Here and Now

 2020年施政報告–喃喃自語?自問自答?(上篇)

The Chief Executive’s 2020 Policy Address: Soliloquy and Thoughts Aloud (Part 1)

2020年施政報告 – 喃喃自語?自問自答?
(上篇)

Michael Wong Wai Yu, Honorary Executive Secretary, HKAHSS

10 December 2020

Question 1: Is there anything you find special about the Chief Executive’s 2020 Policy Address?

 

While it is a rather long piece of address which took the Chief Executive 2 hours to present, details for quite a number of issues are lacking. This is perhaps due to its political orientation. Terms like our nation, Mainland, Greater Bay Area, the Constitution and National Security Law are mentioned for more than 140 times.

Question 2: What do you think about the section on education in the Policy Address?

In the address, there are 11 paragraphs (about 2000 words) on education. The Chief Executive mentioned that ‘the 39 new initiatives announced since July 2017 have been completed or are progressing on schedule, and their progress has been set out in this year’s Policy Address Supplement’. However, not many details were listed. Neither was there any evidence-based self-evaluation on their implementation.

The section on education clearly reflected the Chief Executive’s political consideration and agenda. As the new measures will affect the education of Hong Kong and our younger generations who are promised with ‘Hong Kong’s political system and way of life remain unchanged for 50 years since 1997’, I cannot help asking whether the promised years have already been shortened.

Question 3: Why do you think that there is political consideration behind the Policy Address?

In the section on education, 4 out of the 11 paragraphs (Para 149-159) are related to social incidents, national education and Liberal Studies. This is especially evident in Para 153 in which the Chief Executive stated the controversy and ‘deviation’ of the subject Liberal Studies and ‘the direction of reform in future should focus on rectifying the previous deviation from the subject’s objectives, and reinstating it as the platform to help students establish a sound foundation of knowledge, make connection between the knowledge across different subjects, develop critical thinking skills, analyse contemporary issues in a rational manner and learn about the development of our nation, the Constitution, the Basic Law, the rule of law and so forth’. In her Press conference right after the release of the Policy Address, her first topic was on Liberal Studies, its rectification and the addition of new elements.

Question 4: What do you think of the proposed changes in Liberal Studies?

The Chief Executive mentioned that the controversy of the subject started from day one of its implementation. She further pointed out very clearly that ‘the social incidents last year led many to question again the effectiveness of Hong Kong’s education’, and thus that resulted in the necessity to rectify the situation through the ‘reform’ of the subject. However, it is much wondered whether this simple association is evidence-based. For instance, are students’ ‘undesirable’ behavior related to their grades in Liberal Studies? How about the participation of primary school students in the social incidents? There is no such a subject in their school curriculum! How can the proposed changes, the details of which are lacking at the moment, rectify the situation? How can measures such as the change in subject name, cutting of lesson hours, scrutiny of teaching materials etc. solve the problems as alleged? Are the proposed measures evidence-based or data-driven? Can the government be sure that these changes would really achieve their intended purposes?

In Para 154 which is under the heading of Liberal Studies, the Chief Executive mentioned that ‘a wrong question in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination has generated heated discussions in the community’. Does she know that the question involved is in the History examination and not in Liberal Studies?

The Chief Executive mentioned that considerable resources have been put into education so as to create a favourable and stable environment and thus meeting teachers’ aspiration for a stable work and career development. Yet, the cutting of lesson time of Liberal Studies will inevitably result in surplus teachers. In this way, the government is actually re-creating old problems through the new initiatives.

We still remember that at the dawn of the education reform, many teachers embraced the proposal of Liberal Studies as a core subject and pursued special training in the subject. Ever since then, much effort has been put in the 6 modules with regard to the design in curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. Now the government said that there were problems starting from day one. Is this fair to teachers? Why should teachers bear all the responsibilities?

The Chief Executive thought that the surplus teachers can be redeployed and assigned to teach other subjects. Then there comes the danger of not teaching a subject of one’s specialty and the risk of being de-registered as reflected in the recent cases.

Also, if the changes are to be implemented in September 2021 and details on the curriculum design, contents, teaching materials, the relationship of the subject with other core subjects are still lacking, the time schedule is actually not feasible. Principals and teachers need time to plan and take appropriate action. Wouldn’t it be better to have all supporting measures in place before the formal announcement and implementation of the changes?

With the proposed changes in public examination assessment for the subject from 7 levels to only 2, what would be the implications on university admission (both local and overseas) as well as the understanding of such a change by students, parents and prospective employers?

While the proposed changes are in fact giving way to Moral and National Education (Para 152), principals and teachers should be very alert of how to meet the new requirements.

Question 5:  What is your view on Moral and National Education?

In Para 152, the Chief Executive stated that ‘among the five domains of moral, intellectual, physical, social and aesthetic developments, moral development is regarded as the most important one and the foundation of education’. Actually, it is an inevitable duty of all teachers to foster student’s whole-person development. Yet, how to nurture students through value and moral education does matter. In face of the ever-changing social environment and the fast development of the internet world, educating our students will never be the same as in the past. We can no longer resort to some conventional modes such as rote learning, one-way delivery and dogmatic instillation. Students nowadays will not accept ‘hard sell’ of content matters.

Recently, the government has just announced “law-abidingness” and “empathy” as new core values for all local schools, and has directed primary and secondary institutions to strengthen the implementation of “values education” on campus. What does empathy really mean? If it means putting oneself into someone’s shoes, does the government have any empathy for those who will be implementing the initiatives and their students?

Does our government understand the need of our young people? Would it help for the government to just say that ‘we should not spoil our youths’?

In the Press Conference on 25 November 2020, the Chief Executive stated that she clearly saw the deep-rooted problems of Hong Kong in 5 areas which include difficulties in embracing “One Country, Two Systems”, nationalism, complicated social and political atmosphere and possible external forces influencing Hong Kong.

In face of all these complications and challenges, can the government really appreciate the challenges of teachers and their work? Does the government understand the pressure and uncertainties brought along by the National Security Law?

While our students are expected to be nurtured in areas as desired and proposed by the government, we should never forget the importance of nurturing in them social righteousness and equity, generosity, and self-reflection.

There are certainly some more issues related to the Chief Executive’s 2020 Policy Address I would like to share with you all, just to name a few as follows:

  1. Problems which the Chief Executive was referring to when she commented that some incompetent teachers are failing their students and thus misleading and causing harm to them.
  2. Encouraging our youth to study, work or live in Greater Bay Area
  3. Following up youths who have been arrested or prosecuted for being involved in social incidents
  4. Issues of our association’s continued quests such as
    1. the development of STEAM (with special reference to art and technology development)
    2. broadening of subject choices for students
    3. the increase in university places and the review of university admission policies
    4. correspondence between the local education and curriculum with the ever-changing and unpredictable world trend
  5. Effective and meaningful teaching and learning despite school suspension – what has the government done in leading and initiating efforts in this area? What should it really do?

DO WATCH OUT FOR THE COMING ISSUES ON THESE TOPICS!

問:你覺得行政長官2020年施政報告有什麼特別?

答:這份施政報告達三萬多字,宣讀超過兩小時;所提及的有不少缺乏細節或理據,或許是因為內容以「政治考量」為出發點,例如:報告中140多次提到「國家、內地、大灣區、憲法、基本法、國安法」。

 

問:「報告」中有關教育方面,你有何看法?

答:「報告」中有十一段共二千字提及基礎教育。特首提到「自2017 年7 月以來所公布的39 項新措施全部已經完成或按序推進」,並在《施政報告附篇》交代進展;惟交代欠細節,亦欠缺詳盡數據及自我評估。而教育部分則很清楚彰顯了她的「政治考量」,來得直接而明顯。於我來說,「報告」中各點都影響香港對教育,影響我們的下一代。他們,不是我這老人,將要面對「五十年不變」,或許「五十年不變」實在已提早改變?

 

問:為什麼你認為施政報告有政治考量?

答:因為在教育方面也可看到她的看法。施政報告第149-159段有關教育部份共十一段,其中四段都與「社會事件」、國民教育、通識教育等有關。施政報告第153段:「高中通識教育科的爭議在社會從未停止,未來改革方向必須糾正過去通識教育科被異化的問題,讓這個科目重新成為學生建立穩固的知識基礎、聯繫不同學科的知識、培養明辨慎思能力、以理性分析當代領域的課題,學習有關國家發展、《憲法》、《基本法》及法治等元素的平台。」特首宣讀施政報告後的記者招待會,一開頭已提到通識科的「改動」。

 

問:你對通識科「改動」有何看法?

答:特首說:「通識科自從十年前推出以來一直都是爭議不斷。近日見到社會的紛爭和這麼多中小學生違法違規而被拘捕,更加令人擔心在教育、在學校、在課堂裏,其實學生們正接受一些怎樣的教育。我不是將所有問題放在通識科,但通識科畢竟引起了社會很大的爭議,所以我們必須對通識教育進行一定的改革。」

她將學生違法違規與通識科直接拉上關係,她如此說是否有數據支持?例如,違規學生與他們通識科成績是否相連?小學生根本未有通識科,他們又為何參與社會事件而違法?先莫說社會事件、學生違規違法何故發生,

 特首及教育局局長所講的通識科「改動」(尚未有官方文件),包括改變科目名稱、縮減一半主題及課時、教材送審等。政府是否有詳細研究及數據支持這些大改動?是否肯定這些改動可以防止科目及課程「被異化」、減少學生違法違規呢?

另外,不得不說,施政報告於「通識教育」大標題下,第154段提出「上學年一條錯誤的文憑試題目引起社會的熱烈討論」!她可知道自己所指「錯誤的文憑試題目」不是在通識科!而是歷史科!

施政報告提到政府如何增加教育資源以提高教育質素,回應老師的訴求。記者會中,她直接了當說她如何動用開支以解決「幾年前,很多老師都投訴他們的職位或教席不是長期的」困難。現在政府計劃將通識科課時減少一半,那麼過剩的老師將如何處理?要知他們的「過剩」,是當年教育改革而帶來。昔日老師配合教育局於新高中推行通識科為核心科目而修讀的教育文憑、專科碩士,甚至博士學位,現得來這樣的回報,他們的教學路該怎樣走下去?昔日老師為了六個教學單元設計教材,努力研磨雕琢,當中積累的教學心得卻換來「通識科第一日已出現問題」的棒喝,究竟誰是始作俑者?何解又要通識科老師一力承擔?或許教育局會說,這些老師可轉型任教其他科目呢!此時我更要忠告老師須打醒十二分精神,免得因不是專科專教,導致教學犯錯而被終生除牌。

此外,校長要為課程帶來之改動作出規劃,調配人手。但是現在所得資料有限,新的教材與教科書能否於明年四月就緒,以至下學年可以推行「改動」後之通識實屬一大挑戰。學校是否有充足時間細閱每套教科書而作出適合自己學生的選擇?如此倉卒進行「改動」,對高中學生學習是利多於弊?其他核心科目又如何?為何不能等待全面配套較為清晰才落實「改動」?

與此同時,當「改動」後之通識只有達標與不達標之成績時,教師、校長、學生、家長何時才可知道本地及海外大學之新收生標準?僱主又如何看新的成績評級?

更不要忘記,政府一切改動是為了「德育及國民教育」(第152段),學校如何配合,以致全校可達到政府要求,校長與老師需特別留心,留神。

 

問:你對「德育及國民教育」又有何看法?

答:施政報告第154段「德育是五育之首,亦是教育的根本。學校應着力推行價值觀教育,包括加強德育、公民及國民教育。事實上,加強學生對國家歷史、中華文化和國情的認識,深化《憲法》和《基本法》教育,是培養學生國家觀念及國家安全意識的基礎工作。」

誠然,所有國民、市民,特別是校長與老師於教導青少年奉公守法,尊重法律均責無旁貸。相信教育工作者都明白《憲法》、《基本法》、《國安法》皆有其憲制地位,不容市民違反。老師與校長當然明白其市民及工作上的責任。

然而,學校應該採取什麼方式去教導學生呢?潮流在變,今時不同往日,上世紀搬字過紙般的教育方式是否再行得通?鐵板一塊的訓導方式是否仍能採用?資訊科技日新月異,學生接觸資訊多不勝數,加上普世「批判性」的思考方式,今天如仍以單向式、灌輸式著學生安然、全然接納與尊重《憲法》、《基本法》、《國安法》,是否有效?

近日,教育局公布加入「守法」、「同理心」作為首要培育學生的正面價值觀和態度,以加強學校推行價值觀教育的工作。什麼是同理心?維基百科定義同理心(empathy):「或稱做同感心,是一種將自己置於他人的位置,並能夠理解或感受他人在其框架內所經歷的事物的能力」。於推行施政報告第154段所訂定之德育教育時,我們應該如何施行同理心(put oneself in someone’s shoes)?

簡單一句「不是要縱容青少年」,政府是否有從今日的青少年角度,就他們成長的環境、世界潮流的劇變而設身處地去考慮推行方法?為學生舉行國內探訪交流、單向式的講座和展覽是否有效?

特首於11月25日記者招待會中曾說過她「看清楚」香港的五方面的「深層次問題」:

  1. 在憲制上仍然抗拒「一國兩制」;
  2. 不知為何,對於國家的觀念不強;
  3. 對於《憲法》和《基本法》的認識不深;
  4. 受到各方各面比較複雜的政治環境影響;
  5. 還有一些外部勢力。

學校面對複雜的社會環境,急劇的國內與海外發展與變化,老師豈能獨力承擔?此外國安法予以教育工作者的壓力又如何?

我必要補充一點,於教導學生奉公守法之餘,我們要同時考慮學生須學習公義、公平、樂助、反思等,這些觀念亦至為重要。

「2020年施政報告–喃喃自語?自問自答?」尚有以下各點應該討論:

  • 特首所說的「誤人子弟」老師是什麼問題?
  • 鼓勵青年北上大灣區?
  • 政府如何處理或跟進「社會事件」中被落案或起訴的青少年?
  • 還有香港中學校長會一直關心的問題,例如:
    • 藝術、科技發展
    • 擴闊學生科目選擇
    • 增加香港大學學位與大學收生政策的檢討與修訂
    • 香港教育與課程如何面對世界急速及未知的發展等等
  • 「停課不停學」:在推行電子學習與混合教學模式,政府實際上做了什麼「帶領、起動」工夫?政府又應該做什麼?

(篇幅關係,下篇待續。)

香港中學校長會榮譽總幹事黃謂儒

2020年12月10日