Newspaper article on the decision on the Medium of Instruction
MingPao 7/7/2015
by Mr Wong Wai Yu, Honorary Executive Secretary of HKAHSS
| Newspaper article on the decision on the Medium of Instruction | 中文原文 |
Summary
The medium of instruction (MOI) in secondary schools has always been a controversial issue in Hong Kong. In 1997, the government issued the Firm Guidance on Medium of Instruction for Secondary Schools (Guidance). Following the Guidance, schools were divided into EMI and CMI schools with English and Chinese as the MOI respectively. In 2005, the Education Commission (EC) published the Report on Review of Medium of Instruction for Secondary Schools and Secondary School Places Allocation which reaffirmed the policy direction set out in the Guidance, i.e., the mother tongue should primarily be adopted as the MOI and students’ English proficiency should be enhanced. It also recommended maintaining the bifurcation of EMI and CMI schools. The government accepted the recommendation.
In 2009, the government decided to fine-tune the MOI arrangements for secondary schools. Instead of classifying schools into EMI or CMI schools, the fine-tuning allowed schools to have different MOI teaching modes in different subjects for different classes. Each school’s MOI arrangement may be different depending on their intakes of students who fall within the top 40% batch.
Recently, the Education Bureau (EDB) announced that it has decided to maintain the policy goal and overall arrangement of MOI fine-tuning for the second cycle of six years, and this has caused heated discussions in society.
An unprofessional decision
Though the Secretary for Education reiterated that the second cycle fine-tuning is a professional decision and supported by schools, I have doubts over it. As the decision came suddenly with little prior consultation with the teaching profession, how could we believe that it has gained wide support in the field?
No reviews or studies
Professional decisions should be based on evidence and proof. Strangely, the government did not mention any reviews or studies to support the second cycle of fine-tuning. We must ask: What effects and benefits the first cycle had on schools, teachers and students in the last five years? What reviews and studies the EDB has carried out on the policy? Is there evidence to show that the first cycle has met its targets and has been beneficial to students’ learning? Is there evidence to prove that it did not have any labelling effects on schools and did not result in regression of the policy on mother-tongue teaching? Without examining these questions, how can we justify the extension of the first cycle arrangements for another six years?
Inconsistent and conflicting criteria
The EDB said it will continue to use the three criteria prescribed before: students possessing the ability to learn through English, teachers possessing the capability to teach through English, and schools having adequate support strategies/measures. Schools are required to devise their MOI arrangements taking into account their school-based situation and their students’ learning ability. At the same time, the government will take a flexible approach allowing schools that have adopted English as the MOI to continue to do so even though some of their students’ English learning ability does not meet the prescribed standard, provided that the schools will step up its support measures and training for their teachers. This flexible approach is unconvincing because students’ learning ability was the government’s first and foremost consideration when it first laid down its MOI policy. The flexible approach contradicts its original rigid criterion which required schools to have 85% of its intake to be within the top 40% batch before they can use English as the MOI for the entire school. When students’ ability to learn in English is not up to standard, it is doubtful if more school support and teacher training will be useful. Whether the so called flexible approach will enhance students’ learning is questionable.
Confusing goals
The main goal of the first cycle fine-tuning was to raise students’ Chinese and English proficiency by using Chinese as the MOI while at the same time providing more opportunities for students to use English at school. The EDB tries to justify its flexible approach in the second cycle by arguing that schools need a more ‘stable’ environment to develop their MOI strategies and to implement government’s language policies. However, the instability facing our schools today is not related to the schools’ English environment or their teachers’ teaching capability. Rather, it is caused by EDB’s student population planning policies, class reduction and school closure measures. To restore stability in schools, the real solution is for the government to have an overall population policy, not an MOI policy.
Increased divisiveness among schools
When the first cycle fine-tuning was implemented in 2009, many in the teaching profession opposed it because CMI schools and their students would be adversely labelled as ‘second class’. The flexible approach in the second cycle would further widen the gap between these schools and the other subsidized schools, EMI schools and Direct Subsidy Scheme schools.
Inadequate consultation
Unlike former MOI policies, the second cycle fine-tuning is decided without wide and balanced consultation with the teaching profession. The policy was revealed and explained to schools in a meeting between EDB officials and representatives of major school councils several hours before the policy was announced publicly by the Secretary for Education.
Lack of long-term vision
The second cycle fine-tuning is only a technical adjustment, without touching the core issues of a full-swing language policy. It reflects the government’s lack of vision and determination to develop a long-term education policy. As the world changes rapidly and cultures interact closely these days, it is time for the government to communicate and cooperate with the teaching profession to come up with appropriate and professional MOI strategies and plans.
明報 2015年7月7日
香港中學校長會義務總幹事黃謂儒
| 維持教學語言微調真的是「專業決定」嗎？ | English-version |
教學語言一波三折
長久以來，教學語言一直是香港教育極具爭議的問題，有關政策的發展可謂一波三折。首先是1997年，在多個研究數據支持下，政府推出中學教學語言「強力」指引，將全港中學教學語言二分化－全英文教學或全母語教學 （語文科除外）。2005年教育統籌委員會發表《中學教學語言政策及中一派位機制報告書》，當中肯定了「母語教學，學好英文」，但仍處理不了「不要在我家後園」 (Not in my Backyard) 的心結 – 同意母語教育理念，只要不在我校實施，最後決定維持部份學校以英語教學；也就是說，仍然維持二分法。繼而是2009年宣布「微調」中學教學語言安排–取消教學語言二分法，改為按學校收取成績前列40%的學生人數，開設不同數目英文班或中文班。到最近教育局公告「維持」微調中學教學語言措施，但增加所謂支援措施，再度引起社會的激烈討論。
專業決定引來質疑
教育局長多次於公開場合強調，維持中學教學語言微調措施不變，是「專業決定」，並得到「學校支持」。然而，情況真的是這樣嗎？究竟何謂專業、這個被稱為第二周期微調中學教學語言安排是基於甚麽專業原則和程序而作出決定，以及這些決定對於教育專業又將帶來甚麽影響，實在值得我們深思。第二周期微調訊息來得突然，事前學界所知不多，更難說得上廣泛支持。
檢討研究憑證欠奉
所有專業決定，都必須有專業實證的支持，亦即教育局經常重視的「憑證為本」。令人詫異的是第二周期微調中學教學語言安排，竟隻字不見任何研究憑證。我們不禁要問：過去五年微調措施對於不同背景的學校、教師及學生，究竟有何影響和成效？教育局做過哪些檢討研究？有甚麽憑證支持第一周期的安排能達至預期目標，有利學生學習，同時沒有導致學界所擔心的標籤效應與及母語教育倒退，以至於第二周期要再維持六年不變？我們的學生又有多少個六年可以虛耗、等待？
安排準則矛盾有變
第二周期微調中學教學語言安排，另一個令人質疑其專業性的地方是安排準則矛盾有變。教育局一方面解釋會沿用之前既定的三個準則，包括學生學習英語能力、教師英語授課能力及學校支援策略，要求學校「學生為本，因材施教」，保障學生學習效能；另一方面又表示已推行英語教學的中學即使部份學生學習英語能力未能符合準則，局方將彈性考慮容許這些學校繼續英語教學，但會要求學校加強支援政策與及有關教師參與培訓。簡單地說，學校若在學生能力這一條件稍有落差，便在另外兩個準則上加強，這說法做法難以讓人信服。當年執行教學語言政策，學生能力是首要考慮，教育局此際推出的新安排，除了與初定政策時的說法前後矛盾外，實際施行上亦明顯有變。在缺乏研究的理據支持下，很難說服任何人當年要求學校要能取錄85%或以上、學習能力屬首40%學生，才能維持全校英語教學的這個硬指標，今天可以再作「彈性」調節。而在學生能力有變下，這些所謂支援政策及培訓會對教師有用嗎?所謂彈性安排又能夠保障學生學習嗎?
措施目標混淆不清
2009年教育局宣布微調中學教學語言安排，當時訂立的總目標方向是在「母語教學、中英兼擅」的政策原則下，讓學生有更多機會接觸和運用英語。現在教育局提出學校需要「較穩定」的環境發展教學語言策略及落實語文政策，因此要「維持」卻又有「彈性」地執行微調安排，避免對已推行英語教學但不符合準則的中學產生震盪。究其原因，學校環境的不穩定性是源於教育局學生人口規劃問題及縮班殺校政策，與學校的英語氛圍及老師的教學能力未必有直接關係。真正解決不穩定性的方法應該是規劃人口政策而非中學教學語言安排，更何況局方根本未能提出研究結果證明微調安排確能達到原訂目標。
學校分化懸殊加劇
2009教育局推出《微調中學教學語言安排》，學界中不少教育工作者極力反對，除了因為對母語教育以及學校專業自主的堅持，另一個重要原因是推行全面或較多班級及組別母語教學的學校，在不公平的制度下被負面標籤，它們的學生容易被視為甚至自視為「次等」學生，影響學生成長及學習，學校形象及生存空間備受挑戰。如今教育局以彈性措施維持微調安排，使原來根據嚴格安排準則「有上有落」的機制變質為寬鬆的「已上車便無需落車」與及差別對待的「新舊上落車不同準則」，這種政策上的偏側將進一步加劇弱勢學校與普通津校、英文學校及直資學校之間的分化和懸殊，亦未有公允及負責任地對待全體學子，勢將導致更嚴重的社會及教育不公平。
業界均衡諮詢不足
不同於上兩次中學教學語言措施，這一次彈性維持微調方案在整個製定過程中，並沒有進行廣泛而均衡的業界諮詢。個別學校團體雖然曾經向教育局洽談游說，但出發點傾向保護既得利益，大多希望爭取延後或彈性處理教學語言安排以維持學校優勢。這種以維持穩定為大前題個別會談，與真正諮詢業界，從教育原則及整體大局討論教學語言政策和措施，相距何止千里。事實上，就在教育局長公開宣布維持微調中學教學語言措施當日之前幾小時，局方官員才首次召集各主要中學議會，第一次透露及講解有關措施。教育局選擇在學校暑假前工作最忙碌的時段，就重大教育政策透過臨時議會會議及局長公開談話作宣布，很難令業界不懷疑局方所謂專業以及其諮詢誠意。
政策長遠發展闕如
教學語言政策是香港教育至關重要的課題，影響深遠。這一次以維持學校現狀為主調的第二周期微調方案，將上一周期的措施以寬鬆含混的彈性簡單地照搬延續六年，充份反映出現屆政府至今仍然缺乏對教育長遠發展的願景和決心。現在所提出的維持微調方案，只屬技術層面的枝節措施，根本並未觸及整全語言政策的核心議題，更遑論研究檢視及改革建議。世界不停在快速變化，不同語言文化不斷滙合交融，教育科技及學習理論持續推陳出新，我們再不能以數十年前的舊數據、舊思維和舊方式規劃今天以後的教學語言政策。是時候政府與業界衷誠溝通、緊密協作，追上時代的發展步伐，發揮真正的教育專業！