More thoughts on visit to SGSS

A few very clever students were honest and sweet. Amongst many others, the favourite opening line of some presentations was 'I love your blog' and 'your blog is very meaningful' - which can't be more sincere - followed by a stark, powerful remark that 'your blog is boring' (with some helpful and constructive suggestions for improvement). I tried to humour them a bit and it was a lot of fun talking to them. Sorry if it is boring, i'm really very bad at cracking gags and promoting something - advertising is the one job i can never do i think.

Many of them actually engaged in the substantive issues esp cookery lessons, English education, art classes, student counselling, etc - but surprisingly nobody talked about equality which I think is the SINGULARLY MOST VALUABLE part of Finnish education. It is entirely due to the neglect and sloppiness in my organisation and presentation of the blog and only natural how they ended up getting attracted to the ones with more pictures.

I was surprised how much attention they showed to details in my blog - what an amazing ability to be able to pick up everything and describe it all accurately. It was very clear they had had a good read - thank you.

I was even more surprised when a good few of them had questions for me AND expressed their opinions about what they had read on my blog as well as their own education. I really hope this will help them to think about what kind of education they want for themselves, and GO FOR WHATEVER THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE :)

Teaching

We've all been taught and might have even taught others ourselves. But what exactly is teaching?

Some say teaching is about passing on knowledge, but others say it's about getting others to think in response to some sort of inspiration. The idea really is about getting the student to learn 'actively'.

I haven't tutored for three years now and I'm feeling very rusty to start again after a long break. I'm slowly getting back into it now - yes after a few rather lame and boring lessons. Teaching is meant to be interactive and I think the best teaching should be responsive to the needs of the student. Thats what I'm trying to do with my students.

When I first began teaching, I used to keep imposing my own thoughts onto my students especially when I get impatient with them. (very often I'm not very impressed by what they have to say in their writing)

But I'm making more of an effort to hold back my judgment and ask them to reflect themselves first on their own reading alound and writing, for example.

This is however nothing compared to the way the Finnish teachers apparently teach. All they do is to help the students to find the answers themselves. Their students can have their own schedules in their schooltime - any age, any level, anyone. Each student has their own agenda and quietly does their own work, at their own progress in the classroom every day. I really can't picture that in my mind.

Will write more on Finland later.

I'd better pull myself together again.

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...

英語教育

現在比較冷靜,可以進行理性的討論:

我本身對孫公的政策最大的不滿是,所謂的語言彈性政策，根本不能對症下藥。他所提出的是改善港人英語的大方向。我對這目標毫無異議，而且是深表贊同，因爲港人的英語太瀾了。

但我覺得很失望，因爲政策層的人，所想所計劃的，似乎從來沒考慮到問題的核心，和與現實的配合。

我覺得這大方向是不能僅僅以改變語言政策來改善整體的英語水平，因爲語言的學習不是這麽簡單。

我的主要論點是：

第一，英語教學的學校不一定能提高學生的英語水平。

第二，英語水平的提升不一定需要用全英語教學的政策。因爲語言是需要有效的培育，而現在港人英語水平的主要問題來源，依我所見，不是EMI或CMI的區別，而是學生怎樣學英語的問題。



第一，英語教學可以讓學生的英語有一定程度的提升，這一點我不否認。譬如說，大部分的EMI學校的學生認識的詞彙量比CMI學校的學生大。

可是，很多英語學校的學生的英語仍然強差人意，有些連寫一個通順的句子都不能，甚至不會講很簡單的英語。我沒有數據，都是一個general observation，我講的不是全港最佳的二十家學校，而是其他比較一般的學校。

這是一個笑話，因爲用英語念了五年書，居然不能講英語， 他們一直怎麽學，怎麽學英語，怎麽學他們本身的學科，怎麽混過去的？學校做了什麽？香港人這麽笨，學不會英語嗎？


第二，我想講的是，重要的是學生怎樣學英語，中中的學校還可以孕育出出類拔萃的學生，原因是，這一些學生特別聰明，並能掌握學習語言之道。教育政策如果真得想提高英語水平，應該重新想一下何謂學習語言之道?

ＴＨＥ　ＷＡＹ　ＯＦ　ＬＥＡＲＮＩＮＧ　ＥＮＧＬＩＳＨ

口號式的政策最簡單不過，四多：多讀，多寫，多講，多聼。very cliched, but very true. 但是，在政策層面來説，這未免流於簡單，究竟學校怎樣配套，怎樣把這一個　＂道＂實踐？我覺得這才是問題的關鍵。


我覺得學英語有幾點是最重要的：

第一，提升學生的興趣，讓學生喜歡英語，有一種ｉｎｔｒｉｎｓｉｃ　ｍｏｔｉｖａｔｉｏｎ自發性的動機去學英語。

第二，扶助比較弱的學生，因爲一旦學生過了一年的ＥＭＩ洗禮后，發現自己跟不上，很多學生從那一刻開始，有兩個後果：

１　他們可能會放棄，因爲英語差，阻礙了學習其他科目，反正怎樣都跟不上。老師說的聼不明白，書本寫得太艱深，問題想到，卻寫不出。

２　如果他們想努力，盡力的話，他們也無從着手。因爲英語一開始學不好，過了一個黃金年齡（一般人的十六嵗左右），就永遠都學不好，因爲ｎｏｔｈｉｎｇ　ｗｉｌｌ　ｅｖｅｒ　ｍａｋｅ　ｓｅｎｓｅ。

第三，要創造一個英語的環境，讓學生可以活學活用，真正能把英語運用於生活上。


要做到這幾點，政策層面需要配套的是：

第一，培訓師資，提升老師英語水平。好的英語老師是必要，因爲學生學錯的英語，對他們的發展有很大的障礙。

第二，重新檢討課程，因爲很多英語書實在太悶，大部分學生根本提不起勁去翻。

第三，檢討教學的方法，應該多注重運用，而不是死記硬背；文法重要，但更重要的是ｅｘｐｏｓｕｒｅ，讓學生可以真的四多。



在此作一些澄清：

１　有朋友跟我講，香港一直都用中文教英語。

我對此有這樣的看法：

香港人的母語是中文，最初用中文學是無可口誹的。

但語言能學好，歸根到底，都是得用哪种語言去思想才能學好，如果整天都是翻譯，是不可能學好的。

而ｅｍｉ的層面來説，其他學科應該用中文教，英語課本嗎？我覺得用中文教是一個折衝的辦法，畢竟，學生，老師的水平根本不能達到這樣的程度。

我所提出的建議是：如果學生能一開始有足夠的援助，讓他們都可以有效用英語溝通，這是ｅｍｉ的先決條件，但政策卻一直忽視這一點。




２　另一位朋友說，學生英語學不好，多是自己不想學，如果真正想學，就能學好。

我不否認學生的責任，但我覺得教育的本意，是鼓勵，引發學生的興趣。如果學生不想學，教育政策應該針對這個問題，對症下藥，讓學生提起興趣，喜歡學英語，讓他們不會覺得學英語是不可能的。




３　第三位朋友說，教育局這是一個ｄｉｓｇｕｉｓｅｄ　ｅｌｉｔｉｓｔ　ｐｏｌｉｃｙ，讓一少數人說很好的英語，放棄其他的。

可能吧，但我只想說，ｔｈｅ　ｅｌｉｔｅｓ　ｄｏｎｔ　ｅｖｅｎ　ａｃｃｏｕｎｔ　ｆｏｒ　１％ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｔｕｄｅｎｔ　ｐｏｐｕｌａｔｉｏｎ，and that means failing the most part of the next generation.


整體來説，我還是覺得無論ＣＭＩ或ＥＭＩ，最重要的問題不被正視，永遠不會改善。

Shifting and Swinging Medium of Instruction

Seeing the education bureau's proposal of a massive shift in the policy on medium of instruction, i just feel really annoyed and disappointed - what now with this bunch of idiots again...

Firstly i'm declaring my biassed view because of my personal grudge (because my year was the first year to 'receive' this kind of two-tier allocation system when it was introduced in 1998 in magnificent propaganda) - and also how i have witnessed how this divide has failed so many students in hong kong. ARGH

Going back to the subject matter of the language policy - Chinese or English or EITHER?

I can see there are many reasons why this massive shift again 10 years on.

1. Allowing more schools to turn to EMI on certain criteria will generally raise English standards.

2. This gives schools more discretion to do what's best for their own students in their view (ideally if that's the school's primary concern).



But I feel very disappointed about this model. I'm in favour of reform - but not reform in this manner.

1. English standards will not simply be raised just because schools use English as the medium of instruction 'in theory'.

This is blatant self-contradiction for the education bureau - ten years ago they said students can still learn great English in CMI schools, now they seem to have come to admit defeat and that they messed up 10 years of students' English for a mistaken point of view.

I'm saying EMI in theory because most EMI schools - i'm speaking of the best ones now - they can't actually use English as the medium of instruction, although they claim to. Teachers teach in Cantonese and use English textbooks. This actually doesn't help a student to use English.

Okay, why is EMI not enough?

A. The effectiveness of a system depends on the way it is put into practice. There are not the resources to support such a language policy. The English standards of teachers in general (even English teachers) are falling, and I personally have had half of my teachers who just don't speak English. (no offence, but just as a matter of fact). When you demand from someone what is impossible, this is what I call unrealistic. Those teachers who cannot speak English but nonetheless try to play along with the system, they have my full admiration, but their poor English actually doesn't help students to learn English properly.

B. I'm not personally against an EMI system - but I think it can only be successful on a very essential condition: the students and teachers are given the HELP to acquire a sufficient level of English proficiency to be able to use English on that high level to learn in English, think in English, chat in English.

For me, it is all about creating an English environment in school that promotes its use in school as well as helps students with special English needs. Especially the first year secondary school students should get A LOT OF additional help with learning in English in order to make the transition - that is the very premise of the success of this system. I can't see that happening now, and thats why many students from EMI schools can't even speak English after having gone through these five years of education in English, in theory.

So I think the key part to the reform is not about whether every subject should be taught in English, but how English itself is taught in school. It is that which will make the difference to students' English standards.

I'm glad the authorities say they will look at Finland and Netherlands' examples for comparison - i hope they won't again fail the students of Hong Kong and impose their myopic views upon the next generation.




As regards the discretion of school argument, I'm not convinced that will help because most schools are more concerned about their own reputation and 'status' - EMI schools generally attract more students, and will help their schools to do better. They won't be as concerned about whether their students can catch up, and learn effectively in English.



This language policy is annoying me quite a bit, I'm afraid. I'll probably rant more later.

EDUCATION IN HONG KONG - why is it failing and how can it be improved?

This is some open space for an exchange of opinion on questions that I find important to me, and perhaps to you - and invite your opinions for my edification. It's often said that learning is not really about getting answers, but about asking the right question - thats a good starting point heh?
This will hopefully be a forum and could you please leave your views here

FIRST TOPIC:
HOW DO WE IMPROVE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM OF HONG KONG? WHAT MAKES A GOOD EDUCATION SYSTEM?

This is something that has been bothering me for a while, and I'd really like to do something about it. In order to do that, I'm trying to understand the problem better and want to pick your brains.
There're many problems that worry me, but the central theme is that the system is failing most young people in Hong Kong because the education isn't really education.
This is, obviously, based on my assumption about what education should ideally be - and I welcome different opinions. (In fact i'm making a fairly moderate proposition - education should actually help students to learn and develop themselves)
1. People don't genuinely learn very much in schools, whether good schools or shit schools. In general, good schools only focus on grades and students try very hard to get the grades; there's a gap between the grades and the students' real ability. When society only focuses on the end result and ignores the real point behind the end result, we lose our directions and forget the real meaning of education and examinations. We are all familiar with the theory about learning not ONLY for the sake of exam results, so i won't labour on that point. But my point is that people blindly pursue grades at the expense of their own intellectual development.
How has this demonstrated itself? Basically i hate this tutorial madness phenomenon - people all opt for the easy way and get dummies notes from their colleges, and get good grades based on those notes. I personally also did benefit from those notes (laughs), but that's really sad because we assume we can't think and read and make notes for ourselves and have to be spoonfed. And after exams and some regurgitation exercise, we forget most of what we learnt in these years. Some people say it's the soft skills we've learnt that count for the rest of our lives, but i think its fairly defeatist to take it for granted that the knowledge acquired can just fly away.
That's already for the students who actually care about their own education. They sadly haven't found the right way to do it (not through their own fault, but mainly through the whole culture within society). Some people might know what i'm coming on to now - that's the sadness of the teaching of English in most schools in hong kong. People don't see languages as tools for communication in daily life, but isolated in the exam context. ie people do grammar and exam drills and get As... but they cant actually speak English. How is this system helping students to learn? That's just NOT right!


2. I'd also like to say education in HK fails students because it fails to inspire and develop people's interests and dreams, and keep them alive when they develop further. This also means society lacks diversity in its range of talents and flourishing industries. It's very much society that's to blame I agree, because of the pressure of conformity and the lack of support in this existing economy with its direction of go banking and professionals... People see their jobs as jobs, and their interests and dreams are either forgotten or buried. They might like music, art, drama, sports or anything else, and are very good at that, but they can't go on to do it. There're too many examples around me and you.
When one takes a step back and asks why, I think there's something failing within the education system itself that does not provide students with that element of individuality and freedom to develop themselves, against the current of society.

The questions have been recurring in my mind for a while and i haven't quite come to a proper understanding, and I invite you all to tell me whether you think the system is failing, and why you think it is - what is wrong? I'd really like to know better what the problem is from as many perspectives as possible - one can only starts thinking of a solution by understanding the problems one is to tackle.

I've been trying to do some comparison with education systems abroad, but obviously haven't quite started, and know very little. I've only seen for myself the university education system here, and heard quite a lot about the public school system in England - the only meagre foreign experience i've got.
THere's one programme on BBC which is called 'Top of the class' - it was broadcast a while ago, but i found it very inspiring.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/6991288.stm
It basically presents some perspective on the education in Finland which focuses on equality, and some other elitist systems like public schools in England and Harvard University. They have different ways of achieving a good education (good in different ways) within the conditions of their own society.

I'm also looking to see more about successful examples to extrapolate something useful from foreign systems (not wholesale export because education is responsive to a certain culture - and that culture varies for different societies I think), but I think that will be a useful point of reference to inspire more thoughts. If you have any opinions about education systems in other places of the world, please leave your opinion as to 'what makes a good education system'.


Lastly, I guess this affects me quite a lot because I think both problems apply to me, and I have properly failed in both respects (not learning properly and not developing my interests and dreams). So this is from an insider's point of view in many respects too...
I'd also like to add that this is some preparation for starting a mini project on my part, so your views will count a lot in helping me (start and) implement it. THANKS!

I look forward to hearing from you all! LEAVE A MESSAGE PLEASE! If you have any experience to share, please do!