(......Continued)
The language challenge
2002-03 also saw a dramatic set of challenges posed
by new education policies and changing societal expectations.
In June 2003, Government released the results
of the Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers
(LPAT) conducted in March. The results showed that many
of the serving teachers who had taken the test had not
been able to demonstrate attainment of the required
standards in key areas. However, the results were presented
in such a way as to give the public the false impression
that large numbers of HKIEd graduates had taken the
test and failed. It thus led to a community outcry and
concerns about the overall standards of our graduates.
In fact, when the LPAT requirements were
first announced, the Institute began phasing out sub-degree
programmes with English as a subject of study, and launched
the four-year Bachelor of Education (Primary) and (Languages)
programmes with massively increased coverage for English.
After the release of the 2003 results we
conducted a survey in order to reach a clearer understanding.
Of the 333 who had not attained the required standards
in all five papers, 180 had followed sub-degree certificate
programmes at the Institute. Of these, 80 had not been
prepared to teach English at all. The remainder were
graduates of other universities, 12 of whom had studied
on HKIEd postgraduate courses designed to introduce
them to the methodology of English language teaching.
Thus only one-third of those who had not attained the
required standard overall on the first sitting, had
been prepared by us to teach English and they were graduates
of a two-year certificate programme.
Albeit a rather 'technical' subject requiring
a deep understanding of the changes to the education
system and test regimes, the Institute endeavoured to
explain its complexities. We held two major press briefings,
were involved in dozens of interviews, wrote five commentaries
and letters to newspapers, and met important stakeholders
such as Legislative Council members. We also responded
proactively by offering a wide range of enhancement
programmes in order to help teachers to prepare to resit
the LPAT papers.
The merger discussion
Another major challenge that emerged was that of a merger
between institutions initiated by the Secretary for
Education and Manpower Professor Arthur Li in October
2002. The Institute responded by publicly explaining
its open-minded position and willingness to explore
the issue further. Our ultimate concern is whether a
merger would help us achieve the goal of educating quality
teachers and contribute to the upgrading of the teaching
profession in Hong Kong.
Evidence from elsewhere indicates that
mergers do not necessarily achieve this goal as the
mission of comprehensive universities focuses on becoming
world-class research institutions. Further, it was not
evident how a merger would help achieve the goals of
the UGC Report on Higher Education in Hong Kong (the
Sutherland Report) to ensure role differentiation and
diversity amongst our tertiary institutions. We thus
called for a thorough study and wide consultation in
the community. Our demands, alongside those of other
institutions, have contributed to a rational and in-depth
debate on the issue.
|