Having obtained a
rough, but probably accurate overview of Hong Kong's academic
priorities, let us now take a closer look at Hong Kong's language
education in general.
It would be surprising to learn, for example, that most Hong
Kongers learn English in the same way that they learn Cantonese --
their mother tongue. As few Hong Kongers are native English speakers,
and those that have studied English abroad represent only a small
fraction of
the entire population, most Hong Kongers probably learn English in much the same way they learn
other academic subjects -- in a classroom with many
children and a teacher who provides instruction, assigns
homework, evaluates performance, and hopefully
creates a learning environment that inspires intellectual and
social development. In other words, it would
be an
important mistake to consider the subject area English language in the
same way
one considers
the Chinese language, even though they stand
together as two
of Hong Kong's Big Three,
By way of further illustration consider the students of a Chinese
language classes. Not only do they have a working spoken
knowledge of
at least one Chinese language before they enter class, but they also
have all of
Hong Kong society and China's neighboring provinces to reinforce
outside of the classroom
what they learn inside it. This external potential for
reinforcement simply does not exist with regard to the English
language. In 2001 there were fewer than 20,000 British speakers of
English in all of Hong Kong -- no more than 0.3% of the total population. Though
advertised by Hong Kong's Education and Manpower
Bureau, English language industry, and business and academic
communities as a second language, for most Hong Kong children learning
English
must be far more akin to learning a distant foreign language than
another spoken language in one's own homeland. (index)
1st,
but 14th
The bottoms of both graph 6 and table 6
illustrate the high priority that the Hong Kong school system places on
English language instruction. No other subject area in Hong
Kong's entire
secondary system of education employs as many teachers! With such a
strong emphasis on English language training, one must then wonder why
the quality of those who provide English language instruction is so
abysmally
low.
Graph 2
ranks all subject areas according to the proportion of teachers with
degree training in their principal subject taught. In addition the
proportion of teachers
with degree training, but not in their principal subject area of
instruction, is also shown.
Subject areas are listed in descending order according to the
proportion of
teachers with degree training in their principal subject area.
Coursework that focuses on language training per se are highlighted
with special coloring.
With
less than half of all English language teachers completing degree
course work in their principal subject, the English language
ranks only 14th in terms of quality among Hong Kong's 30 principal
subject
areas (see table
2). Those
who teach English language do appear to
have reached an
overall higher level of education than those who teach the Chinese
language. This latter observation is
substantiated by the larger number of teachers holding degrees not
necessarily related to their principal subject taught. This arrangement
suggests
that in the past it was enough to have received
an advanced degree to become a qualified teacher of English, but more
was required to qualify for teaching Chinese1.
In so far as holding an
advanced degree in Hong Kong probably means that you have spent four
additional years reading college textbooks written in English, one
might say
that you are better qualified2.
What this has to do with your ability to teach the English language,
however, is unclear. Just because you can read better does not
mean that you can teach children how to speak and write. In consideration of
the extra-school enhancement opportunities generally available to
students of Chinese, but not to those of English, this arrangement is
all the more
curious. (index)
English
and
Chinese language and literature: A quick comparison
A closer examination of the relationship between the English and
Chinese languages and their respective literatures provides even
greater
insight into Hong Kong's language educational priorities. The
information contained in graph 3 and table 3
was taken from table 2. In particular graph 3
examines the relative importance assigned to Chinese and English
language and literature based on the certified quality of teachers
claiming one of these subject areas as
their principal subject taught. With regard to both language and
literature, teachers of Chinese language or literature are
better qualified in their respective areas. With special regard
only to literature the qualification gap is even more pronounced; not
only are those who teach Chinese literature nearly three times better
qualified in their subject area, but they also enjoy an overall
higher level of education. In fact, along the entire spectrum of Hong
Kong secondary school subject areas the teachers of Chinese literature
are the best
qualified in their subject area and rank number three in overall
education (see top of table
2). Moreover, there are more than six times as many teachers
teaching
Chinese language literature as there are teachers teaching English
language literature (see table
6). In fact, the number of those teaching Chinese literature ranks
on
par with other College bound
subject areas. If one were to rearrange the column pairs of graph 3 in
descending order of training in subject area taught, Chinese literature
would rank number one, and English literature would rank second from
the bottom
just above business English. With regard to the 30 principal subject
areas constituting Hong Kong's secondary educational system English
language literature ranks number 22 in terms of subject area quality
(see bottom of table 2) and number 30 at the bottom in
terms of teacher
number (see top of table 6). Even business English, a subject area of
exceptional importance in a top ranked East Asian trade and finance
center, ranks
only second from the bottom (just under English literature at the top
of table 6)
and number 27 and 26, respectively, in terms of subject area trained
teachers and
overall teacher certification (see table 2).
Those who claim that the private sector does better might like to
consider graph
5 and table
5. In both of these figures teacher quality is ranked according to
the percentage of teachers with no subject training in their
respective subject areas including Chinese language, English language,
Chinese literature, English literature, and Business English. Only in
business English does the private sector outperform the public sector
in terms of teacher quality. In so far as private schools are probably
more in tune with the needs of private business, this is probably not
surprising. Noteworthy, however, is the general pattern that permeates the whole
of Hong Kong secondary education with regard to language
and literature. Might it not also be worth noting en passage that no language other
than Chinese and English are taught as principal subjects at the
secondary level. This same observation must also hold for the primary
level. The social, political, and economic ramifications of these
general
patterns are discussed in the next
section.
1The current
government strategy is to raise the level of teacher certification for
Hong Kong's English language teachers. Such a strategy will surely lead
to an incremental improvement in the overall quality of Hong Kong
English. It cannot solve the larger, more important problems
addressed by the HKLNA-Project. (text)
2Recent
results from the CEPAS examination suggest that among Hong Kong
university students with the best English language skills there is a
significant gap between active and passive language ability. Whereas a
medium to high proficiency in passive reading skills is exhibited among
most students, there exists between a half and full point gap between
students' passive reading and listening skills and their active speech
and writing skills. This gap increases with the institution's
reputation for quality research. See figures 17 and 18 in Appendix 1 of
Understanding the nature, cause, magnitude, and direction of English
language attrition in Hong Kong Society: Measurement and assessment. [online
document]
<http://homepage.mac.com/moogoonghwa/earth/current/hklna/documents/proposals/030828-1a.pdf>
(17 November 2003). This document is a 109 page research proposal
submitted to and rejected by the Hong Kong government with the reason
that supporting science that could appear to undermine current
government policy would not be entertained. Source: Telephone
conversation in September 2003 with Chris Wardlaw, Deputy Secretary for
Curriculum Quality and Assurance, Education and Manpower Bureau. (text)