Should education be a privilege or a right?

This is another question that has continually reverberated in my head.

This is a very difficult question because education itself has varied meanings - for different ages, of different quality, and the provision of education requires a 'positive' act on the part of the State, meaning the State has to provide something and take action to secure this facility. And this in general involves a question of distribution of resources.

(positive obligations are contrasted with negative obligations, which merely require the State not to infringe rights, eg right to life would require the State not to impose a penalty that kills. It is generally easier to find negative obligations than positive obligations.)

I'd like to discuss this question in the context of special education and associate degrees in Hong Kong.

I read in the news that the provision of special education in English in Hong Kong is very limited, and a lot of expat families with children who have special educational needs have had to wait for at least one or two years to get a place, and many have chosen to leave Hong Kong.

We've also seen a proliferation of associate degrees in Hong Kong. And now many of them are complaining about the lack of jobs for them, and lack of recognition.

These two issues boil down to our answer to this question: are these aspects of education a matter of privilege or right? The problems have arisen primarily because there's been some confusion over this issue.

Should all children with special educational needs get special education which meets their (language) needs? Should all students who don't get admitted to university get some other form of education and qualification ie associate degrees?

My argument is that only basic education up to age 15 should be a right. Beyond that, it should be a privilege.

Firstly on the problem of associate degrees, I think the root of the problem is the lack of diversity in society. When we have a massive number of students who don't make the grades to universities, they are however not quite ready or willing to go to society. That's largely because society hasn't really developed itself to make the most of the labour resources. I believe that every individual has his own strength and weakness, and that includes the academic respect.

The whole idea of selection process for university means that there is a condition that everyone must meet before they can get a chance to go to university, and there are limited places. And I think there should indeed be limited university places, because university is for those who are suitable to receive that kind of training. What I'm saying is no more than 'some people are better at studying, some aren't as tuned in.' To allow only a small group in university is merely to acknowledge this fact.

The dilemma arises when one considers the value of educational qualifications. In my opinion, the root of the problem is the disproportionate over-valuation of educational qualifications, which arises from a distorted social structure in favour of university graduates (eg emphasis on professional qualifications). Society values university graduates more--and so much more that non-university graduates become at such a massive disadvantage that they don't get a fair go in the real world.

I'm not saying who deserves more resources in society, but I'm just pointing out the fact that it is not the idea of selection on the basis of academic merit itself that gives rise to the problem. The problem lies in the additional background fact that non-university graduates are put at a real disadvantage/have no other option.

What went wrong with the policy on associate degrees is that this merely exacerbates the problem because this drives more people in the wrong direction - a place which is simply not for them. It is very easy for the propaganda to argue by virtue of 'right to education' that there should be 'associate degrees' to cater for more people... With due respect, the right solution in my view is to develop more industries and (non-academic) options in society AND to give them the same degree of recognition as other more qualification-based jobs.

Because this has all been misdirected, we get a problem of inadequate recognition of 'qualifications' - which seem to be a paradox in itself.




As for special education, the case can be dismissed more easily. There is a central resource distribution issue. On the one hand, we can't accommodate anyone whatever their language needs. Say some family who speaks Russian can't expect HK education to provide special service for them. This is what minority groups have to suffer. On the other hand, part of the importance of social welfare is to cater for the needs of the minority, particularly 'substantial' minority groups like English expat families, given HK's colonial history. So in my view, they do have a strong case for arguing for an expansion of special education (and indeed general education) in English for this group of people.

I myself have come across some South Asians in Hong Kong which are quite a substantial minority. They are different from a lot of 'expats' in that they can't really afford the fees of international schools, but they don't speak Chinese. They are forced to go to Chinese schools and inevitably most of them underperform because of language barriers.

Well we can expect them to adapt to the Chinese way - when in Rome do as the Romans do. And indeed, a lot of British born Chinese don't expect to get education in Chinese in Britain. That's fair enough.

But the idea about it being a 'right' connotes a 'free' or relatively low-cost education. If there are not those insanely expensive international schools in HK, I'd be happier with this fact as everyone should come to accept. But when there is indeed recognition of the need for this service for English minorities in Hong Kong, I'm not happy with the fact that it is only available in private education, and if you can't pay for it, you'll have to stick with your bad luck. That's so wrong.

Education-related Blogs

Just a note to express my agreement on the overriding importance of 'blogging' - in education!

Some very interesting blogs relating to education:

What's common about them is the dedication to education.

Rural China blog

(An organisation that has been doing a lot for rural education in mainland China, with a very inspiring philosophy as well as strong commitment and dedication)

An expat educator in Hong Kong

(Paul has written many interesting articles on aspects of education that I have often neglected)

The Latest happenings in Educational Technology

(there are podcasts on some interesting discussions of use of technology in education)

Ms. Cecilia Lee

(a friend who is very enthusiastic about education)

Edublog

A community of education bloggers...

Dealing with expectations

I found myself writing this to a friend...

"we expect, and we also expect not to get what we expect. When we actually expect not to get what we expect, we do inevitably expect, in some way or the other.

But whats wrong with expecting? Even if you don't get what you expect, you do get to have the 'expectation'..."

There's one line which has affected me a lot for my entire time in oxford. That's what my cousin told me the night when I left:

'Rely only on yourself, and no one else.' I guess a mild way of putting it is 'don't expect anyone to help you'. Since then, every now and then, especially when I left the evil HK airport, I would remember this, and a twinge of pain would follow.

Life is all about expectation really - the creation of expectations (self-induced/induced by others/both) and the reaction to expectations (by yourself/by others) - in whatever area (relationships, financial matters, academic matters, emotional matters).

I've left out one possibility which is the 'absence' of expectations, which is also a massive residual group which govern a lot of our behaviour. To put it simply/metaphorically, for example, we don't expect pigs to fly, so we don't check out of the window to find a flying pig. In realistic terms, this means we don't do what is unrealistic.

But mind the 'residual' nature of 'absence' of expectations - we do have expectations most of the time, and that can be realistic or unrealistic, reasonable or unreasonable.

There are some good and bad adjectives about a person (eg greedy would tend to connote a lot of unreasonable expectations) Here we come to a different territory --> an evaluative one where we think about what our expectations SHOULD be. This is where the standard of reasonableness comes in.



So having set the ground work, what should we do to feel better in dealing with expectations?
1. have no expectation
2. get to know our expectations
3. react to our expectations properly (eg adjust our expectations internally OR take action externally to secure what we'd like to get)

It gets more complicated when there are more dimensions

4. when others induce an expectation in you?
5. when you have harboured an expectation about what others should do?

These are all questions about degree, and the equation is about a very subtle balance. Very often the balance is not struck, however, and thats why we rarely feel an optimum state.




Just to add some literary flavour, Charles Dickens has written a book about 'Great Expectations' - i probably should reread it to understand it better, but i remember reading it before coming to Ox. He explored the idea of expectations from various angles, which was very interesting, though I dont remember a thing about it now.

What I do remember now is some law relating to expectations.

The most obvious candidate is promissory estoppel/proprietary estoppel. Fun stuff because you can basically keep arguing how an expectation has turned into a legal right, in very flexible ways.

Say I promise you I'll give you all my money after I die (hypothetical), if you walk around the globe three times and you set off your lifelong journey, but I leave the lovely world before you finish the long march, and more importantly I haven't actually bequeathed/passed the money to you in my will - i've passed it to my secret lover instead.

You can probably bring a claim against my estate to claim the money in the name of 'promissory estoppel'. So be careful about what you say to others. It is ok to have expectations, but when expectations turn into something more substantial it can be a big deal.

Should we mind our own business?

The individualist:

Of course, that's the ground rule of human relationships, particularly when you're in England.

It is not right for an individual to interfere with the life of another individual. This is to respect the autonomy and privacy of another individual.

The central case of this argument could be gossip - the secret love affairs or someone's grades have nothing to do with you. Others have the right to keep whatever they like to themselves, and who the hell are you to expect me to tell you everything on my mind.

If I earn lots and buy big houses, that's how it is. Conversely, if I fuck up, I fuck up. I lead my own life; so do you.

And that's how some people experience culture shock when they ask their English friends 'how much do you earn?' or 'What do your parents do?'


Another perhaps intuitively more defensible example would be seeing your friend take drugs. Shall I stop him and give him a good lecture on the basic precepts of well being of life? Drugs are no good, my friend. Regardless of utility (as my friend might either ignore me or actually bother to pay attention), by giving advice, you're intruding into the internal sphere of someone's life. You have NO claim to impose your own values on others - within the confines of my own world, I am free to believe and think whatever, and whether you agree or disagree, my thinking should be independent of any external influence, and least by stupid morals.



The busybody/the Good Samaritan:

We are not alone in this world; we live with and for each other. Living with each other doesn't mean living separately and exclusively doing our own things. We don't live for everyone else, but there's certainly a plausible argument that we do live for people closer to us in some way, and we have some claim to others' lives.

Let's start with the stronger example as above: I'm a helpful friend and I don't want to see my friend land in drug rehabilitation centre or jail or do silly things and waste his life away. This is for sure an assertion of my own values over my friend, but that is not necessarily the same as 'imposition'. We want to help, and we don't force them to stop. We only argue for the justifiability of offering help, as opposed to doing nothing. That's a minimum intrusion in the autonomy of others because it is up to them to decide whether to take your hand. Even if it involves persuading my friend to believe in my set of values, that is still distinct from imposition because my rational friend has changed his mind after my convincing arguments, and his adoption of my set of values is an act of his free will. And that degree of influence is acceptable.


Now that's the superficial bit. But if we think a bit more deeply, what does 'help' actually entail?

There are always people less lucky than you - people who don't survive wars, people who starve, people who have lost their loved ones, people who have no money, and people who have been blighted by the recent snowstorm in china...and countless examples of people who 'need' your help.

To go to a different level, there can also be a 'people' eg the Albanians in Kosovo who 'need' international humanitarian intervention on the brink of severe human oppression. We've seen (arguably) successful examples of UN intervention eg in El Salvador, maybe Bosnia...

There's always so much one could do, but why should one intervene? Are we doing it out of concern for well being of others? Is that merely a matter of principle regardless of the actual effect? Or is that a pragmatic choice - if half of the money is going to be wasted by useless NGOs, why bother donating money?

And even if we come down to a statement of principle, is that concern really justified? There are a couple of fundamental assumptions in the argument for intervention:
1. we should do what is better.
2. what we advocate is better than the status quo.

I talked about universality of human rights with a friend before, and yes indeed that's part of the debate. How far does one set of values apply? Does it apply across the board? Does it apply only in a small cross-section of society? Or does it only apply to you yourself?

Is that what a culture/society is about - an environment in which people can share the same set of values?

Let's say, we all think killing is evil, and execution is a bad idea. Any state that still practises execution should be universally condemned, not least by Amnesty International.

But who is to judge which is better? And is it actually practicable to change anything? Sending a few boxes of aid to the children in Somalia will probably give them good food for a few weeks, and what's left next? Teaching rural children for two weeks will leave them with some arguably fresh input, but they still never manage to leave the village to get to a decent university and do what 'we consider to be decent education'.

So why the bother. Mind your own business, ladies and gentlemen.

Breakthrough

Very pleased :) finally won a game against this thinking machine.

If you like a game yourself, go to

http://turbulence.org/spotlight/thinking/chess.html




These days haven't really updated much mainly because of the engulfing nature of the legal beast. I wish there was some similar breakthrough with my revision - now it's April, and only 7 and a half weeks to finals. It will all be over very soon - that's three years...

I hope my friend can get through this challenge as well. may the force be with you.

THE LAKE DISTRICT

Grasmere lake




























































































A wonderful place