Ever since the government proposed that Taiwan be transformed into a bilingual nation by 2030, people have been debating the policy’s pros and cons. Experts and academics have offered various theoretical arguments, but one standard answer has not surfaced. In my view, as a teacher, achieving the policy requires a review of the issues from a practical perspective, from the viewpoint of Taiwan’s educational structure and characteristics.
The education system is dominated by test-oriented learning. Most regular teachers view bilingual instruction as extra work, while teachers of subjects tested in the joint entrance exams even view it as a threat.
The paradox of bilingual education lies in the incompatibility between the new policy and the classroom situation. Schools have long emphasized academic performance for the sake of being accepted to the next tier of education. To guard the academic reputation of schools and have graduates accepted to their preferred universities, students are trained to strive for high test scores. Test-taking skills are the focus of this educational environment.
For example, with this test-oriented instruction, most students learn English just to pass English listening, reading and writing tests. As spoken English is not included in the joint entrance exams, students generally do not practice speaking it.
As a result, in real-life situations — such as watching English-language movies, listening to English-language radio stations or interacting with foreigners, students find it difficult to translate what they have learned in class into actual conversation.
Students might be good test takers, but that does not mean that they know how to apply the language. This is especially true in Taiwan’s education system.
This situation makes implementing the bilingual policy difficult, because it is not taken into consideration by the Comprehensive Assessment Program for Junior High School Students, or by the General Scholastic Ability Test and Advanced Subjects Test for senior-high school students. For example, all of the questions in these exams are in Chinese.
Teachers, who are the executors of the will of the state, have long been conditioned by these exams. The authorities’ will might satisfy parents’ fantasies about bilingual education, but they are overlooking teachers’ hard work in the classroom as they add additional education measures.
What about the children? Due to the country’s long-standing “credentialist” approach, they continue to take the same tests in new forms, generation after generation.
The government’s bilingual policy and Taiwan’s test-oriented education system clash with each other. Unless half of the questions are given in English on exams, it will be difficult to promote bilingual education in tested subjects.
On the other hand, many schools have started the bilingual teaching of non-tested subjects. For example, elementary and junior-high schools in Taipei are recruiting a large number of bilingual teachers this year for non-academic subjects not tested in the exams.
This highlights how inconsistent the education system is, and the lack of equivalence between subjects. One could hope that the bilingual policy will be more pragmatic, and that top decisionmakers will be more idealistic and down-to-earth.
To create a solution that benefits everyone, the authorities should visit schools and listen to what teachers have to say. Bilingual education needs a balance between the goal and the actual, detailed implementation.
Tao Yi-che is a teacher at Affiliated High School of National Chengchi University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then