Rural schools need attention
To encourage high schools outside metropolitan areas to use an exam-free admission system, the Ministry of Education has increased the limit on how many can enroll that way to 6,457 from last year’s 2,306.
The ministry is also offering an entrance scholarship of NT$10,000 and it will also provide subsidies to schools participating in the exam-free system of between NT$4 million and NT$8 million (US$136,986 and US$273,973) to hire more staff and improve equipment.
However, all of the ministry’s efforts might be in vain.
Soon after the results of this year’s General Scholastic Ability Test were published, reports in the media claimed that none of the candidates from Liou-guei Senior High School in Kaohsiung scored more than 40 points on the test.
Undeniably, the school’s location in a remote area was a big factor — if given the opportunity to go to urban schools, students would not stay in remote areas.
The ministry has provided substantial funds to schools in remote areas — but have we seen any positive outcomes? What we see is that money alone cannot solve the problem of the education gap between cities and the countryside.
Education ministry officials need to engage with parents and ask them what kind of vision and environment they would like the ministry to provide so that their children could study in their hometowns and have peace of mind. This is the way to address the root cause of the problem. Spending excessive funds without overall planning is bound to have little effect.
The gap between urban and rural areas is a major problem of our education system. However, we cannot judge the success of rural education purely according to academic achievements. After all, each child might have different interests and abilities.
Only if our education system could help students find a career that matches their talents, enabling each student to find their way in life, we would be able to say that it is successful. This is what should matter the most, not whether the student is from an urban school or not.
Liu Hsiu-fang
Kaohsiung
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