Summary in Plain Language
Recently, the famous postgraduate entrance examination tutor Tang Jiafeng’s statement about “eliminating English as a core subject” has sparked a heated debate online. Many people have misinterpreted it as a clash between “patriotism vs. foreign worship” or “xenophobia vs. openness,” completely missing the point. The core argument of this article is practical: there’s no need to elevate the discussion of English’s status to an ideological level; instead, we should focus on the more tangible issues of “educational equity and resource distribution” in China. English has become the easiest subject among all core subjects to master through extra time and resources invested by families. By the time children reach primary school, they might already have covered high school-level content, which has turned it into a “filter” that widens the gap between children from ordinary and wealthy families. Moreover, the shortage of qualified English teachers in underdeveloped areas makes it impossible to maintain English’s current high status as a core subject. Continuing to do so would only cause ordinary families to waste their energy on something that’s not as rewarding. It would be more fair to shift focus to subjects like mathematics, physics, and chemistry, which cannot be mastered through rote memorization. There’s no need to worry about a shortage of English-speaking talent in the future, as AI tools and online learning resources are readily available; those who truly need it will learn on their own, without the need for a nationwide rush to prepare for English exams from a young age.
---
Detailed Explanation
1. The current debate about whether English should be a core subject is different from previous ones
In the past decade, discussions about English as a core subject have often revolved around complaints that “years of learning English are useless in the workplace” or arguments that “we need to align with international standards and not neglect English.” However, the context has changed significantly. On one hand, AI translation and real-time interpretation tools have become more efficient, reducing the need for English proficiency in many situations. On the other hand, the pressure to excel in education has shifted to English, as it’s the first subject where a shortcut can be found (i.e., mastering it by primary school). Continuing with the old approach would undermine educational equity. Those who immediately label opponents of English as “conservative and xenophobic” are simply trying to create a controversy without addressing the real issues.
2. Why is English the easiest subject to gain an advantage through early preparation?
No other subject allows for such early advantage. No matter how intelligent a child is, it’s impossible to fully understand complex concepts like derivatives or electromagnetism in high school by primary school. For subjects like mathematics, physics, and chemistry, even wealthy parents can’t help their 10-year-olds grasp the complex logic needed for mastery. But English is different; it’s a language-based subject with plenty of free resources available online. With just 2-3 hours of daily practice, children can learn all the high school English content in six years and then focus on other subjects, effectively gaining an advantage in exams. The real barrier is not money but parents’ time. Parents who work long hours or are full-time mothers have the time to help their children, while those who don’t don’t.
3. The claim that the gap in English proficiency between urban and rural areas is smaller than in math and science is unfounded
Some argue that the gap in English proficiency between urban and rural areas in Zhejiang is small, using this as evidence that the gap in English is smaller than in other subjects. However, this doesn’t represent the entire country. In rural areas, many English teachers lack proper training, and their pronunciation is often poor. The idea that hiring foreign teachers can solve this problem is unrealistic, as most counties in central and western China can’t afford them.
4. Reducing the importance of English doesn’t mean abandoning it; it’s more beneficial for ordinary families
There’s no need to worry that reducing English’s status will hinder scientific research or foreign trade. Many professors in their forties and fifties don’t use English in their work but still need to learn it for international exchanges. Those who do need to use English often learn it for specific purposes and quickly forget what they learned in school. For those who need it for real-life tasks, there are plenty of free resources available. Instead of forcing everyone to focus on English from a young age, it’s better to allocate resources to more practical subjects.
5. Reforming English is about reducing the burden on students
The goal of English reform is to make the education system more efficient. We can’t replace the college entrance examination with something more equitable, but we can adjust the weight of English as a core subject. It no longer serves as an effective tool for selecting talent. Currently, scoring high in English doesn’t indicate linguistic ability or suitability for foreign-related work; it merely shows that parents invested time and resources in their children’s education. Adjusting the difficulty of English exams would help direct resources towards subjects where real skills are needed, such as mathematics and science, which are more dependent on a child’s natural talent and effort. This practical reform doesn’t involve any ideological debates.