No, legal age starts from 0 at your birthday as in the West.
I wouldn’t have thought that that many five-and-under kids were enrolled in buxibans at all. At least a statement like “1/4 of buxibans will go out of business” has got to be highly exaggerated. The reaction is probably more of of a rejection of any regulating legislation, with a fear of age limits being ratcheted up in one way or another at some time in the future. Or do many kids really start arithmetic classes so early?
Here’s a follow-up story also in today’s China Times.
Parents: Schools need to do a better job
If pre-school children go to English buxibans and have a good time every day, why should the government prohibit it?" Mr. Li has a five year old son enrolled in the upper class at akindergarten. The kindergarten teaches English inclusively. But Mr. Li doesn’t think that’s enough. Recently he’s decided to send his kid to a English buxiban to get a goo foundation in English early. He opposed the government’s restricting buxiban’s from accepting children under the age of six.
Mr. Li syas that buxiban’s today teach in a lively way. This allows the kids to learn English happily through games. This is a good way to teach and the government doesn’t have to ban it. He hopes that his child can get an early start on English so that he will be put in the A group when his elementary school tracks the students by English ability.
Ms. Lin and Ms. Liao have different views. Ms. Lin has a three year old daughter. Ms. Liao has a three year old daughter and a five year old son. Both say: "I won’t send my kids to English buxiban for [pre-school] children.
Ms. Lin says that her daughter still can’t speak Taiwanese and she can’t communicate with her grandparents. She feels that this is more important and is something they need to deal with right away. As for whether her child should learnEnglish now, Ms. Lin thinks things should be allowed to progress naturally. It doesn’t mater if she starts after she begins elementary school.
Ms. Liao says that if her children study English in the buxiban but there is no English learning environment at home, the results won’t be very good. She’s thinking about taking her kids to America for a few years where they can learn English naturally.
Hsieh Kuo-ching of the National Alliance of Parents Organization says that the Ministry of Education should release a complete research report explaining to parents at what age their children should start learning English. In the future, once buxibans can’t accept pre-school students, English language buxibans may all go out of business. The government will then need to improve the quality of English teaching in the schools to ensure that if children start learning English only after they start school that they can still learn it well.
Funny, I’d bet as usual Li Lin and Liao are fictitious representations of whatever the reporters could dream up around a conference table. The last paragraph, though it probably did emanate at least partly from a real person, is an amazingly dense clump of dreams, ignorance and wild speculation. It would be hard to pack more into such a short paragraph.
[quote=“Feiren”]
Here is Dr. Lin’s list of publications. While she is prolific, she has published almost nothing outside Taiwan, and what she has published overseas has not advnaced the thesis that early childhoodl exposure to other languages is somehow harmful.[/quote]
I haven’t read any of this research, nor have I ever meet Dr. Lin, so I’m only guessing from the titles of her work. I have interviewed dozens of parents about why they send their kids to buxibans and why they want foreign teachers. The most common reason I get is that they want them to have the confidence to talk with foreigners - White people. There is a common idea here that ‘foreign contact’ and cultural knowledge is an important aspect of learning English. I can imagine that her work is aimed at dealing with this idea and promoting the use of local teachers.
Actually, the very existence of buxibans in such numbers in Taiwan is blatant evidence of severe inadequacies in the general school curriculum here.
The US has “buxibans” like Kaplan and Sylvan, but the proportion of students attending them is quite low, as compared to the 90+% here who attend buxibans.
I can see a lot of dance and “music” classes with foreign teachers.
“No sir, she’s not teaching English. She’s teaching dance and nursery rhyme appreciation!”
What utter crap. Has he even seen the national junior and senior high English test scores?
Does he realise that in Asia Taiwan consistently scores the lowest on Toeic/Toefl tests?
And the only students I’ve seen with anything I’d go so far as to call “good English” have been students with parents who have the money to send them to immersion English Kindergarten (Although, technically that’s illegal, too… Sssshhh! Don’t tell Dr. Lin.).
There are the exceptions, but they only serve to prove the rule. Some people are gifted with languages and could learn to speak a foreign language well at almost any age. The majority can only get to a decent level if immersed in a second language from an early age.
[quote=“ScottSommers”]I don’t care what the China Times says or how it’s interpreted by Chris’ grad student contact, this age of language learner stuff is not what this is about. In fact, buxibans are supplementary schools. They are legally defined as providing supplementary education for citizens. english.moe.gov.tw/content.asp?CuItem=8207&mp=1
Historically, the KMT in China established preschool education for children too young to attend public schools. The aim of the schools has always been defined as socialization and not education. Following the lifting of Martial Law, control over education lapsed and Taiwanese began to look to supplementary education to fill holes in the public system. as we all know, that was the end of childhood for most kids here. The MOE under the DPP began enforcing the law.
The MOE has been working toward reducing the amount of studying done by Taiwanese students. As much as the headline of this post is true, it is certainly aimed at getting young children out of schools where they are being forced to study.[/quote]
No arguments here. Apart from the superhuman ability that young children have for language acquisition, the local buxiban system seems to do almost everything in it’s power to circumvent this ability…
And the amount of time local children spend with ass on chair, in a classroom verges on child abuse. But kids would be better served if the attacked the system and improved it. Perhaps they could start with government elementary, junior and senior highs getting out earlier and engaging in organised sports and inter-school competitions. Perhaps some sports could be coached in English and they’d be killing two birds with one stone.
Taiwan. Bizarro World. Little ever makes logical sense…
If everyone could speak good English by the age of ten buxibans would be finished. Compare the level of A Level French (in the 1980s) with the level of 17 year-olds’ English here. UK university students go from zero to fluent in Chinese in four years. Educated Malaysians, Singaporeans, Indians, Swiss (and so on) are almost all bilingual, at least.
There are buxibans masquerading as kindies here which do a very good job of teaching English to kids - I’ve worked in one. But the real money is in the 000’s per-room Daxue Liankao factories up near the train station. Worked in them too. By God if everyone could speak English what would happen to the Liankao!? There might even be English-language university entrance exams! And foreign professors! Like in er um every other country in the world!
Basically the establishment has come to the conclusion that if kids start becoming fluent in English the linguistics and scholastics professors will become irrelevant and “research” must be produced to stop English-language education. Most of these “education experts” can’t even function in a second language, never mind get published in one. Fear of the unknown. Circle the wagons.
[quote=“Omniloquacious”][quote=“Chris”]Also, it says “6歲以下” which in my limited experience translating legal texts would mean “under six years old”, and not “six years old or under”. This is also corroborated by “未足六歲”.
So wouldn’t that make the age limit 4?[/quote]
I would say that it means below six years old - so a child can start attending English classes on his or her 6th birthday.[/quote]
The text of the draft amendment bill amending the relevant article of law reads “未足六歲”. The text of the commentary on the draft amendment reads “六歲以下.”
The expression “未足六歲” unambiguously means “less than 6 years of age”, and presuming that this is the intended meaning as expressed here in plain language, the use of “六歲以下” in the commentary is simply sloppy legal writing.
In everyday language, 以上 and 以下 are often used ambiguously. In legislative language in Taiwan, it is an accepted convention that these forms are uniformly and strictly construed as “inclusive” of the base unit. (In criminal law this is expressly set out in the Criminal Code, and it is universally understood as applying to legislative texts in other branches of Taiwan law as well.) Hence, my comment that the usage in the commentary here is sloppy.
[quote=“Rotalsnart”][quote=“Omniloquacious”][quote=“Chris”]Also, it says “6歲以下” which in my limited experience translating legal texts would mean “under six years old”, and not “six years old or under”. This is also corroborated by “未足六歲”.
So wouldn’t that make the age limit 4?[/quote]
I would say that it means below six years old - so a child can start attending English classes on his or her 6th birthday.[/quote]
The text of the draft amendment bill amending the relevant article of law reads “未足六歲”. The text of the commentary on the draft amendment reads “六歲以下.”
The expression “未足六歲” unambiguously means “less than 6 years of age”, and presuming that this is the intended meaning as expressed here in plain language, the use of “六歲以下” in the commentary is simply sloppy legal writing.
In everyday language, 以上 and 以下 are often used ambiguously. In legislative language in Taiwan, it is an accepted convention that these forms are uniformly and strictly construed as “inclusive” of the base unit. (In criminal law this is expressly set out in the Criminal Code, and it is universally understood as applying to legislative texts in other branches of Taiwan law as well.) Hence, my comment that the usage in the commentary here is sloppy.[/quote]
Interesting. I don’t deal with legal translation very often, but the few times I’ve had to deal with this term in translating legal contracts, the contract wording expressly defined 以上 and 以下 as exclusive of the base unit.
Hey, for me (a buxiban owner) this is a very positive thing. I don’t accept any students below second grade, so I’d be very happy if the MOE started enforcing this law, for two reasons:
First, I’ll have less learned mistakes to undo when they come to me.
Second, this will be better for business. Buxibans that accept students at the age of 5 or 6 tend to keep them for quite a few years. Often parents will bring their 11 year old kids to me, and are completely freaked out when these kids can’t answer the most basic questions: “How did you go to school today” “What day is today?” “What color is your shirt?”
The parents splutter and wail, “But junior has been at an “all-English” after-school program for 5 years! How is it possible that he can’t speak?”
If I can get these kids before the lousy schools get their hooks into them, I can help improve their English AND make more money. :discodance:
The rule applies specifically to legislative language. In practice it usually, but not always, carries over to contracts when the contracts are drafted by Taiwan lawyers, but less consistently to contracts drafted by non-lawyers. So a translator still needs to look at the context (or hopefully the express definitions provided in the contract), as your experience bears out.
So, let’s say this comes into effect. That’s all fine and dandy, but would it be enforced? In all likelihood, it would end up just like kindergartens now. I’m sure red envelopes would change hands and all would be business as usual. The question then becomes who would take the financial hit for the red envelope? Choose one of the following:
a) The laoban;
b) The parents;
c) The teachers.
I’m guessing a combination of b) and c).
Moderators, I suggest revising the title to this thread to “under 6” for accuracy. As explained earlier in the thread, the draft amendment applies to students “under 6”, i.e. 5 years or younger in age. (The current title implies that 6 year olds are affected, which is false.)
the points have already been covered by everyone else, but I will say the following.
One of the people quoted in the article stated that a survey done with University students who speak English “well” said they didnt learn English in Preschool.
I find that funny, because when I was studying Chinese, but was just off the boat and in a University, when I tried to speak English to any of the students, they usually tried to get away fast, or said “i dont speak english” as they ran by. This was the norm, not the exception. I wonder where the “good” speakers of English were hiding. 
There is a huge difference between book smart people and ones that can use it in real life.
In addition, i knew one family that enrolled their girl in a english immersion school when she was young, and at 12, she was able to speak almost near perfect english, even though she had never left the country.
In conclusion, this article and the MOE’s opinion is pure garbage.
I’ve a friend who got two kids. They are three years old now.
One time I came to his home and I asked his wife what the kids were doing (they were busy drawing stuff in a small book like drawing the shape of a ball next to pictures of a ball, drawing the shape of a box next to pictures of boxes).
She said: They are doing home work!!! 
… with 3 years of age!
I think the MOE thing goes into the right direction.
I seem to be confused. DO kids under 6 go to buxibans now?
And, I thought teaching kindy (kids under 6) was illegal anyway? (as fas a foreigner + English was involved).
What does this law actually change?
I’ve a friend who got two kids. They are three years old now.
One time I came to his home and I asked his wife what the kids were doing (they were busy drawing stuff in a small book like drawing the shape of a ball next to pictures of a ball, drawing the shape of a box next to pictures of boxes).
She said: They are doing home work!!! … with 3 years of age!
I think the MOE thing goes into the right direction.[/quote]
Unfortunately, as per one of your points above… my comment is that if they get rid of english for kids that age, the parents will just keep them at home anyway drawing box pictures. I would guess that playing sticky ball with a foreign clown (lol) would be much more fun…
[quote]I seem to be confused. DO kids under 6 go to buxibans now?
And, I thought teaching kindy (kids under 6) was illegal anyway? (as fas a foreigner + English was involved).
What does this law actually change?
[/quote]
As is my understanding the current law states that no foreigner can teach in a kindergarten. Because of that law, many kindergartens that are English only are now registered as “buxibans”. Therefore they somewhat circumvent that law. Thus, there are many many kids under 5 who attend these buxiban/preschool/kindergartens. These schools run the gamut of your typical English language factory type buxibans that glues kids asses to the chair for a few hours a day to the schools that and operate as a legitimate preschool/kindergartens emphaisizing learning through play and experiencial activities and song and dance. The later is not the type of school this new proposed law is targeting, but the former. However, how do you specifically target the one and not the other?
Also, to further answer your question, there are buxibans out there designed for pre-K kids to get a head start in math, science, and other subjects or learning skills. Some these do border on child abuse, and warrant some type of regulation.
What this law is supposed to change is to remove all of these kids ages 3-5 (some schools take 2 year-olds) from the buxibans and get them into accredited pre-Ks and Ks with certified teachers. That is the idea. It hardly seems enforceable as demand for these buxibans remains high, and there seems to be a built in exception/loophole (teaching art or music and dance). Nonetheless, if it passes, it will be interesting which school are able to circumvent the law, which ones close, and if anything really changes at all.
My opinion is to just do away with the old “foreigners can’t teach in kindergarten” and allow school to hire certified foreigners to teach in bilingual kindergartens so everything can then me regulated and options remain open for parents wanting Western-style pre-K and English instruction. This current proposal seems to be aimed at that, but seems excessive to me.
Let’s wait and see if it passes before we sweat our pants about it too much.