Failure
One of the things I try to explain in my dissertation is the failure of Taiwan’s current educational policies. What do I mean by failure? This is a question that came up recently when Scott Sommers tried to answer a similar question. Scott did an admirable job of showing how politics has made it difficult for Taiwan’s ruling party, the DPP, to implement policy when the legislature is arrayed against it. The KMT even opposes DPP policies that were introduced by the KMT when they were in power! Scott argues that this created a situation where party loyalty became more important than competence in appointing policy makers. Scott’s argument is a more nuanced and detailed version of that made by Taiwanese commentator, Nan Fang-shuo (南方朔), which was promptly attacked by Michael Turton. So it isn’t any surprise that Turton would ask Scott what he means by “failure.”
I don’t know exactly what Scott means by failure, but I do know what I mean. Contemporary Taiwanese language-in-education-policy is supposedly aimed at two goals: First, teaching native languages. Secondly, teaching English. (There have also been some changes to Mandarin language education, but those are much less controversial.)
Native language education today consists of primary school students receiving one period a week in native language instruction. If the goal of this instruction is to reverse the stigma associated with speaking native languages, then it might be considered a success. However, if it is to actually reverse years of decline in the speaking of Taiwan’s native languages, it is pretty much a failure. In those communities where native languages are widely spoken, the classes are minimally useful, but in communities where children do not speak their native language at home, one hour a week is not enough to make even a minimal impact.
One of the main goals of English language education policy is to reverse years of damage from a curriculum focused on grammar-and-translation. The new curriculum guidelines emphasize communicative competence. But as far as I have seen, there has been little change in this regard, with parents and teachers still concerned more with test results than with actual English ability.
What would it take to succeed in these goals? Teaching core primary school courses in native Taiwanese languages and the complete elimination of standardized testing seem to be impossible goals. Like educational policy in all democratic nations, Taiwan’s policies are the result of political compromises. That political compromises compromise education is not surprising. Much more interesting for me, and discussed in my dissertation, are the ways in which the new curriculum made ideological compromises as well. The very concept of Taiwanese identity embodied in the new curriculum is not, as one might have expected, that of Taiwanese nationalism, but instead:
the formation of Taiwanese identity as a series of nested concentric circles radiating out from local communities to encompass the nation, the larger Chinese community, and eventually the world
This nested view of Taiwanese culture emerged, not with the rise of the DPP, but even earlier, and as the result of internal tensions within the KMT (as well as outside pressure). This ideological compromise means that local education can never be more than “local,” and thus inhibits the development of any broad national effort to reverse the decline of local languages.
The problems with English education are more complicated and are much more tied to increased economic inequality in Taiwan. As Shelly Rigger informs us, even if the DPP was a party of its class, it was never a class-based party. As such, it is unable to adequately confront the issues of equitability raised by reforming the national examination system.
There are serious structural changes taking place in Taiwanese society and they go beyond party identification.
UPDATE: Scott has a followup discussion.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Michael, sorry I didn’t mean anything negative by the word “attack.” I just wanted to encourage people to read your post, and people always like controversy!
, I addressed the issue of the failure of DPP education policy. In a July 13 comment, Michael Turton in turn asked what I meant by failure. Kerim Friedman has given his version of the answer to this in a post on Keywords which focuses on language policy. But my concerngoes even further than this. Perhaps the biggest concern that I have is the use of political appointees to positions that are essentially professional in nature. The attempt to place
[…] With such huge support, Ma has a great opportunity to reform the KMT. The KMT ‘old guard’ (headed by Lien Chan) were always going to resist change (I had posted before questioning how much freedom the new leader would really have), but this should give Ma the power to push through reforms despite their resistance.Even for the KMT it’s not who supports you that matters, it’s how many support you. Wang had the overwhelming support of senior KMT members (and a videotaped message from James Soong, the head of the PFP), but it meant very little in the final analysis. Democracy has truly arrived for the KMT.There must be big question marks over the future for Wang (and his allies) now. In 2008, the legislature will be halved in size, and you can be sure it’ll be Wang’s supporters who will be most nervous about losing their jobs.This will answer a lot of questions about how popular Ma is outside of Taipei (his powerbase). Of course, a poll of KMT members is different to a presidential election, but the fact that he even beat Wang on his home turf of Kaohsiung means Ma can claim to be the most popular KMT member in all regions of Taiwan.Why did no one predict this result? The polls in Taiwan are usually fairly accurate in predicting results - but everyone was surprised by this one. Ma beat Wang handily. I’m still reeling. David had another good post on Ma being snubbed in victory. Losing or winning, Ma always manages to look pathetic somehow. Maybe he should have cried, and at least gotten some political mileage out of it all. There is also a thread at Forumosa.P. K. Friedman over at Keywords discusses the failure of DPP education policy in Taiwan, in conjunction with comments from Scott Sommers on the same issue. Friedman writes: […]
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
An anthropologist and documentary filmmaker, 
Scott’s argument is a more nuanced and detailed version of that made by Taiwanese commentator, Nan Fang-shuo (南方朔), which was promptly attacked by Michael Turton. So it isn’t any surprise that Turton would ask Scott what he means by “failure.”
Kerim, I did not “attack” Nan (I attacked ESWN for falling for Nan’s schtick). Nan wrote the kind of silly screed that passes for political analysis among a certain class of mainlanders, and I showed how and why that essay was totally wrong. To use phrases like “attack” and “it isn’t any surprise” is to use loaded language. Silly Michael! Asking for concrete examples?
But for that matter, yes, it is not suprising that I asked for concrete examples of educational policy failure, for people who talk about the failure of the DPP are generally long on complaint and short on actual concrete examples. This stems from the problem of local political discourse being strongly influenced by mainlander control of the media and other societal institutions, said discourse not being the province of the concrete. Hence, I have taken routinely to asking people who are critical of the DPP government to provide concrete examples of DPP failure. The usual result of such questions is that they either provide patently obvious ones like your example of native language education above, which I came out against years ago in local press as an obvious bad idea when it was first proposed, or more commonly, they do not give concrete examples at all — or, as you did, they take refuge in what appear to be personal attacks on someone who would ask such questions (”it is not surprising…”). Scott’s discussion was certainly more naunced than Nan’s (hardly a problem, since a hamster could produce a more nuanced discussion than Nan), and his review of the DPP’s problems very insightful. But Scott’s position was apparently that the DPP had “failed” if it appointed political hacks to ministry positions, which would make every government on earth a failure. So far Scott has failed to provide any examples of concrete policy failure.
One of the main goals of English language education policy is to reverse years of damage from a curriculum focused on grammar-and-translation. The new curriculum guidelines emphasize communicative competence. But as far as I have seen, there has been little change in this regard, with parents and teachers still concerned more with test results than with actual English ability.
This has been a problem since the KMT came over. Until the testing system stops emphasizing grammar and translation, parents will continue to ignore the changes in the curriculum. Further I do not understand how this is a “failure” of the DPP since testing for communicative competence would present immense concrete difficulties. You have already noted the impossibility of Taiwanese-language instruction in the core curriculum (a move I oppose in any case) and the impossibility of getting rid of standardized testing. What non-pipe dream concrete changes would you make if you were appointed education czar?
“Actual English ability” is in any case a value which is defined by context. In this context, that value means “ability to pass the exam.” This is not surprising as practically all education in Taiwan functions that way, in every subject. English, like math, geography, history, whatever, is just another set of things to be memorized and forgotten as soon as the test is over. Until that entire context changes, language education won’t change either. Such change is cultural and generational, not something DPP is going to solve in five years or ten.
The problems with English education are more complicated and are much more tied to increased economic inequality in Taiwan.
Bingo. And that’s the way it has always been.
Michael