Among the several
warm new human relationships that I have forged in the course of the last several
weeks among people in the Taiwanese American community of the Twin Cities
Metro, one of the most interesting is the friendship that I have developed with
I-Chun Catherine Chang and her husband, Aspen Chen. The latter gave a very insightful
presentation on the history of United States immigration policy, with special
reference to Taiwanese immigration, at a recent (Saturday, 25 March 2017)
gathering of the Reading Yams group, recently formed to explore issues related
to Taiwan; I was co-presenter at that
gathering, giving an overview of the historical development of a unique Taiwanese
national identity.
At each of
three gatherings that I have attended in the last few weeks, two for the
Reading Yams group, the other with a subset of Reading Yams participants and
others planning to present a Taiwanese exhibit at the Festival of Nations in
May, I have been privileged to enjoy enlightening conversations with Dr.
Chang. I-Chun Catherine Chang grew up in
Kaohsiung (Gaoxiong), Taiwan, got her bachelor’s degree at a local university,
then matriculated for graduate study in geography at the University of
Minnesota. In just seven years, Chang has
studied through to her Ph. D., secured a tenure-track position at Macalester College,
and authored two thought-provoking articles pertinent to efforts to direct
development of cities in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on the basis of
environmentally sound (green) standards.
Dr. Chang’s academic
interest concerns policy mobilities, which is to say the exchange and application
of ideas from one international location to another for the achievement of a
policy goal. Her first article was
coauthored with fellow Macalester scholars Heiga Leitner and Eric
Sheppard; entitled, “A Green Leap Forward? Eco-State
Restructuring and the Tianjin Bin-Hai Eco-City Model,” the article appeared
in the online journal, Regional Studies (from the
well-regarded publisher Routledge) in 2016;
her second article (“Failure Matters:
Reassembling Eco-Urbanism in a Globalizing China") was very recently (2017) published
in the journal, Environment and Planning A, from another well-regarded publisher,
SAGE.
The first
article reviews a failed case of eco-planning at Dongtan (on an island close to
Shanghai) and sets the context in terms of the Berkeley University (USA)-based scholar
Richard Register’s vision for the eco-city, and with regard to the shift of PRC
policy from a heavily industrial, export-driven economy toward a more service
and technology-driven economy with greater emphasis on the domestic
market. Chang and her colleagues
ultimately focus on the cooperative enterprise of two PRC governmental entities
(the China Academy of Urban Planning and Design and the Tianjin Urban Planning
and Design Institute) and the Singaporean government’s Urban Redevelopment
Authority to design and construct an eco-city in the area of Tianjin, the historically
important northern port city in the geographical sphere of Beijing in northern
China. The project was carried forth
under the joint Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City investment and Development Co.,
Ltd. This project, while facing
challenges in meeting population targets and providing the originally intended level
of affordable housing, does seem to be on course toward establishing a
successfully planned urban center with an abundance of environmentally sound (“green”)
buildings in a low-carbon atmosphere.
Dr. Chang’s
second article focuses on the lessons to be learned from the failed effort at Dongtan. This project constituted a collaborative
effort between the London-based urban planning and engineering firm Arup and
various public and semi-public entities in the PRC, especially the Shanghai Industrial
Investment Company, a semi-public pharmaceutical and real estate company controlled
by the Shanghai municipal government.
The Dongtan effort was carried forth upon an ecologically and environmentally
ambitious vision for 500,000 residents living in a city generously providing
jobs in eco-friendly businesses, ecotourism, ecologically- and environmentally-related
education institutions, and firms engaged in research and development with clear
applications to ecology and environment.
Electricity would come from on-site solar panels, wind turbines, and
power plants burning rice husks. Dongtan
was to be compact, well-integrated into the natural wetland landscape, and
featuring energy-saving homes, convenient public transit, highly restricted car
usage--- all parts of a zero carbon
emission design.
All of this
was ultimately too ambitious. The project
faltered, for the most-cited reasons of location (the ecologically sensitive
wetlands presented financial and construction challenges), the waning political
fortunes of the Shanghai mayor who had been a moving force in the original
project, and reliance on promising but untested and costly technologies.
But the
legacy of the Dongtan project offered valuable lessons:
>>>>> The more successful Tianjin project
utilized the idea of development near a waterfront, included the vision for an
eco-friendly city, and abundantly drew upon an international coterie of interacting
professionals who continued to shared ideas and expertise on the basis of relationships
forged in planning for Dongtan. Chief Arup
planner Peter Head continued to be much sought-after for his expertise and
counsel.
>>>>> And the failed Dongtang project
induced decisions on the part of PRC officials to seek a culturally compatible partner
in Singapore, the experience of which offered practical solutions for construction
of green buildings and recreation areas;
to focus on a wasteland area that could be reclaimed but which would not
involve such deference to natural environment; and to rely heavily on governmental entities
rather than private partnerships, an essential tendency in the PRC also
witnessed in the case of a Singaporean government known for decisive efficiency
in implementing practical, aesthetically pleasing, environmentally responsible
policies with high public approval.
Here I cite
those policies for extrapolation by those making decisions regarding K-12
public education. In the case of
Dongtan, Dr. Chang makes a very strong case for the lessons offered by
failure. Rather than considering failure
as an absolute, her research strongly indicates that we should consider any
given policy and implementation thereof as featuring constituent parts that are
transportable from one situation to another.
Rather than jerk wildly from one ossified approach to another, we should
circumspectly examine those constituent parts for their mobility, for their
productive application to desired goals, and for their potential to advance core
principles that can turn failure into success.
Dr. Chang is
also a meticulous collector of printed information, including statistical compilations,
government documents, private enterprise records, and any relevant document
with bearing on the research. But, as
was the case in my own quest to determine the experiences of farmers during
Taiwan’s rapid economic development, Chang also conducted numerous interviews
with people engaged in the making of history, in her case those participating
in or affected by the projects at Dongtan and Tianjin.
For extrapolation, we should in K-12 education focus on key
principles and learn from failures as well as successes:
If objective measurement conveys to us that we have not properly
been imparting fundamental skill sets and knowledge-intensive education to our
students, we should not become enamored of the next fad inflicted upon us from
intellectually suspect education professors;
rather, we should observe the reasons for failure in the specific
deficiencies of teacher training and the lack of the necessary knowledge base
of those occupying our classrooms.
We must never recoil from our duty to provide a knowledge-intensive
education to students of all demographic descriptors by complaining that many
of our students present challenges arising from home and society. Rather, we should design programs that
recognize our failures in teacher training and curriculum design, learn from
those who have persevered in providing a knowledge-intensive education, and
according to that dialectic provide an education that sends our precious young people
forth into the world to live as culturally enriched, civically prepared, and professionally
satisfied adult citizens.
To do this, we must do as professor I-Chun Catherine Chang does,
connecting with the human beings present in the given situation. In our cases, we must get out of our offices
and classrooms to connect with our students and families right where they
live. We must be professionals who design
a program of knowledge-intensive education for our students, explain to our
students and families the importance of the program that we have designed, and
convey to them the transformative prospects inherent in K-12 education for ending
cycles of generational poverty and making possible lives of meaning and
productivity.
I learn much as a K-12 educator from engaging with scholars of
excellence such as I-Chun Catherine Chang.
In her articles cited herein, Professor Chang offers
thought-provoking analysis with much to convey about the mobility of good ideas
manifest in all manner of situations, about considering failure as part of the
dialectic leading toward success, about moving forward on the basis of ethical and
logical principles, and the importance of engaging with the human beings active
in those situations.
Extrapolating these principles, we should apply them toward the
design of a knowledge-intensive K-12 education for precious young people of all
demographic descriptors, so that they go forth to live as culturally enriched,
civically prepared, professionally satisfied adults; and so that our nation can finally become the
democracy that we imagine ourselves to be.
