from adjusting to this kind of model. According to the Guanai experience this kind of education is not capable of standing out in terms of student exam results compared to other surrounding schools. So how can you create the appeal to society to be able to gain student resources? I observed Guanai School has several competitive advantages. 1. Good eating and sleeping conditions: the school’s 3 meals a day were both varied and tasty. 2. Educational model: the teachers loved the students and in this kind of free environment the children grow. 3. Liberal school management: This is a unique advantage of village voluntary schools. 4. Practical and passionate Volunteers: We are still looking to see if the ‘Teaching Fellow’ project volunteers can both communicate with the upper levels and the lower levels and if they are able to be as practical yet possess similar summarizing ability in the same way as native volunteers do. 5. Already operate a student project: for example, a pen pal exchange with an American primary school 6 Other factors: these include RCEF’s long lasting oversight and that surrounding schools do not maliciously compete etc.

During the course of the last few years growth RCEF has not carefully considered whether or not it is willing go down the road of this kind of micro operation. Moreover we have not discussed whether as a group we should have our own distinct model. We’ve had many macro discussions concerning tentative future plans generally focusing on the comparatively passive form of development thinking of ‘putting more volunteers into more schools’. The answers of many long term volunteers that have not been to China to the questions of ‘what RCEF should do’ and ‘what I do in RCEF’ generally are quite unspecific. Some applicants ask me, ‘What does RCEF do in China?’ I often answer that ‘we have 3 schools, 6 volunteers and some supporting educational activities’. Though it’s a bit one sided I expect many people have this impression of RCEF. Can’t we bring together our experience and lessons and put more energy into how to be truly creative in supporting China’s rural education. How we can increase the attentiveness and investment of our RCEF work in China? Diane, Jiang Peng, Sara, Steven: who will be coming after these names? Are we all concerned about who follows? What can RCEF provide for these volunteers who have worked so hard? In one or two years in what form will they take leave of RCEF? What can their experience provide to the rational development plan of RCEF?

(Translated by Mike Thomson)

Be Sociable, Share!

•