2020年施政報告–喃喃自語?自問自答?(下篇)

The Chief Executive’s 2020 Policy Address: Soliloquy and Thoughts Aloud ( Part 2)

2020年施政報告 – 喃喃自語?自問自答?(下篇)

The Chief Executive’s 2020 Policy Address: Soliloquy and Thoughts Aloud (Part 2)

Michael Wong Wai Yu, Honorary Executive Secretary, HKAHSS

21 December 2020

Part 1 on the same topic was released on 10 December 2020 and it can be accessed at:

Here

Question 1: What do you think of the Chief Executive’comments in the Policy Address 2020 on ‘incompetent’ teachers who are failing their students and thus misleading and causing them harm?

In Para 157, the Chief Executive stated ‘… We will also strengthen the training of teachers and principals upon their appointment, during their service and before their promotion.  The EDB will take stringent actions against teachers who are incompetent or found misconducted, including cancelling the registration of those who are found seriously misconducted, for the well-being of students’.

I believe that this is the most severe reprimand of the education sector by the Chief Executive in the history of Hong Kong. While it is indeed frustrating and heart-wrenching if there are a very few amongst the strong teaching force (more than 57,000 teachers) who might be incompetent or found misconducted, we have never heard such a severe criticism raised in the Policy Address before. 

If the Chief Executive made this comment with reference to those teachers who might try the law because of their differing political stances or those who preach their personal political orientations to minors and thus not taking good care of students’ healthy development, this could be understood. However, only two teachers have been deregistered so far. Why is it necessary for the Chief Executive to keep such a high profile and inflict such a severe comment in her Policy Address? We cannot help asking the reasons behind, the appropriateness of EDB’s handling of the cases and whether its decision is well supported by the education sector. By bundling the two cases with the whole teaching force, the impact itself is much even greater than the severe criticism.  What is the Chief Executive’s justification for her proposed measures related to teacher training in the different periods upon appointment, during service and before promotion?  

No one will argue against the importance of teachers’ continuous professional development. However, if the proposed training is related to only a few incompetent teachers who are failing their students, this is a humiliation and great blow to the teaching force, members of which have been serving with much diligence and dedication all along. This will greatly tarnish and slander their reputation and professional status. At the same time, this will certainly undermine parents’ and students’ trust on teachers. The worst of all, and which we really do not hope to see, is the waves of teachers’ resignation and promising young people choosing not to join the teaching profession because of this.

Question 2: What do you think of the Greater Bay Area Youth Employment Scheme?

I would like to share on this issue from a macro level, and not to mention whether Hong Kong will be ‘delivered’ by the Greater Bay Area.

  1. While basically it is good for young people to leave Hong Kong to broaden their horizons, there are practical issues to consider. According to the Policy Address, the scheme will provide 2,000 positions, the monthly salary of each is at least HK$18,000 including a HK$10,000 subsidy by the government, with the longest contract period of 18 months. Whether the terms are attractive or not really depends on individuals. However, participants need to consider many issues such as the work nature, salary package and lives after the period of 18 months. Is the period sufficient for them to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to continue living and working in the Greater Bay Area?
  1. For better integration into the Greater Bay Area, young people need to consider carefully how to accommodate and adjust to the differences in culture, social conditions and way of life.
  1. With their departure from Hong Kong, would their family ties be loosened and hard to maintain?
  1. If young people are well adjusted to the life in Greater Bay Area and will not return to Hong Kong, this will aggravate the problems arising from the ageing population in Hong Kong as the annual population growth rate is less than 1% in the recent years.

Question 3: The Chief Executive also mentioned in her Policy Address those young people who were arrested and charged due to their participation in the social incidents, what are your views on this?

It is beyond doubt that every citizen should be law-abiding. That is why whenever there are suggestions on granting leniency to young convicts, there are objections lest they should be harmfully indulged.

While I agree that those who have breached the law should bear the legal consequences, we have to consider the essence of education, which should not be renounced too easily – love. This reminds me of an episode related to a Chinese educationist in the early 20thCentury China – Mr. Xia Mian Zun (夏丏尊). In 1921, he was invited by Jing Heng I (經亨頤) who was also an educationist and the school principal of Chun Hui Secondary School (春暉中學) in Zhejiang Province (浙江省) to teach in the school. During Xia’s service in Chun Hui, he conducted a research on books on education and came to read the Japanese translated version of Cuore. He was much moved and cried for 3 days. He realized that education in China lacked moral sentiment. He therefore translated the Chinese version of the book (愛的教育) , which turned out to a very popular reader for all walks.   

While it is teachers’ duty to discipline students, we should never make them feel abandoned. Those who are sentenced with imprisonment due to their participation in the social incidents have already lost their school life. They will face even greater challenges after their release. How can they integrate into society? Would we like to see them, who might have been heavily inflicted emotionally, bear the grudges against others and society for life? As their number is not too small, this will become a piercing sore crippling social harmony and solidarity. This should be taken care of.

The imprisonment will certainly have negative impacts on family dynamics. Senior members will miss their young ones, not to mention being taken care of, while marital relationship may also be affected. Happy families are the basis of a stable society. So we should not ignore the impact of the imprisonment of these young people and the social problems so incurred. The loss of family harmony or stability will bring about very heavy social costs, which we have already been shouldering since last summer as reconciliation is not easy to come by.  

There is a Chinese saying that ‘a prodigal who returns is more precious than gold’. Similarly the parable of the prodigal in the Bible teaches us to treasure the second son who returned after having gone astray. We certainly will not say that the father is unfair to the elder son who had been keeping on the right track.

I would like to borrow a saying to express my feeling, “If I do not love Hong Kong people, I cannot say that I love Hong Kong”.

Question 4: Are there any other areas of concern from the HKAHSS regarding the Chief Executive’s 2020 Policy Address?

  1. Correspondence between the local education and curriculum with the ever-changing and unpredictable world trend

Besides responding to social and political atmosphere, the local education and curriculum should also be responding to the global development. Human resources and training are the most important. The Hong Kong government should take discreet action on the curriculum with much boldness, clear direction, innovation and good foresight. Piecemeal reforms will not be helpful.

In 2019, the HKAHSS organized an Education Colloquium titled “Curriculum for the Future”. Invitations were extended to speakers and participants in the education and other sectors such as commercial and legal sector, just to name a few. There were also students who boldly expressed their views in front of the audience. At the same time, we also partnered with the Hong Kong Centre for International Student Assessment at The Chinese University of Hong Kong on a research to collect frontline workers’ views on the implementation of the curriculum reform. From the sharing of speakers in the Colloquium and the research results, we found something in common. A majority of Hong Kong educators agreed that the most important aim of the future secondary curriculum is to improve students’ transversal and transformative competencies as well as generic skills. To strengthen life education and value education, our students should be nurtured to acquire the skills and literacies such as media literacy, critical and innovative thinking for mastery over inter-cultural dynamics, conflict resolution and problem solving.

So who is leading the education reform of Hong Kong?

Aren’t the current changes in education in Hong Kong going against the challenges of the time and the world trend? When our counterparts in the international arena are developing new strategies on nurturing students’ attitude and skills, breaking through curriculum frames and dismantling the examination pressure, what is Hong Kong doing? Also, all these reforms in our counterparts are basically initiated from the frontline, i.e. a bottom-up move from centralization and homogeneity to meeting school-based needs and individuality. On the contrary, it seems that Hong Kong is moving towards the other direction when the government begins to tighten the curriculum, from contents to teaching materials. This will eventually result in centralization and homogeneity. Are the changes in Hong Kong professionally led? Who is really professional?

  1. Review and revision in university places provisions and admission policy

As mentioned earlier, human resources is crucial to the sustainable development of Hong Kong. Therefore it has been our continuous quest for the increase in university places. It is a pity that the current annual provision of publicly-funded university places for secondary school graduates is only 15,000, which is much lower than our neighouring regions and major cities in China. The keen competition hinges very much on the predominant criteria of the public examination results. At the same time, the core subjects are rather language-loaded and this results in a skewed admission rate inclining towards female students. For those who can fulfil the basic university admission requirements (3322), female students outperform their male counterparts by a wide margin (40% to 25%). Unless the society at large accepts such a phenomenon, there is no reason why the admission criteria and policy should not be changed.

  1. “Suspending Classes without Suspending Learning”– what has the government done in leading and initiating efforts in this area to promote eLearning and blended learning? What should it really do?

During the school suspension due to the pandemic, the slogan “Suspending classes without suspending learning” is much easier said than done. Despite that, teachers rapidly responded to the challenges and exhausted nearly every means to build up their eLearning platforms to help students sustain effective and meaningful learning. They should be commended for the considerable progress achieved. While students and teachers are in deep water, what has the EDB done in leading through the endeavours? How has it collaborated with schools in the process? Or are the progress and achievements mainly just results of school-based efforts in cutting into the mountains and groping in their own ways?

We have to admit that in the last few years, the government has put in more resources to help schools develop IT in education, which has set a base for ‘Suspending classes without suspending learning’. The resources have helped schools upgrade the IT network, purchase hardware and facilities, and appoint IT staff. Needy students are also subsidized with funds to facilitate their learning through e-platforms. Nonetheless, we cannot help asking whether the resources should only be confined to hardware, equipment and facilities.  In our submission in August to the Chief Executive for her preparation of the Policy Address, we stated: ‘The Government should take the leading role to strengthen the connection between secondary schools and different professional bodies in education (including universities and other academic institutes) to match well with the latest curriculum development. It is important to collaborate to create a quality Learning Management System for eLearning which meets Hong Kong’s needs’. Even today, this is still what we think the government should do.

Also while teachers have been engaged in eLearning within a very short period, their IT skills vary. The Government should therefore have more systematic planning and training for teachers’ professional development in this area to familiarize all teachers in Hong Kong with eLearning and make good preparation for blended learning as we are entering a neo-normal stage.

Unfortunately, we indeed regret to note that in the Policy Address, out of the $2 billion set aside in the Quality Education Fund to promote eLearning, $1.3 billion is used to sustain the BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) Scheme when the support of the Community Care Fund comes to an end. So the resources are still fixated at hardware provisions. There is not a single word on any proactive eLearning plans or strategies.

Question 5: Why did you care to write these two pieces on the Policy Address 2020?

Since my participation in HKAHSS in 1994, I have never adopted a confrontational or antagonistic approach towards the government’s stance and policies. Even when there are differences in opinion, we still maintain very close and harmonious relationship with the government. We just voice our professional views as critical friends for the benefits of our students. We have never made any claims out of private motives such as fighting for welfare terms or better salary package. Our concern is on students’ well-being, their learning, the development of education in Hong Kong and teachers’ professionalism. Our work is all for our students, their development and future.

While faithful words may grate upon the ears, I sincerely hope that what we have voiced should not be taken too lightly or even neglected. They reflect the thoughts of the silent majority in education.  

2020年施政報告喃喃自語?自問自答? (下篇)

此文乃承接2020年12月10日發表之「2020年施政報告–喃喃自語?自問自答?」(上篇)

問:你對特首所說的「誤人子弟」老師有何看法?

答:特首於施政報告第157段中指出:「我們會強化老師及校長入職、在職及升職前培訓的工作;對於不稱職及失德的老師,教育局必定嚴肅跟進,包括取消嚴重失德者的教師資格,以免他們誤人子弟。」

我相信這是香港有史以來政府首長對教育界最嚴厲的譴責。在龐大的教師隊伍中(中小學教師共57,000多位)若良莠不齊,會令人痛心及失望。以往也偶有老師失德的個案,但都未有聽到於施政報告中作出批評。

若特首是針對那些因政治立場與政府不同、以身試法的老師,又或假設有老師向學生宣揚其個人的政治立場,影響仍未成年的學生,未有好好照顧他們的成長,這些個別情況,一般教育同工都會理解。但假若因全港有兩位老師被投訴而遭除牌,以致政府首長要用到如此嚴厲的字句,與及作如此大的行動,我們不得不問,這兩個個案的前因後果是甚麼?教育局的處理手法如何?得到學界大力支持?特首的行動不止於批評,因兩個個案而將整個教育界都綑綁上,要強化所有老師及校長入職、在職及升職前培訓的工作,其理據何在?

培訓對老師及校長持續發展固然是好的;但假若培訓的出發點是因個別「誤人子弟」老師引起,則嚴重打擊大部分盡心盡力的教育工作者,污衊教育界的形象,影響學生、家長對老師的信任,損害教師校長的專業地位。而最嚴重、我們最不想見到的後果,是教師離職潮,或是有質素的年青人不願加入教師行列。

問:你對「大灣區青年就業計劃」有什麼意見?

答: 且不討論大灣區是否香港的救星,從教育宏觀角度來看,我會認為:

  1. 青年人有機會離開香港,擴闊視野,增廣見聞不失為好事。該計劃共2000個職位,由政府為參與計劃的每個青年人每月補貼港幣$10,000,為期可長達18個月。最終薪金與香港相比是否優厚,因人而異。參加者可能要考慮18個月補貼期期滿後,工作、薪酬、生活等將會如何安排?18個月工作經驗是否足夠讓青年人學懂如何繼續在大灣區工作及生活?
  2. 青年人要考慮如何融入大灣區,當地的人、事和文化必與香港有基本的差異,青年人如何適應與調整?
  3. 青少年遷離香港,與香港家人聚少離多,家庭之維繫會否變得更鬆散?
  4. 青年人在大灣區落地生根,組織家庭,回港可能性減少。香港人口增長近年不多於1% 香港,人口更加老化,長遠將帶來社會問題及壓力。

問:施政報告中提到去年「社會事件」中被落案的青少年。這方面你有何意見?

答: 市民該奉公守法,這不容置疑,亦因此每當有聲音提出考慮給犯事的青少年寬鬆處理時,便很容易招來巨大的批評,大聲疾呼不能縱容犯錯的人。

我同意違反法律的人要為自己的行為負責,但在懲罰之餘,教育工作者同時不能放棄教育中的重要元素 – 「愛」。據說,夏丏尊於1921年應教育家經亨頤的邀請,到春暉中學任教,期間研究有關教育的書籍,遇到《Cuore》的日文譯本,他淚流三日讀畢,當頭棒喝,覺得中國教育忽略情感德性。夏丏尊遂將《Cuore》翻譯成為巨著「愛的教育」。

我們嚴謹督導學生之餘,絕對不能給學生被遺棄的感覺。青少年被判監禁,已失去正常校園生活,獲釋後升學就業必遇到重大困難。他們如何融入社會,如何克服困難重新做人?他們若背負著心靈的重傷,與其他人彼此敵視,帶著恨與怨到老年,這是我們樂見的嗎?要知他們為數不少,對社會重拾團結,始終會是一個缺口。

家有在囚的青少年,少了成員,年老的被奪去兒孫之樂,也少了人照顧。夫婦互相埋怨,感情可能受到沖擊。三代同堂本來是福氣,是社會衡穩基礎之一,但家中青少年人被囚,令到家庭斷層,造成不可忽視的社會問題。失掉家庭的維繫必帶來沉重的「社會成本」。這些「成本」可能自去年夏天已開始要香港承擔,而且是難以修復的。

浪子回頭金不換。聖經中的浪子故事教導我們如何愛惜離家出走的小兒子。難道我們會因此說,那父親對沒犯事的大兒子不公平。

我想借用一句說話:「假如我不愛香港人,我不能說我愛香港。」

問:今年施政報告有觸及香港中學校長會其他關心的議題嗎?

答:1.   香港教育與課程如何面對世界急速及未知的發展:

香港宏觀的課程除了因應社會政治氣候變化要作出改變,更要面向世界;人力資源、人才培訓是最重要的一環,香港急需為宏觀課程作出有方向性、有前瞻性,創新甚至大膽的改革;少修少補,已於事無補。

2019年香港中學校長會舉辦了教育論壇,以「課程的未來•未來的課程」為主題,廣邀教育界、商界,甚至司法界的朋友發表意見,當中更有學生在眾多參與者前表達自己對課程的看法。同時,亦與香港中文大學香港學生能力國際評估中心進行了一項課程改革的調查研究,以瞭解前線教育工作者對香港課程實施的意見。無論是嘉賓意見,抑或問卷回應,近乎眾口一辭,都表示教育需要栽培學生面向世界的能力及態度,教育要讓學生學懂承擔責任,在不同背景群組中互動及處理矛盾衝突,更需要懂得運用多元素養(包括媒體和信息素養、批判性和創新性思維)以解決問題。

那麼,香港教育的改革由誰主導?

香港的教育改變是否正在逆時代而行?當世界各地都在策劃、甚至進行課程改革,以培育能力及態度為目標,突破科目框架,釋放考試的束縛;當世界大部份地區的教育改革都是由下而上,由中央處理走向校本處理,由單一化走向個性化;香港則更加強調中央一體化處理,由課程到教材到教學方法,越收越緊,是否真的做到「專業領航」?誰才是真正專業?

  1. 增加本地大學學位與大學收生政策的檢討與修訂:

香港中學校長會一直倡議增加大學學位,正如上題所說,人力資源是香港能繼續「生存」的要素,可惜香港每年為應屆文憑試生只提供約15,000資助大學學位,遠低於香港毗鄰的國家或中國重要城市。高度競爭、而又近乎單一以考生成績作準則的大學收生,嚴重影響了中學教育生態。而中、英、數、通四個核心科目的「3322」大學入學基線,側重語文能力,每年合乎基本入學要求的女生數字(40%)遠高於男生(25%),除非社會大眾接受這長期的傾斜現象,否則大學收生政策,又怎可能不改?

  1. 「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?

疫情期間,老師們為實現「停課不停學」這個說來容易但做起來絕不簡單的目標,挖空心思,從無變有,在疫情連綿反覆下,總算讓學生的學習得以延續,且成效也不錯。教育局在師生們水深火熱之際,負起了甚麼領頭作用?和學校作了甚麼共同努力?抑或只是學校各自摸索、開山劈石?

不得不承認這些年政府用於學校資訊科技發展的資源,包括提升學校的網絡、增加資訊科技人員、加強學校資訊科技設備、支援有需要的學生購置電腦等,為今天的「停課不停學」奠定基礎。但支援是否應只限於資源設備?香港中學校長會曾在特首施政報告前作出建議:「政府須作牽頭,加強不同教育專業(包括大學或其他學術機構)與中學的聯繫,配合課程最新發展,攜手創建合乎香港需要的優質電子學習管理系統。」今天,我們仍然覺得這是政府該做的。

停課以來,全港教師在極短時間內學懂掌握視頻技能,進行網上實時教學。現時老師間能力差異仍在,教育局應好好把握時機,更好、更有系統地作教師專業培訓,裝備老師,為教育新常態下的混合式學習(blended learning)作出準備。

可惜的是,施政報告中,預留20億作電子學習;其中13億是為了延續關愛基金即將結束的「自攜裝置」 (BYOD Bring Your Own Device)計劃;資源仍主要停留在硬件裝置,對這些影響著今天、未來教育具前瞻性的發展項目,隻字未提。

問:你為什麼花時間寫這兩篇文章?

答:我自1994年參與香港中學校長會之工作,我可以擔保,我絕對不是以對抗模式及態度看待政府的政策與立場。縱使有不同看法,我們仍然以「諍友」為出發點,與政府保持緊密、和諧聯繫,從教育專業角度盡力表達意見,讓香港孩子得益。我們從不為福利、薪酬而發聲;學生之福祉、學習、香港教育發展及教師專業地位是我們至為關注的。今次的「問與答」絕對不涉及政治取向,全部以學生學習、成長及前路為重點與依歸。

忠言或許會逆耳,但希望不要因逆耳便忽略當中或有學界很想說、但未能說的看法。

香港中學校長會榮譽總幹事 黃謂儒

2020年12月21日