Sound reasoning for linking reading and writing exam papers I write in response to the letter 'Exam authority needs good shake-up' (Education Post, May 17) in which the writer stated that the HKEAA had 'carelessly set two papers, one a reading comprehension and the other a writing task - on a very similar subject'. In fact, the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination Regulations and Syllabus 2008 and the Sample Papers and Information on Standards-referenced Assessment booklet, both available in published form and (the former) on the authority's website since 2005, state in their descriptions of paper one, part A: reading, and part B: writing, that: 'The two parts will be thematically related.' This thematic link was discussed at length at consultation sessions with teachers and was a feature of the sample papers which were piloted in schools in 2004 (for which the linking theme was food and restaurants). The first 'live' administration of the new exam was conducted in 2007 (where the theme was fashion). The decision to link the reading and writing components was made for sound educational reasons by a joint Education Bureau-HKEAA committee. Reading and writing tasks are often connected in daily study and work situations. A shared theme also brings an overall coherence to the papers and reduces the amount of time and mental stress involved in candidates having to familiarise themselves with multiple contexts or situations. As for the 45-minute break between parts, this was considered necessary because candidates at this level cannot be expected to sit for longer than two hours in an exam situation. GRAHAM KENNEDY, Senior Manager (English), Assessment Development, Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority Business no business of kindergartens I refer to the article 'Expert urges testing for preschoolers' (Education Post, May 17) and Professor George Morrison's first lecture 'Trends in Early Childhood Education around the World' at Baptist University. It is exceedingly worrying that Professor Morrison (University of North Texas) urges kindergartens worldwide to push four-year-olds to achieve more, his premise being that politicians and economists have the big bucks and hence should dictate what needs to be done to children to make sure their nation becomes the world's 'No1' in literacy and hence money making. Professor Morrison is obviously not aware of the danger of sanctioning total bureaucratic rule, especially in the area of education for the very young. Educators of these youngsters devote their lives to developing the whole child, not only concentrating on certain academic areas that help their country earn dollars. He is also unaware of the danger of labelling children as young as three or four. I agree with Professor Margaret Wong Ngai-chun (Hong Kong Institute of Education) that we should not rob kindergarten children of the 'joy of learning', especially in Hong Kong, where the joy of learning in primary and secondary school students has already been lost through hour upon hour of drilling and writing, and very little training in critical thinking skills and interest development. I also agree with Professor Wong that Hong Kong is doing 'well in international tests', and parents and politicians need to be educated in the area of reasonable expectations for their children, so real teaching experts and moral educators can be freed to educate the whole child. CATHERINE SCOTT, Sha Tin Overseas students in Australia doing well Australian universities have been accused of allowing foreign students to pass exams without the language skills to get jobs after graduating ('Foreign graduates lack English', Education Post May 17). But where is the evidence? I lived for 40 years in multicultural Australia before I moved to Hong Kong in 1990. With 22 per cent of Australia's population born overseas, we old Australians tended to stereotype new migrants, focusing on perceived cultural deficiencies that needed to be remedied before they could work effectively in Australia. The stereotyping often focused on difficulties with the English language. After 18 years in Asia, I know better than to make that mistake. In the People and Place journal article 'How Are Skilled Migrants Doing?', referred to in the Post item, authors Bob Birrell and Ernest Healy have repeated the mistake. International students who have completed professional qualifications at Australian universities are not getting good jobs with the same success rates as those born in Australia. There is evidence for this finding. Birrell and Healy, without any evidence, then go too far with their conclusion that this is because prospective employers have a concern that these young graduates lack the English communication skills needed. The Post item then continues the stereotype with the unsupported assertion that Australian universities allow these students to pass exams without the language skills to get jobs after graduating. My own research on comparative academic performance of students in Australian universities shows that, in 2003, 2005 and 2006, both international and Australian students consistently passed more than 80 per cent of what they attempted. ALAN OLSEN, Strategy Policy and Research in Education Limited Hong Kong
