I attended the 2025 Classroom Sharing Expo in the local area last Saturday. I observed a class example using AIDT, and it was a really good and meaningful class. Even in small towns or rural schools, they designed and implemented a class, which was an English language class, where no friend was excluded. They demanded a high level of rubric from high-achieving friends and a level playing field from lower-achieving friends while conducting the class. They sufficiently demonstrated the possibility of coexistence of students with various levels of achievement in one classroom. In particular, the English dubbing English club activity was very impressive, and it made me eager to participate.

However, such classes may be possible for the first semester or year. But I am concerned about how to guide subject selection in the 2nd and 3rd years. Of course, it is possible to proceed with the class by having students choose the same subject. However, there is a premise. The achievement of currently low-achieving students must improve, reducing the gap between achievement levels A, B, and D, E groups.

In fact, many people talk about leveled classes. However, leveled classes involve teaching classes separately by level within the same subject and evaluating them equally, making it impossible under the current relative evaluation system. Therefore, it is argued that absolute evaluation is necessary. Absolute evaluation, achievement evaluation, can only be based on rational class design when the achievement levels of the groups are similar. If there is a significant academic gap, the possible class stage is limited to diagnostic evaluation. Although it is inevitable to take common courses in the first year of high school due to the difficulty of subject selection, the situation is different in the 2nd and 3rd years.

Ultimately, regardless of relative evaluation or absolute evaluation (achievement evaluation), in the 2nd and 3rd year curriculum, it is inevitable to operate the curriculum by separating subjects according to students' aptitude, career path, and achievement level. Mentioning subject selection based on achievement level for university entrance exams is not desirable. While conducting actual achievement-level-based class design and evaluation, efforts should be made to minimize students who do not meet the minimum achievement level. In the 2nd and 3rd year curriculum, it is impossible for students to have satisfying classes forced by school designations. This is the basic starting point of the credit system.

In an ideal education system where there are no differences in achievement levels or differences in students' aptitudes and career paths, the credit system is unnecessary. If advocating for the abolition of the credit system, a system that allows for such premises should be designed. Abolishing standardization and recruiting students with similar achievement levels or designing all schools as specialized schools is possible. While watching good classes, I pondered about classes that many students would find satisfying.