4.1 The advances in technology in the 21st century have brought in a new era in which human beings need to be adaptive, open-minded and able to tackle problems by integrating knowledge from different subject disciplines and working with people possessing different areas of expertise. Facing an explosion of information on social media and in the cyber world, our students have to hold firm positive values and ethical standards for making sound judgement and rational decisions amidst unanticipated changes and crises. It is more important than ever before that our school education should enable students to nurture a positive attitude towards life, and become socially responsible citizens who have a sense of national identity, love for Hong Kong and an international perspective. The Task Force launched the curriculum review exercise with these educational goals in mind and with reference to the achievements made since the Curriculum Reform in 2001 and the educational trends around the world.
4.2 During the review, the Task Force revisited the learning goals and objectives of the school curriculum and its framework in place and drew reference to other countries, held thorough discussions via extensive engagement sessions and the extended public consultation. In the course of finalising the recommendations, the Task Force also took into consideration the fundamental changes and challenges in student learning and development brought about by the severe disruptions to school education due to the outbreak of COVID-19. The details of the six final directional recommendations can be found in Chapter 3.
4.3 When these curriculum-related recommendations are successfully and effectively implemented at the primary and secondary levels, it is envisaged that they would further enhance students’ capacity to learn, better cater for learner diversity, and create space to foster students’ balanced development and develop in them positive attitudes and mindset to meet future challenges.
4.4 However, the implementation of the recommendations hinges on the efforts of the school management and teachers, as well as the support from parents and our society at large. Strong school leadership and teachers’ professionalism are pivotal to enhancing the impact of curriculum initiatives in schools. Thus, the Task Force urges the Education Bureau (EDB) to organise at both the primary and secondary levels school leaders’ workshops (SLW) for improving school curriculum leadership, enhancing the spirit of accountability, and strengthening teacher professional development in areas including the promotion of life planning education (LPE) and STEM education. In the context of values education (VE), teachers’ role modelling is the key to student learning and growth, and should be accentuated in the professional development of both in-service and pre-in-service teachers. Promoting VE for our students is a territory-wide and long-term endeavour requiring the continued commitment of school sponsoring bodies, school principals and teachers, parents, businesses, industries, the media, social workers, and leaders of our society to instill in our students positive values and attitudes in every
37 aspect.
4.5 Due to the prime importance of students’ learning experiences at the primary and secondary levels, recommendations on whole-person development (WPD), VE, LPE, and STEM education were made. It is important to factor students’ learning progression (at the primary level in particular) into the fostering of WPD, VE, LPE, and STEM education. The progressive development of knowledge, skills and attitudes at Key Stages 1 and 2 lays a solid foundation for students’ continued learning and development at the secondary level. It is proposed that the VE curriculum framework (i.e. the “Moral and Civic Education Curriculum Framework”) promulgated by the EDB in 2008 be updated to provide reference on the learning elements from Key Stages 1 to 4 with consideration given to the learning progression. Similarly, a handbook to promote STEM education will be compiled by the EDB to spell out the expectations about students’ learning at different key stages. It is anticipated that schools would give due attention to the interface between key stages in respect of learning and teaching with a view to providing holistic and progressive learning experiences for students.
4.6 Overall, the six recommendations are inextricably related, aiming to usher in a cultural change and paradigm shift in schools and in society at large. This would improve student learning and enhance students’ capacity for facing the rapidly changing world imbued with opportunities and challenges.
Follow-up on recommendations
4.7 As defined by the scope of work, the Task Force would only make directional recommendations. Should this Report be accepted by the Government, the implementation of individual recommendations would be followed up by the EDB and the relevant advisory and statutory bodies such as the Curriculum Development Council (CDC) and Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA).
4.8 Although working out the implementation details of each recommendation is outside the ambit of the Task Force, the Task Force has been consulted on those issues and apprised by the EDB of the preparation processes, necessary groundwork and rough timelines for implementing each recommendation should they be accepted by the Government. To take forward the recommendations through the established mechanism and procedures involving relevant official bodies, further consultation and engagement with the education community are necessary. The timeframe described below is at best a rough estimate based on the prevailing information that can be gathered and the timelines for implementing each recommendation vary according to the degree of complexity.
4.9 For WPD, the recommendations regarding the organisation of SLW for primary schools and professional sharing sessions as well as the provision of exemplars at the system level could be delivered within a short period of time. At the school level, the school management of both primary and secondary schools should stand ready
38
to embark on the review of whole-school curriculum planning as well as homework and assessment policy to better cater for students’ diverse learning needs and promote self-directed learning, and to provide more diversified activities to facilitate students’
balanced development and broaden their exposure. However, the updating of the Basic Education Curriculum Guide (Primary 1-6) (2014) for delineating the notion of
“learning time” and strengthening the interface between different levels would take a longer span of around two to three years.
4.10 With regard to VE, the provision of more life-wide learning activities, teacher professional development activities and “life events” exemplars is already in the pipeline, whereas liaison with various teacher education institutions to step up pre-service teacher education would take more time.
4.11 For LPE, the professional training for principals and teachers and the provision of information to parents could be stepped up as an ongoing task of the EDB. As the recommendation on spelling out the expectations of implementing LPE at the primary and secondary levels would require consultation with relevant partners and stakeholders, the relevant guidelines would take a longer time to complete.
4.12 As regards the trimming and differentiation of the curricula and assessments of the four core subjects at the senior secondary level, the recommendation related to Chinese Language for enhancing the learning and teaching of Chinese literature and classics from the primary level could be delivered through the setting up of an expert group and provision of a wider array of learning opportunities and student activities.
Given the consensus about trimming/streamlining the assessment of the subject in the school sector, deliberation on the related details would be undertaken in the near future through the CDC mechanism which involves consultation with stakeholders, including the families of non-Chinese speaking students.
4.13 For English Language, as some degree of curriculum and assessment differentiation is already in place, the scope for change is small and further streamlining and review of the assessment of the Elective Part can be undertaken sooner.
Enrichment courses for advanced learners could also be offered within a short timeframe as the EDB could promptly engage the Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education, tertiary institutions and language experts to offer more learning opportunities. On the other hand, the recommendation of offering vocational English as an Applied Learning (ApL) course, which is a brand-new subject, requires working through the mechanism of the CDC and HKEAA, soliciting course providers’ support, as well as seeking the provision of resources. All these preparatory tasks would probably take around two to three years.
4.14 For Mathematics, the change could be effected sooner with the EDB and HKEAA working in collaboration as the existing curriculum has already been divided into Foundation Topics and Non-Foundation Topics. As for the way forward of Module 1/Module 2 of the Extended Part, the CDC and HKEAA would need more time to consult stakeholders.
39
4.15 With respect to Liberal Studies (LS), it would probably take three to four years for the revised curriculum to be implemented at S4. While the Ad Hoc Committee has commenced deliberation, it is anticipated that the EDB would have to put forth relevant proposals for consultation, revise the related curriculum documents, develop learning and teaching materials and organise a new series of professional development programmes. If LS “textbooks” are covered under the EDB’s current mechanism of textbook submission for review, publishers would be allowed two to three years to make preparation. The recommendation of turning the Independent Enquiry Study (IES) into an extended and optional part of LS can be readily implemented. Impact studies and a review of the revised LS curriculum would be conducted after the implementation of the revised curriculum to gather more evidence for confirming the value of the subject and deciding whether it would remain as a core subject in the senior secondary curriculum in the long run.
4.16 As regards ApL, the recommendations that could be delivered in the short term include the running of professional development activities for principals and teachers, provision of more information to parents and students, and requesting ApL course providers to engage trades/industries in their programmes. The arrangement for students to commence ApL at S4 could also be made as soon as possible given the full support from both the school sector and HKEAA. The recommendations on offering more taster programmes and ApL courses, reviewing the different modes of operating ApL courses and support to schools, and providing subsidies for students taking ApL as the 4th elective subject hinge on additional resources and the support from course providers and schools. Efforts should be made to speed up the process of bidding for funding and to establish early liaisons with course providers and schools.
4.17 For university admissions, the Task Force has already received concrete replies from individual universities expressing an interest in joining the proposed School Nominations Direct Admission Scheme (SNDAS) (a non-JUPAS route to admission to universities) and believes that the Scheme could be tried out in phases. The EDB will continue to liaise with University Grants Committee (UGC)-funded universities and the JUPAS Office to see how the Scheme and its implementation can be further improved to bring all universities on board in the end.
4.18 For STEM education, the recommendations of appointing a STEM co-ordinator in every school and organising more teacher professional development activities could be implemented in the near future. The compilation of a handbook for school planning, the setting up of regional STEM centres and an expert team, and the formation of a designated committee overseeing the long-term development of STEM education in primary and secondary schools are more complex tasks which require a longer timeframe.
4.19 The recommendations have an impact not only on the four core subjects at the senior secondary level, ApL and STEM-related subjects, but also other Key Learning Area/subject curricula, e.g. General Studies and Computer Awareness Programme
40
(CAP) at the primary level, and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) at the secondary level. The Task Force believes that the review of those curricula is necessary. Besides, the arrangements for trimming/differentiating curricula and assessments could be extended to elective subjects at the senior secondary level in the long run to cater for learner diversity and to further release space for students.
Concluding remarks
4.20 Against a backdrop of dynamic societal and educational change, this curriculum review is a challenging mission that the Task Force has been committed to from the outset. Since the introduction of the Education Reform in 2000, we have seen how the culture of learning and teaching has been changed through the broadening and diversification of student learning, teachers’ continued professional development and the promotion of cross-disciplinary and cross-sector collaboration. As we celebrate the adoption of a more student-centred pedagogy, the use of more varied modes of assessment and the provision of more opportunities for students to realise their potential, we see it opportune to reflect on what strengths we can build on and what improvement measures to further enhance our students’ learning capacities.
4.21 With the rapid and unprecedented changes/advances in the technological, social and political landscape of our society and the world at large, we have to review our curriculum with the aim to providing our students with new opportunities to develop the needed moral and personal attributes to meet with the challenges ahead. It is with this goal of strengthening the foundation that the Education Reform has laid and against the backdrop of the prevailing societal and educational trends that the Task Force has conducted this curriculum review. As such, this review should be viewed as an important milestone in the ongoing curriculum renewal in our education system.
4.22 With the contributions of the different stakeholders involved in this review, the Task Force has come up with a list of recommendations, which are set out in this Report. Despite the general support gained, the Task Force understands the complexities and challenges involved in the implementation of the recommendations as it requires a shared understanding and close collaboration among stakeholders on different levels and from different sectors. We need to engage parents, school leaders and teachers, public bodies such as the HKEAA, the CDC and the JUPAS Office, universities, the business and industry sectors, and non-governmental organisations as our partners in working closely with the EDB to take the recommendations forward.
4.23 Lastly, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to all who have provided valuable input and suggestions during the course of the review spanning more than two years. Without their support, we would not have completed the review. Now that the mission has been accomplished, we look forward to seeing the EDB and various parties working closely together to bring the recommendations to fruition.
41
Annex A Task Force on Review of School Curriculum
Membership
Chairperson
Dr Anissa CHAN WONG Lai-kuen, BBS, MH, JP
Non-official Members
Mr CHAN Shiu-choy Mr Antony IP Sing-piu
Mr KWOK Wing-keung, BBS, MH, JP Professor LEE Wing-on, MH
Professor LUI Tai-lok, JP Professor NG Tai-kai Mr Joseph NGAI, JP
Mr Addy WONG Wai-hung, MH
Official Members
Mrs HONG CHAN Tsui-wah, Deputy Secretary for Education (5) Mr Sheridan LEE Sha-lun, Principal Assistant Secretary (Curriculum Development) (till 18.7.2018)
Mr Joe NG Ka-shing, Principal Assistant Secretary (Curriculum Development) / Principal Assistant Secretary (Curriculum Development) Special Duties
(from 19.7.2018 to 8.9.2019)
Dr Gloria CHAN Pik-wa, Principal Assistant Secretary (Curriculum Development)
(from 9.9.2019)
42
Annex B Task Force on Review of School Curriculum
Main Scope of Work
The main scope of work of the Task Force on Review of School Curriculum is to holistically review the primary and secondary curricula and to make directional recommendations on –
How our school curricula at primary and secondary levels can be rigorous and forward-looking in enhancing students’ capacity to learn and instill in them the values and qualities desired for students of the 21st century to meet future challenges as well as the needs of society;
How to better cater for students’ diverse abilities, interests, needs and aspirations;
How to optimise the curriculum in creating space and opportunities for students’ whole-person development; and
How to better articulate the learning at the primary and secondary
levels.
43
Annex C
Task Force on Review of School Curriculum Sub-groups Membership
1. Sub-group on Whole-person Development
Mr Antony IP Sing-piu [Convener]
Dr Anissa CHAN WONG Lai-kuen Mr CHAN Shiu-choy
Professor LEE Wing-on
Deputy Secretary for Education (5)
Principal Assistant Secretary (Curriculum Development)
2. Sub-group on Catering for Learner Diversity
Mr KWOK Wing-keung [Convener]
Dr Anissa CHAN WONG Lai-kuen Mr CHAN Shiu-choy
Professor NG Tai-kai
Deputy Secretary for Education (5)
Principal Assistant Secretary (Curriculum Development)
3. Sub-group on Multiple Pathways
Professor LUI Tai-lok [Convener]
Dr Anissa CHAN WONG Lai-kuen Mr KWOK Wing-keung
Mr Joseph NGAI
Mr Addy WONG Wai-hung
Deputy Secretary for Education (5)
Principal Assistant Secretary (Curriculum Development)
44 4. Sub-group on STEM Education
Professor NG Tai-kai [Convener]
Dr Anissa CHAN WONG Lai-kuen Mr KWOK Wing-keung
Mr Antony IP Sing-piu Ms Joanne LAU Tit-mui Mr Simon TSO Siu-man Dr LEE Yeung-chung Dr Tim WOO Kam-tim
Deputy Secretary for Education (5)
Principal Assistant Secretary (Curriculum Development)
45
Hong Kong School Curriculum Framework
46
A summary of submissions received during the public consultation period
Stakeholder Group
Number of submissions
Direction of initial recommendation covered in the submissions
Whole-person Development
Values Education
Creating Space and Catering for
Learner Diversity
Applied Learning
University Admissions
STEM Education
School Sector 15
Academic
Organisations 8
Political Parties (including individual members of the
Legislative Council)
6
Other NGOs /
Associations 17
Proforma related to Liberal Studies (Note 1)
Around
14 000
Proforma related to Chinese
Language
(Note 1)Around
88 000
47
Stakeholder Group
Number of
submissions Whole-person Development
Values Education
Creating Space and Catering for
Learner Diversity
Applied Learning
University Admissions
STEM Education
Others (Note 2) Around
10 000
Note 1:
The Task Force Secretariat received a total of over 112 000 written submissions by the close of the three-month public consultation. Around 50 of these submissions were from groups/organisations representing a number of stakeholders, and around 100 000 proforma submissions presented almost the same views on the initial recommendations related to Chinese Language and Liberal Studies at the senior secondary level.
Note 2:
The Task Force Secretariat received written submissions from individuals presenting views on the six directions of initial
recommendations, and on issues beyond the ambit of the Task Force.
48
School Nominations Direct Admission Scheme (SNDAS) Application Procedures & Timeline (tentative)
Remarks:
1 Each nominee may apply for only one specific FYFD programme offered by a university.
2 Each local secondary school has a quota of two nominations for the Scheme per cohort.
3 The “firm offer” given by a university is not subject to the nominee’s HKDSE Examination results.
4 There is a surcharge for late applications to JUPAS.
Accept Decline
S6 student nominee applies for a designated first-year first-degree (FYFD) programme1
(Sep - Jan)
He/she applies to JUPAS for university
admission as a late applicant4 (by mid-May) Issued to the
nominee3
He/she applies to JUPAS for university
admission as a late applicant4 (by mid-May)
HKDSE Examination
results (Jul) The offer is
binding on the student and the
institution
Firm Offer
(in Apr)
HKDSE Examination
results (Jul) Commencement of semester
(Sep) via non-JUPAS route
Nomination form2 signed by the school principal (supported by school report cards, OEA, SLP, etc.)
He/she attends an interview arranged by the FYFD programme officer
(Dec - Apr)
No offer