Bishop Zen shares his reflection on the “Education (Amendment) Bill 2002” on 28 September 2003 (Part 1) and 5 October 2003 (Part 2) in the Sunday Examiner.

Important legislative bill in discussion

Article 23 of the Basic Law has been withdrawn. Taking refuge in the SARS crisis the Bill was intended to have been quietly passed by the Legislative Council. Since its withdrawal those who have a real concern for the “one country-two systems” may breathe freely for the time being.

Perhaps there are very few of our brothers and sisters in the Church who are aware that while the Government was pushing Article 23 another Bill related to the “one country-two systems” was being discussed in the Legislative Council. The Bill concerns our educational system and it was nearly passed quietly under the shadow of the SARS.

Education concerns the quality of our next generation. To better our education is certainly the indispensable duty of any government. But it has to start from the concrete situation, have a clear objective and take steps steadily. Since the handover the reform of education has been a great disappointment to many. It was confusing, hasty, authoritarian and absolute. It was more slogans and finger-pointing than constructive propositions. It creates a lot of burden for the frontline educators. It is not possible to list out all the details here. But I would like to share with you, brothers and sisters who are concerned with education, some of my own reflection on the “Education (Amendment) Bill 2002” which is now being discussed in the Bills Committee in the Legislative Council.

A brief historical background

In September 1997, after broad consultations, the Education Commission published a report on “Quality School Education” (Report No. 7). Chapter 3 of this report, on “Quality Assurance”, puts the emphasis on “school-based management”.

Chapter 3.9 says: “Today, many good quality schools are operated by experienced Schools Sponsoring Bodies (SSBs) whose laudable efforts should be recognized and whose roles are irreplaceable”.

According to the Education Regulations, the SSB appoints members of the School Management Committee (SMC) and, in accordance with the Constitution of the SMC supervises the activities of the SMC. Thus the Government supervises the SSB; the SSB supervises the functioning of the school. This is a system that has been proved efficacious by practice for decades.

Chapter 3.13 says: “While maintaining that individual schools should be allowed to decide on the school management structures that best suit their needs, we recommend that to facilitate efficient school management, schools may consider to establish a School Executive Committee (SEC) under the SMC, to decide on school matters and be answerable to the SMC”. Chapter 3.14 says: “The consultation document proposed that the SEC be chaired by the principal. During consultation, we received mixed views on whether teachers, parents and alumni should participate in the SEC or the SMC. We are of the view that the composition of the SEC should be decided by the schools themselves, in accordance with the open and school-based management concept.”

The Catholic SSBs welcome the view of the Report in that it respects the position of the SSB. We appreciate also what is mentioned in Chapter 8.4 that the Education Commission has regard for the different characteristics and needs of schools. In response to the Report some Catholic SSBs are of the view that there should be teachers, parents and alumni sitting in the School Executive Committee while others are of the view that teachers, parents and alumni should be “invited” to sit in the SMC.

Radical Reform: Negation of Pluralism

Report No. 7 was published in September 1997. In March the following year Professor Rosie Young had completed her term as Chairperson of the Education Commission. Mr. Anthony Leung took up the post in April. In December of the same year, the Advisory Committee on School-based Management was mandated to draft a consultation document which was published in February 2000.

The stated title of the document is “Transforming Schools into Dynamic and Accountable Professional Learning Communities”. In reality the true title should be “The Reform of the School Management Committee” or more accurately “The Restructuring of the Relationship between School Sponsoring Bodies and the School Management Committee”.

The main suggestion of this document is: The School Management Committee is no longer under the control of the SSB but is to be directly registered with the Government. The Principal of the school will be an ex-officio member of the SMC. Other members will be elected by the teachers, parents and alumni. The general public will also be invited to sit in.

Comparing this document with the Education Commission Report 7 the most obvious difference is this: The latter recommends a clear-cut, uniform structure for all school management. It has eliminated the idea of a two-tier structure, suggested by the former, without even giving it a trial. Mr. Anthony Leung made it clear that this was to be a “radical” reform. He said he was determined that the reform would be implemented “with no return”. Thus the efficacious multi-facet system that has been in practice would be overthrown, the pluralism negated.

Let us take a clearer look

Those who have witnessed the event of 1 July should be able to see clearly that such a document is a product of the new culture after the handover (just like Article 23 and the interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People’s Congress): The content is full of sophism. The manner to push forth the reform is arrogant and deceitful. In the name of school-based management the Government is reducing the role of the SSB. In the name of respecting the frontline educators it is abrogating the educational partnership of past years. Before the consultation the Government had already coerced the SSB to accept in writing the new structure when applying to start new schools. It shows clearly that the consultation was not genuine.

We are all for school-based management. It invites the frontline educators to participate as partners in the planning and the promoting of education. It gives opportunities to teachers, parents, alumni and the general public to make contributions.

However, when implementing this revolutionary document the Government did not respect the SSBs which have been cooperating for years with the Government in the field of education. There was no special consultation with them beforehand and no in-depth discussion afterwards.

We identify with the principles of school-based management. But is it necessary to bring it to the level of the School Management Committee? We are of the opinion that the suggestion of Report 7 regarding the “School Executive Committee” has already given ample scope for teachers, parents and alumni to decide on the affairs of the school.

To introduce the principles of school-based management into the School Management Committee is to reduce the Committee to the level of the day to day operation of the school. This will suppress an intermediate structure of supervision between the government and the school. Is this a wise proposition?

Let us pose a question here: What is a School Management Committee? What is its function? It is to supervise, especially to supervise the personnel and finance of the school. According to the Education Regulations the SSB operates through the SMC to handle matters concerning the personnel (employment, transfer, promotion and dismissal of principals, teachers and other employees). If the principal and teachers are to sit in the SMC, are we not in fact asking the employees to supervise themselves? In supervising the finance of the school (preliminary examination on the budget and the report prepared by the school before submitting them to the government) the SMC is doing a great service to the government. Some private schools in their transition to become subsidized schools could not obtain the necessary financial help to better the condition and installation of the schools due to the strict standard imposed by the government. The SSB and the SMC take special care of these schools and sometimes raise money to help them.

To carry out the responsibility of supervision the SSBs which have a great number of schools have established (though without any legal status) a “Central Management Committee” and a “Central Education Office” as support in order to function in a more responsible manner and to follow more strictly the regulations. So where are the problems that necessitate a revolutionary reform that will amount to the abrogation of the function of the SSB? To exaggerate on one or two cases in order to discredit the SSB is irresponsible!

The SMC of the subsidized schools have another important role, which is to carry out the “ideal” of the SSB. The Catholic ideal for schools is none other than the education of the whole person: To have respect for God and to love all men. All SSB have noble ideals in education. These ideals are like rays of different colours. Together they make up a multi-faceed educational “market” for parents to choose from freely. This is welcomed by the Hong Kong people. Why is it not acceptable by the “almighty” Government?

A recommendation

In response to the “Education (Amended) Bill 2002”, the first recommendation made by the Hong Kong Association of Sponsoring Bodies of Schools is: To respect the multi-faceted tradition of Hong Kong, do not enforce a compulsory uniform school structure and in particular to go back to the proposition of the Education Commission’s Report No.7, using the “School Executive Committee” to implement the spirit of the school-based management.

The Government’s response in April 2003 (paragraphs 23, 24) was very vague, stressing only terms such as “transparency” and “answerable”. It did not discuss the problem in depth. I would like to invite the Government to sit down with the SSB to hold serious discussions.

Bishop Zen

On the “Education (Amendment) Bill 2002” (Part 1)

28 September 2003 (Sunday Examiner)