English or languish - Probing the ramifications
of Hong Kong's language policy

Quality Assessment
economic modelling (graph 2b)

Critique of the Language Education Review

• Language Education Review - "Action Plan to Raise Language Standards in Hong Kong". Standing Committee on Language Education and Research, January 2003.
• Notes to language education review. (restricted use)

Positive Points

• The increased emphasis on reading and language activities can only be applauded.
• Raising the certification standards for language teachers.
• Setting clear targets and testing based on absolute rather than relative standards.
• Descriptive indicators and exemplars in order to certify achievement.
• Encouraging learner-centered, as opposed to teacher-centered education.
• Encouraging NETs at the primary and pre-primary levels when children are just beginning to form their speech habits.
• Access to online English language multi-media. Although individual schools are likely to develop their own online multi-media, their ability to provide top quality material will be limited by both budget considerations and their willingness to serve the entire Hong Kong community, as opposed to their own students. In this regard the government not only enjoys substantial economies of scale, but it is better positioned to provide a valuable public good.

• With the exception of minor mention of the importance of teaching language in its proper cultural context the barrier aspects of the English language outlined in my paper "The political economy of the English language in East Asia" have been completely ignored.
• Although the report offered many suggestions for improved quality, one can only wonder from where the money will come to finance those improvements. The government is currently looking for ways to reduce an already tight budget. See my promotional paper entitled "Today's investment is tomorrow's prosperity".
• There was no discussion about the underlying economic problems related to universal English language training and no mention was made of the need for a closer examination of the problem. See my online paper entitled "English or languish: A problem of severe market distortion". In a similar light there were no recommendations with regard to the problem of recycled Hong Kong English.
• With the exception of the shift toward a more service-oriented economy all of the recent changes employed as a justification for language education reform are clearly related to Greater China. With regard to the service industry itself no evidence was provided indicating to what degree the demand for English has been affected. What is evident is a strong shift in emphasis from English to Putonghua and other languages of Greater China and East Asia. Moreover, there was no recommendation for a rigorous study to explore the matter further. Please see the section of the HKLNA-Project website entitled the "Opportunity cost of English language education". economic modelling (graph 2b)
• Parents and teachers were repeatedly reminded that too much emphasis is placed on examinations. Notwithstanding, SCOLAR recommends no change with regard to the principal cause for that emphasis -- tertiary school entrance examinations. In effect, by advocating no change in this regard the government is setting bad precedence for the very reforms that it expects primary and secondary school administrators and parents to undertake.
• Under the proposed system the problem of social stratification with regard to English language competence will not go away. Those with little inclination toward the English language will be disadvantaged by a society that makes English language competence a pre-requisite for social advancement. The SCOLAR report implicitly advocates the perpetuation of the old colonial system and justifies it with a new mantra - the need to be globally competitive. What is worse, there is no mention of the need for rigorous study of Kong Kong business, government, and university language needs, and the arguments and evidence provided are at best controversial.
• Insisting that English subtitles be included with all English language programming is unlikely to succeed, as it will require a strong dose of government intervention. Subtitles detract from the aesthetic quality of multi-media programming and are likely to result in reduced sales revenue to those who provide it. No mention was made of compensation for lost revenue.

Answers to questions

1. What should be done if students fail to achieve the basic competencies in either Chinese or English for a particular key stage?
   • Not allowing a student to advance with his own cohort will likely damage his social growth. Thus, compulsory remedial help is the best solution. If after remedial help, the child is still unable to meet the minimum level of competence required for the next key stage, then he should be made exempt from fulfilling the language requirement. Lack of proficiency in a second language should not be allowed to destroy a child's professional career. No second language can be that important.
     
     
2. Why are the GCE O-Level and IELTS Band 6 not used for all students -- both domestic and foreign?
   • Is the more appropriate question not what is the purpose of the examination? Is it to measure the ability of Hong Kong English language instructors to impart knowledge of recycled Hong Kong English to Hong Kong students, or is it to measure the ability of Hong Kong students to communicate with the non-Chinese world both in and outside of Hong Kong? If it is the latter, then the most universal testing procedure possible is preferred.
     
     
3. Why are university graduates not required to attain an expected level of Chinese and English before they are granted a degree?
   • Since, no one is permitted to rise in Hong Kong society further than his ability to pass English language examinations at the primary and secondary levels, it makes little sense not to continue the same pattern of social conditioning at the tertiary level . This is especially true when one considers that most tertiary students find it difficult to conduct a meaningful conversation in English, let alone sit through English language lectures. On the one hand, Hong Kong tertiary institutions are the biggest source of complaint with regard to the English language competence of Hong Kong students; on the other hand, they are not utilizing their own resources efficiently to improve their students' ability. The contradiction does not end here, however.
     
     If Hong Kong tertiary institutions are loathe to make the English language a requirement for graduation, then why must the English language be a requirement for entry? It is patently inconsistent with the current objectives of the Hong Kong government to insist on English for entry into tertiary institutions, but not for graduation. Of course, the explanation for this paradox is all too clear. There are no incentives for university teachers to write in Cantonese or translate English textbooks into Cantonese. On the contrary, the entire emphasis is on publication in world renown English language journals. The net result is increased world prestige for Hong Kong universities and inferior language competence among Hong Kong graduates. The entire system is designed to promote the interests of the few to the detriment of the many -- a system of education which in the end will cost all Hong Kong citizens dearly.
     
     The underlying, socially stratifying approach to English language instruction not only goes against the egalitarian ethos of post-colonial Anglo-Saxon culture and society, but it is damaging to those students who do not excel in the acquisition of second languages. Additional promotion of universal language training on the part of the Hong Kong government can only aggravate an already bad situation.
     
     
4. Why should we be so concerned about the necessary conditions for a successful switch? Should a timetable for adopting Putonghwa as the MOI for Chinese Language among local schools be set?
   • This matter lies outside the focus of the HKLNA-Project.
     
     
5. Why is a deadline not set for all serving language teachers to acquire the specified qualifications?
   • In general changing the rules in the middle of a game can only lead to trouble. Thus, only those who are new to the game should be made subject to the new rules, unless of course the rules interfere with the performance of those who are no longer new to the game. When a teacher chooses his career or enters into contract with a school, he enters that contract with certain long-term expectations. Does insisting upon greater certification half-way through one's career make sense in this context?
     
     Attrition will remove the qualification problem in the long run and continuing education can make up for gaping deficiencies in the short. Older teachers who discover that younger teachers outperform them have built-in incentives to obtain higher qualifications -- professional pride and peer reputation. Older teachers who are already performing well, should be left alone to continue their work.
     
     
6. Why can an incremental salary increase not be offered in addition to conferring a title?
   • Conferring additional titles will likely be an incentive for some, but salary increases will result in greater across-the-board expenditure for all. With an educational budget that is already constrained by insufficient government revenue and an economy which is still finding its way to recovery are increased salary increments a wise choice? Probably not.

top