Introduction: From April 29 to May 5, the Hong Kong "Education Professionals Association" (hereinafter referred to as the "Education Association"), which has long abused and shielded "Huang Shi", conducted an online questionnaire survey to ask respondents "whether they intend to leave the education sector in Hong Kong and their opinions on the educational and social conditions in Hong Kong", and a total of 1178 replies were recovered. The survey claimed that 40% of the teachers surveyed were interested in leaving the education sector in Hong Kong, mainly due to increasing political pressure. As soon as the statement came out, it was refuted by all walks of life in Hong Kong. What are the problems with this survey? Why are there frequent chaos in Hong Kong's education sector in the past? Since the promulgation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, what changes have been ushered in the primary and secondary education in Hong Kong? The Observer Network interviewed Deng Fei, principal of Hong Kong's Tseung Kwan O Xiangdao Secondary School and former president of the Hong Kong Federation of Educators, on related issues.
【Interview/Observer Network Li Leng】
·“ The Education Association's survey is based on partial generalizations
Observer Network: Regarding the online questionnaire survey of the "Education Association", can you talk about what problems exist in it?
Deng Fei: The main reason is that the number of samples it takes is not commensurate with the actual number of members. It claims to have more than 90,000 members, which means that it can contact 80,000 or 90,000 people, but only 1,178 people have actually replied. In other words, nearly 99 percent don't take this seemingly serious survey topic seriously at all.
Based on the responses of these 1178 people, the "Education Association" concluded that it is unreasonable to claim that 40% of the teachers interviewed intend to leave the education circles in Hong Kong in an attempt to represent all the members of the "Education Association" and even the entire education community in Hong Kong.
Observer Network: So in your opinion, how much sampling is considered to be within the normal reasonable range?
Deng Fei: Because it is impossible for research institutions to fully grasp the contact information of millions of Hong Kong citizens, some surveys can basically represent the overall public opinion in Hong Kong as long as more than 1,000 people are sampled. The "Education Association" is different, they will carry out the re-registration procedures of members every year and contact members to pay the membership fee. It is obviously unreasonable to only sample more than a thousand people with full control of the contact information of the members. It must have higher sampling requirements to say that its findings are representative.
Source: Hong Kong media
Observer Network: In real life, in terms of your contacts and understanding, how many teachers have chosen to leave Hong Kong's education circles in the past one or two years? In this question, we are talking about leaving the "Hong Kong education circles", not leaving Hong Kong.
Deng Fei: Leaving Hong Kong's education sector can generally be equivalent to leaving Hong Kong. In Hong Kong, there are not too many people who have left the education sector to change careers, because it is difficult to get the same salary and vacation as the original after changing careers.
Observer Network: That is to say, after leaving hong Kong's education circles, they basically chose to go abroad?
Deng Fei: Yes, they simply emigrated and left. Is this a lot of this case? It is not much to say more, and it is not much to say less, but it is definitely not as exaggerated as 40% of what is said in the survey of the "Education Association"; evenly, a school may not have one. As far as I have come into contact, not always have a teacher in a school who chooses to immigrate or retire early; there are at least fifty or sixty teachers in a school, even if there is a real one, it is not a big deal, and there are more than one person who retires normally in the past.
Observer.com: Did you know why they left?
Deng Fei: In fact, the reasons for these teachers to leave are about the same as the reasons for the general public to leave, and they may feel that the social and political environment in Hong Kong has changed, and he is not used to it, does not like it, is not happy, and wants to leave. It is not easy to go to Australia and Canada, and many people can go to the UK with a BNO visa that can be left with a relatively fast night ticket.
I am afraid that these people do not know much about Britain, and some of them have to put a big question mark on whether they have been to Britain before. I have studied and lived in the UK, so I know a little about the UK, and a newly retired British Chinese principal in my district has also reminded everyone to think clearly whether they can really adapt to the UK and then consider immigration, because the Chinese in the UK are a minority after all, it is not easy to survive - he grew up in the UK, so this is not a nonsense.
Therefore, I think that the reason behind leaving Hong Kong's educational circles to immigrate abroad is not necessarily very different from that of non-educational people, but more out of an "irrational panic", coupled with the fact that the British is not really understood, they blindly defected to the past.
Observer Network: Looking at the report on the official website of the "Education Association", Feng Weihua, president of the "Education Association", believes that "the Education Bureau has handled complaints unfairly, accepted anonymous complaints, and pushed forward curriculum reform in disregard of the opinions of the education community", which has put the education sector under tremendous political pressure. What are your thoughts on these allegations against him?
Deng Fei: His few words actually contain several points of view, and we analyze them a little bit.
Feng Weihua, President of the "Education Association" (Data Chart/Hong Kong Media)
He said that it was wrong for the Education Bureau to accept anonymous complaints, and the first question raised here was, when did the Education Bureau say that it accepted anonymous complaints? Under normal circumstances, the Education Bureau does not accept anonymous complaints, and now Feng Weihua said that the Education Bureau accepted, where did this come from? I am skeptical about this, and now it is more of a media rumor.
The second question is, are anonymous complaints ignored? Not necessarily. According to the principle of the rule of law in Hong Kong, anonymous complaints should be managed if they involve significant public interest. For example, if someone anonymously complains that a student at a school has suffered serious unfair treatment from a teacher, or is being seriously bullied or even violently abused by other students, the Education Bureau or even the police cannot ignore it.
So it's not that anonymous complaints are all ignored and less rigid. Feng Weihua dogmatized "anonymity is ignored", which violates the principle of governance.
In addition, Feng Weihua also mentioned that "ignoring the opinions of the education community to push forward curriculum reform", which also has two mistakes.
First, the reform of the educational curriculum did not appear out of nowhere today; basically since 1999, the curriculum has been optimized and revised, including the general education department. Having served as a member of the General Education Committee of the Curriculum Development Council, and as a member of the General Education Subjects Committee of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Bureau, and having changed the papers of the college entrance examination, I can say with certainty that the relevant reforms have been continuing, while practicing, optimizing, and proceeding simultaneously, and it is not suddenly changed today.
The Reform of General Education in Hong Kong has been underway for many years (Infographic/Hong Kong Media)
Second, curriculum reform or optimization has always listened to the opinions of the education community, but this is also its shortcomings - all curriculum reforms, you can't just listen to the opinions of frontline teachers, and everyone else doesn't care. The opinions of universities, parents, and society are all ignored, especially when graduates enter the society, they are undertaken by employers, while the opinions of those chambers of commerce and public opinion representatives are all ignored.
They are all stakeholders, why don't they have the right to express their opinions? Whether their opinions are worried or supportive, they all depend on the opinions of the teachers who teach the relevant subjects, and such reforms will eventually become "inbreeding". And only front-line teachers have the right to participate in reform speeches, and they must give priority to their own unilateral interests – this is not called professional reform, it is purely self-protection of industry interests, or can be regarded as a "monopoly on reform".
Not only Feng Weihua, for a long time, there was an extremely wrong concept of Hong Kong education, especially the reform of the Hong Kong curriculum, that is, only the frontline teachers of related disciplines are professionals, and only these so-called professionals have the only right to speak. Feng Weihua once again reinforced this misconception that must be broken. In fact, there are now university presidents and intellectuals who strongly question this concept, and universities have no say in the reform of the curriculum of general studies in secondary schools.
·“ Freedom of speech "cannot be a shield for teaching failure."
Observer Network: In the process of teaching, some "Huang Shi" used freedom of speech to argue for his "anti-China and anti-communist" speech, or claimed to be to guide students to view it objectively and neutrally. In your opinion, what is the relationship between freedom of speech and patriotic education?
Deng Fei: Now so many people are talking about the teacher's freedom of speech, I personally think that this is not related to the freedom of speech, I only care about whether your teaching is strictly in accordance with the syllabus.
Primary and secondary education is a little different from the university, there is no clear fixed syllabus in the university, a professor is a certain discipline or a certain school of leadership, he teaches related topics, may mainly teach his own school of knowledge, such as in the field of economics he belongs to the Chicago School, in the lecture on the Chicago School, other schools are not much to talk about. It's completely fine, it's the academic freedom of the university.
But this is not the case in primary and secondary schools. The curriculum outline of all disciplines in primary and secondary schools is jointly formulated by experts and education departments to adapt to the physical and mental development of students who have entered different stages of learning, and all teachers and all teaching materials must be educated in strict accordance with the curriculum, not by teachers to let go of themselves at will.
Hong Kong primary school students participate in activities in the classroom (Infographic/China News Network)
The Chinese History Department has the syllabus of the Chinese History Department, the English syllabus, and the General Education Department also has the syllabus of the General Education Department, and the teachers must strictly follow the syllabus, instead of using the syllabus or even throwing away the syllabus, turning the classroom into a teacher's personal lecture hall or urban forum, and turning teaching into an opportunity for personal political freedom to play or self-ostentation, such a teacher is completely unqualified. It is your personal business to have a different opinion on the syllabus; the syllabus is the crystallization of collective wisdom, and you have no right to change the syllabus at will.
For example, the first primary school teacher to be disqualified as a teacher was completely chaotic, not only talking about "Hong Kong independence" in the classroom, but strictly speaking, he was talking about the fact that China is divided and it doesn't matter. From the perspective of education profession alone, the teacher is completely unprofessional – which subject syllabus prescribes that he can teach these elementary school students questions that they are currently unable to fully understand at this stage? Take it out and see? It's like elementary school math plus, minus, multiplication, and division, but you're desperately talking about calculus, which is messy.
The second point goes back to political ethics. How can teachers teach students in the classroom about splitting the country and not respecting China's current political system? Who told him that teaching "one country, two systems" is to reflect Hong Kong's superiority by digging up some so-called dark sides of the mainland? This is completely wrong. Although "one country, two systems" is "well water does not violate the river water", the premise is "one country", and the two sides must respect each other, rather than contrasting who is barbaric and who is superior. Moreover, the Teacher's understanding of Hong Kong is not exactly the same as the real Hong Kong, but a kind of teaching that lives under the imagination of the self.
On 10 June 2020, the Hong Kong Education Bureau issued a circular to schools across Hong Kong on teacher conduct training, stating that at the beginning of the next academic year, newly hired teachers must receive 30 hours of core training provided by the Education Bureau within 3 years, including courses such as "Teacher Professional Identity" and "Demonstrating Professional Ethics and Values". (News screenshot)
Observer Network: There is a question, before some teachers in Hong Kong interpreted the Opium War as a "commercial war for free trade", did this statement violate the syllabus of relevant disciplines in Hong Kong?
Deng Fei: History is divided into two disciplines in Hong Kong, the Chinese history part is the "Chinese History Department" and the world history part is the "History Department" - the "History Department" also contains the content of Chinese history, but the interpretation angle is different.
For a long time, due to the rule of the British government in Hong Kong, the history course outline would emphasize that it was a war caused by trade when talking about the Opium War. The syllabus of the Chinese History Department is similar to that of the mainland, believing that the British imported opium into China because of the trade deficit, and when China found that opium was a disaster for the country and the people, it confiscated and burned it, and the British launched a war on this ground. Now the syllabus of the history department is close to that of the Chinese history department, and it will no longer help the British humanities to overdo it.
Observer Network: Teachers should strictly follow the requirements of the syllabus, but looking at news reports, there seem to be many cases of violating this professional quality...
Deng Fei: The syllabus does not say that Hong Kong politics is a compulsory question, but the HKEAA has made this part a compulsory question for a long time, resulting in teachers teaching Hong Kong politics when teaching general studies. In other words, in the past, from the propositions of the Examination and Assessment Bureau to the understanding of the syllabus by front-line teachers, they were all self-indulgent, and they did not strictly follow the syllabus, which was completely wrong.
This also involves the issue of regulation of teaching quality. Teaching quality supervision can be discussed in two layers, one is school supervision, and the other is education bureau supervision.
School supervision, to put it bluntly, is a bit irresponsible. For a long time, under the so-called "teacher professional autonomy" such a scare slogan, the school's supervision of the quality of teachers' teaching is not in place - because I think you are professional in this discipline, I can't judge your teaching quality from a professional point of view, so I can only manage from administrative affairs, such as whether your teaching progress has been slowed down, whether there are 3 big tests and 10 small tests per semester, and so on.
Professional autonomy is a holistic concept that should not be a reason for teachers to refuse supervision from their superiors, including school management and education bureau management, in other words, not to turn "professional autonomy" into a reason for self-protection. This needs to be broken.
The Education Bureau must also lead the way in regulatory work. Traditionally, the Education Bureau's supervision of the quality of teaching in schools is to send inspectors. During the British period in Hong Kong, the superintendent was appointed by the Governor of Hong Kong, and each discipline from Chinese and English counting to music and aesthetic sports had its own supervisor; these supervisors went to the school to watch the lessons, watch you mark the homework, see the arrangement of your teaching progress, and write comments after the completion of a package of supervision steps. This is a powerful regulatory tool.
When I entered the industry more than 20 years ago, this kind of inspector inspection was actually quite frequent, I don't know what the reason is, and I have never seen a supervisor come to the school for nearly ten years. It may be that the Education Bureau often advocates "school-based management", allowing the school to manage itself and finally become the treasurer. I think this needs to be improved, the supervision arrangement needs to be redone, and the supervision of the quality of teaching in the school should be strengthened, rather than waiting for it to be regulated after it has an accident and evolved into a socio-political event outside of education.
National security education will be implemented in all aspects of primary and secondary schools
Observer Network: Since the promulgation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, changes have begun to be made in some areas of Hong Kong society, such as not long ago, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor revealed that Hong Kong and Guangdong civil servants intend to exchange "hanging posts", and police officers must also take an oath or sign a statement before taking office. In terms of education, are there any new changes in Hong Kong?
Deng Fei: The biggest change is that the Education Bureau has introduced a two-pronged policy.
Guidelines have been introduced in teaching and education, and different disciplines such as liberal arts, science, and business should contain some content related to national security education, and some civic education activities should also be appropriately promoted. The specific content of national security education mainly includes three aspects, namely, the National Constitution and Basic Law, the Hong Kong National Security Law, and the overall national security concept.
On the other hand, there are management guidelines to ensure that the learning environment of the school complies with national security regulations. Specifically, with the principal as the core, the personnel of various departments of the school are organized to re-examine and review the rules and regulations in the school to ensure that the school is a safe environment for students to study and study. At the same time, ensure that some acts and symbols that violate national security requirements do not appear on campus. For example, when someone raises the national flag and plays the national anthem, he deliberately does some so-called "political performance art", or sings some songs suspected of advocating "Hong Kong independence", then how to deal with and educate will have corresponding guidance. It is basically to clear out all kinds of chaos that occurred on campus in 2019.
The intensity of these two measures is still quite large, and the time is very urgent, basically in June and July, the relevant work plan and report will be submitted to the Education Bureau, and the Education Bureau will send people to the school to inspect the work after the start of classes on September 1 of the next school year.
In addition, there are specific curriculum reforms, such as the General Education Department becoming the "Civic and Social Development Section" from September 1. Compared with the original general education, the "Commune Section" will include some information on national security education, rule of law education, and contemporary China, especially reform and opening up, so that students can have a more comprehensive understanding of the development of contemporary China.
Observer Network: When interviewing other Hong Kong people before, I heard such a complaint that they were forced by the social atmosphere in the past and did not even dare to express patriotism publicly. I wonder if school teachers have been under pressure to say they are "patriotic" in the past?
Deng Fei: It depends. In the past, when you asked a person in the education industry " do you love China " , he may answer " I love China, I love China with a history and culture of 5,000 years " , and the next sentence that is not spoken is most likely " I don't love the current China, I am unfamiliar with contemporary China, even disgusted" . Therefore, for the so-called "patriotism", it is necessary to distinguish, in the past, Hong Kong people mentioned "patriotism", not like encountering leprosy, they all avoided it.
Of course, for the younger generation, under the influence of "Hong Kong independence" or local theory, some people may not even love "China with 5,000 years of history and culture". Therefore, nowadays, whether it is campus education or social education, we must keep up with it, so that they can love both "China with five thousand years of history and culture" and contemporary China; if they let it go, they may become "natural independence" like Taiwan in many years, which will be a big trouble.
Specifically, to change their attitude toward contemporary China, we must not sneer at contemporary China, not use the dark side of the mainland to shape Hong Kong's sense of superiority, still less to adopt illegal means to find ways to overthrow the mainland political power; "love" is difficult to do for a while, at least we must first respect, respect contemporary Chinese society, respect contemporary Chinese political system, and respect the ruling position of the Communist Party of China.
This article is the exclusive manuscript of the observer network, the content of the article is purely the author's personal views, does not represent the platform views, unauthorized, may not be reproduced, otherwise will be investigated for legal responsibility. Pay attention to the observer network WeChat guanchacn, read interesting articles every day.