To address the preschool education needs of children whose parents both work, the Executive Yuan last week approved measures to expand the public kindergarten system.
The government hopes the measures will increase the number of public and nonprofit kindergarten classes by 1,000 within four years, as well as raise the student quota at preschools by 30,000 by 2020.
However, before the government implements such measures, there are several things that require further review.
The measures were based on the idea that, in addition to public and private kindergartens, there should be a third model for running preschools. As a result, there is the idea of “nonprofit” kindergartens, or facilities that are state-sponsored, but privately run by nonprofit organizations.
However, when reviewing the government’s plans, it is important to return to the basic questions concerning the interests of children that child experts highlight, such as the specific student range, premises, environment, amenities and faculty of a kindergarten, instead of focusing on the differences between business models.
For the same reason, the government should avoid focusing too much on achieving quotas — such as having a business scale of 1,000 public-sponsored kindergarten classes, an additional student quota of 30,000, or even possibly the creation of 2,000 new jobs.
Instead, it should focus on realizing “widespread, affordable and high-quality” preschool education, as the policy claims, and it could do this by making sure that kindergartens’ fee structures provide services that match the pricing and meet the childcare needs of working parents.
There are several reasons for this. Public kindergartens, which emphasize the rights of children, can only admit a certain number of children due to structural economies of scale and limited resources. They simply cannot provide their services to everyone who wants to use them.
A system of drawing lots for admission means that, in reality, there are many families who draw the short straw and cannot send their children to a public kindergarten, which are supposed to be providing for families as part of a social welfare service.
Parents can become somewhat disgruntled as a result. They have little option but to look around for a private or nonprofit kindergarten that can provide the best possible care and education.
The key to really solving the problem is to find a way to make sure that private and nonprofit kindergartens can provide the kind of childcare and preschool education only available at public kindergartens on a pro rata basis.
That being the goal, focusing too much on ensuring cheaper tuition at the expense of the quality of childcare and education apparently does not help. It fails to address the fact that nonprofit kindergartens still need to have a minimal level of profit, which the government should help ensure.
Nor does it address how the government can ensure the quality of faculty, or the benefits for professionals who work there, other outside factors that might affect the kindergarten market or if nonprofit kindergartens could potentially lead to a price war.
It is important that the government recognizes the many subtle and sometimes paradoxical differences between the idea of not profiting at all and the way a “nonprofit” entity actually operates — sometimes using a business model. This will help clarify the nature, purposes and functions of nonprofit kindergartens.
In addition, the government should consider whether its decision to repurpose unused properties for kindergartens and to reduce price gaps by providing additional subsidies could have a negative effect on the kindergarten market, or if nonprofit kindergartens will be cost-effective enough to justify the allocation of public resources.
As such questions imply, the government’s plans to promote nonprofit kindergartens lack a comprehensive system that takes into consideration detailed childcare and education plans, connections between services and goals for training and keeping preschool professionals.
As a result, it is focusing on developing an alternate option outside public and private kindergartens with a different price range.
If the government is going to be paying the personnel, amenity and operating costs for nonprofit kindergartens, while contractors are allowed to take a cut from tuition income, it could marginalize kindergartens that do not have government funding.
In addition, how would that be different from a private business, despite its “nonprofit” goal?
Wang Shung-ming is a professor of social welfare at Chinese Culture University.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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