Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Debate
Debate
(aged 9), with critics of the exam claiming that the extensive drills and practice are counterproductive in nurturing
young minds. The government seems to accept the recommendation from a working group that 90 per cent of
primary school pupils could be exempted from taking it this year.
In fact, the TSA problem is just one symptom; it is not the core issue. The major challenge in Hong Kongs
education system is the exam-orientated culture, which has largely gone unrecognised in the recent debate. I
am not saying exams are a bad thing, but it is inappropriate and ineffective to spend all our time and effort
focusing only on examinations. If we do, the learning process will be distorted, restricted and far from pleasant.
Hong Kongs education system has been undergoing major reform, with the idea of making the learning process
more enjoyable. The setting up of the TSA to replace previous tests of childrens ability is a classic example of
how a projects implementation and impact can be distorted once it is part of the system. Indeed, there is still
much debate about how the education system should be run.
Our exam-orientated culture allows the system to identify the 18 per cent of students who can go on to publicly
funded tertiary institutions. Meanwhile, the other 82 per cent are studying a curriculum which benefit them very
little.
It is the parents prejudice, plus limited choice of jobs for young people, that has helped create this reality
Students have no choice but to concentrate on exams to meet university entrance requirements. There are local
alternatives, such as vocational training courses, but these do not appeal greatly to students, or to their parents.
It is in fact parents prejudice, plus the limited choice of jobs for young people, that has helped create this reality.
Thats why every stakeholder currently emphasises success in exams, and it also explains why after-school
tuition classes are such big business in this town.
I ended up sending my son to Australia to continue his high school education at the age of 14, due to the very
demanding local curriculum. He tried, and struggled, for a while and it didnt take him long to lose interest in
studying, instead preferring to play soccer and be with his school friends, which is of course normal for someone
his age.
In Australia, his school has more open space and the curriculum was much friendlier. He learned much more
holistically; developing his interest and self-esteem, and regaining his confidence in studying. Now, he has been
offered a place at the University of Melbourne, one of countrys top institutions. When he was in primary school,
his teacher suggested he should repeat a year to catch up. My son tells me now that it would have been bad for
his psychological well-being to have had to do the year again.
It seems that its not a lack of intelligence that defeats our children, but the exam-oriented culture and demanding
curriculum. Sometimes, a childs potential cannot be realised in the present system. In Australia, almost every
child finds a suitable college or university course that they are interested in. They also find a job after graduation
that pays them a decent wage.
Empowering problem-solving skills and promoting self-esteem have been shown to be instrumental in enhancing
well-being. However, local schools have difficulty in finding time and space for these activities. Teachers teach
more but students learn less. A packed and demanding curriculum only makes things worse. Thus, the learning
process can be quite discouraging, especially for those who are not academically gifted.
The Quality Education Fund has provided support for promoting the well-being of our children. It is timely, given
the increasing trend in youth suicide among students. In the past six months, more than 20 young people have
killed themselves, including seven university students. Have we missed something in our school curriculums?
Have we got the priorities right? Can we do better?
Teachers teach more but students learn less. A packed and demanding curriculum only makes things worse
Providing education for overseas students has been an important source of income for Australia; many Hong
Kong children now head abroad to continue their education. It can cost a fortune, but the children are being given
alternatives. However, there are many who cannot afford it. It is sad that even with so much government money
being spent in Hong Kong, we still have not managed to change our exam-orientated culture.
Many direct subsidy schools have been set up in the past decade, only deepening the disparity between the
haves and have-nots. The not-so-well-off children are being deprived of opportunities. Surely, some bright
students who manage in the existing system would do even better in a more favourable learning environment.
Of course, not all performance assessment and benchmarking in schools is wrong. It is how schools and parents
respond to these measures that counts. The current issue with the TSA is just a symptom of a larger problem.
This requires an overhaul of the system, to provide more opportunities and alternatives for our children. At the
same time, the pay for non-graduate jobs needs to be reasonable so that everyones potential can be realised
and their talent nurtured, for their own well-being. Promoting an interesting curriculum and inspiring learning
environment can only be good for our next generation.
Paul Yip is a professor of social work and social administration at the University of Hong Kong
While many children spent Christmas cramming for Januarys common entrance exams and my colleagues await
the publication of the Secondary School Performance tables, as Head of a non-selective independent school, I
have to ask myself the question; What are these exams actually measuring and what are the long term effects
of pushing children and young people through the process?
With the Institute of Directors (IoD) criticising schools for failing to prepare children for the workplace with the
skills and knowledge they need to succeed, it begs the question whats the point of our obsession with exam
results? Have we just become exam factories as claimed by the IoD? How are we measuring intelligence? What
about creativity and valuable interpersonal skills - are they worthless?
I take inspiration from the likes of Sir Ken Robinson who argues that schools cannot meet the needs of the future
by just refining what we have done in the past. Todays education system, which was designed and conceived
in a different age, is based around the thinking that there are only two types of ability academic and non-
academic. This has led to many brilliant people thinking they are not intelligent as they are being judged against
this sadly limiting mindset.
There is somewhat of a production line mentality to our education system ringing bells, children educated in
batches based on date of manufacture (their age), siphoned off into separate subjects and separate facilities.
Instead of nurturing skills that are valuable in a computerised age, the current model stamps out innate creativity
and divergent thinking, with standardisation being the main goal. I firmly believe that its time to change the
paradigm and move away from an archaic system where the focus firmly remains on testing.
The factory analogy is pretty accurate as it seems our system is more at home in the industrial age and not the
current knowledge era. Schools are still squashing children into an antiquated education machine, which spits
them out as either bruised and battered rejects or as conformists; experts in rote learning and memory challenges
rather than deep thinking and enquiry.
The skills that are useful to employers are almost the opposite of the skills that are applauded in our education
system
I favour a system that has a wider set of values, focusing on students wellbeing, without cramming or hot
housing. In my experience, a gentler and more rounded approach to education encourages students to perform
well not only in exams, but in life in general.
The IoD calls for students who are imbued with curiosity, open-mindedness and the ability to make connections
between seemingly unrelated bits of information. They are NOT looking for students who have been trained to
simply recall information to pass tests. The skills that are useful to employers are almost the opposite of the skills
that are applauded in our education system the ability to be effective in team working and to find good solutions
through collaboration rather than the being able to provide a single correct answer in isolation under exam
conditions.
Universities also have a critical part to play if we are to change anything. Offering entry by grade only and a well
written personal statement means that individual talent and ability is lost. And even they are becoming unstuck
as this model unravels. As declining applications bite home, the likes of the University of Bristol are lowering
entry grades for students from disadvantaged areas and giving guaranteed places to every school in the city.
While I welcome the change, I have to ask is this really shifting the paradigm or is it just a sharp business move?
Fortunately, we in the independent sector are less shackled by the constraints laid down by the Government,
meaning we can take brave steps and lead change.
However, we can only offer new approaches if parents are brave enough to embrace them. For many families,
exam results are the main driver when choosing a school, but there are many others who are relieved to discover
an alternative to the hot house environment.
We must all be more aware of the never-ending pressures on young people and the potential long term impact
on their self-esteem and mental health.
Educationalist Guy Claxton believes that children should be encouraged to ask questions and think
independently
There are a number of strategies that can be implemented to help provide young people with a more balanced
learning experience. My school works with Educationalist Guy Claxton, who believes that children should be
encouraged to ask questions and think independently - not at the expense of Shakespeare or the Periodic Table
- but alongside these.
We use learning wheels to map skills with values to inform our pedagogy, while ensuring that children feel safe
and confident to speak out and be listened to. Our diverse programmes are developed to foster leadership,
adaptability and resilience in all students.
Of course, our students will sit exams in the end and be judged against the same criteria as every other student
in the country. Outcomes will continue to be important and of course, qualifications are the passport to a young
persons future career.
However, there is far more to learning. If we take the time to nurture our young people, we have a greater chance
of equipping them with the values and attributes they need to become engaged learners and achieve long-term
career success.
Ever since the board results were declared last week, there has been a lot of brouhaha on social media with
people uploading, flaunting or rather announcing the ninety-fives and ninety-sixes. Board results! Are you
serious? Does that even matter? Will those who have an aggregate of 75% be denied the right to a proper and
respectful life in the future? But, this discussion is perhaps futile to the millions of students about to take the
board exams and more so for the parents of such students. I am not an educationist, but an average academician
who feels extremely sorry for kids who are caught up in the rat race of securing the highest percentages in the
boards. So, this is what I want to say to them.