Letter by then Coadjutor Bishop Joseph Zen to Supervisors and Managers of all Catholic Schools in the Diocese. Copy given to Education Department.

A consultative commission on school-based management nominated by the Director of Education in December 1998, issued a consultation paper in February this year about the division of responsibility and power in the school. The period of consultation lasted until the end of April. I know that our Episcopal Delegate for education at that time, Mr. Lo Kong Kai, in collaboration with representatives from other sponsoring bodies has made the appropriate response to the paper. I personally have some very strong views and feelings about this document and now I want to share these with you in order to arouse a greater concern for this matter.

Equivocation

Forget the beautiful slogans printed in big type. The title of the document printed in small letters reads Ð Consultation Paper on School-based Management drafted by the sub-commission on responsibilities and powers of the said commission for consultation on school based management. Now, the management is a general term and management may have different levels, but management committee has become a technical term and denotes that body which may also be called by other names such as Board of Governors. It was an easy game to pass from school-based management to the reform of the management committee and this is obviously equivocation. If the drafters are sincere and frank, the document should have been named Ôconsultation on restructuring of the management committeeÕ or even more explicitly, Ôconsultation on the restructuring of the relation between sponsoring bodies and management committeesÕ.

Consultation Paper?

If what I have stated above is true, then I would ask ÐÐÐ how many representatives of sponsoring bodies were on that sub-committee? By the way, next to the name of the members of the commission there should also have been some specification of their competence. How can we be sure that those ladies and gentlemen are actually competent to make such revolutionary proposals on such an important matter?

The Chairman of the sub-committee, Mr. Pang, says in the introduction that the members of the sub-committee have discussed the matter with some sponsoring bodies in order to understand the actual functioning of the management committees under those sponsoring bodies. I would like Mr. Pang to give more details on this ÐÐÐ which members of the sub-committee discussed the matter with which sponsoring bodies? Are there minutes of their discussions? Mr. Pang also said that they consulted with experience from abroad. I would like him to give this information to everybody concerned. It is my impression that a document, which puts emphasis on participation, accountability and transparency, has been issued without respect for such principles. The document stresses respect for the Òkey stakeholdersÓ, but both in the process and in the content of the document, not much respect was paid to those who for many years were faithful collaborators of the government in promoting education, especially bodies which sponsor many schools.

The paper is called a consultation paper but already the sponsoring bodies that apply for new schools have to sign a promise to accept the new structure of the management committee. So, is this a consultation or an already established policy, leaving the consultation claim a fake?

Structure of Management and Supervision of Schools

It is commonly accepted that education in Hong Kong needs reform in many ways but every reform should start from discerning the defects of the present system and then devising the appropriate remedy. The management and supervision of subsidized schools have had until now a healthy and efficient division of responsibility and powers: the sponsoring bodies through the supervisors and management committees presented to and approved by government, helped the government to manage and supervise properly the depending schools. To have some intermediate supervising structure (sponsoring bodies, supervisors, management committees) between the highest supervising body which is the government and the level of normal functioning is surely conformable to a healthy and efficient management philosophy.

The government, through a set of carefully thought out regulations retains most power and responsibility of supervision. The sponsoring bodies, especially the religious sponsoring bodies, from their vision on education, invested money and energy to achieve the purpose of universal education. Those sponsoring bodies that run many schools, in addition to the management committee, which has a legal status, also have structures like a central management committee which do not have a legal status but are a great support to the management committee. All this made possible a pluralistic development of education in Hong Kong, giving the citizens a right of choice. The parents like to have their children in those schools and the schools are generally appreciated by society. What problems have surfaced to require such a radical reform? To damage the good name of the sponsoring bodies by exaggerating one or two incidents is irresponsible.

School-based Functioning of the School and the Management/Supervision of the School

Some may say the reform is not because of any problem having arisen but rather to accommodate to the new concept of school-based management. It is certainly conformable to the ideas of a democratic society that the school should function according to a school-based spirit. That means all the people concerned (principal, teachers, students, parents and other staff) or even other persons in the district where the school is situated should share responsibility to promote education work according to the concrete needs of the school. When the government presented to the schools this new concept, the schools of the Catholic Diocese wholeheartedly supported the idea and tried to put it into practice. I am a Salesian and this spirit is being promoted in Salesian schools all over the world for the past 30 years.

But it does not follow that this school-based spirit should require the management committee to be brought to this basic level of functioning and made independent of the supervision of the sponsoring body. To do so would not be conformable to a healthy management philosophy and there are many more disadvantages than advantages. The School Advisory Council or School Executive Committee proposed by the No. 7 Report of the Education Commission (1997) ÐÐÐ Quality School Education is a very good instrument to realize school-based management. Why has it been eliminated before it could be tried extensively?

What is a Management Committee?

We insist that it must be an organ of supervision. Since in the consultation document there is no new definition of such a committee, we must get it from the present education regulations where we find that the main responsibility and power of the management committee according to law is to supervise matters concerning personnel and finances.

Supervision of Matters Concerning Personnel

This is the principal duty of the management committee. The sponsoring body, through the management committee and the supervisor, is accountable to the government for everything regarding the employment, promotion and dismissal of principals and teachers; through this supervision, the sponsoring bodies can guarantee the realization of their vision for education, which for Catholics, is the education of the whole person with particular emphasis on moral education based on reverence towards God and love for people. To supplement the possible deficiencies of the management committees, the sponsoring bodies of the Catholic Church have also higher level organizational bodies, like the Central Management Committee and the Catholic Education Office to help the individual schools in this important and difficult duty of managing personnel. Obviously, the management committee relies on information gathered from the functioning level, but it is certainly correct to leave the power of supervision in the hands of a group of non-salaried educationalists.

The consultation document gives no clear indication about personnel management. Is that going to be the responsibility of the newly proposed management committee? How can such a role be given to principals and teachers, who are salaried people and subjects of this management, or to parents and past students who may have a conflict of interest? Will there be a particular arrangement for the management of personnel? If so, why not mention it in the document? And, in this case, why should the body which is without the responsibility for managing personnel, still be called a management committee?

The document does not mention the supervisor any more. The supervisor plays a very important role in the present system. S/he not only represents the sponsoring body at meetings of the management committee, but is also the one who accompanies the front line workers in their daily duties. He is the real bridge between the functioning level and the supervising level.

There is the danger of expansion of the power of the principal. The presence of a supervisor is a good balancing element. Who is going to be the chairman of the management committee proposed by the paper? If s/he is going to be the principal then does not the government see any danger of his power being unduly expanded? In the absence of a supervisor, who is going to supervise the principal, if not the Government directly?

Supervision of Financial Matters

The sponsoring bodies who run many schools are generally non-profit making bodies. The Catholic Church, during the years when the government was not able to guarantee education for everybody in Hong Kong did much to help. The Church paid for many of the present subsidized schoolsÕ buildings and even when the government started building schools, the sponsoring bodies were asked to give partial support. Finally, when the government had more resources it built the schools and entrusted the schools to the Church and the Church, through the management committee and supervisor, takes responsibility for the supervision of financial matters. This is surely a wise and efficient arrangement. The Church sponsoring bodies, enjoying the trust of the faithful, local and abroad, can obtain some extra resources and provide the school with some additional equipment or make improvements in the educational environment of the school (above standard items) which may not fit into the governmentÕs strict criteria. Obviously, the management committee fulfills its duty relying on information gathered from the functioning level, and sometimes it has just to examine and approve the budget presented by the functioning level. But it is surely wise and efficient to give the supervising power to a non-profit making organization with supporting structures. In the management committee proposed in the paper with managers who are salaried or who may have conflict of interests, will they be able to manage the finances carefully and unselfishly without a higher level of supervision?

More Transparency of the Management Committee?

It must be pointed out first of all that the management committee is not the highest level of supervision. According to law, the government has the power and the duty to supervise the management of personnel and finances.

If the question is about transparency of the management committee in relation to the functioning level, a distinction must be made between the management of personnel and the management of finances. As for the management of personnel, not everything can be discussed openly, precisely to protect privacy and the good name of the person concerned. (The government does not have to give account to the public for its management of personnel). Anyway, when there is suspicion that injustices have been committed in this regard, there is always a possibility of appeal to a higher level.

After the incident of the Golden Jubilee School, the government made some disposition to guarantee normal communication between management and teachers. Those periodical meetings can assure a certain degree of transparency.

With regard to transparency concerning the individual managers, some of the new proposals deserve to be considered, for example, making public some personal data, declaration of interests, etc.

People may think that in a newly proposed management committee all the proceedings would be more transparent, but it seems reasonable to fear that behind the open discussions there may be more frequent conflicts because of hidden agendas. Since the sponsoring bodies will be made irrelevant, who is going to solve the problems?

Is the Government Willing to Shoulder More Responsibility?

In the present system, the sponsoring bodies take on themselves many troubles with which the government is not even very willing to help. If, as we suppose, the difficulties are going to multiply in the newly proposed management committees, is the government willing to take on itself the problems which till now have been shouldered by the sponsoring bodies? Is such sudden generosity not surprising? The cases where the situation may require Education Department officers to intervene in the management committee are going to be many. Is this conformable with the principle of economy?

To Release Power?

The document insists that the government is willing to release power to lower bodies. This surely looks very different from the general way in which government acts nowadays. The government was always reluctant to release power to lower bodies. (While recognizing that the government must keep this higher power of supervision, yet, sometimes we really hoped to have and could not have those powers which the government has in regard to the government schools, e.g. moving teachers from one dependent school to another.) Now, the government wants to release power and give it to the basic functioning level of the single individual schools. How are we supposed to understand all this?

Conspiracy?

Are we forced to see a conspiracy behind all this? Is the reason for all this that the government is afraid that the sponsoring bodies, which sponsor many schools, might put obstacles in the way of its reform policies? (The management committees of individual schools are not in the position to contradict government, the principals who receive their salaries from government will not dare to do it either, but the sponsoring bodies may be Òthe enemiesÓ the government is afraid of.) Is that why the government wants to make us irrelevant? There is no point looking for beautiful names to call this, which is a power struggle. The Roman Empire knew the secret of Òdivide et imperaÓ.

By the way, why should the government be afraid of the ChurchÕs sponsoring bodies? We have always accepted passively even the unjust policies of the government, for example, the class pyramid structure, the half-day system, the floating classes, ÉÉ.. and still the present government cannot trust us.

Well-intentioned People

I am not saying that everybody who supports this reform is part of the conspiracy. Many well-intentioned people may support it because it is dressed so well: democracy, participation, transparency and with a slogan ÐÐÐ ÒDynamism and AccountabilityÓ. Many good-hearted people may easily be deceived. I would like these people to reflect on two questions:

Is it right to eliminate the distinction between the functioning level and the supervising level?

Is it progress to give all the supervising power directly into the hands of the government?

Brothers and sisters in the Church, I have jotted down these lines just to air my feelings. I have only pointed out some criticisms, some negative aspects. As to how we should reassess our education work and how we can prepare ourselves to face this new situation, these are big questions. We have to unite together to discuss and to plan.

+ Joseph Zen, S.D.B., V.G.

Coadjutor Bishop of Hong Kong

19 September 2000