The outdated factory system
Annie Chen’s letter “Exam system fails students” (Letters, Dec. 27, page 8) raised some fantastic points. I believe that in order to fully understand the structure of Taiwan’s educational system, we have to look a little more at its history.
The educational system that exists in Taiwan is based on the idea of preparing people for society. A large part of that society is based on the types of jobs that predominate. Taiwan still has a strong factory-based economy. A large part of the economy and workforce here is in factory jobs. If we’re going to look at the problems of education, we have to start by looking there. Schools are designed as factories because they prepare students for factory work.
Schools operate on set time schedules, often signaled by a bell. They treat classroom subjects as separate from each other. They group students together arbitrarily (age being the main qualifier; not ability). They seek to standardize the finished product. They try to get students to work alone, even though collaboration brings about better learning. When this system of education started to become popular, it was described in terms of a factory model that saw the students as a final product that needed certain skills to work in factories. Many books actually label this the factory model of education.
There is a valuable idea educators use called Bloom’s Taxonomy. It can be thought of as a way of understanding how we process information. At the very low level, it simply involves remembering and recalling information. What I see, in almost every school I have taught English in, is that this is as far as most of my students are able to go. They might read a story about slavery and be able to tell me what color shirt the man was wearing or what his job was, but not link it to any relevant information to bring about a discussion. Many of the English storybooks used in cram school classes are often so dull and unengaging that students only write stories looking to practice this level.
What scares me about this style of education is simple: I do not believe it can prepare most students for Taiwan’s future. The businesses that are growing now grew out of a creative passion for new ideas: Google, Amazon.com, Microsoft and Apple are just a few examples. The people who are successful in today’s world are those that think creatively and develop new ideas. People I talk to who are happiest in their jobs are happy because they have a certain amount of responsibility and creativity to come up with new and better ways of doing things. Tomorrow’s leaders are certainly not the ones who can pass a meaningless standardized test and nothing else. Unless we face this fact, we will continue to harm our students.
MATT BRONSIL
Changhua City
What does the KMT claim?
Recently there has been a lot of debate on the existence or non-existence of the so-called “1992 consensus.” This states that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) agreed that there is “one China,” but that they held different interpretations of its meaning. While it is quite obvious what the CCP’s interpretation of “one China” is, I can find no clear interpretation from the KMT. Is its interpretation “one China, one Taiwan”? Does its “one China” include Taiwan, Tibet and the various other islands that the CCP currently claims? Without clarification of what the KMT’s interpretation is, the argument of the existence or non-existence of the consensus seems meaningless.
BILL MCGREGOR
Fengyuan
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS