Reform in whose interest?
Our education system is full of holes. The many patches devised to fix it have all made the problems worse. That is why many parents have cast their vote of no confidence by sending their children to study either overseas or at the local international schools.
Ironically, most of those driving the reforms have failed to practise what they preach. Like other parents who can afford it, they have arranged for their children to study outside the mainstream system. If these decision-makers are reluctant to let their children live through the reforms, there is no reason why other parents should let theirs be guinea pigs.
Before the Lunar New Year, yet another report was produced by the Education Commission, a review of the medium of instruction for secondary schools and secondary-school places allocation. The paper has opened some old wounds and triggered a new round of heated debate on an old bone of contention - the language of instruction.
Parents and students in both the Chinese- and English-medium schools are virtually unanimous in their opposition to the recommendations of the working group, chaired by Michael Tien Puk-sun. As chairman of the Standing Committee on Language Education and Research, Mr Tien should be held responsible for the current mess.
The report suggests that only 40 per cent of current secondary one students are capable of learning in English. However, if an English school fails to ensure that 85 per cent of its secondary one intake falls within this category, it will have to use Chinese as the medium of instruction. A review is supposed to be conducted every six years, starting from September 2009. Meanwhile, schools teaching in Chinese will be allowed to set aside no more than 15 per cent of their classes to provide extended learning activities to raise students' exposure to English.
At first glance, there is nothing wrong with these proposals. However, viewed in a bigger social context, Mr Tien is apparently trying to retain an elitist system while being politically correct in promoting the use of Chinese as a teaching medium.
After the handover, the government was eager to be politically correct by imposing a mother-tongue policy. That met strong resistance from both students and parents. As a result, officials had to compromise by retaining 120 English schools, creating tension between the two sides.
Mr Tien's latest proposals have not contributed to resolving the conflict. Instead, the Chinese-medium schools complain that the arrangement would only fortify the already-entrenched prejudice against schools teaching in Chinese. The English-medium schools, on the other hand, are upset that they will have to defend their right to teach in English without any additional government subventions.
The 85 per cent prerequisite has also turned out to be a compromise. The secondary student population is expected to drop to about 40,000 in a few years. On the premise that 40 per cent of them can learn in English, only about 16,000 students will be considered capable of learning through this medium.
Of them, about 6,000 are expected to opt for international schools, directly subsidised schools, or overseas study. If a 90 per cent standard is enforced, the existing 120 English schools will be unable to meet the minimum requirement.
It is a fact of life that parents prefer an English education for their children. A high proficiency in English is indispensable to maintain Hong Kong's competitive edge. It will be a futile exercise to convince parents otherwise.
The move to force the majority of schools to teach in Chinese is political. The authorities should change tack and allow schools to choose their own medium of instruction to meet their specific needs. Undue government interference is doomed to be counterproductive.
Albert Cheng King-hon is a directly elected legislator
