Teaching Indigenous children in Taiwan: Tensions,complexities and opportunities

Abstract

Taiwan’s Indigenous children are culturally and linguistically different and socially and economically marginalized compared to their Han Chinese peers. For decades, education assimilated Indigenous people into the mainstream society by undermining their languages, cultures and traditional spaces. Since the 1990s, multicultural policies have been cast as the remedy for the inequalities and injustices they experienced and, since 2016, Taiwan has started the process of reconciliation and transitional justice. The purpose of this article is twofold. It first discusses whether these new policies and initiatives have been more accommodating and friendlier to Indigenous students, or whether they still clash with Indigenous visions of and needs for a sustainable and just society. Following this, the article focuses on non-Indigenous teachers who work with Indigenous students, and what knowledge, skills and attitudes they have and/or lack. An ethnographic study conducted with 23 Indigenous representatives shows that Indigenous people are dissatisfied with state education due to its culturally insensitive and contextually irrelevant and irresponsive curriculum, pedagogy and school environment, which are shaped around Chinese values and a Chinese view of history, language, knowledge and way of engaging with the ‘Other’. The participants discuss their own vision of education that can help address the problematic experiences and outcomes of Indigenous students, and ‘rewrite’ education to eliminate tensions between Chinese and Indigenous values, histories, knowledge(s) and other aspects. The implications of the tensions between Indigenous and non-indigenous visions of education are then presented for a rewriting of the curriculum and retraining of non-indigenous teachers to engage with Indigenous children and communities in a culturally respectful and ethical manner.

Introduction

In 2016, Taiwan entered a period of historical and transitional justice when its president, Tsai Ing-wen (2016), officially apologized to the island’s Indigenous people for the brutal policies and military subjugation inflicted on them by colonial powers over centuries. President Tsai promised to redress the consequences of colonization, build a new society on the values of justice, equality and dignity for all, and reconcile the diverse ethnic and cultural groups inhabiting it. Shortly thereafter, the president’s office launched the Indigenous Historical Justice and Transitional Justice Commission to work within five subcommittees: land claims, culture, languages, history and reconciliation. The apology and the establishment of the Commission brought hope for changes in the status and treatment of Indigenous peoples across institutions and various sectors. However, what has been noted by Indigenous people as lacking is any reference to the education system and its content, which has done harm and brought destruction to Indigenous cultures and communities.

In the same year, a group of Taiwan’s scholars published a book on teacher training on the island titled Teacher Education in Taiwan: State Control vs Marketization. Despite a comprehensive description, critical evaluation and strategies for reconsideration of teacher education, the book did not only overlook the discussion of teachers who work with Indigenous children in the current schooling system and how their work affects Indigenous people; it also did not mention Indigenous people in the modern society at all (Nesterova, 2017). As Aitken and Radford (2018) highlighted in their discussion of the process of reconciliation between the First Nations and settlers in Canada, teachers are the key players in moving such work forward. Teachers either invest in creating a safe space for painful colonial history to be revealed, trauma to be addressed and healed, and reconciliation to take place or they resist the process.

With this article, I intend to open a discussion on educational content and teacher training for reconciliation and justice in Taiwan to add to the other processes taking place in the historical and transitional justice movement. The discussion is based on an ethnographic study with Indigenous representatives from different groups working across Taiwan. The data includes 23 in-depth interviews with Indigenous leaders in various subfields of education and development. As Taiwan’s government has now openly and honestly positioned the society as a post-colonial one seeking reconciliation and justice, the approach to the data collection and analysis as well as the implications for education are informed by a social justice lens.

The article starts with an overview of Taiwan’s education for Indigenous children provided by the state and teachers working in such educational institutions. It then presents the findings of the study, which showcase how dissatisfied Indigenous people are with the education system overall and, in particular, with its content, pedagogy and teachers’ attitudes, which are modelled after Chinese values that clash with those of Indigenous people. In the same section, the Indigenous participants’ views on education and teachers for their communities are presented briefly to elicit the implications for reorienting the current education system, and specifically teacher training, for it to meet the objectives of reconciliation and historical and transitional justice. These implications may present certain challenges to the current system, but they also offer opportunities for the improvement of education and its outcomes.

Taiwan’s Indigenous people and their education

Since 1624, Taiwan’s Indigenous people have been colonized by outside powers ranging from the Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch to the Chinese and Japanese, finally ending up under the martial law established by the Chinese Nationalist Party until 1987. Colonial regimes brought economic, political, social and military oppression, and the destruction of traditional local spaces and structures. As Indigenous people belonged to the Austronesian family group, and were different in appearance, lifestyle and world views to their colonizers, they were considered barbarians and savages in need of civilization into the morality, identity and values of their rulers (Teng, 2004). Education was the tool to assimilate Indigenous people into the ‘superior’ dominant society by uprooting their cultures, knowledge and languages and supplanting them with those of the majority group ruling over the island (Pawan, 2004). While the colonial powers saw the assimilationist policies as well meaning, the colonized Indigenous people interpreted such education as threatening and destructive to their world views, values and cultures, which have often been in conflict with dominant political, economic and cultural structures (Champagne and Abu-Saad, 2006).

These policies resulted in destitution in Indigenous communities, dispossession of Indigenous land rich in resources, and the marginalization and discrimination of Indigenous individuals. Assimilation through mainstream education also brought more misery to Indigenous communities as the very foundations of their societies (e.g. language, identity) were rejected as not being worthy or beneficial. As a result, in addition to the imposed unfamiliar and unwelcoming order, economic disadvantage and lack of political control, Indigenous self-confidence and self-esteem and respect for Indigenous identity suffered.

As Taiwan shifted towards democratic development in 1987, the government recognized Indigenous groups and their needs, and slowly started working towards revitalizing Indigenous cultures and addressing the injustices they had been living through (Ministry of Education, 2011). The past 30 years have seen educational policies, standards and laws informed by the ideals of multiculturalism and inclusion cast as the remedy for the institutional barriers, inequalities and injustices that Indigenous groups have experienced. To complement broad multicultural policies and practices, the Indigenous Education Act was implemented in 1998 with the aim of strengthening the focus on the revival of Indigenous languages, history and cultures within mainstream education. Another key policy included provision of access for Indigenous children to high-quality state schooling (Cheng, 2004) and tertiary institutions.

The view of multiculturalism and inclusion that informed these policies has, however, been superficial. To deal with Indigenous students’ failure in regular schools, the policy prioritized preservation of Indigenous cultures through a performative aspect (e.g. dance, songs, clothing) to create, what is believed to be, a friendlier environment to help adaptation and integration. Policymakers also adopted the theory of cultural deficiency of Indigenous children to deal with their ‘problematic’ identity and behaviour. This policy trajectory was supported by research that claimed that Indigenous cultural difference contributes to their unsatisfactory academic outcomes as it prevents them from adjusting to the learning environment and academic expectations in mainstream schools (Chen, 2012; Lee and Chen, 2014). Studies with Taiwan’s Indigenous youth show, however, that targeted and tailored programs, such as service learning (Lee and Chen, 2014), and transformative learning environments (Chen, 2012), empower Indigenous youth and strengthen Indigenous identity.

Also, as much as mainstream education is of high quality as seen by policymakers, education professionals and in general by the outcomes of education for the dominant ethnic group, this does not necessarily reflect the views of Indigenous people. One of the core needs – Indigenous language promotion – has been a significant challenge to address. A 2004 survey showed that only 9% of Indigenous children could speak their respective Indigenous language (Pawan, 2004). The focus on the ‘surface culture’ of Indigenous people, while creating a multicultural environment, has not been successful either, as this shift in educational culture has not included the introduction of Indigenous knowledge and value systems or Indigenous pedagogies and other relevant content. Chou (2005) adds to this picture the reality that the schools which Indigenous students tend to attend due to their location (rural or urban poor) remain insufficiently and inadequately resourced and financed, as they lack up-to-date facilities and qualified teachers.

In addition to the content and structure of schools in Taiwan, teachers are an important factor in how Indigenous children perceive education, learning and schools. Although the research on teachers working with Indigenous children in Taiwan is limited and sporadic, we have some important pointers for understanding the picture of who teaches Indigenous children and what implications this has for their education. What we know is that the vast majority of schoolteachers are non-Indigenous and belong to the Han Chinese majority. The small number of Indigenous teachers in Taiwan may find it challenging to work in the environment of mainstream schools where they do not fit in and feel uncomfortable due to hostility and discrimination on the part of non-Indigenous people (Kiernan, 2000).

Studies show that non-indigenous teachers are insensitive to Indigenous students’ needs and lack the skills and knowledge that could help them work with culturally different children (Chou, 2005; Yen, 2009). Chou’s (2005) study with six non-Indigenous elementary and high school teachers of their experiences with and perceptions of Indigenous students, for example, discovered that non-Indigenous teachers misunderstand Indigenous children and youth, their ways of being, learning and relating to the world, and misinterpret their behaviour as a lack of interest and lack of ability. As a result, they feel uncomfortable working in classes with Indigenous children. Even those teachers who prioritize multiculturalism in their classrooms still fail to engage with issues of race and cultural conflict, as Mason’s (2009) extensive work with non-indigenous Taiwanese art educators showed. They are also unwilling to involve Indigenous families and communities in Indigenous children’s education, as Yen’s (2009) study demonstrated, which compared one exemplary non-Indigenous teacher who successfully created a sensitive and welcoming environment for Indigenous children with non-indigenous teachers who failed to do so. What also stands out in these studies is that teachers see the problem of academic underachievement as the fault of Indigenous students themselves, their families’ economic instability and a disinterest in education (Chou, 2005). Jackson (2014), who examined the development of a multicultural curriculum in Taiwan, argues therefore that the current multicultural education in Taiwan is not sufficient as teachers are not prepared to engage with and teach about the multiple cultures in Taiwan beyond some abstract level.

As a result of the cultural insensitivity and contextual inadequacy of the policies and training of teachers, Indigenous children continue to be the most disadvantaged group in Taiwan’s education system, with higher dropout rates and lower academic outcomes. And since they, as a group, do not achieve the same level of academic success and acquire the essential credentials to thrive in the national society, they still occupy a ‘low social status and [have] very little political or economic influence’ (Hansen et al., 2017: 320).

Methodology

This study is based on the voices of 23 Indigenous people from diverse Indigenous groups with different levels of development within their communities (e.g. Amis, Bunun, Puyuma, Paiwan and others). The participants lived and worked across Taiwan, from the capital city of Taipei to the western, more developed part of Taichung and Tainan counties where Indigenous peoples were affected by colonization the most, to the eastern part of Hualien and Taitung where a mountain range and relative isolation allowed Indigenous people to avoid contact with non-indigenous people for longer.

Two rounds of in-depth interviews were carried out for the participants to evaluate and reflect on the education provided to Indigenous children in mainstream state-funded schools and what they believed should be done to improve education for Indigenous people. The participants were asked to discuss a variety of aspects, from education policies to the content of education (i.e. the curriculum and textbooks), the learning experiences and outcomes of Indigenous children, the school environment, and teachers and other staff members.

In both rounds, the interviews lasted between 1 hour and 2 hours 30 minutes. The first round included 16 participants, who went through semi-structured interviews. Indigenous professors, educators and leaders, who worked in Indigenous development and the promotion of Indigenous cultures, knowledge and education, contributed their knowledge and perspectives to this round of the study. The second round saw seven Indigenous educators, who were developing an alternative Indigenous education system, participating in non-structured interviews. These interviews were based on themes to understand what vision of education they had and how they were building it. These interviews also included follow-up specifying questions.

The interviews were conducted in English, except for three that required Chinese–English interpreters. The interpreters were two Indigenous women with full proficiency in the languages of the study and accepted individuals in the Indigenous communities under study. All the interviews were audio-recorded with the written consent of the participants after the aim of the study and its procedure, potential benefits and consequences had been discussed in detail. Following this, each interview was transcribed verbatim in English; in the case of the three interviews conducted in Chinese, Chinese and English transcriptions were made and cross-checked by the two interpreters.

The study adopted cross-sectional and case study approaches to the data analysis. First, participants’ responses were merged under common themes, such as, for example, ‘current education policies’, ‘affirmative action’, ‘academic outcomes’, ‘learning experience’, ‘Indigenous content’, ‘material about Indigenous people’, ‘relationship between groups’, ‘non-indigenous teachers’ and ‘instructional strategies’. Following this, the views were compared and contrasted (cross-sectional analysis). Each participant was then treated as a separate case that could tell a distinct story related to the topics under discussion (case study analysis). In order to analyse each case, qualitative content analysis was used.

Findings

When opening the conversation about education for Indigenous children, the participants all asserted that Indigenous children fail in school due to inadequate education policies. These policies, are not fair or sufficient to address the barriers placed on the path towards Indigenous people’s sustainable development. One participant recounted:

there’s no fair educational and language policies for Indigenous people. This is why we fail schools; we don’t have equal educational opportunity, especially in mountain and rural areas. We can get additional scores when we attend the test for high school, for universities. We can go to better schools. But many of them drop out of schools. This is a problem.

Despite affirmative actions in the form of access to good schools and additional scores to enrol in tertiary institutions, all of the participants stated that the vast majority of Indigenous children do not progress academically. As one participant shared, reflecting the view of the others: ‘modern education has nothing to do with [the] Indigenous path’. A lack of Indigenousness in education creates an unwelcoming environment for Indigenous children in schools and a ‘meaningless education’. The Indigenous aspects they mentioned should include the introduction of Indigenous languages, values and knowledge(s) into formal educational settings because:

We learnt a foreign language at the expense of our own. Their knowledge at the expense of ours. Their wisdom. But for Indigenous peoples, it is difficult to learn their system, we need to overcome these difficulties that come from language and culture.

The problem with this approach, many pointed out, is that in the place where you need to strengthen your identity, develop a strong respect for your culture and community, and learn to live and relate to others, you are left with internalizing the identity, knowledge, and culture of the dominant other and socializing into their morality and ethics of behaviour. However, to ‘be a contributing citizen’ and ‘to function in Indigenous and non-Indigenous worlds’, ‘[y]ou need to know you are Indigenous. You need to know your culture; you need to learn your language. Only your language will correctly interpret your culture’.

In reality, despite the multicultural policies in place, there is a lack of sensitivity to cultural differences in the learning of Indigenous children, the content they find relevant for their lives, or the meaning of education and success. Most participants discussed that:

The teaching contents, for children, including Indigenous children, are the same. This is not fair. You cannot teach every child the same thing, the same cultures, the same languages. Because children are from different background[s]. How can you do that? We call that ‘assimilationist policies’.

What is also unhelpful in the establishment of a truly multicultural environment, it was recurrently mentioned, is that teachers in schools that seek to accommodate Indigenous children are in the vast majority non-Indigenous. Having no connection to and no experience with Indigenous lives, and having no opportunity to participate in pre- and in-service training on working with Indigenous children, they are largely not prepared to engage with Indigenous cultures and experiences, be it through work with Indigenous children or through (avoiding) collaboration with Indigenous parents or guardians: ‘In schools and in college we have a difficulty to learn. And they [teachers] cannot do anything to help us to work with us. They cannot care, and we’ve been lost in the education system’. Although these teachers are viewed by Indigenous people as qualified for the general schooling that is required to succeed in the dominant society, in order to work for the success of Indigenous children, they need to have a different set of skills and knowledge. The participants pointed out that these teachers should either be Indigenous, as they would then be privy to Indigenous cultures and knowledge systems and understand how Indigenous children learn and think, or they should be non-Indigenous teachers who have lived with Indigenous people, learnt ‘the Indigenous ways’ and established a rapport and ethical relationship: ‘Real good teachers may not have qualifications. But they know Indigenous people and Indigenous cultures. They may not need other qualifications, only this knowledge’.

Another considerable concern for the education of and about Indigenous people is the textbooks used in schools. Although textbooks have been revised to remove content that explicitly portrays Indigenous people as barbarians, the participants argued that there has been no critical evaluation of the textbooks from the point of view of Indigenous communities. It should be noted that the discussion of textbooks gave rise to many uneasy memories and emotions. The responses of the participants on the current set of textbooks revealed that colonization of Indigenous land through appropriation is presented instead as a gift that Indigenous people shared with outsiders. For example: ‘Mostly they teach is that Chinese farmers came to Taiwan and Indigenous people gave them land. They don’t say [the] truth about colonialism. I think pioneering is what they use’. This representation of colonization and the history between Indigenous people and non-indigenous settlers, it was said, does not show the brutality of the subjugation of Indigenous people and the legacy that remains to this day. Instead, Indigenous people are portrayed as willing – although still barbarian – agents of assimilation into the ‘civilized culture’ of the settler: ‘They talk about colonialism in a positive way. They say “pioneering of Indigenous land”. [With this] they try to say that barbarians were civilized. They still say that. They still think that we are primitive’. This textbook portrayal is intensified as Indigenous people are not shown as contributing members or groups in society, but only as those who receive ‘welfare’ due to their incompetence and laziness: ‘The textbook doesn’t talk about the contribution of Indigenous people. They talk only a little bit about Indigenous peoples. And they bring [a] stereotypical image of Indigenous people’. Misrepresentation of Indigenous culture and identity, as well as Taiwan’s history and its legacy, leads to a misunderstanding of what Indigenous people have been going through and why. The picture of an Indigenous person or group that education creates was called unfair, as it promotes and re-enforces vicious stereotypes about them and individual and institutional discrimination and racism. Some of the participants shared that non-Indigenous people ‘still would joke about that word “barbarian”’ because ‘[t]hey learn little about us … They don’t want to know anything [about us]’.

In discussing which way education should be developing now, the participants mentioned the importance of rebuilding traditional Indigenous education systems for each Indigenous group. They all said in one way or another that: ‘We used to have our education system. We need it now. We lost it. We forgot it. We need to rebuild, to reconstruct it. The state will need to recognize it and to put it into the national policy’. These education models should be based on the idea that learning is real life and should happen in Indigenous communities ‘with my people, with my tribe’ and with ‘elders help[ing] us learn’, as two participants revealed. At the same time, in the formal education system, Indigenous identity and cultures should be at the forefront of learning and teaching when Indigenous children are involved. As the participants emphasized, a strengthening of the learning of ‘knowing yourself and knowing where you come from and where you go’ is key, as ‘if you don’t know who you are, everything is meaningless’. They also reflected on building a relationship with the dominant non-Indigenous society to work together for the betterment of society. As one educator pointed out:

The dominant society knows nothing about us. In the future, we need to build the system where it’s not we who only learn about them, but the dominant, not dominant anymore, but on equal terms, mutual learning, mutual respect, mutual construction of the education system.

Discussion

As the voices of the participants show, Indigenous people are concerned that the education provided to their children clashes with the interests and needs of their communities. Indigenous interests are largely focused on the health and well-being of Indigenous families and sustainability in Indigenous communities. These needs include acquiring the skills and knowledge that can address the remnants of colonialism in institutional structures and interpersonal relationships that have been keeping them on the margins of society economically, socially and politically. Education can help in these processes; however, what they and the dominant group receive is deemed unsuccessful in helping build the required knowledge base and competences.

One of the core concerns is insufficient actions to revive and promote appreciation for Indigenous languages and the development of multilingualism in Indigenous children, which would allow them to live well in Indigenous and non-indigenous worlds. Indigenous languages may appear to be unnecessary in the dominant society, as they are spoken by a small number of people; therefore, only one Indigenous language lesson is given per week for selected languages. This creates tensions for Indigenous people, for whom their languages are crucial for the survival and strengthening of their identities, transmission of knowledge and culture, and connection to other members of the group and a past filled with meaning (Kipp, 2000). The strengthening of Indigenous language abilities can therefore build confidence and self-esteem in Indigenous children, which helps with academic adjustment and achievements (May and Aikman, 2003). Providing Indigenous children with incentives and opportunities to study and improve their respective Indigenous languages should become a priority. Whether this learning takes place in a mainstream school or in an immersion school, learning materials for Indigenous students should be published in their languages (Breidlid, 2013). Additionally, such attempts should be complement by community and family involvement in language rejuvenation activities in and outside of schools (May and Aikman, 2003; Villebrun, 2006) – which Taiwan’s non-Indigenous teachers are uncomfortable in doing (Yen, 2009) – and, as Lee and Chen’s (2014) research showed, by service learning programmes for Indigenous children and youth in their own or other Indigenous communities.

Closely connected to language are the knowledge systems of Indigenous people. They are not represented in the curriculum or textbooks in Taiwan, where the conceptions and understanding of the world are exclusively Han Chinese. It would be essentialist to claim that there is one Indigenous knowledge system, given the diversity of Indigenous groups in Taiwan and the world over. However, they have some common features that can explain not only what these knowledges are, but also why it is essential to incorporate them. One example is the connection of Indigenous knowledge to environmental sustainability, as Indigenous people’s traditional lifestyle enables biodiversity and protection, nurturing and non-destructive co-living with nature (Muehlebach, 2001; United Nations, 1992). In an age of environmental crisis, Indigenous knowledge can offer a rethinking of the relationships between humans and nature and, as a result, of actions to reorient development towards sustainability. The revival and incorporation of Indigenous knowledge by Indigenous people can also help them to reclaim and rebuild their identities and agency in the struggle against marginalization (Breidlid, 2013), and to re-establish links with their ancestors and heritage (Benham and Cooper, 2000).

As an Indigenous lifestyle presupposes the development of meditative and attentive listeners to the environment in order to connect spiritually (Gollnick, 2000) and in a non-coercive way to the world around one, the values and wisdom related to education cannot be about competition, individualism and anthropocentrism – as they currently are. In order to make Indigenous children value education and life in society, the Indigenous wisdom of cooperation, interdependence, harmony with the world and no competition should be the guiding principles for pedagogy and the curriculum. Spirituality is another part of Indigenous harmonious co-living with the world. Cultural performances can act as an educational practice to strengthen and revitalize these values and knowledge. Inclusion of cultural performances in mainstream education has so far been purely performative, and thus superficial, as it has been done for the enjoyment of the beauty of the dance or singing, instead of understanding of their deep spiritual meaning and learning potential.

Another aspect of insensitive contents for Indigenous learning in schools that was brought up in the interviews was textbooks. Textbooks are not published in Indigenous languages, nor do they represent Indigenous people through their own eyes or incorporate Indigenous cultures, knowledge, mythology or perspectives. They also stereotype Indigenous people and misrepresent historical events to exclude uncomfortable and brutal parts of Taiwan’s history. The silencing of such events as the military domination of Indigenous peoples, occupation of Indigenous land, exploitation of Indigenous resources, and destruction of their cultures and languages contributes to a general lack of knowledge about Indigenous people and lack of understanding of the hardships they face. For example, if non-Indigenous people knew the history of the forcible removal of Indigenous people from their rich lands, they could understand that one of the reasons for the destitution in Indigenous communities is this land theft and displacement. If non-indigenous people learnt about the deliberate representation of Indigenous identities, cultures and languages through education as barbarian, they could understand how racist and discriminatory attitudes and behaviours towards Indigenous individuals have been formed.

In line with other research carried out in Taiwan by Chou (2005) and Yen (2009), the participants raised the matter of the culturally irresponsive pedagogies that teachers are trained to adopt, and the insensitive and unethical relationships they build with Indigenous students and their parents, as another problematic aspect of education. By irresponsive pedagogies, the participants meant, for example, the absence of active inquiry, critical interpretation of teaching material, intragenerational engagement, demonstrations and oral learning in the classroom. Insensitive and unethical relationships were brought up to point out the lack of interest on the part of teachers to reach out to Indigenous communities, build trust and develop an appreciation of difference in the relationships between themselves, students and parents.

This problem is a result of a deficiency in teacher training and general public knowledge. Neither the formal nor informal spheres of education acknowledge Indigenous people, their contribution or their history, which leads to stereotyping, discrimination and a difficulty to build good relationships between peoples. Teacher training is a matter to be addressed for changes within schools to happen; however, as research shows, it is a rather complex task to include uncomfortable aspects of one’s history. As Aitken and Radford (2018) show from their research with Canada’s settler teachers, when encountering the real colonial history of Canada, which includes similar aspects to those of Taiwan (e.g. land theft, cultural genocide), non-Indigenous teachers felt overwhelmed, shocked and bewildered. Feelings of guilt may lead teachers to resist learning more or incorporating such knowledge in their classrooms. A solution could be to train more Indigenous teachers to work with Indigenous children, as currently it is still rare to find Indigenous people working in schools. However, the environment for Indigenous teachers working in mainstream schools with a majority of non-Indigenous staff and students is no less racist or uncomfortable than it is for Indigenous teachers (Kiernan, 2000).

The content of education and pedagogies and relationships that contribute to a safe or unsafe environment for Indigenous children are the matters to be addressed within mainstream education. As many of the participants pointed out, however, non-Indigenous people may be reluctant to make such adjustments in education, as they are considered unnecessary. Additionally, great concern was raised specifically for Indigenous knowledge systems, as they can be appropriated by non-indigenous people. However, it is still possible to make arrangements where Indigenous people are the sole autonomous owners of such knowledge systems, and non-Indigenous people approach them with respect and transparency in their actions and agenda (Langdon, 2009). There is a danger in the inclusion not only of Indigenous knowledge, but also of other cultural and historical aspects, or even in working with Indigenous communities. As there is currently no appropriate training for teachers or school administrators, teachers may devalue or misrepresent cultural knowledge and references (Desai, 2015), or may be unable to engage with Indigenous communities in equal, ethical or culturally respective terms.

What the participants suggested in a scenario where such changes cannot be incorporated is developing an alternative Indigenous education system to benefit Indigenous communities on the terms and under the control of Indigenous experts. To be useful and relevant, such schools should be placed in the communities they serve; the curriculum and textbooks should be based on local knowledge, language, culture, and the realities of the Indigenous lifestyle and development; and pedagogies should take into account the way Indigenous children acquire knowledge and skills. Locating education in communities will allow the participation of elders and other community members to transmit languages and wisdom, build ties within communities, and strengthen Indigenous identities and self-esteem. Another aspect of such community-based schooling should be Indigenous teachers, who are believed to provide meaningful and effective learning to Indigenous children as they can include cultural references and languages in all aspects of education (Fenelon and LeBeau, 2006).

Conclusion

This article has aimed to open a discussion of the challenges Taiwan’s education system is experiencing due to the tensions between Indigenous and non-indigenous (i.e. Han Chinese) conceptions and understandings of the different aspects of education. It shows that despite the opportunities that the transitional and historical justice period can offer through its measures to address violations, build trust and work towards justice, the discussion of education as a problem for Indigenous development has not yet been started. Instead, all aspects of education continue to be enforced and controlled by those who are not Indigenous themselves, and hence not morally invested in Indigenous success.

As the voices of the participants show, this current top-down approach to education does more harm than good for Indigenous communities. In order to work towards justice, it will be necessary to rewrite the curriculum for children (both Indigenous and non-indigenous) and teacher training (both pre-service and in-service) to make sure that no misrepresentation and stereotyping take place, and that the perspectives, knowledges, histories and languages of all groups are portrayed equally, truthfully and fairly, despite the discomfort this may bring. The inclusion of Indigenous communities and elders in the drafting of a curriculum, textbooks, lesson plans and teaching can be a step to help in these processes. Also, more focus should be placed on retraining non-indigenous teachers to engage with Indigenous children and communities in a culturally respectful and ethical manner, and educating and motivating Indigenous people to become teachers.