(......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.