The recent joint petition by more than 100 academics calling for a "restructuring of the education system" listed 13 perceived failures of the last decade of educational reform and four general appeals. The petition criticized educational reform as being guided by "figures in the liberal faction," thereby seeming to imply that the critics have themselves adopted a conservative stance.
Conservatism is not necessarily bad. However, at the conclusion of the press conference publicizing the petition, directly calling on Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲) to take responsibility for the failure of educational reform and, especially, emphasizing that no aspect of educational reform has been done right showed that they are in fact throwing down the gauntlet and have no intention of seeking compromise.
Has educational reform really been a complete failure? Is it such a threat that it must be ferociously repudiated in this manner? Stated simply, our feelings about the 13 listed "failures" and the proposals to rectify them is that basic principles of education have been confused. We believe public opinion is being misled with an intent to deceive. The standards used to criticize reform reek of opportunism, as they encompass only superficial issues that resonate with the perceptions of a shallow audience. There is no attempt to solve problems by proposing practical and effective solutions.
For example, the definition of "quality education" presented among the four appeals raises doubts, because while no one would quibble with the apparent meaning of the words, further explication reveals that the last decade of educational reform has been labelled "universal education" for the masses. Thus, wouldn't so-called "quality education" be precisely the opposite of universal education -- ie, elite education?
Reading down the list, we see the demand for a return to class formation based on ability and opposition to the proliferation of senior-high schools and colleges. These aspects of reform, which were originally intended to look after the underprivileged and realize the ideal of universal education, have now come to be reviled in the eyes of those most privileged as "forcing the hare to wait for the tortoise."
They claim such policies will hurt the nation's international competitiveness. They utterly fail to comprehend that learning in an environment of equality won't necessarily obstruct the progress of the most talented students and may even liberate them from narrow-mindedness.
Apart from groundless libel about "eradicating the star high schools" and "abolishing vocational schools," the critics have even trumped up charges about the already scrapped "high-school admissions preferences plan" and the unrelated issue of "constructivist mathematics." Perhaps this could be dismissed as scraping the bottom of the barrel, but most strangely of all they have also proposed "class formation based on proficiency in each subject" and "including [in the calculation of admission grades] class performance in junior-high school."
Anyone with the slightest concern for education issues knows that the side-effects of such policies are very serious. Can't "class formation based on proficiency in each subject" easily become a form of "class formation based on proficiency?"
Don't junior-high students complain that including class performance [in grade calculations] forces them to worry about every quiz and test, a fate even worse than having one's entire future decided by a single exam?
We had thought the critics might have found a magic cure to the education system's ills, but all they have presented is this kind of material. How persuasive can it be? Looking at the spirit of these proposals, it is clear that they hope the schools can return to the days of being a jungle in which students compete with one another on the basis of their own prowess. Urban students and those with abundant resources could then enjoy advantages and parents could brazenly enter the campuses and seize educational resources. These are the bygone nightmares of the "liberal faction," and they are what this group of academics hopes to restore as the status quo.
Taiwan's education circles, having hardly emerged from the shadow of this nightmare, are just beginning to see some progress, and now this group has appeared in conjunction with the political old guard to wreck it all. They even whisper enticingly about "looking after underprivileged students and safeguarding social justice" as well as reviving "the spirit of helping others" in education. What kind of malicious intent do they harbor? Do the principles of education in this plan have any persuasive power at all?
We do not deny that the process of educational reform has indeed been messy at times due to inadequate preparation or communication, insufficient complementary policy measures and overly hasty policy implementation. However, these problems can be attributed to the shortcomings of past policy. Even if the DPP has not always implemented policy effectively, most of the setbacks have been on the technical level and given sufficient time they can be overcome.
But this time it's different. This criticism repudiates everything about reform. Technical problems that could have been discussed rationally have already been labelled intractable differences. Hatred stemming from the loss of the presidential election four years ago is still so raw that a certain person can be singled out for criticism, and there is no willingness to confine discussion to the matter at hand.
Members of the conservative political faction have invited ruling figures from the authoritarian era. For the sake of election victory, they prefer to let their two parties run a "three-legged race" and claim that there is no risk of taking a fall in doing so. What regard do they have for the welfare of the people and the country?
Now that the old guard has seen its cries of economic mis-management muffled by the rise of the stock market, they have shifted the focus of their attacks to education where they harp on minor issues. These 100-plus academics who are willing to act as the flank of the political old guard have presented an incongruous petition to mislead the public. With so little to offer, they will undoubtedly soon be shown for what they are.
We would welcome a clarification of the ideas of the conservative faction. If they think elite education is a good idea, then they should openly advocate elite education. If they think class formation based on proficiency is the best way to maximize the effectiveness of education, then they should openly advocate that.
Don't speak of looking after underprivileged students and safeguarding social justice even as you work to increase the gap between rich and poor and claim falsely that this is the policy of the ruling party. Academics should have standards, after all. If these academics can debate on the basis of principles of education, then it is the people's privilege to decide the matter. We hope the concern of these academics really is the people.
The Taiwan Association of University Professors, The Northern Taiwan Society, The Central Taiwan Society, The Eastern Taiwan Society, The Southern Taiwan Society, Taiwan PEN, The Foundation of Medical Professionals Alliance in Taiwan.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath