The Secondary School Curriculum Guide – Commentary Series (1)

MingPao, 7 July 2017

Dr. Stanley Ho

 

The Secondary School Curriculum GuideCommentary Series (1) 中文原文

What kind of Curriculum do Hong Kong students need to prepare for their future?

– Dr Stanley Ho Sai-Mun, Vice Chairman and Convener of the Task Group on “Curriculum Review and Development”, Hong Kong Association of Heads of Secondary Schools 

Executive summary

The Curriculum Development Council has recently published the Secondary School Curriculum Guide (English Draft) (“The Guide”) in the Education Bureau’s website. It is the first complete guide on junior and senior secondary curriculum since the launch of the Education Reform in 2000 and the implementation of the New Academic Structure of Senior Secondary Education in 2009 (“NSS”).  The Hong Kong Association of Heads of Secondary Schools attempts to comment on The Guide in the following 4 aspects.

In doing so, the questions we seek to ask are –  

  • Is the proposed curriculum keeping abreast of today’s changing age in preparing our students for the future?
  • What impact will The Guide have on learners (students) and front-line trustthelordpractitioners (school principals and teachers) of the curriculum?
  1. Direction and Positioning

Direction is essential to any curriculum development. The problem of The Guide is not lacking direction, but rather, too many, and each of the directions given seems to be equally important. Key development areas (7 Learning Goals, 6 focal points, 4 Key Tasks, etc) are overlapping in concepts, and loose in their interconnectivity.

The Guide has kept most of the reform proposals set out in the Education Reform in 2000, fine-tuned a few, and finally added some recent “renewed emphases”. But the total number of development areas has significantly increased. As a result, the overall direction is blurred and the order of priorities distracted. The Guide has also failed to elaborate the nature of the development. Is the curriculum meant for extending or sustaining the ongoing development, and is the “updating” about quantity (adding or deleting) or quality (deepening the reform)?   

It is necessary to have a visionary and strategic framework for curriculum development to help our students see their future with many possibilities, and comprehend the relevancy and use of their learning. The Guide offers only fragmented responses to such concerns. For instance, how do we nurture students’ global citizenships, raise their national and civic awareness, and cultivate their interest in scientific pursuit and the spirit of humanity?   

  1. Solutions to problems

For effective execution in the frontline, the planning of a curriculum must take into consideration the challenges in actual circumstances. While the Guide has identified the various problems requiring attention (examination pressure, insufficient space for learning, etc), it provides no in-depth analysis of the causes nor specific measures to address them. The achievability of the expected goals is therefore in doubt.

A larger part of the chapter, The Way Forward, is devoted to justifying keeing “Learning to learn” as the future development direction. However, very little is said on the corresponding changes that the existing system needs to link up the various curriculum proposals in order to achieve “learning to learn”. For instance, how do we optimize the NSS and its supporting policies for a more systemic and effective way of catering for weak learners and students of diverse interest?

In OECD PISA Report 2015, certain trends of Hong Kong students are revealed – falling academic quality in science subjects, lower sense of learning effectiveness, less satisfied with life, and rising examination-related anxiety. Other local studies have also shown increasingly serious mental health problem among secondary school students. These are alarming signals of the problems requiring timely and fitting solutions.        

  1. Learning Contents

The prime purpose of a curriculum guide is to facilitate principals and teachers to formulate school-based plans of teaching contents, strategies and progress according to the background, ability and interest of students. Whether such purpose can be served depends largely on the design of the guide. The stricter the regulations are, the harder it is to allow rooms for flexible refinement to suit the actual needs of students. 

The Guide places too high importance on subject-based knowledge and concerns too little on aspects such as integrated learning across subjects, Generic Skills, attitude and value. This is the crust of the problem. Another risk is that it attempts to resolve social problems through education. Hard-selling style execution of certain curricula has been proven to fail. The promotion of mental health, national identity and the awareness of the rule of law could be more naturally done by experiential learning and emotion education tacitly placed in the curriculum for more lasting effect.    

  1. Learning Time

One of the major goals spelt out in the Education Reform in 2000 is to create more learning space for students and teachers. However, in face of the required lesson hours for each subject, the greatest difficulty encountered is, time. Subjects are forced to compete for lesson time, and this may even result in after-school tutorials. Although educators have presented our views to the authorities on the treatment of subject learning hours, The Guide has maintained its original view.

The Guide is too detailed in setting the rules and excessive in laying down the teaching contents. The attempt to maximize the use of time has made learning time insufficient on the contrary. The problem is even worse with senior forms. The school is simply unable to find any residue time to develop school-specific syllabus to cater for the diverse needs of students. The learning progress in general has become fragmented and disconnected; and “Learning to learn” is too easy to become “all for studying”.   

In sum, the major constraints of The Guide is that it speaks from the angle of the policymaker but not the learners or the front-line practitioners. It concerns more on unifying the requirements than realizing school-based curriculum and student learning. On the surface it has provided some options for schools. However, in essence it has evaded from addressing the fundamental problems to be first tackled by the policymakers. More teaching contents are added, leaving students with less learning space.     

Our pressing need is a long-term curriculum development plan that will point to a future for our students. We hope the finalized version of the 12-booklet Guide will show us a clear direction and feasible plan for development.      


 

明報 7-7-2017

香港中學校長會對《中學教育課程指引》的評論系列 (一) English version

何世敏

最近,課程發展議會在教育局網頁發表了《中學教育課程指引》英文版初稿(以下簡稱指引),共十二分冊。這是繼香港2000年揭開教育改革序幕、2009年推行新高中學制之後,首份由初中至高中整個中學教育的課程指引。

從新千禧年教育改革至今,前後相距16多年。我們要問的問題是:究竟指引建議的香港中學課程能否追上時代的改變,有助學生準備未來?指引對於作為課程學習者的學生和課程推行者的校長教師有何影響?本文將從四方面進行評論:

  1. 方向定位 – 太多方向變成失去方向

教育必須促進學生準備未来,課程發展不能沒有方向。指引的基本問題不是沒有方向,而是太多方向,彷彿所有方向都同樣重要。指引羅列了許多課程發展重要項目,名稱不一,例如:7個學習宗旨、6個焦點、4個關鍵項目、8個主要重新修訂重點等,部份概念層次重疊,項目之間的內在聯繫及連貫性較鬆散。

這與指引所強調課程「持續更新」不無關係。指引保留了2000年教育改革大部份舊有項目,微調其中少部份,然後加上一些近期的指定更新項目。由於課程發展項目總數大增,整體方向定位及項目主次顯得模糊。究竟這是「延續發展」還是「持續發展」、所謂「更新」是項目增減抑或深層變革?指引並未作出清楚的闡釋。

面對二十一世紀各種挑戰,我們需要的是有遠見、有策畧的課程發展架構,讓學生看見自己的未來,預想各種發展可能性,了解學習的切身關係及應用目的。香港作為科技年代國際城市的中國特區,如何培養學生的全球素養、國家公民意識、科學及人文精神,這是課程規劃必須嚴謹、細緻而專業地回應的課題。指引在這方面的初步回應仍只限於一些較零散和籠統的建議。

  1. 問題對策 – 提出問題卻未提供對策

課程的有效規劃,必需針對現實環境中各種問題和困難,確保有關建議能順利落實在學校最前線,讓教師有信心有能量教學,學生有興趣有實效學習。指引勾劃了課程發展一系列要面對的問题,例如:過度重視成績及考試壓力、師生負荷過重及學習空間不足等,可惜傾向於平鋪直敘,未有深入剖析原因,提出具體對策。因此,指引內各項課程建議的預期目標能否實現,頗成疑問。       

指引花了不少篇幅論述2001年以來重大環境改變以及國際教育趨勢,論證「學會學習」仍是課程發展的未來路向(the way forward)。然而,現行教育制度應如何進行相應調整或改革,連結各項課程建議,讓學生真正能學會學習,例如如何優化新高中學制及各種配套政策措施,才更有系统更有效照顧能力稍遜和多元興趣的學生,指引並未提出可以作為出路(the way out)的方案。       

無可否認,香港教育在過去一段時期,贏取了不少國際矚目的成就,這是學界共同努力得來不易的成果。最近,OECD公佈PISA 2015報告,揭示了香港學生科學素養整體呈下降趨勢,學習自我效能感及生活滿意度低落、考試焦慮則高於國際水平。另一方面,多項本地研究,發現中學生精神健康問题日趨嚴重。這些危險警號都與課程有關,我們必須及時對症下藥。       

  1. 教學內容 – 規限越緊導至規劃越難      

教學內容是學生每天每日必須面對的學習挑戰。無論喜歡與否、覺得相關或實用與否,學生都得按照課程學習。課程指引的主要目的是協助校長教師,根據學生的背景、能力和興趣,調適教學內容、策畧及進度,進行校本課程規劃。但目的能否達到,很大程度上受制於指引的設計。指定課程規限越細越緊,校本課程規劃則越窄越難,校長教師只能在極有限的範圍內調適課程,很難有足夠彈性對應學生的實際學習需要。      

問題根源在於指引過分重視分科知識,對於跨學科綜合學習、共通能力、態度價值等學習範疇關注不足,造成學科知識過多過濶過深,令學生疲於應接。另一個危機是企圖將社會要解決的問題通通「教育化」,希望透過學校新課程解決社會新問題。研究證明硬銷硬推一些特別課程,效果可能適得其反。比如精神健康、法治意識、國家情懷的培養,透過隱蔽課程的學習經歷與情意教育,比透過正規課程的知識灌輸及大道理講授通常來得更自然、深刻和持久。

  1. 學習時間 – 時間盡用反而時間不足      

2000年教改其中一個口號是「拆牆鬆綁」,為學生及教師創造空間,讓學生擴濶學習經歷,實現全人發展。可惜,事與願違,學習空間不但沒有擴濶,反而越來越狹窄。校長和教師面對課程指引各科時數規定,感到非常頭痛的困難正是課時不足,許多科目被廹互相爭奪上課時間甚至課後補課,教師學生均身受其害。學界曾就各科學習時數的計算多次提出不同意見,但指引最終仍維持原判。       

學習時間盡用反致學習時間不足,這是指引課程規定過細及教學內容過多的結果。學習時間不夠,何來空間讓學生擴濶經歷、反思學習、休息遊戲說笑、建立師生關係、提升身心社靈健康?越高年級學習空間越萎縮,學校越難找到賸餘時間發展照顧學生多樣性的校本特色課程。整體學習過程不斷被分割和碎片化,「學會學習」(learning to learn) 很容易淪為「只為讀書」(all for studying),難怪學生將學習視作苦差,甚至中途「跳船」退學。    

總括而言,指引的主要局限在於從課程政策制定者而非課程學習者及課程推行者的角度出發、著重統一課程規定多於校本課程落實及學生課程學習、看似提供了一些可以讓學校自由考慮的選項,卻實際沒有根本處理政策制定者必先解決的問題。相比於16年前教育改革的課程文件,這份新指引加多了教師教學內容,卻進一步縮減了學生學習空間。

我們不禁要問:香港中學課程的未來應往哪一個方向?怎樣才可以從過去的餘暉走向未來的曙光?

其實,我們最迫切需要的,並不是操作手冊式的課程指引,而是能夠為學生指引未來的長遠課程發展規劃。

香港學生需要怎樣的課程準備他們的未來?

期待這十二冊的指引初稿不久正式定稿時,能給我們清晰的方向和切實可行的發展方案。

(作者為香港中學校長會副主席兼課程檢討及發展小組召集人)