This article just came out today. It is from the United Daily News website. It is another article about the MoE’s stance on kindergarten English learning and the employment of foreigners. It states that a kindergarten or a daycare cannot legally employ “foreign teachers” in any capacity. Foreigners found working in kindergartens or daycares are in violation of the Foreign Workers Law.
It also talks about the Taipei Kindergarten Education Association’s response to the Law. The Association officially agrees that “English-only” kindergartens should be illegal, but implored the MoE to reconsider the legalization of qualified foreigner teachers in kindergartens.
The MoE stated that children under the age of six cannot take more than 10 hours of Bushiban a week. Bushibans are allowed to teach English to children under six, but the total number of all Bushiban hours cannot exceed 10 per week.
The last paragraph is a little lame. It states that since children are going to learn English in first and second grade at school, it is does not make a significant difference in their English learning if they learn before the age of six.
I do not really agree with this last paragraph. I have never taught kindy, but I have noticed that children who study English (or any language) from an early age are more fluent than ones who start later. I think that 4 or five is a good age to start learning more languages. It usually only takes two years or so for a student to become fluent in another language at that age.
6歲以下 每周補習將限10小時
perhaps if they are immersed in the language (as in living in a target language country). but highly unlikely to attain fluency in a foreign language situation such as this.
perhaps if they are immersed in the language (as in living in a target language country). but highly unlikely to attain fluency in a foreign language situation such as this.
they may become very good, but not fluent.[/quote]
And it’s not so much that they learn the whole language, but that they learn the phonetic system and certain grammar structures the way native speakers learn them. After a certain age it becomes increasingly unlikely that they will learn the language as natives learn it and obtaining native level competency becomes much harder.
Do the people in the MoE have degrees in education? It just seems ridiculous that they would say something like that.
They claim to be basing this on studies, but what they are saying flies in the face of everything I’ve ever read.
It is true that research has shown that if children are educated purely in a second language and not in their native language it retards their cognitive development. But that is not true of most schools out there, but these kids are in an immersive Chinese environment and are getting English as a supplement.
Maybe somebody should put together a report that basically contradicts everything they say and show them all the research that goes the other direction.
Maybe somebody should put together a report that basically contradicts everything they say and show them all the research that goes the other direction.[/quote]
No one would care. They have their own reasons for making these regulations. Don’t ask me what they are, but you can be sure that fostering the most efficient methods of English language learning is not among them.
I have not yet tried to wade through the Chinese of the original article, but unless there’s a surprise, all of this has been said before. In fact, the MOE has clear reasons why they don’t want very young children being immersed in foreign language education. I did not say they were good reasons, but they are clear and rational. For a general summary of these reasons from someone not with the MOE, but with deep professional involvement in children’s education, see the article by Dr. Chen Shu-chin that is linked to here scottsommers.blogs.com/taiwanweb … n_and.html
My position on why the MOE is pushing through with policies of this nature is contained on these posts from my website scottsommers.blogs.com/taiwanweb … ore_a.html scottsommers.blogs.com/taiwanweb … d_dpp.html scottsommers.blogs.com/taiwanweb … the.html
See I work for a school which is operated under the NAEYC’s guidelines for developing the whole child. We run centered activities to envelop all aspects of learning (language, fine motor, cognitive, social, self-help, and gross motor skills) through child-centered, theme-driven curriculum. Quite a few of the children in my school speak English as their first language and are quite fluent. Others are learning English through being immersed in it, but are still having all their other developmental needs, in addition to those in language, being met. I have a problem with preschools that have unrealistic expectations for young children such as making them sit at tables and do worksheets. These are not English-immersion schools; they are language schools.
It’s utter bullshit, in my opinion, to condemn true immersion schools and yet allow language kindergartens with developmentally inappropriate curriculum to operate legally.
ImaniOU, surely you must be aware that your kindergarten is a very special exception. National policy can not be established based on the existance of very special cases. The MOE has a serious problem now that a great deal of education occurs in schools that are beyond their control. In fact, for some children, the majority of their education occurs in such schools. The goals of Taiwan national education have become fragmented by years of colonial education. If the current goverment wants to establish their own, different version of a national curriculum, the very first step has to be getting control of the more typical commercial education that is making up a large portion of many children’s socialization.
Why should the MOE dictate pre-compulsory education.
It should be 100% up to the parents to decide what they want their children to study.
The points Dr Chen makes are all about bad education by non-professionals rather than problems with teaching in English. There’s no reason whatsoever that a kindergarten can’t teach well, in English. There’s also no reason to think that just beacuase a private school doesn’t teach English, they’re going to be doing a good job educating children.
Why shouldn’t kindergartens teach in English? Or more to the point - why must they teach in Mandarin. which may not be the first language of many students?
The other issue is whether or not kindergartens can employ foreign teachers. I found the Employment Services Act:
Despite what the MOE claims, nowhere in this act does it say that foreigners are not allowed to teach kidnergarten. Kindergarten is not included as one of the areas of employment for which work permits may be issued to foregin workers, but, as the act says, certain people (eg spouses of ROC citizens) do not require work permits.
Brian, you make it sound so logical and simple; Taiwan preschool education is so ridculously regulated that only fools could do it this way. And what fools the Taiwan MOE must be, right? They clearly have no idea what they’re doing – not like those governments back in our home countries.
I just guess it’s done differently here.
The reality of the situation is that the vast majority of foreigners teaching in kindergartens have been issued visas to do other kinds of work. In fact, the vast majority of preschool language education is being conducted in a manner that is beyond the ability of any governing or reglatory body to control. While I disagree with the way in which the central government is going about this reform, reform is clearly something that’s needed here. The central government has other issues that they are trying to press through these reforms, and while they may inconvenience many foreign residents of Taiwan, they are logical and rational.
Tempogain, thanks, but I found the law two posts back. It doesn’t say that foreigners are not allowed to teach kidnergarten.
ScottSommers, I don’t really see what point you had in the last post. Is htere anything you disagree with from mine where I said:
[quote]It should be 100% up to the parents to decide what they want their children to study.
The points Dr Chen makes are all about bad education by non-professionals rather than problems with teaching in English. There’s no reason whatsoever that a kindergarten can’t teach well, in English. There’s also no reason to think that just beacuase a private school doesn’t teach English, they’re going to be doing a good job educating children.
Why shouldn’t kindergartens teach in English? Or more to the point - why must they teach in Mandarin. which may not be the first language of many students? [/quote]
It’s easily forgetten that education policy is about more than just language education. The goal of schooling everywhere is to create productive citizens. Taiwan includes the education of young learners in the mandate of the MOE. It is therefore their legal right to regulate the content of young learner’s schooling. As for what language is used, this is a no brainer – the official language of instruction in schools regulated by the MOE, unless other special requirements are satistfied, is Mandarin.
Once again, I think the MOE is going about this entirely the wrong way, but there is a clear rationale and logic for the current policy. The problem is that the goal of this logic is the wrong one.
[quote=“Bu Lai En”]Why should the MOE dictate pre-compulsory education.
It should be 100% up to the parents to decide what they want their children to study. [/quote]
No truer statement has ever been written. It isn’t their business. It’s the business of the parents who send their kids to English preschools or language schools. If they really want to concern themselves with child development, why not start with parents that abandon their children to complete strangers and wash their hands of that child’s upbringing except to interfere superfluously in their child’s education. You might know it better as “having a full-time nanny and a stay-at-home ‘mom’ (using that term lightly for what passes as motherhood around here sometimes) who meddles in school affairs without having a bloody clue about what’s going on”. Or how about schools that hand out hours of homework each week to kindergarteners, like FuHsing Elementary on Ren Ai Rd. does.
[quote=“ImaniOU”][quote=“Bu Lai En”]Why should the MOE dictate pre-compulsory education.
It should be 100% up to the parents to decide what they want their children to study. [/quote]
No truer statement has ever been written.[/quote]
I actually disagree with the original as a general statement. Judging from the reports I’ve read on this forum, some parents would be more than happy to see their children turn into little robots as long as they are programmed to get high grades in the future. I would question whether this is in the best interests of the child. Parents may not care about politeness, empathy, physical co-ordination, emotional stability, taking turns etc., but I think learning such things are in the best interests of the child, and any pre-school “education” should place emphasis on things like these and not on any particular field of “study”, language or otherwise.
That said, English/no English has nothing whatsoever to do with these principles EXCEPT where it acts as a substitute for them, which may be the case in some kindergartens. I believe the MOE would be better off ensuring all preschools have local staff trained in Early Childhood Education, or at the bare minimum, with some regulation in the idea and practice of the concepts. Given this, language is almost a non-issue.
Others have made good points about the need for developmentally appropriate education. And I am also unsure about the value of legislating for this kind of thing. But we need to be wary about catching the prevalent “English Fever”, to use Krashen’s term. In some ways English learning becomes more efficient as a child grows up.
[quote=“puiwaihin”]…And it’s not so much that they learn the whole language, but that they learn the phonetic system and certain grammar structures the way native speakers learn them. After a certain age it becomes increasingly unlikely that they will learn the language as natives learn it and obtaining native level competency becomes much harder.[/quote]The “cutoff point” regarding pronunciation is puberty. People learning a second/foreign language after puberty are unlikely to reach native-speaker-like pronunciation. But there are no such barriers regarding the other aspects of language acquisition. I believe that the “Critical Period” hypothesis has been thoroughly disproven.
So English for kids, sure. And it would seem correct to allow parents to make decisions about when and how much. But there is no need for a headlong rush towards intensive foreign language instruction at an early age.