A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure.
In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫). The program supported schools in shifting their teaching practices from monolingual, traditional approaches toward bilingual, active learning ones. This project went beyond simply increasing English in schools; it encouraged teachers and schools to re-examine their curriculum and teaching practices. Schools began incorporating English into subjects such as the arts, health, life skills, physical education and technology, without sacrificing content learning. At the same time, teachers in the project reflected on their previous instructional practices and began experimenting with new ones. This was not the full immersion that some originally anticipated it to be, but it was positively impacting teaching practices more broadly. In my experience working with schools in this program, I observed more engaging classroom instruction, and noticeably less anxiety toward English among students and teachers.
However, this progress in promoting bilingualism and active teaching practices stalled when the administration changed in 2024. In an interview published shortly after taking office, Minister of Education Cheng Ying-yao (鄭英耀) said that he intended to slow the policy, and later media reported the possibility of its termination. The program was not terminated, but it was changed. The new program was called the Bilingual Campus Life Program (雙語生活化校園計畫), which de-emphasized incorporating English in content learning and the associated changes in teaching, refocusing attention on general schoolwide English activities. These activities are reminiscent of English enhancement initiatives that predated the bilingual policy. The types of activities emphasized by this project are the ones the Taipei Times editorial criticized as insufficient for cultivating bilingualism.
Moreover, the program change created a new gap between the bilingual preparation in K-12 schools and the future bilingual reality of Taiwan’s higher education system. Universities across Taiwan, including National Taiwan Normal University, are expanding English-medium instruction, with some aiming toward a future where students can complete significant portions of their degrees in English. The previous K-12 program was designed to gradually prepare students for this environment, building a foundation through English content learning experiences across the primary and secondary curriculum. However, the current program steps back from that preparation, creating a disconnect between the bilingual policy at different education levels.
As we cross the midway point to the Bilingual 2030 policy target date, the ministry must show strong leadership on how best to proceed. If Taiwan is to go forward pursuing the original vision for the bilingual education policy, then the ministry should return to promoting bilingual teaching in schools to realign the K-12 policy with that of higher education and the National Development Council’s broader economic vision.
However, the recent shift in the ministry’s approach to the K-12 bilingual policy signals that there might not be the political will to do so. If the will is not there, then neither should the budget be. In this case, the ministry must then show the leadership and courage to be honest that bilingual education reform is no longer being pursued and reallocate the funds to other pressing issues in Taiwan’s public K-12 education system. If the ministry fails to do so, the question the editorial raised would only grow louder and harder to answer as 2030 approaches.
Keith M. Graham is an associate professor of bilingual teacher education in the School of Teacher Education at National Taiwan Normal University.
On March 22, 2023, at the close of their meeting in Moscow, media microphones were allowed to record Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) telling Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, “Right now there are changes — the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years — and we are the ones driving these changes together.” Widely read as Xi’s oath to create a China-Russia-dominated world order, it can be considered a high point for the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea (CRINK) informal alliance, which also included the dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba. China enables and assists Russia’s war against Ukraine and North Korea’s
After thousands of Taiwanese fans poured into the Tokyo Dome to cheer for Taiwan’s national team in the World Baseball Classic’s (WBC) Pool C games, an image of food and drink waste left at the stadium said to have been left by Taiwanese fans began spreading on social media. The image sparked wide debate, only later to be revealed as an artificially generated image. The image caption claimed that “Taiwanese left trash everywhere after watching the game in Tokyo Dome,” and said that one of the “three bad habits” of Taiwanese is littering. However, a reporter from a Japanese media outlet
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
The Iran war has exposed a fundamental vulnerability in the global energy system. The escalating confrontation between Iran, Israel and the US has begun to shake international energy markets, largely because Iran is disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow waterway carries roughly one-third of the world’s seaborne oil, making it one of the most strategically sensitive energy corridors in the world. Even the possibility of disruption has triggered sharp volatility in global oil prices. The duration and scope of the conflict remain uncertain, with senior US officials offering contradictory signals about how long military operations might continue.
RSS