Bishop Zen’s response to the Secretary for Education and Manpower, Mr. Arthur Li’s article in SCMP on 15 November 2003.

Why do our leaders refuse to engage in rational dialogue, and why do they resort to demagogy instead? I find this exceedingly troubling.

When we realized that our objections and counter proposals to the “Education (Amendment) Bill 2002” failed to receive an adequate answer from the Administration, we, the representatives of the Association of School Sponsoring Bodies, requested a meeting with Mr. K.C. Li, the Secretary for Education and Manpower. Mr. Li replied that he would not be available to meet with us before December 9. In the meantime, however, he published an article in the SCMP (Sat. Nov.15, E4), which summarily preempted the outcome of our future encounter.

The cursory nature of the content of his article fails to address the core difficulties we see as inherent in the present proposal. We feel that the Secretary has either not read or not understood our carefully reasoned objections to the Bill. We are compelled, therefore, to repeat ourselves.

Mr. Li seems to think that the point of contention is “School-based Management,” but it is not! We wholeheartedly accept the principle of school-based management. The difference of position lies rather in how and at what level this principle shall be promoted. The government wants to introduce the principle into the Management Committee level uniformly. We are of the opinion that the School Sponsoring Bodies should be allowed to implement the principle at the functioning level through a School Executive Committee as recommended in Report No.7 of the Education and Manpower Commission (1997).

Mr. Li stresses that “The Education (Amendment) Bill 2002 seeks to give schools greater flexibility and autonomy in managing their own operation and resources…” Later in the article he more or less repeats the same thing: “The Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) is in fact devolving more authority and responsibility to individual schools through the Bill. Schools will be given greater flexibility in personnel management, financial matters, and the design and delivery of the curriculum…”

We certainly welcome this kind of decentralisation, but why does the Bill prescribe that this is possible only for schools with the IMC, and not for schools that may want to adopt a two-tier structure keeping the Management Committee at the supervisory level and setting up a School Executive Committee at the functioning level, as recommended by Report No.7?

Transparency and accountability have never been lacking in the present system. There are precise ordinances defining the accountability of the school staff to the Management Committee, the Management Committee’s accountability to the Sponsoring Body, and the Sponsoring Body’s accountability to the government. There are also very tight controls especially in the use of public funds.

Following the “Jubilee School Incident” and in view of increasing communication, a system was devised ensuring periodical exchange between the staff and the management.

The introduction of the School Executive Committee will, on the one hand, encourage the involvement of key stakeholders (parents, teachers, and alumni) in running the school. On the other hand, it will enhance a two-way promotion for a better management of the school.

The new Management Committee model, which the Government is going to impose on all aided schools through the Bill, is significantly different from the well-tested present system. The new model confuses the supervisory and the functionary levels. It bypasses the Sponsoring Bodies, thus disregarding its long-time partners in providing good education in Hong Kong, and puts the school more or less directly under the supervision of the government. The government should have consulted the School Sponsoring Bodies before proposing such a radical change.

The government set up a number of “pep sessions” to present the proposal to the teachers and parents. Mr. Li says that these sessions resulted in overwhelming support for the proposal. Was the proposal presented in depth or superficially as in the article, giving parents and teachers the impression that they would enjoy more power and autonomy?

I would like to invite Mr. Li to a public debate to discuss the real implications for a principal, a teacher or a parent to be a member of the IMC. A thorough understanding of the implications might make them less enthusiastic toward the idea.

Mr. Li insinuates that we consider teachers and parents as potential adversaries. If he carefully examines the present situation, he will easily discover otherwise. He will also see that the schools that he cites as examples of successfully having set up either teacher or parent representatives in their Management Committee, happen in great measure to be Catholic Schools. The problem we see is that the new system can easily foster antagonism. One adversary alone would be enough to work havoc in the Management Committee. We are not politicising the issue; but the Bill is likely to politicize the system.

Elsewhere I have explained how the IMC Constitution and having 60% of the managers appointed by the SSB do not actually guarantee that we can run the schools according to our vision and mission. If this Bill passes, we will be constrained to reconsider our commitment to Education. We may be compelled to channel our already meagre personnel and financial resources into other branches to serve our faithful and society.

I do not wish to elaborate on the section of Mr. Li’s article labelling our present system as paternalistic and obsolete. Neither will I comment on Mr. Li’s remarks °– although I find them irresponsible and offensive °– accusing us of prejudice, distrust and cynicism.

Bishop Joseph Zen

20 November 2003 (SCMP)