Mailbag
Criticisms of schools consultation working group unjustified
I refer to 'Tongue-tied over medium of instruction' (Education Post, June 25).
First, it is not true that the proportion of English medium of instruction (EMI) schools fell from a peak of more than 90 per cent in 1986 to just 55 per cent in 1996 when schools were free to decide on their own medium of instruction (MOI). The trend was the opposite - more than 90 per cent of secondary schools claimed to use English as the teaching medium in 1996, despite research findings that only a small proportion of Form One students were able to learn effectively through English.
Secondly, the criticisms that the working group has failed to listen to the public's views and that the consultation was not sincere are unfair to the group. In the past five months, the working group has attended more than 60 consultation sessions and genuinely exchanged views with different stakeholders, including parents and students. Very often, the participants would come to appreciate the group's thinking behind the proposals. We have been open to counter-proposals, which have been, from time to time, brought back to the meeting table of the working group for deliberation.
Thirdly, we cannot agree with the assertion that the working group's proposals are not based on solid research. Over the past few decades, Hong Kong has conducted many research studies, which have repeatedly confirmed that students learn best in their mother tongue (that is Chinese for most students in Hong Kong) and the gist of the findings of these studies is set out in annex two of the consultation document.
There has been strong evidence from the studies to support the group's rationale for its proposals. The figure of the top 40 per cent of Form One students being able to learn in English is derived from a recent study conducted by Chinese University of Hong Kong, which is detailed in annex five of the consultation document. We have indeed given a full account of this aspect in our consultation document.