Advertisement
Advertisement

Mailbag

Government stands firmly against NETs cuts on resources basis

We are pleased that Neil Turely, Jeanette Siu and Nigel Huckstep have written to your paper expressing support, while voicing concerns, for the Native-speaking English Teacher (NET) Scheme (Education Post, December 20). We have to clarify in no ambiguous terms that the Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) has no plan to curtail the NET scheme because of resource constraints.

We would like to assure Mr Turley that the EMB has explained clearly to schools the roles of NETs, and we brief school management of our expectation for the NET scheme at the beginning of each school term, although we respect school-based decisions as to how the NET in a particular school should best be deployed.

We would also assure Mr Huckstep that when we review the NET scheme our primary focus is its effectiveness in helping our students in learning English. The evaluation study on the Secondary NET Scheme completed last year showed that it had a positive effect on students. We have now commissioned another study to evaluate the effectiveness of the Primary NET Scheme.

We would like to emphasise that it is important to create an authentic English-speaking environment for students and bring in cultural and language resources to students through the NET scheme. In other words, face-to-face contact between the NETs and students is not a 'small part' but a key role of NETs in schools. We believe that the monthly professional development days our advisory teaching team arranges for primary NETs and local English teachers are the effective platform for the NETs and local teachers to share and collaborate in helping our students learn English better.

We are determined to ensure that the NET scheme continues to benefit our students.

SAM HUI, for the Secretary for Education and Manpower

Research revamp needs rethink

I refer to your report on comments by Professor Philip Altbach of Boston College (Education Post, December 20). His advice is reasonably congruent with University Grants Committee (UGC) thinking, affirming that Hong Kong must have a couple of big, world-class research-oriented institutions.

Leaving aside debate over Professor Altbach's reported advice, and taking his proposition seriously, what would it mean in terms of current research performance if, as is commonly assumed, HKU, CUHK and HKUST were anointed as 'research-oriented'?

The UGC produces data on research outputs, classified in broad subject areas, and lists the outputs of refereed publications. These publications are a common, if somewhat blunt, measure of research quality. It is clear that there is significant variation between Hong Kong's universities. For example, in 2001-2, in engineering, the top three ranked universities were PolyU, HKUST and HKU; in humanities, social sciences and business studies: HKU, CityU and CUHK; and in physical sciences: HKU, CityU and CUHK.

It would be even more interesting to assess data per staff member or by dollars invested, for this would allow one test of cost-effectiveness. These data suggest that the bureaucratically attractive policy of simply nominating research-focused universities risks a loss of high-quality, even world-class, research from the universities not in the nominated group.

Clearly, ignoring these variations between universities through a naming exercise that withdraws funding from good researchers, nurtured through public funding, requires considerably more thought and analysis.

PROFESSOR KEVIN HEWISON Director, Southeast Asia Research Centre, City University

Whining while dining at the trough

I read Tim Hoffman's letter (Education Post, December 20) with great interest. He says that Jake van der Kamp, observing English Schools Foundation (ESF) staff from a distance, clearly feels they're overpaid and greedy and 'that nothing could be further from the truth'. As a teacher at an international school, I have observed ESF teachers closely as I have many friends, acquaintances and ex-colleagues teaching with the foundation. Yes, they are greedy and overpaid. But even more so, they are the biggest whiners I have ever met. Perhaps many of them seriously need to consider a career change.

Jake van der Kamp was spot-on. 'When a young person chooses to become a teacher, they know they'll never be rich,' continues Mr Hoffman. Really? What about if they end up teaching with the ESF, or become a NET teacher, or teach at some of the top international schools here? What if they end up earning vast amounts of money, plus their four months' paid holiday, during which time many teach summer schools and earn even bigger sums of money? What, may I ask, is Mr Hoffman's definition of 'rich'? I know many 'rich' expatriate teachers in Hong Kong. Perhaps he needs to broaden his circle of friends.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED

Post