Should Programming Be Part of the Gaokao? Pros, Cons, and Practical Considerations

Recently a local education bureau announced a study on the feasibility of incorporating programming into the Gaokao, sparking heated debate among supporters and opponents. The author, an experienced embedded developer, shares personal reflections on the issue.

A high‑school teacher in Hangzhou piloted a programming class last year; a boy who had never passed a math exam created the class’s best snake game. The student said, “I don’t understand math problems, but I can read what the code does.” This anecdote suggests that programming can reveal strengths in students who lag in traditional subjects, giving the idea of inclusion a positive angle.

However, the author notes that many programmers excel at algorithmic puzzles yet struggle with real‑world tasks such as serial‑port communication, illustrating a gap between exam‑driven knowledge and practical ability.

Programming is fundamentally a craft—like driving, knowing the rules without practice does not make one proficient. Since the Gaokao can only assess written knowledge, it may encourage short‑term crash courses that focus on memorizing APIs and syntax, deviating from the true purpose of programming education.

Teacher readiness is a serious concern. Many information‑technology teachers have transitioned from ten‑year careers teaching office software and now must suddenly teach Python or C++, requiring them to learn from scratch. This makes it difficult to cultivate instructors capable of preparing students for a programming‑focused exam.

Additionally, programming technologies evolve rapidly, making it hard for a static exam syllabus to keep pace. Frequent revisions would turn students into “lab rats” constantly adapting to new specifications.

The author does not reject the idea outright. Coming from a mechanical background, he credits his knowledge of microcontrollers and embedded programming for broadening his career options, and observes that programming has become a universal skill akin to English—basic competence is increasingly essential.

Thus, the core issue is not whether to test programming but how to test it. If it is to be included, the exam should avoid deep technical detail and instead assess computational thinking and problem‑solving abilities rather than rote memorization of APIs.

Students should be allowed to choose among languages such as Python, C++, or Scratch, keeping the focus on thinking rather than language‑specific syntax.

Systematic teacher training is required; education authorities must develop a pipeline to produce qualified programming instructors.

The rollout should avoid a one‑size‑fits‑all approach: pilot programs could start in coastal regions, with a slower rollout in remote areas to preserve educational fairness.

Programming in the Gaokao is part of broader education reform. If it becomes merely another subject that demands memorization, it may be better omitted. Conversely, if it can nurture students’ ability to solve real problems, logical reasoning, and creativity, the reform gains significance.

There is also a risk of exacerbating inequality: urban students often have early exposure to coding classes, while rural students may lack even basic computer access. Without addressing this gap, the reform could disproportionately benefit advantaged families.

In summary, the author supports cautious consideration of programming in the Gaokao, recommending pilot testing, solutions for teacher training and equity, and a gradual, measured expansion, because education reform affects an entire generation and should not be rushed.