REVIEW OF CURRENT POLICY BY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (a) Report of the Working Group

92

secondary schools in 1987 and later revised in 1990.

6.2.5 In ECR 3 published in June 1988, we did not address the issue of language in the primary and secondary sectors as such, but we briefly mentioned the progress made in implementing previous recommendations which we have already described in paragraphs 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 above. We also recommended that the Government should consider providing additional resources for the teaching of English at tertiary institutions, where this could be justified as a remedial measure.

6.3 REVIEW OF CURRENT POLICY BY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

-93

(i) most people use Chinese (Cantonese) for every day purposes. English is largely restricted to education, Government and business uses;

(ii) it is therefore unrealistic to compare Hong Kong with Singapore, where English is the lingua franca of a diverse community;

(iii) there is pressure for children to learn English and to learn in English, since this is seen by parents as offering the best prospect for their children's future. Many children, however, have difficulty with learning in English; and

(iv) conversely, Chinese is undervalued as a medium of instruction and the importance of Chinese language skills is not sufficiently recognised.

6.3.3 The Working Group considered that schools were doing their best to cope with what they considered to be an unsatisfactory situation which arose in part from unrealistic expectations held by parents and the community. It claimed that criticism of language standards in the school system, based on a superficial understanding of this situation, could damage the morale of both teachers and students.

6.3.4 On language standards, the Working Group concluded that English standards appeared to have been generally maintained but the fast increasing demand for competent users had led to a misperception that standards were falling. There was less concern over standards of Chinese although writing skills might have declined slightly.

6.3.5 In terms of educational factors in language learning the Working Group noted that since English lessons in primary schools were not supported by the child's experience outside the classroom, the standards that could be achieved were limited. Whilst a greater level of effective exposure to

94

English might be provided if English were the medium of instruction in primary schools, this would be feasible only if teachers and pupils could use English effectively and with confidence. The Working Group concluded that, given Hong Kong's situation, the use of Chinese as a medium of instruction in primary schools should be strengthened. It also concluded that the time spent on English should not be increased since it was unlikely that this would lead to higher standards and might indeed result in a distortion of the primary curriculum.

6.3.6 The Working Group noted that the use of English as a medium of instruction provided greater exposure to English than the teaching of English as a subject. It therefore emphasized the need for some English medium secondary education to be maintained and strengthened. It perceived this as the most important means of meeting the increasing demand for highly competent English users in Hong Kong. However, since research has shown that students can study effectively in English only when they have passed a certain threshold of language competence in both their mother tongue and in English, the Working Group proposed that English medium secondary education should be open only to those who had reached the threshold. Intensive English bridging courses should be developed to help students transferring from a Chinese medium to an English one.

6.3.7 The problem of inadequately trained language teachers and the shortage of manpower in the various training and support services were noted by the Working Group. It considered that training, advice and support for teachers all needed strengthening if the language skills and language awareness of teachers were to be improved.

6.3.8 The Working Group noted the different traditions underlying language teaching in Chinese and in English but urged greater coherence in educational planning across languages and across sectors of the education system.

95

6.3.9 The Working Group noted that while all children needed to be competent in Chinese not everyone would need a high standard of English in later life. It would not be acceptable, however, to determine in advance who should attain any particular standard. The Working Group saw the task of the education system as being to ensure an equal opportunity for all students to attain the best standards they could in the time available. It suggested that a sequence of graded levels of achievement in both Chinese and English with broad targets to be attained at each level be established. This would provide teachers and learners with a clear idea of what to work towards as well as permitting students to feel a sense of success at attaining each level. (This concept has been fully described in Chapter 5 of our report.) Thus, the high achievers would not be held back by those of lesser ability, while low achievers could be helped to make as much progress as they were capable of.

(c) Recommendations of the Working Group

6.3.10 Having described the main issues considered by the Working Group, we now turn to its recommendations. 78 recommendations were made. The main ones are summarized below.

6.3.11 The language in education policy is based on the view, backed up by research (summarised in Annex 6A), that the majority of students will learn more effectively through their mother tongue than through English. The Working Group noted that the problem has been, however, that many schools have tended to choose their medium of instruction on the basis of parental wishes rather than on educational grounds. Parental wishes have favoured English since English is perceived to be the gateway to a brighter future for their children.

6.3.12 The Working Group recommended that schools should be encouraged to adopt clear-cut policies of language use and

96

the incidence of mixed-code^* should be minimised. Within the medium of instruction policy four objectives should be pursued. These should ensure that

-(i) each student was educated through a medium likely to lead to maximum cognitive and academic development. English should only be used as a medium of instruction where students could benefit from this;

(ii) English or Chinese could be equally effectively used as medium of instruction up to Advanced (A) level for students studying in one language or the other;

(iii) the teaching of Chinese and English as subjects directly supported the use of Chinese or English as mediums of instruction; and

(iv) students were enabled to make as quick, smooth and effective a switch from Chinese to English as possible at appropriate points in the education system.

6.3.13 Grouping of students by medium of instruction, the Working Group noted, could only be successfully implemented if schools had information on the language abilities of their students. The Working Group proposed that a criterion-referenced assessment be conducted at Primary 6 which would differentiate those likely to benefit from English medium instruction from those whose educational development would be best served by learning through Chinese. (This kind of assessment has been described in detail in Chapter 5.)

* This term is explained in paragraph 6.4.3.

97

6.3.14 The Working Group proposed two intensive bridging courses to help students moving from Chinese medium instruction to English medium instruction : one at Secondary 1 and another between secondary and tertiary education.

6.3.15 The expansion and upgrading of the ILE to the level of a tertiary institute was proposed as a means to enable the ILE's teacher training activities to be supported more fully by research, development and consultancy activities. A Language Planning Unit in ILE was also proposed, the role of which would be to monitor existing policies and conduct research on the basis of which long term planning for language in education could be carried out.

6.3.16 Noting that not all trainee teachers became competent in both English and Chinese, the Working Group proposed a choice between either an English or Chinese-medium of teacher training or, preferably, increased efforts to raise language skills of all trainees. Minimum language standards would be set for per-service trainees taking Chinese or English as elective or using Chinese or English as medium of instruction. Existing teachers would also be required to take courses to meet these minimum standards.

6.3.17 The Working Group proposed, on a pilot project basis, the development of graded targets in Chinese and English at Primary 3, Primary 6, Secondary 3 and Secondary 5^*. Centrally-produced criterion-referenced tests would assess students' achievement against these targets. If found helpful in improving the quality of teaching and learning, the framework of targets and criterion-referenced tests would be extended to all public sector schools.

* As stated in paragraph 5.5.4 of Chapter 5, we have decided not to proceed with the target-related assessments at Secondary 5.

98

(d) Public consultation

6.3.18 Following the publication of the Working Group's report in October 1989, there was a period lasting two and a half months for public consultation and debate. Written comments were received from 105 respondents (listed in Annex 6B), many of whom represented groups of people. In addition, 32 seminars were held during the period of public consultation for those interested in the issue such as school principals, the staff of Colleges of Education, representatives of tertiary institutions, the Professional Teachers' Union, the Church of Christ in China, the Hong Kong General Chambers of Commerce, District Boards etc. We will outline the public comments on the report as we cover the issues concerned.

6.4 THE FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE REFORMS