A viral video depicting a high school student assaulting a mathematics teacher is circulating on social media. Predictably, the press is capitalizing on this incident with sensationalized headlines and language, such as “爆打老師” (student beats teacher) or “鎖喉比中指怒噴” (student chokeholds, flips off teacher, and cusses nonstop).
一段高中生毆打數學老師的影片，在社群媒體上瘋傳。想當然耳，媒體對此大肆報導，而標題中更充斥著諸如「爆打老師」或「鎖喉比中指怒噴」等聳動的關鍵字詞。
Most people seem to sympathize with the teacher, criticizing the student for losing control, using foul language, and physically assaulting the teacher, while also commending the teacher for maintaining self-control. Some argue that the teacher inadvertently provoked the incident by addressing the disruptive behavior of the student, who is presumably in special education. Additionally, some express regret that the school may not have adequately informed the teacher about the student’s needs, leading to the outburst and ensuing conflict.
人們似多同情該名教師，讚揚其自制力，並責難學生失控、咒罵且毆打教師的行為。亦有人聲稱，就在教師向這位據信為特教生的學生表達該課堂遭其打擾後，已於無意間挑起了是次事件。而後，更有人感嘆，校方或未將該名學生的需求告知該位教師，從而導致了整起事件的爆發與後續的衝突。
All these perspectives are legitimate, each proposing a direct solution, whether it be disciplining the student, offering the teacher additional special education training, or establishing improved channels of communication and support within the school. However, resorting to these broad solutions and formulating policies solely based on them will likely lead to further complications in the future.
這些觀點都有一定的合理性，也多提出了直截了當的解決方案，像是：懲戒該名學生、為教師提供更多的特殊教育訓練，或在校內建立更好的溝通與支援體系。不幸的是，只主張一種寬泛的解決方案與以此為基礎的政策，無疑會帶來更多問題。
The integration of students with special needs into classrooms alongside their peers without special needs is a policy rooted in inclusive education. However, such policies inherently encompass what are known as “wicked problems,” a concept introduced by renowned design theorists Rittel and Webber. These problems exhibit several defining characteristics, some of which I will outline below:
將有特殊需求的學生與其他無特殊需求的學生統合在同一個班級裡，是基於融合教育與全納教育*此一政策。而這樣的政策本身就存在我們所謂的「棘手的問題」。正如知名的計畫理論家Rittel與Webber所言，棘手的問題具有幾個特點，底下將列出其中的幾項要點：
1. They do not have a definitive formulation.
Solving simple problems requires gathering all necessary information beforehand, but with complex problems, understanding the issue and finding solutions are intertwined, making it necessary to consider various potential solutions from the start. Traditional planning approaches are inadequate for complex problems because they don’t account for the evolving understanding of the problem and the solutions needed.
它們沒有明確的規劃。解決簡單的問題，需先搜羅所有必要資訊；但對複雜的問題來說，理解問題與找到解答則是相輔相成，這使得人們從一開始就需要考量各種可能的解決方案。傳統的規劃方式不足以應付複雜的問題，因為它們無法說明，人們是如何逐步地形成自己對問題與解決方案的理解。
2. Their solutions are not true or false.
Solutions to complex problems aren’t simply right or wrong, but rather judged as good or bad. Unlike straightforward problems where correctness can be objectively determined, complex problems involve various perspectives and interests, leading to subjective evaluations of solutions as “good” or “bad” or, more likely, as “better or worse” or “satisfying” or “good enough.”
它們的解決方案不是真或假。複雜問題的解決方案並非僅是對或錯，而是被評判為好或壞。與簡單的問題（能客觀地確認其正確性）不同，複雜的問題涉及了各種觀點與利益，使人們主觀地將解決方案評價為「好」或「壞」、「更好」或「更壞」、「令人滿意」或「還不錯」。
3. There is no end to the number of solutions or approaches to a wicked problem.
Wicked problems don’t have a clearly defined set of potential solutions, nor are there established rules for what actions can be taken. It’s difficult to determine if all possible solutions have been considered, and sometimes no solution is found due to contradictions in the problem’s description or a lack of ideas for solutions. In areas like social policy, where solutions are not clearly defined, various strategies may be proposed and considered, and the decision to pursue one over another relies on judgment, trust, and credibility between planners and stakeholders.
棘手問題的解答與手段無窮無盡。棘手的問題缺乏一套明確的潛在方案，行動時也沒有現成的規則可以依循。很難確定是否已考慮過所有的可能方案。有時，問題的敘述有相互矛盾之處，或對問題毫無想法，從而找不到解決方案。像社會政策這種解決方案不明確的領域，可能會提出、考慮各種策略，而個中抉擇則取決於規劃者與權益者之間的判斷、信任及可信度。
4. Wicked problems can always be described as the symptom of other problems.
Wicked problems often stem from underlying issues, with each problem seen as a symptom of a larger one. Addressing these problems involves identifying their root causes, which may lead to even more complex issues. Resolving problems on a higher level is preferable, but incremental approaches can sometimes exacerbate the situation if they only address surface-level symptoms.
棘手的問題總是可以被描述為其他問題的病徵。棘手的問題通常派生自潛在問題，而其中的每個問題都被視為更大問題的某個症狀。解決這些問題須確定其根本原因，從而產生更複雜的問題。從更高的層級解決問題固然可取，但有時若只以漸進式的手段解決表面的症狀，可能會使情況加劇。
5. Wicked problems can be explained in various ways, each offering different approaches to resolution.
For instance, “drug addicts in the streets” might be attributed to factors like drug addiction, a shortage of police, or inadequate laws. However, there’s no definitive method to determine the correct explanation. Unlike in scientific discourse, where evidence refutes hypotheses, in dealing with wicked problems, multiple interpretations can be used to support or challenge explanations. Ultimately, personal perspectives and available action options influence which explanation is chosen, making the analyst’s worldview crucial in resolving wicked problems.
可以用各式方法來歸因棘手的問題，而每種歸因都提供了不同的解決方案。例如，「街頭毒品濫用」可能會被歸咎於各種因素——毒品成癮、警力短缺、司法不彰。但卻沒有一個可靠的方法來確定哪種歸因才是正確的。這與證據得以推翻假說的科學話語不同。在處理棘手的問題時，人們可以使用多種詮釋來支持或挑戰各式的歸因。最終，個人觀點以及可用的行動選項，左右了哪種歸因為人所聽取，這便使分析者的世界觀在解決棘手的問題時至關重要。
（Rittel＆Webber，1973，pp. 161-166）
As we examine the characteristics outlined here, the concept of “integration” or its ultimate goal, “inclusive education,” inherently embodies all of these traits. This implies that it is an immensely intricate issue stemming from broader societal challenges, devoid of clear-cut solutions, with validity dependent on individual perspectives. This isn’t to suggest that we cannot strive to address wicked problems; rather, we must acknowledge the multitude of intricacies within such complex matters, recognizing that our comprehension of them is continually evolving. In essence, addressing such problems entails ongoing efforts, as they are not simply resolved by implementing so-called solutions.
誠如我們從這些內容中所見者，「融合」(integration) 或其旨在達成的「全納教育」(inclusive education)** 本身就體現了上述特點。也就是說，這是一個複雜的議題，是龐大的社會問題所催生出的結果，沒有明確的解決方案。而這些解決方案在各自的主觀中都有其合理性。這並不是說我們無法共克棘手的問題，但我們須意識到，在這個複雜的議題中有諸多細微差異，而人們對它的理解更是不斷地演變。意即，我們持續不懈地解決問題，但當開始實行所謂的解決方案時，問題可能不會因此而消失。
For instance, numerous internet users advocate for segregating special education students into separate classes to cater to their needs. However, the implementation of such a solution poses numerous questions: How would this segregation be executed? Would all students with special needs be placed in these classes, or only certain ones? Who decides? Why? Do schools provide educators with adequate support, and does the government allocate sufficient funding to schools? What benchmarks do schools have to meet to qualify for government funding? Moreover, what are the potential ramifications of segregating students with special needs? Would the advantages of such segregation outweigh the disadvantages for both special education students and their peers without special needs? Furthermore, how would policymakers promote such policies, and what might be their underlying motivations? Lastly, how do these policies translate into tangible school regulations and guidelines?
例如，許多網友主張將特教生分到不同的班級以獲得幫助，但這該如何實現？有特殊需求的學生都要去這些班級，還是只有部分特教生要去？由誰決定？為何？學校是否為老師提供必要的支援，政府是否給予學校足夠的資金？學校必須達到什麼標準才能符合政府資助的條件？分離特教生的短期與長期後果可能是什麼？這樣的隔離待遇，對特教生以及非特教生利多於弊嗎？政策制定者將如何倡導這樣的政策？他們的可能動機為何？政策將如何轉化為學校的規章與大政方針？
There are numerous inquiries, and that is the main focus of this post. Rather than joining the bandwagon and advocating for mob-rule justice regarding the current situation, we should delve into the intricacies and viewpoints to further clarify the matter. It’s essential to operate within a framework that allows all stakeholders some degree of flexibility. Teachers cannot be tasked with managing all special education students without assistance, and schools cannot be expected to offer boundless support with limited resources. Thus, it’s crucial for there to be a level of empathy and mutual support among all involved parties.
如此多的疑問正是本文的重點。就現況而言，我們不能隨波逐流，更不宜訴諸暴徒正義。我們須考量細微差異與各方觀點，更好地定義問題。並以某一框架為依歸，使有關人士都有彈性。不能指望老師在毫無後援的情況下，應對所有特教生；也不能指望校方在有限的資源下，提供無限的支持。各方皆需一定的彈性，應相互理解與扶持。
At the same time, it’s imperative to continuously educate all stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers, administrators, policymakers, and notably, voters, about the complexities and significance at stake. This education is crucial for devising more compassionate and adaptable policies. Policies are destined to falter if they approach these multifaceted challenges with sandbox variables and solutions.
與此同時，我們必須不斷地教育所有的權益關係者，包括學生、家長、教師、管理人員、政策制定者，以及最重要的選民，讓他們了解其中的細微差異與利害關係，以制定出更具同理心與彈性的政策。若政策試以沙箱變數與解方來應對這些多重的棘手問題，那麼必將失敗。
Nevertheless, amid the chaos and blame-shifting, there is a glimmer of hope in this incident. Observing the actions of fellow students who intervened to assist their classmate with special needs, we witness their equipped understanding and skills to elucidate, de-escalate, and support their teachers and peers when necessary. In them lies hope for a better future.
然而，在所有混亂與指責中，此一事件仍充滿希望。從其他同學制伏該位特教生的過程中，我們可以看到，他們展現出同理與能力，得以在必要時刻解釋、緩和情勢，以支援他們的老師與同儕。
*在台灣，「inclusive education」一詞被翻譯為「融合教育」: https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/008957
**一些學者對「integration」與「inclusive education」的看法: https://bit.ly/49DpOtl
Reference:
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Image: Yahoo News