本文的主要目的在於討論我國近年在多元化社會思潮下所做的幾個教育改革趨勢與問題。 近年來我國的教育改革有一個明顯的趨勢，就是「多元化」，或稱之為「鬆綁」。這種多元化或鬆綁，基本上是一種後現代的思維；想以更富彈性的做法來矯正現代社會，包括教育制度在內的許多過分制度化，甚至僵化的不合理措施。但是「後現代」並不能取代「現代」；它只能修正現代中過分強調絕對理性的部分。就制度面來講，我們只能修改其過分僵化的部分，而不能完全廢棄制度。可是在修改過分僵化的制度時到底要修改到什麼程度，如何修改才不會使原來的制度亂掉，是需要相當注意的事情。否則就會使產生混亂的現象。可是我國近年的教育改革正有許多這種現象，在追求多元化之餘，未能注意到邏輯的一慣性與合理性而貿然付之實施，結果產生許多混亂的現象。本文即以師資培育法的多元化、大學的多元入學及教科書的開放為例，兼顧多元化與合理性，檢討其修改狀況。 根據分析與檢討結果，可以看出：第一，師資培育法可能本身的邏輯就有問題，導致條文之間前後矛盾、不合理，或雖有條文卻無法執行。第二，多元入學方案由於採取統一分發，且志願可以填到上百個，因此形同聯招，缺乏多元，結果可能造成大學水平的序列化，而激化升學競爭。第三，國中小學教科書開放之後產生的亂象，主要由於課程綱要的不清楚，應該修改課程綱要，可是現在卻由教育部跳出來自己編一套，仍脫離不了過去統編的觀念。

The main purpose of this article lies in discussing several educational reforms, trends, and issues done under the social ideological trend of the pluralism in recent years in Taiwan. The pluralism, or the so-called “loosening of restrictions, “is an obvious trend in our educational reform in recent years. This kind of pluralism, or loosening restrictions, is fundamentally a post-modern thinking, which turns up with a more elastic method to correct the systems of modern society, including the over-institutionalized or even unreasonably rigid policies in our educational system. But "the post-modern "can not replace "modern, "it can only revise them. On the aspect of system, we can only revise the over-rigid parts, but can not totally discard it. But while we are revising it, it is mportant to pay careful attention to what extent we can do and how we can revise the system so that we will not make the original one lose arbitrarily, and meanwhile, prevent a confused phenomenon from happening. However, the confused phenomenon has occurred in our educational reform in recent years. While pursuing the pluralism, we seem to have ignored the continuity in logics and effected the reformation without cautious considerations. To review and discuss the present situation of our educational reform under both pluralism and rationalism, this article takes examples of the pluralism in Teacher Training Law, the university entrance system, and the liberalization in editing textbooks. According to the results of analysis and discussion, we can find out : firstly, it may be logically problematic in Teacher Training Law, and therefore cause contradictions and unreasonableness between clauses, which might be even unable to carry out. Secondly, since the plural entrance scheme is adopted unitedly, and there are one hundred choices for students to choose one university they hope to enter, which is just like the previous joint admission system, the scheme lacks the intended pluralism. The result may cause the array of the levels of the universities, and sharpen the competition of entering to higher school. Thirdly, the confusion caused by the liberalization of textbook publishing in middle and primary schools is due to the unclearness of the course outline. It is the courses outline that needs to be revised, not the involvement of the Ministry of Education in publishing its own textbooks, which has still clung on the traditional ideology of editing.