National security education: policy talk won’t lead to real action

It must be recognised that scattered initiatives, no matter how important, will rarely be taken up if issued as instructions
If there are to be changes, they need to be planned, discussed broadly, and developed in the context of a civic education curriculum

Kerry Kennedy

Published: 8:30am, 2 Sep 2020

Why you can trust SCMP

Schools are currently being deluged with “advice” on education about national identity and the national security law, and even kindergartens are being urged to implement national identity education. This is on top of the previously developed requirements for secondary schools regarding Basic Law education and the cross-curriculum priority of civic and moral education.

For both primary and secondary schools, the emphasis on national security education comes directly from the national security law itself (Article 10), and the focus on national identity is as old as the post-handover curriculum. Yet, it is problematic to regard these simply as add-ons to existing curriculum requirements. While it is easy to issue instructions, it is much more difficult to ensure effective implementation.

This point should be clear to officials in the Education Bureau. National identity education has been part of the Hong Kong curriculum since 2001. Former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa was an ardent supporter of infusion of national identity education across the new curriculum. Yet, almost 20 years later, schools and kindergartens are still being urged to implement it.

The lesson is this: articulating a policy or priority is the easy part; securing support for it, consulting schools about it, providing resources to explain it and helping teachers understand where it fits into the curriculum is the challenging part. Without these processes, resistance can harden in an already pressurised education system, messages can become confused and very little may happen as a result. Policy without strategic implementation is failed policy.

How to prevent such failure? There first needs to be a recognition that fragmented and scattered initiatives, no matter how important they are seen to be, will rarely be taken up if issued as instructions, or conveyed as aspirations. Imagine running a business like that. If there are to be changes to the curriculum, they need to be planned, explained, discussed broadly, trialled and redeveloped so they meet the needs of schools and the community in general.

05:50

What you should know about China's new national security law for Hong Kong

These are basic processes to be followed by establishments contemplating new initiatives. A top-down approach has rarely worked and there is no reason it will in future.

In the specific context of schools, a structure is needed in which priorities and new initiatives can be developed. This structure is usually some form of curriculum – a subject, a theme integrated into a subject or a cross-curriculum priority that can be infused into all subjects.

Beijing’s defence of national security should be open and above board

Where does national security and national identity education fit in relation to these different structures? If they do not fit into a structure, they will remain add-ons – to be inserted when and where possible. This may well be the fate of these two initiatives, but what is the alternative?

Hong Kong lacks any real civic education curriculum. Its one attempt to establish a national education curriculum in 2012 failed because of extremist views that such a curriculum was brainwashing. Without a broad-based civic education curriculum, however, national security and national identity education will flounder.

These two areas need to be incorporated into an array of content. Other topics will also be included to enable students to develop an understanding of how existing institutions work in the city, how they are related and the role students can play in supporting and developing them.

04:05

The history of Hong Kong protests and what happens now

Much work would be needed to develop such a curriculum. Yet this process of development can be an important way for teachers and the community to learn.

Many other decisions would follow from the one to develop a civic education curriculum. Teachers would be needed to teach it – as civic education teachers, they would have expert knowledge and a deep understanding of the whole field. They would know about pedagogy and the best ways to teach. Their subject would have a defined place in the school curriculum, with teaching time allocated to it and a defined schedule of classes across school years. This is what strategic implementation would look like.

All this is essential, but currently lacking in Hong Kong schools. Of even greater importance in moving forward would be the necessity of consulting schools and the community about this new curriculum. This was one of the great successes of the curriculum reform agenda undertaken immediately after 1997.

A curriculum is not just handed down by the authorities. It is discussed by both professionals and parents and agreement is reached about what is important. A curriculum is about talking together; it is not about being instructed on what has to be done. Hong Kong people talking about what is needed in a new civic education curriculum should be a top priority and may even be a means of bringing people together. It is well worth trying in these troubled times.

Kerry Kennedy is professor emeritus and adviser (academic development) at The Education University of Hong Kong

Post