Chapter 2 Current Medium of Instruction Policy in Secondary Schools

(1)

(2)

Foreword

To keep up with the development of Hong Kong into a knowledge-based economy for the 21st century, the Education Commission (EC) recommended an Education Reform package in 2000 with a view to establishing an educational system conducive to life-long learning and whole-person development. With the concerted efforts of the community, the various Education Reform initiatives have gradually been put in place and started to bear fruit.

The Education Reform, which is student-focused, aims to develop each student in an all-round manner so that he/she is capable of life-long learning, critical and exploratory thinking, of being innovative and adaptable to changes. This goal has guided each and every aspect of the Education Reform, including the medium of instruction (MOI) arrangements for secondary schools and Secondary School Places Allocation (SSPA) mechanism.

The MOI policy for secondary schools and the SSPA mechanism have far-reaching implications on the overall development of school education, as well as on the future development of Hong Kong as a whole. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the different sectors of the community for their valuable views during the public consultation period. After carefully studying these views and concerns, the Working Group has reviewed and adapted the original proposals where appropriate. It is fundamental to keep the interest of students as our primary concern, while the issues are examined from a wider perspective of school education. We

(3)

need to take into account both the educational considerations and practical needs of the society. We are very conscious that we should maintain stability and consistency in our school education.

This Report sets out the long-term arrangements for the MOI for secondary schools and the SSPA mechanism as recommended by the EC to the Government.

In the light of increasing evidence proving the effectiveness of mother-tongue teaching, we affirm in the Report that the direction of the MOI policy should be “to uphold mother-tongue teaching and enhance English proficiency concurrently”. We have no objection to allowing some schools to adopt English-medium teaching, subject to their fulfillment of the prescribed criteria so as to assure quality. With a view to nurturing students’ proficiency in both Chinese and English, we also set out a series of measures on how to enhance the teaching and learning of English while promoting mother-tongue teaching. Separately, the proposed changes to the SSPA mechanism aim to provide parents with more school choices, encourage diversified development of schools and students, and promote mixed ability teaching.

It is our sincere intention that the recommendations in this Report would take us forward in our pursuit of quality education. Although some recommendations may inevitably entail changes which may have some knock-on effect on some stakeholders, they are basically in line with the overall spirit of the Education Reform.

I appeal to the Government, the education sector, parents and the public at large to make concerted efforts in implementing the recommendations. I firmly believe that should we unite and join hands, with the interest of students as our primary concern,

(4)

we can create a better future for the next generation in Hong Kong.

(Rosanna WONG Yick-ming) Chairman,

Education Commission

(5)

The primary function of school education is to help each and every student pursue all-round development so as to enhance his/her personal qualities and nurture multifarious talents for the community. Hence, schools should provide a conducive learning environment to cater for the different abilities and aptitudes of students so that they can develop to their fullest potentials and attain all-round development.

Whereas the MOI is a highly significant tool for learning, the SSPA mechanism would surely affect the teaching ecology of primary and secondary schools. There are inextricable links between the two issues, which have far-reaching implications on the multi-faceted and inter-related aspects of school education in Hong Kong.

The EC set up the Working Group on Review of SSPA and MOI for Secondary Schools in July 2003. The Working Group members and I realize that underlying these two issues are a host of complicated factors comprising complex ideas, history, values, interests, habits and inclinations. That explains why these two issues have all along been a matter of public concern and a subject of controversy.

We have formulated our recommendations all through the review with the interest of students as our primary concern. Attaining the aims of basic education guided our deliberation on how we could make steady improvements on the basis of current achievements. The Consultation Document published by the Working Group in February 2005 has aroused wide public discussion. We attended more than 60 consultation sessions for discussion with major stakeholders including school principals, teachers, parents and students.

(6)

We are grateful to all sectors of the community for their enthusiastic feedback, valuable views as well as their patience throughout the discussion. Some have even proactively attempted to explore other options for our consideration.

We received about 3 200 submissions during the consultation period. The views received generally concur with the overall direction of the Consultation Document, though there are diverse views on the implementation details. Given that

different stakeholders have different issues of concern and aspirations, it would not be possible to arrive at a proposal which can please all. Nevertheless, we have studied in depth the views collected as well as the alternatives proposed by different parties, and duly reviewed each and every proposal contained in the Consultation Document.

I have to emphasize that when we set our minds on the interest of students as our primary concern, other considerations would pale by comparison. Taking this as our fundamental guiding principle, we have adapted the original proposals as appropriate.

The recommendations made in this Report may not be “ideal” to some people. However, we have tried our best to strike a balance between educational considerations and practical realities, while ensuring the feasibility of implementation in arriving at our proposals. The overall direction for the MOI policy for secondary schools is “to uphold mother-tongue teaching and enhance English proficiency concurrently”. The SSPA mechanism aims to provide parents/students with more school choices, avoid increasing the pressure of examinations on students, and contain the within-school diversity at a level manageable by schools and teachers so as to ensure teaching effectiveness. We sincerely hope that the public at large

(7)

would read this Report carefully, and come to realize the rationale and considerations behind the various recommendations. As a further step, we hope that the community would render support for the recommendations and participate in realizing them.

(Michael TIEN) Chairman,

Working Group on Review of Secondary School Places Allocation and Medium of Instruction for Secondary Schools

(8)

Acronyms

AAT Academic Aptitude Test

CA Central Allocation

CDI Curriculum Development Institute

CMI Chinese-medium instruction

DP Discretionary Places

DSS Direct Subsidy Scheme

EC Education Commission

EMB Education and Manpower Bureau

EMI English-medium instruction

HKALE Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination

HKCEE Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination HKHLE Hong Kong Higher Level Examination

IA Internal assessment

IELTS International English Language Testing System MIGA Medium of Instruction Grouping Assessment MIL Membership of the Institute of Linguists

MOI Medium of instruction

NET Native-speaking English Teacher

P1/3/5/6 Primary 1/3/5/6

Pre-S1 HKAT Pre-Secondary 1 Hong Kong Attainment Test S1/2/3/4/5/6/7 Secondary 1/2/3/4/5/6/7

SCOLAR Standing Committee on Language Education and Research

SSPA Secondary School Places Allocation

TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language

TSA Territory-wide System Assessment

(9)

1.1 In 2000, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region accepted the Education Reform proposals ¹ recommended by the Education Commission (EC), including the reform of the Secondary School Places Allocation (SSPA) mechanism. The Government started to implement the short-term SSPA mechanism in 2000, and undertook to review arrangements in the 2003/04 school year.

Separately, the existing medium of instruction (MOI) arrangements for secondary schools, as embodied in the Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools (Guidance) which has been implemented since 1998, was also pending a review. The SSPA mechanism and MOI arrangements are two important education issues that affect the school learning environment. Given their inextricable links, the EC set up the Working Group on Review of SSPA and MOI for Secondary Schools (Working Group) in July 2003 to take forward the review of the two issues at the same time.

The terms of reference of the Working Group are as follows:

(a) to provide advice to the EC on issues pertaining to the review of the SSPA mechanism and the MOI policy for secondary schools and associated arrangement; and

(b) to recommend to the EC the long-term SSPA mechanism and MOI arrangements for secondary schools and the related implementation measures.

1 See the Reform Proposals for the Education System in Hong Kong published by the Education Commission in September 2000.

(12)

Membership of the Working Group is at Annex 1.

Public Consultation

1.2 The Review of Medium of Instruction for Secondary Schools and Secondary School Places Allocation – Consultation Document (Consultation Document) was published by the Working Group on 3 February 2005 for public consultation which ended on 2 July 2005.

1.3 The Working Group adopted a multi-pronged approach in launching the consultation. Publications, announcements of public interest on the radio/television, roadshow films and VCDs were produced, and similar information was provided on the Internet. Media interviews and promotional activities were arranged. The Working Group attended interactive activities such as consultation sessions, forums and meetings to collect views from different sectors of the community. Relevant materials were also uploaded onto the EC website. During the five months of consultation, more than 100 000 copies of the Consultation Document and its executive summary and over 1.2 million leaflets were distributed to the education sector, parents and other members of the community. The Working Group also attended a number of radio and television programmes to brief the public on the conceptual framework and the direction of the proposals. A VCD entitled Conversation between Mr Michael Tien and Parents was produced to answer parents’

most frequently asked questions.

(13)

1.4 The Working Group members attended over 60 consultative functions including briefing sessions for school principals, teachers and parents, as well as consultation sessions organized by the Legislative Council, District Councils, parent-teacher associations, educational bodies, business community, etc. The Chairman and members of the Working Group also reached out to seek direct dialogue with parents of the 18 districts as well as teachers and students from Secondary (S) 1 to university levels.

1.5 About 3 200 submissions from various sectors were received via mail, e-mail and fax during the consultation period. These submissions came mainly from the educational bodies, teachers, parents, students, as well as the business sector, professional bodies, voluntary organizations and other members of the public.

Different sectors of the community also expressed their views via telephone and radio programmes. Besides, the Working Group collected more than 200 featured articles from the newspapers.

1.6 During the consultation, some respondents are of the view that the Working Group should not confine the scope of review to secondary schools and that the MOI issue should be addressed comprehensively from primary to university levels.

However, most people understand that the terms of reference of the Working Group are to review the existing MOI policy for secondary schools and the SSPA mechanism and they do not see the need for the Working Group to extend the scope of review, given the complexities of these two issues and the controversy involved.

(14)

1.7 Some feel that being part of China, the “mother tongue” of people in Hong Kong should be Putonghua. However, we define the “mother tongue” in the present context as the medium through which teachers and students can freely and effectively communicate their views in their daily life. For the majority of people in Hong Kong, they speak and communicate most effectively in the Cantonese dialect, while the official Chinese is used as a written tool.

1.8 We would like to thank members from different sectors of the community for their valuable views in regard to the proposals of the Consultation Document. We are grateful to those educational bodies which proactively attempted to explore other options for the Working Group’s consideration. The Working Group has carefully examined the views collected from different sectors of the community, and where appropriate, adapted the original proposals contained in the Consultation Document.

1.9 In formulating education policies, we must look back and learn from past experiences; build on the present and take into account the actual circumstances; and also look forward and work steadily in pursuit of quality education. In order to help the public better understand the development of the MOI policy and SSPA mechanism, we shall first give an account of the background and the progress of implementation in the relevant chapters in this Report before going into our proposals.

(15)

Chapter 2 Current Medium of Instruction Policy in Secondary Schools

Background

2.1 Language is a medium through which we acquire knowledge, analyze issues, think and express opinions. Most people think in their mother tongue. Expression through a second language involves a “translation” process. Many studies indicate that students learn best in their mother tongue. To learn effectively through a second language (i.e. English for the majority of students in Hong Kong), students need to have a high proficiency in both their first and second languages, as well as a strong motivation for learning and the ability to overcome the language barriers. In general, the overall academic performance can be used to gauge learning motivation and ability.

If students are not competent enough to learn through the medium of English, not only will their learning effectiveness be undermined, their English proficiency may not be enhanced. Findings of the relevant studies are summarized at Annex 2.

2.2 As a matter of fact, most countries use their mother tongues as the MOI.

In some bilingual and multilingual countries in Europe, like Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, etc., mother-tongue teaching is practised predominantly at the stage of basic education in mainstream schools. English and/or other foreign languages are usually taught as a subject.

2.3 In Hong Kong, as early as 1982, an International Visiting Panel suggested in

(16)

its report A Perspective on Education in Hong Kong that given the provision of universal education, students should be allowed to use the “language of the heart” (i.e.

Cantonese) to complete their nine years of basic education. Subsequently the EC recommended repeatedly in its EC Reports Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6, published in 1984, 1986, 1990 and 1996 respectively that the Government should actively promote mother-tongue teaching. In EC Report No. 6, the EC even urged the Government to strengthen its efforts and give specific directions to individual schools as to the appropriate MOI that ought to be adopted. The EC also recommended that there should be clear directives on how the relevant policy would be implemented. In March 1997, the Government published a consultation document on the MOI for secondary schools. After several months of extensive consultation, the Government formally promulgated the Guidance in September 1997 for enforcement as from the 1998/99 school year.

2.4 Before the implementation of the Guidance, the Government adopted the policy of actively encouraging secondary schools to use Chinese as the MOI.

Nevertheless, individual schools were allowed to decide on their own MOI arrangements. In consequence, most of the schools still opted for using English as the MOI (EMI), and many students encountered difficulties in learning. As a result, many schools resorted to the mixed-code teaching (e.g. English was used in textbooks, assignments and examinations while lessons were taught in a mixed code of Chinese and English). This had not only failed to enhance students’ English proficiency, but

(17)

also compromised the learning effectiveness of the content subjects². Many students were inclined to learn through rote memorization, with their development of higher-order thinking skills being hampered. Some students even lost their interest in learning.

2.5 The Guidance has been enforced as from the 1998/99 school year. Schools wishing to use English as the MOI must demonstrate their fulfillment of the three prescribed criteria, namely student ability³, teacher capability⁴ and support measures⁵. As a result, 112 public-sector secondary schools have been allowed to use English as their MOI (EMI schools) while some 300 schools have used Chinese as their MOI (CMI schools) at the junior secondary levels. This situation has remained until now.

According to the Guidance, schools adopting mother-tongue teaching at junior secondary levels may choose to switch to EMI teaching for certain subjects in some classes at senior secondary levels, provided that they satisfy the three prescribed criteria of student ability, teacher capability and support measures. At present, around half of the CMI schools continue to adopt Chinese as the MOI at S4 and S5 levels while the rest use English in teaching some subjects or classes to various extents.

Details of the development of the MOI policy in Hong Kong are at Annex 3.

2 Please refer to Annex 2 for the relevant studies.

3 Student ability is judged by an average percentage of not less than 85% of the S1 intake belonging to Group I and Group III under the Medium of Instruction Grouping Assessment in the 1995/96, 1996/97 and 1997/98 school years (Group I: able to learn effectively in either Chinese or English; Group II: able to learn more effectively in Chinese; Group III: able to learn better in Chinese but may also learn effectively in English).

4 Based on the school principal’s own assessment criteria and certification of whether the teachers are capable of teaching through English.

5 Schools are expected to provide students with adequate school-based support such as bridging courses.

(18)

Effectiveness of Mother-tongue Teaching

2.6 Results of the various studies/surveys⁶ conducted by the Government and universities, quality assurance inspections and focus inspections conducted by the Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) after the implementation of the Guidance, school visits by the Working Group, and analyses of the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination (HKCEE) results of the last three years (2003, 2004 and 2005) all show that mother-tongue teaching is bearing fruit. The benefits are summarized below:

Teaching and Learning Process

2.7 Teachers can teach more effectively and in greater depth. They can adopt diversified teaching strategies more flexibly to cater for the diverse needs of students.

Students can comprehend their lessons and learning materials more easily. They can also participate more actively in class discussions and different learning activities (e.g.

debates and group activities), thus enhancing their analytical power, problem-solving skills as well as exploratory, abstract and high-order thinking.

6 These studies/surveys include:

(a) “Survey on Medium of Instruction in Schools” by the Standing Committee on Language Education and Research in 1999.

(b) “Evaluation on the Implementation of MOI Guidance for Secondary Schools: 1999-2002” commissioned by the Education and Manpower Bureau to the Hong Kong Institute of Education Research of The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

(c) “Questionnaire Survey on the Implementation of Chinese MOI in Schools” conducted in 2002 by the Support Centre for Teachers Using Chinese as the Medium of Instruction, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong.

(d) “The Effects of Medium of Instruction on Students’ Motivation and Learning” published in 2005 by The University of Hong Kong.

(19)

Personal Growth and Learning Attitudes of Students

2.8 Since students find it easier to acquire subject knowledge through mother-tongue teaching, they have a stronger sense of achievement. They therefore develop greater confidence, interest and motivation in learning, which in turn may help them develop a positive self-image. Moreover, as mother-tongue teaching can embrace more abstract, complex, ethical and affective elements, it can thus better facilitate the personal growth of students.

Academic Performance

2.9 The findings of a research study⁷ indicate that, as compared with EMI students of comparable ability, CMI students can attain a greater value-addedness in performance in both science and social subjects. However, their interest, motivation and confidence in learning English are relatively weaker, and so is their performance in this subject.

2.10 Another research study⁸ has found that mother-tongue teaching can effectively enhance the motivation of students in learning. More importantly, CMI students can more effectively deploy different learning strategies (e.g. thinking, elaboration, etc.) as compared with EMI students who are better in academic achievement. Compared with EMI students of comparable ability, CMI students are

7 Findings of the “Evaluation on the Implementation of the MOI Guidance for Secondary Schools: 1999-2002”

indicate that, when compared with EMI schools, CMI schools on average can enhance students’ achievement in science subjects by 30 percentiles and in social subjects by 20 percentiles.

8 The study on “The Effects of Medium of Instruction on Students’ Motivation and Learning” published by The University of Hong Kong in 2005.

(20)

more confident in learning (including learning a second language). Their intrinsic motivation to learn is greater and they perceive learning more positively. Their self-efficacy in respect of learning History (a language-loaded subject) is also greater.

HKCEE Results

2.11 Since the introduction of the Guidance in 1998, we have gathered the data of three years of HKCEE results of students affected by the Guidance. These data provide important reference for evaluating the effectiveness of mother-tongue teaching.

However, we must stress that it is inappropriate to rely solely on the HKCEE results for the evaluation. The first three cohorts of students affected by the Guidance took part in the HKCEE in 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively. Compared to the performance of those of comparable ability who sat for the HKCEE in 2002 (i.e. the last cohort of students before the implementation of the Guidance), our analyses show that:

Overall Performance

(a) There is a notable and continuous increase in the percentage of CMI students of comparable ability obtaining five passes or more (including Chinese Language and English Language), with the most significant rise in 2005.

(b) Similarly, the percentage of CMI students of comparable ability obtaining a total score of 14 points or above in the six best-performed subjects (including passes in Chinese Language and English Language) in 2003, 2004 and 2005 is also on the rise. Improvement is most

(21)

significant in 2005 with students of the higher and medium ability groups having the best results.

Performance in Academic Subjects

(c) There is a sustained increase in the pass rates of CMI students in nearly all major academic subjects and the pass rates have exceeded those in 2002. The rises in 2005 are also greater in magnitude than those in 2003 and 2004. It is even more encouraging to note that there are significant rises in the credit rates of many subjects, in particular the language-loaded ones (such as Geography, History, Economics and Biology) as compared to those in 2002. Judging from the trend of CMI students’ performance in these three years, we can reaffirm that mother-tongue teaching can enhance our students’ acquisition of subject knowledge.

(d) Regarding English Language (Syllabus A or Syllabus B), there has been a sustained increase in the pass rates in the last three years. Although English Language (Syllabus A) is relatively less demanding than English Language (Syllabus B), there has been a perceptible increase in the credit rate of those CMI students who sat for English Language (Syllabus A). This shows that many secondary schools, while using Chinese as the MOI during these years, are also committed to adopting different strategies to bring up their students’ English standard.

(22)

Detailed analyses of the HKCEE results are provided at Annex 4. Overall, the performance of CMI schools in the majority of subjects has been on the rise over the three years and, in some subjects, it has exceeded that of 2002.

Such improvement in performance reaffirms the effectiveness of mother-tongue teaching. What is especially noteworthy is that these data echo the findings of the relevant studies on MOI.

2.12 We note that in the discussion about the HKCEE results, the public is very much concerned about CMI students’ performance in English Language. Some people even tend to evaluate the success or otherwise of mother-tongue teaching categorically on the basis of the results of English Language. We would like to reiterate that one should not focus only on the HKCEE results of English Language in evaluating the MOI policy. While it is important for our students to be proficient in English, it is equally important to achieve the objective of mother-tongue teaching, which is to enhance students’ mastery of concepts and knowledge in content subjects and development of thinking skills. We should therefore look at the overall academic performance of students. Enhancing students’ English proficiency is certainly not the only objective of basic education. The basic education also aims to promote whole-person development of students, as well as to develop their positive attitudes and values, motivation in learning and innovative thinking.

2.13 Some people consider that since EMI teaching is widely practised in the tertiary education in Hong Kong, switching to EMI teaching as early as at the

(23)

secondary education stage would give students an advantage in seeking admission to universities and in adapting to university education. However, as a matter of fact, the key criterion for admission to non-language faculties of local universities is students’

performance in the relevant academic subjects, irrespective of whether they have learned in Chinese or English. The edge of using CMI to learn academic subjects helps make CMI students more competitive in seeking admission to universities. As for adaptation to EMI teaching in universities, we should take note of the fact that students being admitted by the universities should normally have met the basic language requirement and are more able to learn independently. The university students we have met during consultation express that they can normally adapt to the EMI teaching at university in two or three months. They have not encountered much difficulty in this respect.

2.14 Some parents have the perception that good English proficiency would guarantee better career prospect. While this view of the parents is understandable, we wish to point out that employers in Hong Kong tend to attach greater importance to work attitude and interpersonal skills though English proficiency is also considered an important attribute. Positive work attitude and good interpersonal skills stem from inner personal qualities such as positive life values and strong sense of responsibility.

These personal qualities are normally nurtured through self-reflections and deep thinking during the process of their personal growth and learning. In this respect, mother-tongue learning would better facilitate students to develop these qualities.

(24)

Chapter 3 Medium of Instruction for Secondary Schools:

The Way Forward

Guiding Principles

3.1 Based on the feedback received during the consultation, the public generally appreciates that mother-tongue teaching helps enhance learning effectiveness, but considers it essential to ensure that our students would be proficient in English as well while learning through the mother tongue. Public discussion focuses on how the Government should promote mother-tongue teaching and concurrently enhance students’ English proficiency, as well as the extent of flexibility to be allowed in the implementation of the MOI policy.

3.2 We reaffirm that the way forward for the MOI policy for secondary schools should be “to uphold mother-tongue teaching and enhance English proficiency concurrently”. The following sets out some guiding principles for devising the specific arrangements under this broad policy direction:

(a) The arrangements should be built upon educational considerations and the existing policy, with the overall interest of students as the primary concern.

(b) The mother tongue is the most effective MOI for all students.

Learning through a second language inevitably creates language barriers, the extent of which may vary from student to student. For most students, such barriers may reduce their interest, confidence and

(25)

effectiveness in learning.

(c) Schools and students choosing to use a second language for teaching and learning must fulfill certain prescribed criteria in order to minimize language barriers and ensure the effectiveness of teaching and learning.

(d) The MOI policy should focus on its application to the basic education. This is to ensure that students can, through learning in the most appropriate MOI, master the concepts of the content subjects thoroughly and develop high-order thinking effectively at the earlier stages of education. It is during the stage of basic education that our students establish a solid foundation of knowledge and develop a positive learning attitude. At senior secondary levels when schools are preparing students for making subject choices and for further study, schools may be given more flexibility in applying the MOI arrangements. They should take into consideration their own circumstances when making use of such flexibility.

(e) Irrespective of the MOI, schools should endeavour to enhance students’ language proficiency (both Chinese and English) and subject knowledge, which are fundamental for life-long learning.

Students should also put in more effort in this regard.

(26)

MOI Arrangements at Junior Secondary Levels

Basic Stand Original Proposal

3.3 The basic stand proposed by the Working Group is as follows:

In principle, all secondary schools should adopt mother-tongue teaching at junior secondary levels and endeavour to raise students’ English proficiency at the same time. There is no objection to individual schools choosing English as the MOI if they fully meet the prescribed criteria. These schools should also enhance their language education, both in Chinese and English.

Public Concerns

3.4 Some respondents consider that since the Government has affirmed the benefits of mother-tongue teaching, it should require all secondary schools to adopt mother-tongue teaching at junior secondary levels. Some even criticize the Working Group for lacking the courage to rectify the present situation. If mother-tongue teaching is made mandatory, it would no longer be relevant to dwell on questions over the prescribed criteria for EMI teaching and the labelling effect. We note the criticisms but would like to point out that in designing any new policy, we must not ignore the present circumstances and historical development at the risk of triggering off adverse ramifications across the society.

3.5 As a matter of principle, making mother-tongue teaching mandatory across

(27)

all public-sector secondary schools (including the hundred odd existing EMI schools) is an option fully justified on education grounds. One should bear in mind, however, that EMI teaching has all along existed in the education system of Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, some traditional EMI schools with a long history have performed outstandingly and nurtured many talents who are proficient in both Chinese and English. We also believe that some of our students who are capable and hardworking may learn through English effectively if their families and schools can provide the necessary support, such as a rich English environment and learning support. On balance, there is no apparent need to require a change in the MOI for these EMI schools.

3.6 Moreover, we envisage that if public-sector schools are denied the choice of adopting English as the MOI, some qualified secondary schools may turn private while some parents who favour EMI teaching may be prompted to send their children to private or international schools. This would in turn reduce the accessibility of those students who are less affluent to afford EMI teaching.

The Way Forward

3.7 In view of the above considerations, we maintain the original basic stand and recommend that the Government should uphold the mother tongue as the mainstream MOI. However, there is no objection to schools choosing to adopt EMI teaching provided that they meet the prescribed criteria.

(28)

Prescribed Criteria for EMI Teaching Original Proposal

3.8 In the Consultation Document, the Working Group has proposed that secondary schools adopting EMI teaching must fulfill the three prescribed criteria of student ability, teacher capability and support measures, and that the assessment standards should be objective and clearly spelt out.

Public Concerns

3.9 The public in general agrees to the above overall framework. There are diverse views, however, on how to determine and enforce the criteria, in particular the one on student ability. Some respondents contend that in view of the unique circumstances in individual schools, the Government should not rigidly apply the detailed requirements for each of the prescribed criteria but should allow schools to make school-based judgment on the question of compliance, e.g. a school not fulfilling the student ability criterion may still be allowed to use EMI so long as it has strengthened its support measures (e.g. the provision of after-school tutorials, bridging courses, etc.) for helping students who cannot cope with EMI teaching. Those who are in support of this approach also argue that with the emphasis on transparent accountability framework nowadays, schools are held responsible for their teaching effectiveness and it is unlikely that they can simply claim to be an EMI school without actually practising EMI teaching. There is also a view that parents should have the right to choose the MOI for their children and hence it is not necessary to have a pre-determined student ability criterion.

(29)

3.10 Many respondents from the education sector, however, recognize that when compared to the time before the implementation of the Guidance, the present circumstances are even more unfavourable for schools to determine their own criteria.

Given the decline in student population, the deep-rooted bias towards EMI teaching among some parents and parents’ focus on public examination results, schools would be under increasing pressure to acquire the “EMI status” as they compete for students and try to attract the best. As such, schools may be caught between educational beliefs and practical considerations, and some may reluctantly have to go for MOI decisions which are not educationally sound. This would mean a reversion to the pre-1998 scenario when many secondary schools claimed to adopt EMI teaching but actually practised otherwise. Besides, the education sector generally believes that, in general, our Primary (P) 6 graduates are not yet fully prepared for EMI teaching given their standard of English including the breadth of their vocabulary. If schools further relax the student ability criterion, it would mean that some students learning through EMI may not be ready. It would likely dampen their interest and confidence in learning and compromise the learning effectiveness. Indeed, individual school principals have frankly admitted that practical considerations over student admissions could take precedence over their professional judgment. They have also forewarned that so long as a small number of secondary schools have chosen to be led by practical considerations, other schools may follow suit without giving due regard to the student ability criterion.

(30)

3.11 The students whom we have come across expressly request the Government to lay down a clear and objective student ability criterion that would forestall schools from indiscriminately adopting EMI teaching under the pressure of parents. Some EMI students admit that they need to put in tremendous efforts in learning through EMI, and agree that practically not all students are able to cope with the stress.

The Way Forward

3.12 We agree that it is not desirable for schools to determine their own MOI criteria under the present circumstances. If a school chooses to adopt EMI teaching, it must fulfill the three prescribed criteria of student ability, teacher capability and support measures. There must also be some objective and clear standards for enforcing these prescribed criteria.

Student Ability Original Proposal

3.13 Making reference to research findings, the Working Group has assessed that currently, at most about 40% of S1 students are able to learn through EMI. The Working Group suggests that these 40% students can be identified on the basis of students’ internal assessment (IA) results (including the second term of P5 and the first and second terms of P6) as scaled by the existing pre-Secondary 1 Hong Kong Attainment Test (pre-S1 HKAT)⁹. Specifically, samples of the pre-S1 HKAT

9 The pre-S1 HKAT is conducted in all secondary schools in July every year to assess the performance of students newly admitted to S1 in Chinese Language, English Language and Mathematics. It also facilitates schools’ design of teaching strategy, remedial teaching and support measures to cater for the needs of students.

Some secondary schools also use the test as reference for streaming and group teaching purposes.

(31)

results will be collected biennially, and the average of the results of the two most recently sampled pre-S1 HKATs will be taken to scale the overall IA results of the coming cohort of students in the primary schools who are proceeding to S1. The scaled scores should sufficiently reflect students’ learning motivation and ability as well as their language proficiency. The scaled results of all students proceeding to S1 will be put into a pecking order. The top 40% of the students will be taken as having the ability to learn through English. A school wishing to adopt EMI teaching must have no less than 85% of its S1 intake belonging to the top 40%

group.

Public Concerns

Issue (1): 40% and 85% thresholds

3.14 Views are diverse on the thresholds of 40% (i.e. currently at most 40% of S1 students are able to learn through English) and 85% (i.e. a school should have no less than 85% EMI-capable S1 students before it can adopt EMI teaching). Some respondents consider that the threshold of 40% (of S1 students being EMI-capable) is too lax. They prefer a more stringent standard so as to ensure learning effectiveness.

Some others criticize this threshold as being arbitrary in nature and that it unnecessarily labels students at their tender age. Some other respondents query the rationale for pitching at 40%.

3.15 In proposing the 40% threshold, the Working Group has made reference to

(32)

the standard adopted by the Government under the Guidance¹⁰, and the study commissioned by the EMB and conducted by local academics with expertise in educational measurement in 2004 (see Annex 5). The study reveals that currently about 32% - 40% of S1 students in Hong Kong are able to learn through English.

Having carefully studied the comments received, we consider that there is research backing for the 40% threshold and that a more lenient approach in setting the threshold is warranted given the present circumstances in Hong Kong. It is noteworthy that the 40% threshold is mainly used to determine a school’s MOI at junior secondary levels. A higher percentage of students may be able to learn through English at senior secondary levels after having built up a solid foundation in English and in other content subjects at junior secondary levels.

3.16 During the consultation period, some have pointed out that there should be an adequate supply of EMI schools to cater to the needs of the EMI-capable students, i.e. students within the 40% threshold. We would like to stress that the mother tongue is the most effective MOI for students, including those who are capable to learn through English. EMI-capable students could also capitalize on the benefits of mother-tongue teaching and further enhance their learning effectiveness. As a matter of fact, some EMI-capable students have actually opted for schools adopting mother-tongue teaching while some schools fulfilling the prescribed criteria for EMI

10 In the implementation of the Guidance in 1998, the assessment of student ability to learn through English was based on the Medium of Instruction Grouping Assessment (MIGA). According to the results of MIGA, about 32.5% of the S1 students in Hong Kong were assessed to be able to learn through Chinese or English (Group I) and another 7.5% were considered to learn better through Chinese but they could also learn in English (Group III). When selecting a threshold for determining EMI-capable students, the Government adopted a lenient approach by counting not only Group I but also Group III students.

(33)

teaching have chosen to uphold mother-tongue teaching in pursuit of their education philosophy. Seen from another angle, the changes which we have proposed for the SSPA mechanism (viz. increasing the percentage of discretionary places (DP) and providing some school choices unrestricted by school nets during the central allocation (CA) stage) would provide parents/students with more school choices (see paragraphs 6.9 and 6.22) and increase the opportunities for students to get into schools of their preference, including the EMI schools.

3.17 As for the labelling effect on students, we must recognize that students who are capable of learning through English at junior secondary levels are generally those with stronger learning motivation and better academic performance, but there are some such students who opt for schools adopting mother-tongue teaching. It is not appropriate to label our students since all should be able to learn well provided that they are taught through an appropriate MOI. Moreover, students develop at different pace and hence it is important for schools to provide students with a conducive learning environment so that each student can develop to his/her fullest potentials.

Some CMI students we have met have suggested that the “labels” originate from the subjective values of the adults. The labelling effect is in fact not felt strongly by themselves. Some CMI students have admitted that the pressure of labelling was stronger upon their entry at S1, but the pressure soon faded away as they started to enjoy their school life.

3.18 Regarding the 85% threshold, the public generally finds it acceptable.

(34)

Some respondents, however, consider the requirement too lax and suggest a higher threshold of 90% or above in order to reduce student diversity and strengthen EMI teaching. However, some parents call for a lower threshold so as to allow more students the chance to learn through English.

3.19 Having drawn reference from the experience of EMI schools in the past seven years and the views gathered by the Working Group from the education sector, we consider the 85% threshold acceptable. We also believe that schools have generally managed the student diversity permitted under this threshold.

We note the different demands from different parties: those in favour of a higher threshold percentage would like to reduce the within-school student diversity in EMI schools; those arguing for a relaxation of the 85% requirement wish to have more EMI schools to satisfy the parents’ wish. While a higher threshold percentage would lead to a drop in the number of EMI schools and go against the aspirations of the society, a lower threshold percentage would make EMI teaching difficult and undermine its effectiveness, especially for students not competent enough to learn through English.

In the absence of any other justifiable alternative thresholds, we propose to maintain the 85% threshold for the sake of stability and continuity.

(35)

Issue (2): Arrangement for “through-train”¹¹ schools

3.20 There is a general concern in the education sector and among some parents over the impact of the 85% threshold on EMI schools intending to form

“through-trains”. As a “through-train” secondary school has to admit all the P6 graduates of its linked primary school, it has lesser control over its S1 intake and would therefore have greater difficulties ensuring that 85% of its S1 intake are among the top 40% group. This predicament would pose a threat to the school’s EMI status and dampen its intention to form a “through-train” with the primary school concerned.

Furthermore, feeder/nominated schools would like to be given a longer time before they are asked to make their decisions on forming “through-trains”¹², since the decisions would have far reaching implications on school development. If given a longer option period, they would be able to collect more data on their student ability profiles under the revised SSPA mechanism taking effect only from 2007 onwards (see paragraph 6.43) before making their decisions.

3.21 We consider that the “through-train” policy is based on sound

11 Primary and secondary schools wishing to form “through-train” schools have to comply with the following three principles:

the primary and secondary schools should have the same philosophy and aspiration for education and must strive to enhance continuity in primary and secondary education in terms of curriculum design, teaching strategies, student learning and development;

the number of S1 places in the secondary school must exceed the number of P6 graduates of the linked primary schools while 15% of the S1 places should be reserved for P6 leavers of other primary schools for admission during the DP or CA stage; and

the primary and secondary schools must have the same finance mode to ensure consistency in respect of the criteria in student admission.

12 • Under the existing system, feeder/nominated secondary schools can reserve up to 85%/25% of their S1 places for their feeder/nominated primary schools after the deduction of places for repeaters and discretionary places. If the schools decide to form “through-trains”, they have to admit all graduates from their linked primary schools.

• According to the existing arrangement, feeder/nominated schools complying with the “through-train”

principles should determine whether or not to form “through-trains” by 31 May 2006.

(36)

educational philosophy. The spirit is to encourage the primary and secondary schools forming into one entity in order to provide students with a coherent learning experience. “Through-train” schools wishing to adopt English as the MOI are also required to fulfill the prescribed criteria. The primary objective of the MOI policy is to ensure learning effectiveness. This objective in itself does not conflict with the “through-train” concept. That said, we need to carefully handle the possible impact of the MOI policy on the implementation of the “through-train”

policy.

3.22 We fully understand the concerns of feeder/nominated and “through-train”

schools. Since the primary and secondary schools in a “through train” should work in collaboration as one entity, it should be easier for the students from the linked primary school to adapt to the learning environment in the linked secondary school when they proceed to S1. Teachers in the linked secondary school should also have better knowledge of how and what these S1 students have learned in the linked primary school. The “through-train” secondary and primary schools have the benefit of having a more coherent curriculum, meaning that they are better placed to cater for the diverse learning and developmental needs of students in a timely manner at any stage during their whole primary and secondary education. Taking all these into account, there should be some room for suitably relaxing the requirement on student ability for application to “through-train” secondary schools wishing to adopt EMI teaching. It is also justifiable to allow feeder/nominated schools to have a better grasp of their student ability profiles under the revised SSPA mechanism before they

(37)

decide whether or not to form “through-trains”.

3.23 Having considered the views of the schools concerned, we agree that the 85% threshold on EMI-capable students can be flexibly lowered for “through-train”

secondary schools wishing to adopt EMI teaching. Specifically, we recommend:

(a) To lower the threshold percentage of EMI-capable students to 75%

for S1 entrants from the linked primary schools. As for S1 entrants from other primary schools, the threshold percentage should be maintained at 85%¹³.

(b) To defer the deadline for feeder/nominated secondary schools complying with the “through-train” principles to decide whether to form “through-trains” to 31 May 2012. (If a secondary school and its feeder/nominated primary schools decide to form a “through-train”

on this date, they must start operating in the “through-train” mode starting from the P1 classes in the 2013/14 school year at the latest. If the school chooses to adopt EMI teaching, the 75% threshold would apply to this cohort of students when they progress to S1 in the linked secondary school in September 2019.)

13 The proportion of S1 entrants from the linked primary schools is different for each “through-train” secondary school (some have a relatively smaller proportion of S1 entrants from the linked primary schools while some with nearly all their S1 places taken up by students from their linked primary schools). We recommend that a weighted average methodology be used to calculate the threshold percentage required for individual schools according to the proportion of S1 entrants from the linked primary schools and that from other primary schools (the average of the proportions in the fifth and sixth year in each review cycle will be taken; see paragraph 3.56). The threshold percentages of 75% and 85% will be used respectively for calculation. For example, if 70% of the S1 intake of a “through-train” secondary school come from its linked primary school while the remaining 30% come from other primary schools, then the school will need to have at least 78%

(0.7 x 75% + 0.3 x 85%) EMI-capable students in order to satisfy the student ability criterion for EMI teaching.

(38)

Issue (3): Assessment of student ability

3.24 There are diverse views as to how one should assess whether a student is able to learn through English. Some are of the view that students’ performance in English Language only, rather than their overall academic performance, should be taken into account. Some respondents from the education sector and also some parents contend that the student ability criterion as proposed in the Consultation Document only takes into consideration students’ ability when they enter S1, i.e. the

“input factor”, but unfairly ignores the learning outcome (e.g. HKCEE results), i.e. the

“output factor”. Hence, there is a suggestion of using the HKCEE results as an instrument to assess students’ ability.

3.25 We understand that, intuitively, it may seem reasonable to base the assessment of a student’s EMI-capability on his/her English proficiency. Some studies reveal, however, that students should have attained a certain level of proficiency in their first language before they can learn through a second language.

Moreover, the ability of a student to overcome the language barriers when learning through a second language usually depends on his/her motivation and ability in learning, and students with these attributes usually perform better in terms of overall academic achievements. We are also concerned that, in the circumstances of Hong Kong, an attempt to assess EMI-capability solely on the basis of English proficiency would very likely lead to over-emphasis on the subject of English Language by our primary schools and by parents, hence

(39)

resulting in a lopsided development of the primary school curriculum.

3.26 Those in support of using a school’s “output factor” in assessing student ability take the view that the performance of EMI schools in the HKCEE should be sufficient to prove the effectiveness of their EMI teaching, thus obviating the need to take into account their “input factor”. The Working Group has also carefully examined the feasibility of this option and consulted some stakeholders on how the standards of the “output factor” should be set. There are no definite answers to questions like whether the pass rate or credit rate in the public examinations or the value-addedness should be counted. If only the pass rate or the credit rate is counted, some would consider this unfair to those schools with relatively less able students but high value-addedness. If value-addedness is considered, it is possible that a top school may fail to meet the requirement since it is more difficult for the school to add value significantly, whereas a school with relatively less able students may find it easier to meet the requirement even though their HKCEE results are not impressive.

Focusing on value-addedness would go against the original intent of having a student ability criterion. Besides, there are divergent views on how many of the best-performed subjects should be counted and whether one should count only the academic subjects when making the assessment on output.

3.27 To further complicate the issue, the HKCEE results of schools currently adopting mother-tongue teaching only serve to indicate their output under mother-tongue teaching. Could we then infer that CMI schools performing well in

(40)

the HKCEE would be capable of adopting EMI teaching? Furthermore, we are concerned that reference to the HKCEE results would lead to over-emphasis of examination results at the expense of a balanced development of the curriculum and the whole-person development of students.

3.28 There is also some controversy over the proposed scaling mechanism involving the use of the two most recently sampled pre-S1 HKATs to scale the primary schools’ IA results of students proceeding to S1. Some consider such an approach unfair. Since we are also recommending the same scaling mechanism for SSPA, we shall discuss this issue in detail in Chapter 6.

The Way Forward

3.29 To conclude, we recommend to:

(a) maintain the 40% and 85% thresholds for the student ability criterion but allow flexible arrangement to be made for

“through-train” schools. The recommended flexible arrangement has been set out in paragraph 3.23.

(b) maintain the Working Group’s original proposal on the mechanism to assess a student’s ability to learn in EMI (see paragraph 3.13).

(41)

Teacher Capability Original Proposal

3.30 In assessing whether teachers are capable to teach through English, the basic requirement is that “teachers should be able to communicate the subject content to students intelligibly in English and that their use of English should have no adverse impact on students’ acquisition of the English language”. The specific requirements are:

Basic requirement

(a) Grade C or above in English Language (Syllabus B) of the HKCEE or other recognized qualifications¹⁴, e.g. Band 6 or above in the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) (academic domain).

(b) Serving EMI teachers who have not attained the recognized qualifications may opt for classroom observation by subject experts and language experts.

Continuous professional development

(c) Teachers should attend a minimum of 15 hours of EMI-related continuous professional development activities every three years.

Public Concerns

3.31 There is general support for the above proposal. The public generally

14 Recognized qualifications refer to qualifications which have been formally assessed by the authority concerned and confirmed by the EMB to have met the above requirement for EMI teachers.

(42)

agrees that for quality assurance purpose, teachers should demonstrate their attainment of the prescribed level of English proficiency before they may teach in EMI. Some ask for the setting of higher standards in order to enhance the public’s confidence in our teachers. On the other hand, some teacher associations do not see the need for specifying separate MOI-related requirements since most serving secondary school teachers already possess degrees and professional qualifications as well as teaching experience. Others suggest that additional avenues should be provided for teachers to meet the requirement. There is also a suggestion that teachers should be allowed to meet the requirement by attending training sessions.

3.32 We would like to reiterate that apart from having professional knowledge in content subjects and good teaching pedagogy, EMI teachers must be proficient in English in order to communicate the subject contents effectively. Although most teachers have received teacher training and are basically equipped with professional knowledge and teaching pedagogies, they have not been assessed on their ability to teach in English in their teacher training programmes, as confirmed by the relevant teacher education institutions. As such, we need to lay down some basic requirements to ensure that teachers teaching in EMI are sufficiently proficient in English to communicate the subject contents effectively.

3.33 Using a Grade C or above in English Language (Syllabus B) of the HKCEE or other recognized qualifications as the starting point for the required English proficiency of EMI content subject teachers would help alleviate undue pressure on

(43)

our teachers, as it is generally accepted that the HKCEE is a widely recognized public examination and that most of our teachers have sat for this examination.

We note that after the release of the Consultation Document, some content subject teachers have attempted the IELTS. According to these teachers, the Working Group’s proposed minimum standard would not pose any threat to them; rather it has made them more sensitive to the language aspect of their teaching.

3.34 Regarding the suggestion that teachers should be allowed to meet the requirement through training, the Working Group has consulted some course providers of teacher training and note that the courses on offer carry no assessment or requirement on teachers’ capability for EMI teaching, both upon student admission and in the end-of-course assessment. It would therefore be difficult to determine whether EMI teachers, on completion of such courses, have met the requirement of being “able to communicate intelligibly in English and their use of English should have no adverse impact on students’ acquisition of the English language”. Even if new courses are to be developed for the purpose, we could hardly do away with the requirement for an assessment of English proficiency (pitched at a standard comparable to the recognized qualifications) upon completion of the courses.

Seen in this light, the option of training would not really replace the need for some kind of formal testing, and teachers may as well sit for the tests which we have recommended. They may also prepare for the tests/examinations through attending language courses currently available.

(44)

The Way Forward

3.35 The Working Group has refined the original proposal in the Consultation Document, including the recommendation that a larger number of recognized qualifications should be accepted for the purpose of the teacher capability requirement.

The revised recommendations are summarized below:

(a) Specifically, a Grade C or above in English Language (Syllabus B) of the HKCEE is taken as the basic requirement.

(b) Teachers holding any one of the following qualifications¹⁵ will also be regarded as having the ability to teach in English:

(i) Band 6 or above obtained in the IELTS (academic domain);

(ii) Grade D or above in Use of English obtained in the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination (HKALE), or Grade D or above in Use of English obtained in the defunct University of Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination;

(iii) Grade C or above in English Language obtained in the defunct Hong Kong Higher Level Examination (HKHLE), or Grade C or above in English Language obtained in the defunct Chinese University of Hong Kong Matriculation Examination;

(iv) a pass or above in English of the General Certificate of Ordinary Level (Overseas) Examination;

(v) a pass or above in English of the General Certificate of

15 Some of the qualifications have a validity period. However, we consider that the qualification should continue to be recognized even after its expiry date and teachers need not re-sit the test regularly.

(45)

Examinations (London Examinations);

(vi) a pass or above in English (First/Second) Language of the International General Certificate of Secondary Education Examination;

(vii) a score of 210 (computer-based) or 550 (paper-based) or above in the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL);

(viii) having met the Language Proficiency Requirements (English) (only the four parts on reading, writing, listening and speaking are required); or

(ix) possessing Membership of the Institute of Linguists (MIL) (having studied in courses related to the English language).

It is noted that some of the qualifications above (e.g. items (iv) to (vii)) do not carry any oral assessment. As the oral skill of teachers is crucial to their teaching through English, we consider that qualifications which do not contain an element of oral assessment should not be applicable to new teachers or teachers switching to teach through English. This restriction, however, does not apply to serving EMI teachers¹⁶ who already have considerable experience in teaching through English.

(c) Serving EMI teachers, who do not possess any one of the above qualifications, can opt for classroom observation by subject experts and language experts. We recommend that the EMB should set

16 Referring to teachers who have used English as the MOI to teach one or more subjects in not less than two school years between September 1998 and August 2006.

Chapter 2 Current Medium of Instruction Policy in Secondary Schools

Foreword

Acronyms

Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 2 Current Medium of Instruction Policy in Secondary Schools

Chapter 3 Medium of Instruction for Secondary Schools:

The Way Forward