My earlier blog posts have pieced together the history and development of Hong Kong’s educational structure. They have provided a glimpse into the complex, and at times turbulent, evolution of institutions, programs, and curriculums. The transition of control that took place over fifteen years ago has fed the fire of controversy in the region and added an element of mystery. My research has discovered a populace and education system in flux and confusion. It appears that nobody truly understands what the Chinese government plans to do with Hong Kong, and unfortunately, educational policy itself seems to teeter with tugs of a figurative puppet string. Among this policy exist issues related to diversity and access to education. This blog post will address these issues and attempt to clarify governmental approaches.
Student learning is the focus. The kind of learning that takes place is under fire, but it is clear that the government is intent on access to education. This is in line with the Chinese culture, which has always valued education. This access, however, is not necessarily equal. We have learned in this class about the tiered educational institutions, and how selectivity largely drives the quality of education and facilities provided. Throughout China, and in Hong Kong, there exists a network of upper tier, “key schools.” These schools receive additional support from the government, and as a result are more aptly prepared with staff, faculty, and resources. As a result, it is not surprising that they have much higher success rates in relation to graduation and matriculation to higher education. In contrast, the lower tiered institutions receive less funding and provide education to students at a lower level of quality. In Hong Kong, lower tiered schools might be found on the top floor of public housing buildings or in impoverished neighborhoods. These schools are usually aided and supported by non-governmental bodies such as churches or charitable organizations. Due to the hierarchal nature of the Chinese culture, student and families accept this structure, and fully embrace it as standard operation. Testing determines where students will be placed throughout this structure, from primary school to college, and explains the mania that surrounds standardized testing in the country.
Hong Kong began to push universal education and greater access for primary and secondary level students in the 1960’s. With this push came the disintegration of standardized testing used for admission at the lower levels. These efforts were tied into the economic boom that the region was experiencing around that time. The manufacturing industry was growing rapidly and needed a workforce that was able to provide manpower. As a result, government initiatives allowed for large expansions in primary, junior, and secondary education. One example of this was the introduction of 9 years of compulsory education in 1978 (versus 6 years). Interestingly, the number of students gaining access to higher education stayed at consistent, low levels until the 1990’s.
In the late 1980’s, Honk Kong began to experience a drain of population due to the impending transition of governance to China. Many families feared the Chinese government and did not confide in its ability to secure and maintain a successful education system. Consequently, many families emigrated overseas in avoidance of ensuing political strife. Only at this point, do we see Hong Kong making exceptional shifts in reform related to access to higher education. Selectivity went down, and enrollments went up at the University of Hong Kong.
Issues arose with the increase of demand for education that came along with compulsory mandates. First, instructors were challenged with managing the new levels of diversity that they found in their classrooms. This diversity included ethnicities, dialects, socio-economics, and levels of intellectual capacity. Teachers were not prepared with the skills that came along with coordinating classes that were infused with these new dynamics and it led to a disconnect between students and teachers in many cases. Second, there was a shift in responsibility. Before the introduction of compulsory education, students were the ones responsible for their own futures. Their performance in school and on exams dictated what kind of future was in store for them. After its introduction, this responsibility became that of the schools. There was no longer a “filter” of sorts, which meant that all students must be prepared for success. This became a burden on school officials who had to answer to parents and communities. Third, the changes in the economic and employment landscape greatly influenced the previously mentioned phenomenon. As industries and companies became more technologically advanced, workers were needed who could perform more than just manual labor. These new skills were not necessarily being taught in schools, and a strain became apparent between Hong Kong (secondary school) graduates and the employers.
In sum, the issues of educational access and diversity remain a part of Hong Kong’s struggle. They have not been solved, but they have been recognized. Action has been taken by the government to improve the amount of exposure Hong Kongese students have to formal education, however, there remains work to be done. The region’s unique position and political grounding as “one country, two systems” has proven to be complicating. Regardless, both governments (China and Hong Kong) are intent on providing education, and that is a worthwhile start. How, where, and when that education is provided is yet to be debated and determined.
Hoffman, Bowley. Historical Development of Education in Hong Kong
Wei, Betty and Li, Elizabeth. Culture Shock! Hong Kong
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/46581016.pdf
