May, 2005

The Myths and Reality of Hong Kong's Educational Reform

Man Si-wai

The latest round of "educational reform" has been spelled out in an Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) consultation paper last year. Suggested changes include turning the existing seven-year secondary schooling system into a six-year programme with three years under the compulsory education scheme followed by three senior secondary years. Meanwhile, universities will shift from the current three-year to a four-year system. Students have to take one public examination (instead of two under the existing system) before being admitted by universities or entering the job market upon completion of six years of secondary studies. The other proposed changes concern the curricula of the senior secondary forms. Four core subjects are listed while other subjects are electives. The latter include so-called career-oriented subjects as well as academic ones. This arrangement serves the tacit goal of putting students into two streams at the senior secondary stage—one which prepares students for further studies at university and the other that prepares them to join the work force upon graduation from Form 6.

Currently, almost all reactions to the consultation document have focussed on (1) financing of the senior secondary program and the fourth year at the tertiary level and (2) the possible phasing out of subjects and teachers of non-core subjects at the senior secondary level. Meanwhile, the designation of liberal studies as a core subject has been discussed primarily in the context of staffing concerns with little attention being paid to the rationale, socio-political and cultural background and implications of the proposal. In short, different sectors express opinions based on their respective interests while little, if any, concern is devoted to a more comprehensive critique of the lack of social and educational ideals in such "reforms." Still more disappointingly, universities and other institutions have already begun to offer courses to train teachers in liberal studies without ever clarifying whether the subject as delineated by the EMB is educationally sound and offering it in the existing context is socially responsible. The HK$3.3 billion (US$423 million) teacher training fund set up by the government simply serves too well to silence potential criticism from all parties and sectors, except perhaps the poor teachers who have to attend many substandard training programs which do not even guarantee their job security.

In fact, this round of "educational reform" concurs with the last round in its basic orientations and motifs, which spin around the trend of globalisation, thus reinforcing the already growing tide of shifting to the discourse of education as an investment and lifelong adaptation to corporate control and the culture of competition. There are many places in this consultation document which exemplify this discourse. For example, for students from less well-off families to gain full degrees later in their lives after initially failing university entrance examinations, the consultation paper lays down the so-called post-secondary pathways of learning which are said to be capable of "articulating into full degrees" and to link with their choice of career-oriented subjects at the senior secondary level. However, this is unlikely for students from less well-off families; for in a globalised economy, like Hong Kong's, such post-secondary studies programmes are inevitably unsubsidised or undersubsidised and would likely charge high tuition fees. On the other hand, for students from well-off families, failing to enter local universities would automatically mean studying abroad. Hence, the proposed "streaming" would only create greater social inequality and segregation, even at the secondary school level, as schools offering career-oriented subjects would be viewed as inferior.

Another exemplar of the consultation document's compliance with the trend of globalisation is its repeated reminder to society in general, and parents in particular, to take heed of the need to contribute financially to education, which is an "investment." Also repeatedly emphasised is the need for individuals and for Hong Kong to maintain competitiveness in the globalised economy with education to be planned and designed accordingly. In sum, not one sentence about young people's aspirations to learn to think and to lead a reflective life is included. Most ironically, the one suggestion which is seemingly most unproblematic—liberal studies being offered as a core subject at the senior secondary level—is to no less, if not greater, extent being appropriated to fit and aggravate the trend of subsuming education under the hegemony of globalisation and corporate power, for liberal studies, together with the concepts of critical thinking and independent thinking, have been hijacked by this round of globalisation-influenced education.

Let us, first of all, examine the nexus of concepts into which "critical thinking" and "independent thinking" are placed: (a) prepare students for the challenges of life in today's world, (b) knowledge-based economy, (c) equipped with a broad base of knowledge, (d) rapidly changing society, (e) high adaptability, (f) engage in lifelong learning, (g) construct personal knowledge, (h) develop one's own opinions and views.

All of these are widely propagated "missions and visions" of the age of corporate domination and globalisation. The belief in "personal knowledge" (vis--vis knowledge as a community pursuit) has no philosophical ground but serves to justify the patent system that is highly favoured by capitalist regimes. Moreover, individuals' opinions and views based on such personal knowledge do not involve real critical thinking in the sense that the power structure, exercise of power and the metaphysical and ethical systems embedded in knowledge-building and accreditation have never been subjected to radical examinations or philosophical criticisms. Independent thinking, understood in such a context, is just a tool for enhancing individual performance under competitive situations.

Rounds of "educational reform" in Hong Kong demonstrate that there will be no real reform without liberating education from the existing ideology and practice of schooling, which mainly constitute the initiation rites and training ground for the younger generation to familiarise themselves with the modern capitalist modus operandi. Changes, such as a different academic structure and more liberal studies at the secondary level, as long as they remain part of an unreflective institution, will not break any new ground. Public responses which concentrate on criticising various implementation methods while leaving the rationalisation of globalisation that these "reforms" entail unscrutinised are just chasing red herrings.