Morris 1985

This article was downloaded by: [University of Exeter]
On: 12 August 2015, At: 17:48

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Asian Journal of Public Administration

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapa19
The Context of Curriculum Development

in Hong Kong
Paul Morris
Published online: 25 Feb 2014.
To cite this article: Paul Morris (1985) The Context of Curriculum Development in Hong Kong, Asian
Journal of Public Administration, 7:1, 18-35
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02598272.1985.10800155
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our
agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and
views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are
not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not
be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,
costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,
or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
ASIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
THE CONTEXT OF CURRICULUM

DEVELOPMENT IN HONG KONG:
AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEMS AND POSSIBILITIES
Paul Morris
During the last decade we have seen the introduction of universal education
in Hong Kong up to junior secondary level. This has been a remarkable achieve-
ment given that it happened within a decade of reaching the goal of universal
primary education. Ironically, however, the success of the school expansion
programme has exacerbated the problems relating to curricular provision. The
Downloaded by [University of Exeter] at 17:48 12 August 2015
academic emphasis of the curriculum designed for an elitist school system

is no longer adequate for pupils whose aspirations and abilities are not
academic. The rate of growth of the provision of school places has been
increasingly paralleled by a "concern" for the quality of educational provision
which was evidenced by the setting up of the Curriculum Development
Committee (CDC) in 1972, and the Institute of Language Education in 1982.
Unfortunately, the improvement of educational quality is not as readily achieved
as the expansion of the school system.
The existing institutional and organizational arrangements are at best only
evidence of attempts to address the problems of curriculum development: they
cannot be seen to have provided a solution. What little evidence we have
concerning the implementation of curricular innovations in Hong Kong indicates
that planned changes, especially those relating to pedagogy, are not
implemented in the classroom.1 While teachers accept the desirability of the
pedagogy advocated by the curriculum planners, they have to survive under
conditions which do not readily allow their use and they are often unable to
translate the vague exhortations of planners into practice. The result is a facade
of curriculum development in which rhetoric and reality, precepts and practices,
exist as distinct areas of discourse which operate independently of each other.
It is evident from both the report of the visiting panel, which was set up to
provide an overall review of the educational system in Hong Kong, and the
Education Commission Report No. 1 of 1984 that there is a recognition that
a problem exists.2
It is hoped that future Education Commission reports will provide policy
proposals which will address the need to improve curricular provision. Two
themes emerge from the first report, however, which do not provide grounds
for optimism about the next phase of its work which will directly consider issues
Paul Morris is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Professional Studies in Education

at the University of Hong Kong.
18
of curriculum planning and development. Firstly, they state that:

... we fully agree and are pleased to note that there is considerable
teacher participation in curriculum development...3
One must presume that the only evidence on which this assertion is based
is provided by the Education Department. There is a semblance of participation
in which teachers are asked for their comments on syllabuses which they
usually had no influence in preparing. If this assumption underlies their
proppsals, then clearly we can only anticipate some minor modifications to the
present system.
Secondly, the report recommends that:
...a new College of Education should be provided to strengthen both

the quality and quantity of teacher preparation.4
It is never stated how a new college will help improve the quality of teacher
preparation. The critical issues which presently affect the quality of teacher
preparation in the present colleges are not addressed. It would be unfortunate
if the Commission similarly avoids the critical issues which currently affect
the quality and impact of curriculum development in Hong Kong. It is therefore
both appropriate and timely to focus on these issues given that the Commission
will be addressing them in their next report.
The purpose of this paper, then, is to identify the critical features of the
process of curriculum development as it operates in Hong Kong. Initially, I
provide a conceptual framework within which the main features of curriculum
development can be compared and understood. Subsequently, the main
features of the current strategy of curriculum development in Hong Kong is
described and analysed. Lastly, a set of policy guidelines are identified.
Strategies of Curriculum Development

The work of Havelock and Huberman9 provides a partial framework for
distinguishing between strategies of curriculum development. They focus on
the different relationships between the agencies of curriculum planning and
the users of any planned changes and identify six strategies for bringing about
change. These are:
Problem Solving: locally participative and responsive problem-solving and
self-help strategies.
Power Coercive: power, authority, administrative and legalistic procedures
predominate.
Theory-free: emphasis on openness, flexibility, eclecticism and multiplicity of
inputs.
19
Social interaction: emphasis on communication and diffusion of innovations

through a variety of channels and interpersonal networks.
Research, Development and Diffusion: an emphasis on systematic research,
empirical evidence, means-ends rationality and evaluation controlled
approaches.
Linkage: an emphasis on inside-outside cooperation and dialogue between
users and policy makers.
Short6 complements the work of Havelock and Huberman by focussing
on the degree and source of change rather than simply on the relationship
between policy makers and innovation users. He provides a framework which
allows any curriculum change to be located in terms of three criteria: the source
of expertise which generates and supports the change, the degree of anticipated
adaptation of an innovation and thirdly, the planned location of the change.
Figure 1 provides a matrix for understanding the dimensions within and the
relationship between those variables. Short's original formulation is not entirely
satisfactory for understanding the features of curriculum development in Hong
Kong because it does not allow for the important role of members of the
educational bureaucracy as a potential source of "expertise'. The matrix has
therefore been modified to include this element.
An understanding of Figure 1 is best provided by a description of two
specific and radically different strategies. Strategy I in Figure 1 would entail
an innovation developed by academic experts in a discipline (scholar
dominated). It would be aimed at changing the curriculum across a large number
of schools (generic). And it is anticipated that teachers will implement the
innovation according to centrally prescribed directives (implementation as
directed). In contrast, strategy II would involve a change which is generated by
a combination of academic experts, curriculum specialists and teachers. It is
intended to be used in a single institution and it is anticipated that users will
adapt any suggestions made to them to suit the context and the pupils.
Curriculum Development in Hong Kong

Whilst the distinctions detailed above provide a basis for identifying the main
features of curriculum development they can only be meaningfully applied to
the different phases of the change process. Three phases are usually
distinguished.7 Phase I — variously labelled initiation, mobilization, adaption,
planning or policy making — consists of the processes which lead up to a
decision to proceed with a change. Phase II — implementation or initial use
— involves the attempts to put an idea into practice. Phase III — also called
incorporation or institutionalization — refers to whether or not the change gets
built into the system or disappears. The identification of these distinct phases,
20
Figure 1
Matrix for Identifying

Curriculum Development Strategies
EXPERTISE REQUIRED
GENERIC
I
cc H OPEN
3 ft ^ ADAPTATION
SITE- o 2 ^ LIMITED
ADAPTATION
SPECIFIC 5°
UJ
vt IMPLEMENTATION
AS DIRECTED
Source : Modified from E.C. Short "The forms and uses of alternative curriculum
development strategies" Curriculum Inquiry Vol. 13 No.1.
21
especially the first two, is important as it avoids the problem of assuming that
evidence of activity in one phase constitutes evidence of the complete process
of curriculum development.
Initiation or Policy Making

This phase is most evident in Hong Kong. The activities and organizational
structure of two centralized agencies, namely the Curriculum Development
Committee (CDC) and the Hong Kong Examination Authority (HKEA) (see Figure
2), are mainly intended for the identification and promotion of new or revised
educational programmes. Whilst the HKEA's official function is an aspect of
the implementation stage, it has frequently been used as the primary agency
for both initiating and constraining curriculum change. The main result of this
enterprise is the production of CDC and HKEA syllabuses. The CDC syllabuses
follow the Tyler8 approach to curriculum planning and identify the subjects:
aims and objectives, subject content, teaching methods and assessment
procedures. Both the structure and official rhetoric of these organizations stress
and portray a picture of local participation and problem solving in the production
of these documents. This is evidenced by the rationale for the setting up of
the CDC in 1972 which was supposed to channel the views of teachers and
other community groups into the process of curriculum development. The public
statements of senior officials of the Educational Department also constantly
stress the extent of participation and consultation in the process of identifying
and implementing educational changes. Furthermore,the official syllabuses,
published by the various subject CDC's.usually contain a statement to the effect
that:
The syllabus is one of a series prepared for use in secondary schools
by the Curriculum Development Committee, Hong Kong. The
Curriculum Development Committee, together with its subject com-
mittees, is widely representative of the local educational community,
membership including heads of schools and practising teachers from
government and non-government schools, university and college of
education lecturers, officers of the Advisory Inspectorate, and of-
ficers of other Divisions of the Education Department.'
In addition to this, the Education Regulations provide that:
No instruction may be given by any school except in accordance with
a syllabus approved by the Director,10
and that:
No person shall use any document for instruction in a class in any
school unless particulars of the title, author and publisher of the
22
Figure 2
Government Structure and Curriculum Development
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
t
ADVISORY | HONG KONG
INSPECTORATE EXAMINATIONS AUTHORITY*
CURRICULUM SUBJECT
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEES
(MAIN COMMITTEE)
TEXTBOOK SUBJECT
COMMITTEE COMMITTEES
TEXTBOOK
REVIEW
PANEL
*The Hong Kong Examinations Authority is an independent statutory body

but there is an overlapping membership with the Education Department.
23
document and such other particulars of the document as the Director

may require have been furnished to the Director not less than
fourteen days previously.11
This effectively ensures that schools must use officially approved syllabuses
and textbooks.
Whilst the structure of the CDC is an attempt to encourage a "problem-
solving" strategy, the reality is more akin to a "power-coercive" strategy.
Changes usually emanate from within the Education Department, and generally
in response to problems perceived by the top of the bureaucratic hierarchy.
This was especially evident in the introduction of a range of "new" subjects (for
example, Integrated Science Mil, Social Studies Mil and Economics IV-V) in the
mid-1970s which were introduced for the purpose of changing the teaching
approach used in schools. The Chief Inspector of Schools played the key role
in both the identification of a problem and the selection of a solution. The same
is currently occurring with the Civics/Political Education curriculum. The sudden
concern for this area seems to have been primarily induced by the concern
of a few Legislative Council members. Their "concern" has filtered down
through the Education Department hierarchy and is now the concern of the
relevant CDC committees.
The mechanisms used to disseminate curriculum changes by both the
CDC and HKEA rely on the classic tools of a power-coercive strategy, namely
official directives and requirements. These take the form of official circulars
and new syllabuses which inform users of planned changes and invite their
comments. The combination of these patterns of decision making and
dissemination result in the advisory inspectorate performing essentially
defensive and conservatising functions rather than an innovative one. They have
to defend official curriculum policy to both the public and to the educational
community who have had little say in either identifying a need or bringing about
a solution. By centralizing and bureaucratizing the process of innovation (for
example, by requiring that any non-official syllabuses and textbooks which are
not approved be submitted with full justifications to the inspectorate) they
effectively provide a disincentive to schools or individual teachers to attempt
any localized or site specific curriculum innovation.
The basic units which might allow teacher participation in the centralized
process as it currently operates, the CDC and HKEA subject committees, utilize
a number of techniques which means that the committees usually only serve
to endorse or marginally modify policies decided by official members. These
techniques include: the selection of teacher members by the official members,
the avoidance of any teacher representatives on these committees, the
avoidance of any provision for full time participation by teacher members and
the creation of working parties to avoid and delay making decisions which are
24
not officially sanctioned. The present separation between the inspectorate and
the HKEA also allows decisions made in one body to be effectively vetoed by
the other organization. Thus, teaching approaches recommended by the CDC
are sometimes viewed cynically by teachers for they know that their use would
be wholly dysfunctional for enabling students to pass the public examination12
which is controlled by the HKEA. The effective control of officials of the
Education Department and the HKEA over the processes of curriculum policy-
making mean that in terms of the Havelock and Huberman formulation the
strategy employed is primarily a "power-coercive" one or, in Short's terminology,
the main source of "expertise" are the administrators of the Education
Department and HKEA. This is especially the case with regard to the social
science subjects which are perceived as politically sensitive and which do not
possess well organised teachers' organizations.
The picture described above is generally applicable to curriculum
development at the Form One to Five level. The picture changes however at
the Form Six/Seven level where other sources of innovation are discernible.
In the case of the Geography "A" level curriculum a major syllabus change in the
late 1970s was brought about by the combined efforts of a curriculum specialist
and of some university academic geographers. In the case of "A" level Economics
the syllabus changes are mainly attributable to the influence of university
academics who have used the HKEA generally and the HKEA syllabus specifically
as the tools for redefining the nature and purposes of the curriculum. This has
allowed "change" to occur without any reference to or concern for either the
purposes of senior secondary education or implementation issues. As a result
the Economics "A" level has now become an exercise in which teachers are
attempting to train their pupils to answer examination questions on syllabuses
essentially devised by university academics without meaningful teacher input.
This has necessitated the use of textbooks designed explicitly for tertiary level
education. Changes at "A" level have also been used as a reason for attempting
to initiate complementary changes at Certificate level.
At Form Six to Seven there is therefore a more varied set of influences
with "scholars" and "curriculum specialists" having some impact. There is,
however, no evidence of any involvement or influence by the users of curriculum
changes on the making of policy. The achievement of increased teacher
involvement in curriculum policy making must be a major purpose of any future
policy if curriculum innovations are to have any impact in the classroom.
The other important features which are not isolated in the above analysis
are the complexity and clarity of the planned change. Clarity about both goals
and means is a necessity if significant change is to occur. The work of Gross
et al.,13 Weatherley14 and a number of other writers clearly indicate that diffuse
goals and unspecified or vague means of implementation are a major obstacle
to implementation as users are not clear what they are supposed to do or how
25
they are to do it.

Complexity refers to the difficulty and degree of change required of the
implementer of a planned change. Any change can be examined with regard
to the difficulty, skill required and extent of alterations in beliefs, teaching
strategies and use of materials. Insofar as many innovations imported into Hong
Kong are premised on a mixture of aspects of a diffuse conception of
"progressive education" (for example, problem-solving, pupil-participation,
inquiry based skills, and heuristic teaching) they require a sophisticated array
of skills, teaching strategies and philosophical understanding if effective
implementation is to occur. In consequence, they involve a high degree of
complexity.
The main features of the initiation stage in Hong Kong, therefore, are that
it is dominated by bureaucrats, generic in emphasis and the plans are frequently
complex and lacking in clarity. This mixture of features has been called "the
alternative of grandeur"15 and has been consistently found to produce a
facade of change.
The Implementation of Planned Change

The previous section has focussed on the initiation of planned change. After
a programme or direction of change has been identified it is necessary for the
plans to be put into practice. The processes involved in implementing ideas
are more intricate as real change, as distinct from verbal or "on paper" change,
is involved. Unfortunately, resources in Hong Kong have mainly been directed
to the initiation stage of curriculum development and have ignored the fact
that what pupils and teachers do in the classroom is the crucial variable. This
emphasis on initiation at the expense of implementation is not confined to Hong
Kong. The work of Silberman16 and Fullan17 indicates that a similar problem is
evident elsewhere. Fullan quotes a Canadian Deputy Director of Education
whose views reflect the local situation:
Well, the hard work is done. We have the policy passed; now all you
have to do is implement it.18
But in comparative terms the imbalance in Hong Kong is such more

marked than elsewhere and is more a problem of neglect than of emphasis.
The work of Lewin19 indicates that even relatively poor countries such as
Malaysia and Sri Lanka have allocated substantial resources to support the
implementation of curricular innovations. This support takes a variety of forms
which include: the provision of supporting agencies such as regional teachers'
centres, the provision of learning resources, and of personnel to advise and
assist teachers. Whilst some sections of the existing centralized system in
Hong Kong could claim to carry out these functions there is no evidence of
them having any impact.
26
A brief review of the existing attempts to aid implementation in Hong Kong

illustrates the degree of neglect and lack of impact:
The Subject "Resource Centres": These were established to provide resources

and facilities for teachers in particular subject areas but they are under-
resourced and therefore under-utilized. They are mainly used as a location for
running courses for teachers. The absence of a full time warden or of formal
staffing in some cases means that they are not open when teachers might be
able to use them (that is, weekends and evenings).
In-Service Training: Courses which might claim this purpose are usually run
as a result of the change or introduction of a new syllabus. They usually focus

on providing an explanation of how the syllabus has changed, details of changed
assessment procedures or exhortations of the desirability of an officially
sanctioned teaching approach. They do not usually focus on implementation
issues. The provision of such courses is ad hoc and piecemeal, and those which
do address implementation issues are often provided by the teachers
associations.
The Provision of Classroom Resources: The details of the policy to provide

classroom resources reflect the low status attributed to an implementation
policy. The persons recruited to produce resources are sometimes fresh
graduates with no teaching experience who are employed during their summer
vacation. Alternatively, they are seconded from schools for two years. The status
of the positions and the career structure in schools makes it difficult to employ
people with the experience and capabilities to perform the task. Clearly one
cannot expect such a policy to provide the tangible, relevant and tested
resources which teachers need and want. The operations of the Media
Production Services Units do provide teachers with facilities for making their
own resources. But the existence of only one such unit means that for a large
number of teachers the facilities are not geographically convenient.
The picture which emerges is a depressing one — but it does indicate
that a lack of real change, especially in terms of methods of teaching and
learning, cannot be validly explained solely in terms of the knowledge or skills
of teachers. Teachers are trying to cope with the realities of the context in which
they work. They are being asked to implement radical changes, which
sometimes are contradictory and are often vaguely formulated.20 They know
that they have had no say in formulating those changes and they have received
no practical support to implement them. It is not surprising that the result is
a facade of change.
An alternative perspective for assessing existing provision in the
implementation phase is by isolating those elements which have been identified
27
as key features of successful curriculum development exercises elsewhere.

Schaffarzick identifies the following as critical features of successful curriculum
development projects:
( 1) the determination of a need;
( 2) the construction of theoretical foundations;
( 3) the use of goals and objectives;
( 4) attention to developmental psychology & learning research;
( 5) the use of group collaboration;
( 6) preparation of resources;
( 7) planning for early dissemination;
( 8) the preparation of staff development training;

( 9) testing and revision;
(10) continuous development.21
Features (1) to (4) are elements of the initiation stage but there is only clear
evidence of (3) in the syllabuses produced in Hong Kong. Features (5) to (10)
focus mainly on the implementation stage and these are conspicuous by their
absence or paucity in Hong Kong.
The pertinent question which arises from this situation is why implemen-
tation is neglected or conversely why resources, especially human resources,
are primarily devoted to the initiation stage of curriculum development. The
reasons are complex but the following considerations serve to maintain or
exacerbate the situation.
Priorities
Highly centralized systems of government usually place a premium on the
production of highly visible plans which can be used to demonstrate the
existence of both a policy towards and concern for an issue. In contrast
resources spent on implementation are both expensive and lack the same
degree of public visibility. Within the Education Department this is evident in
the very low priority given to aspects of implementation and the high priority
given to the production of policy statements or formal doctrines.
Accountability
The centralized agency for the initiation and support of curriculum innovation
is the advisory inspectorate but this body is not directly accountable to any
body which has as its primary concern the quality of curricular provision. It
is directly accountable through the Education Department to the government's
Finance Branch. This means that any attempt to address implementation issues
receives a very low priority as they lack both visibility and they require a long
time period to produce results. This serves to exacerbate and reinforce the
28
existing priorities within the Education Department generally and the

inspectorate specifically.
Evaluation
There is at present no systematic attempt to evaluate either how innovations
are used or to determine the problems of implementation. Official indications
of whether an innovation is being used include invalid proxy variables such
as: the number of schools that prepare pupils for a given syllabus, teachers'
attitudes towards a new syllabus or the number of schools which state that
they use an innovation. Both principals and teachers are willing to claim that
they use officially sanctioned innovations — but their position is best described
by R.D. Laing's poem Knots:
"There is something I don't know
that I am supposed to know,
I don't know what it is I don't know,
and yet am supposed to know,
And I feel I look stupid
if I seem not to know it
and don't know what it is I don't know.
Therefore, I pretend I know it.
This is nerve wracking since I don't know
what I pretend to know.
Therefore I pretend I know everything."22
Teachers are willing to express agreement with the rhetoric of innovations,
especially those relating to changes in teaching methods but they generally
do not, and are often unable to, implement the desired approach. The expressed
attitudes of teachers provide a convenient, if inaccurate, indicator of a
successful curriculum development policy but they are at best only evidence
of compliance and not of implementation. Whilst the advisory inspectorate
focus their activities on introducing new syllabuses, there is neither support
nor pressure for teachers to change their teaching. The activities of both groups
minimize the risk of overt failure and allow each group to satisfy the
expectations of their respective clients and superiors. The staff of the advisory
inspectorate produce syllabuses which advocate the use of a "new", "modern"
or "progressive" teaching approach. This satisfies the governments need to
be seen to be solving educational problems. Teachers meanwhile satisfy the
expectations of pupils, colleagues, parents and principals which places a
premium on a teaching approach which minimizes the risk of failure. This
emphasizes coverage of the examination syllabus and maximizing pass rates
as indicators of successful performance.
The absence of any systematic evaluation of how plans are implemented
29
means that any evidence of implementation can be used, regardless of its

validity. Implementation'is not therefore viewed as a problematic issue.
Choices
The centralized nature of curriculum development in Hong Kong means that
the government is in de facto control of both the nature and variety of curricula
made available to pupils. Therefore, schools can only choose from amongst
those curricula which are provided by the government. As a result there Is no
pressure or even necessity for the government to address implementation issues
as their curricula are not competing with any alternatives. In contrast, in the
United States and United Kingdom, schools can choose from a variety of
competing programmes. An innovation which did not address implementation
issues would not survive as teachers decisions are greatly influenced by what
Doyle and Ponder describe as "the practicality ethic",23 that is, whether they
work in practice.
Responsibilities
The neglect of implementation issues is officially rationalized by the claim that
implementation and resource production are the responsibility of the individual
teacher who is in the best position to determine what is required in a specific
context. Thus the implementation stage is characterized by a "self-help" or open
adaptation strategy whilst the initiation stage is characterized by a "power
coercive" strategy. But adaptation involves teachers using a resource in an alter-
native way to that envisaged. The absence of resources means that there is
no room for their adaptation. The change of strategies at the different stages
of curriculum development is an attempt to distance planners from
responsibility for the expensive and problematic area of implementation and
a self-help strategy allows the blame for failure to be conveniently directed
towards teachers.
If planners select and promote an innovation, such as a "new" teaching
approach it is at best unsatisfactory to expect teachers to both implement it
without assistance and to produce their own resources.
The Selection of Innovations

This point has already been referred to as an aspect of the initiation stage.
There is a tendency in Hong Kong to import curricular innovations which are
seen as embodying the opposite features of the local educational system. The
belief is that change can be induced by promoting a radically different and
intrinsically desirable alternative which will serve as a goal for teachers.
Innovations are therefore not chosen with regard to the realities of the existing
context which both defines and constrains the actions of teachers and pupils.
30
They are instead chosen because they conform to official perceptions of what
constitutes a desirable curriculum. The gap between plans and practices is
therefore maximized as some innovations are perceived to be dysfunctional
or unworkable.
Personnel and Resources

The advisory inspectorate is intended as the main agency for initiating and
supporting the implementation of curricular changes. As a government depart-
ment its criteria for promoting, appointing and evaluating staff are not conducive
to developing the resources and organizational structure needed for
implementing curricular policy. Priority is given to the recruitment of teachers

who are civil servants and most new appointees to the inspectorate come in
at the bottom of the hierarchy. Those appointments to senior positions from
outside the inspectorate have only involved transfers between government
departments (for example, from the Colleges of Education). The work of the
inspectorate has also grown to include a number of administrative and time-
consuming tasks, such as "checking" that schools only use "recommended"
textbooks and observing the lessons of teachers who are being considered
for promotion. These functions have rapidly grown with the expansion of the
school system whilst the inspectorate staff has only increased marginally.
The result of the combination of these factors is that many of the
inspectorate, but especially those in the senior positions, have no demonstrated
record of initiating or supporting change in schools, and no recent experience
of working in schools. Their advice to teachers is frequently prescriptive and
vague and their relationship with those teachers' associations which are actively
involved in curriculum implementation (for example, the Hong Kong Association
for Science and Mathematics Education and the Hong Kong Association for
Economics Education) is usually, albeit with some notable individual exceptions,
very defensive. The very substantial administrative tasks which the inspectorate
perform serve to reinforce a view of curriculum development as an essentially
legislative issue and the inspectorate serves a primarily defensive and
conservatising function. It has not yet been fully understood that the chief
source of real change is not the production of new syllabuses but the
identification and promotion of good ideas and programmes and the stimulation
of exchanges and assistance in relation to using them.
Policy Implications
The policy implications of the above discussions relate to the paramount need
to support and encourage change in classrooms. The problems identified in
this paper are not unique to Hong Kong and many governments have been trying
to tackle the same issues for a long time. However, the specific combination
31
of problems, policies and constraints has no clear parallel elsewhere. It is

therefore appropriate to look at the guidelines which influence policy elsewhere
and then to look at the critical issues which require priority consideration in
Hong Kong. Fullan identifies five policy guidelines for governments attempting
to bring about educational change.24 These are:
(1) Governments should concentrate on helping to improve the capacity of
other agencies to implement changes.
(2) They should be clear about what the policy is and spend time interacting
with local agencies about the meaning, expectations and needs in relation
to local implementation.
(3) They should ensure that they or someone else is addressing and looking
at programme development and in-service needs.
(4) Special steps should be taken to ensure that government staff, especially
those who have the most contact with the field, have the opportunity to
develop knowledge and competence regarding the change as well as in
how to facilitate implementation.
(5) An explicit implementation plan is needed to guide the process of bringing
about change in practice.
Whilst these guidelines are generally applicable, the situation in Hong Kong
requires that priority consideration be given to the specific policy issues to be
discussed below.
The Selection of Innovations

The failure of the existing strategy in terms of its inability to generate an
innovative climate in schools and the failure to develop a policy to support
implementation indicates the need for innovations to be selected or developed,
by reference to an analysis of the context which affects teachers and pupils. This
would require the selection of more modest proposals which would allow a
gradual movement towards a desired long term goal. Innovations would therefore
be selected by reference to the probability of their successful implementation as
well as by reference to their desirability.
The corollary of this perspective is that if curriculum policy is to be
informed by the practical realities in which teachers operate then it is necessary
to determine what that reality is. Research is therefore required to determine
the characteristics of the approach used and the problems which teachers are
facing. At present there is no procedure for gathering such information. As a
result teachers' perspectives play little part in defining proposals for new
curricula. Nor is much concerted effort made to establish what happens to new
courses after they have been introduced into schools.
Furthermore the constraints which influence teachers and the context
within which they work are different from those faced by their counterparts
32
in the west. Therefore, innovations and trends prevalent in the West do not
necessarily constitute an appropriate basis for curriculum reform in Hong Kong.
At minimum, projects developed elsewhere should be critically assessed to
determine whether their expectations are practicable in the Hong Kong context.
If curriculum policy is to influence classroom practices and not just con-
tribute to the rhetoric of change then recommendations must be translated
into specific classroom activities, which are consistent with the recommended
approach. Furthermore, the present arrangement, whereby innovations are
introduced and cannot subsequently be changed, is unsatisfactory. If the
teaching approach recommended for use by teachers is to be workable, then
it must be liable to modification in the light of how it is used. This would require
a more flexible approach to the specification of teaching approaches and feed-

back concerning how innovations are used.
The above discussion therefore points to the need for an incrementalist
strategy for changing teacher behaviour. Teachers should be assisted to change
their approach by a series of manageable steps. However, the purpose of these
changes should not only be to improve and consolidate existing practices, but
it should also attempt to move teaching towards a desired goal. It is therefore
necessary to distinguish between immediate short term goals and long term
goals.
The above suggestions are only partial solutions. Changes in teaching
approaches are not going to be accomplished solely by the introduction of a
more workable set of expectations. Planned change must be accompanied by
an attempt to assist teachers to both understand what is required of them and
also put it into practice. This would require a policy to encourage the implemen-
tation of planned proposals which presently does not exist in Hong Kong.
Assistance to Teachers
Despite exhortations that teachers should use a radically different teaching
approach, no assistance is provided to help teachers to do this. They are
expected to implement change without any guidance or training and they are
also expected to produce their own resources. Given that teachers often do
not understand what the innovation requires in practice and that they do not
have the skills to use it, the absence of any systematic attempt to provide in-
service training or resources is surprising. One cannot legitimately expect
teachers who neither understand nor are able to use a different teaching
approach to use it and produce appropriate resources.
Both of these proposals (the production of resources and in-service
training) require an investment of funds in the implementation of planned
change. This would be a departure from the present situation where funds are
primarily allocated to the selection and introduction of desirable proposals. As
Beeby commented, "Good education costs more than bad."25 Similarly an ef-
33
fective policy of curriculum development will cost more than an ineffective one.
The present policy of curriculum development is both cheap and ineffective.
Investment in the implementation of planned change will be more expensive.
It might however begin to influence teaching and not just contribute to the
maintenance of a facade of change.
The Strategy of Public Assessment

The influence of the public examination and its syllabus on teachers is the major
constraint and influence on the teaching approach used. Whilst the CDC
focusses on teaching methods and the HKEA runs the public examination, the
curriculum in practice will continue to be defined by the publications of the

latter body, specifically the public examination scripts and their accompanying
marking schedules.
The present lack of coordination between the different parts of the
curriculum means that any attempts at implementing change can be thwarted
by the strategy of public assessment. Why should a teacher encourage his
pupils to apply concepts and solve problems when the examination does not
require him to do so? If planners want pupils to use a certain learning style
then they must be asked to do so in the public examination and they must
be given marks for so doing. The present separation between the recommended
teaching approach and the nature of the examination confirms for teachers
the gap between the rhetoric and reality of teaching: the examination reflects
the reality and the recommended approach is the rhetoric. This separation is
reinforced by the existence of separate teaching and examination syllabuses
which are produced by virtually independent organisations (the CDC and HKEA
respectively).
Conclusion
These considerations should be central to the work of the Education
Commission on curriculum development. To improve the quality of education
and to allow the introduction and dissemination of innovative ideas, three
conditions must be met. First, teachers must participate meaningfully in the
initiation and implementation of curriculum development policy. Second,
innovations must be constituted with regard to the capacity and ability of the
teachers and pupils. And, to realize them, finally, they should be supported by
appropriate resource provision and by a consistent policy of public assessment.
Overall these considerations point to the need for the development of a coherent
policy to both initiate and implement curriculum changes. Only if these
conditions are met can one hope to achieve a qualitative, rather than simply
quantitative, improvement in education.
34
NOTES
1. See Paul Morris, "Curriculum Innovation and Implementation: A South East Asian Perspective,"
Curriculum Perspectives 4(1, May 1984).
2. See the report by a visiting panel, A Perspective on Education in Hong Kong (Hong Kong:
Government Printer, 1982) and Education Commission Report No. 1 (Hong Kong: Government Printer,
1984). The visiting panel's report was designed to provide an overall review of Hong Kong's educational
system. Stemming from its recommendations, the Education Commission was set up to advise on the
need for specific education policy reforms.
3. Education Commission Report, para 4:18.
4. Ibid., para 4:11.
5. R.G. Havelock and A.M. Huberman, Solving Educational Problems: The Planning and Reality
of Innovation In Developing Countries (Paris: UNESCO, 1977).

6. E.C. Short, "The Forms and Uses of Alternative Curriculum Development Strategies,"
Curriculum Inquiry 13(1, 1983).
7. See, for example, S. Rosenblum and K. Louis, Stability and Change: Innovation in an Educational
Context (Cambridge, Massachusetts: ABT Associates, 1979); R. Yin, K. Herald and M. Vogel, Tinkering
with the System (Lexington, Massachusetts: Heath, 1977); and G. Zaltman, R. Duncan and J. Holbek
Innovations and Organizations (Toronto: John Wiley and Sons, 1973).
8. R. Tyler, Basic Principles in Curriculum Instruction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949).
9. CDC Syllabus for Physics (Form IV and V) (Hong Kong- Government Printer, 1984).
10. Education Regulations, S.92(1).
11. ibid., S.92(6).
12. Morris, "Teachers' Perceptions of the Barriers to the Implementation of a Pedagogic
Innovation," International Review of Education (forthcoming May 1985).
13. N. Gross, J. Glacquinta and M. Bernstein, Implementing Organizational Innovations: A
Sociological Analysis of Planned Educational Change (New York: Basic Books, 1971).
14. R. Weatherley and M. Lipsky, "Street-level Bureaucrats and Institutional Innovation:
Implementation Special Education Reform," Harvard Educational Review 47(2, 1979).
15. L.M. Smith and P.M. Keith, Anatomy of Educational Innovation' An Organizational Analysis
of an Elementary School (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971).
16. C. Sllberman, Crisis In the Classroom (New York: Vintage Books, 1970).
17. M. Fullan, The Meaning of Educational Change (Columbia: Teachers College Press, 1982).
18. Ibid., p. 54.
19. K. Lewln, "Selection and Curriculum Reform" in J. Oxenham (ed.), Education versus
Qualifications (London: Allen and Unwin, 1984).
20. See Morris, "The Adaptation of the Formal Doctrine of an Imported Curriculum Innovation,"
Journal of Curriculum Studies 13(3, 1981).
21. J. Schaffarzlck, "Questions and Requirements for the Comparative Study of Curriculum
Development Procedures" In J. Schaffarzlck and O. Hampson (eds.), Strategies for Curriculum
Development (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975).
22. R.D. Laing, Knots (London: Taristock, 1970), p. 56.
23. W. Doyle and G.A. Ponder, "The Practicality Ethic in Teacher Decision-Making," Interchange
8(3, 1977): 1-12.
24. Fullan, The Meaning of Educational Change,
25. C. Beeby, The Quality of Education in Developing Countries (Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1966).
35

Morris 1985

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Morris 1985

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Morris 1985

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Exeter]

On: 12 August 2015, At: 17:48

Asian Journal of Public Administration

The Context of Curriculum Development

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02598272.1985.10800155

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

THE CONTEXT OF CURRICULUM

academic emphasis of the curriculum designed for an elitist school system

Paul Morris is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Professional Studies in Education

of curriculum planning and development. Firstly, they state that:

...a new College of Education should be provided to strengthen both

Strategies of Curriculum Development

Social interaction: emphasis on communication and diffusion of innovations

Curriculum Development in Hong Kong

Matrix for Identifying

Initiation or Policy Making

Government Structure and Curriculum Development

*The Hong Kong Examinations Authority is an independent statutory body

document and such other particulars of the document as the Director

they are to do it.

The Implementation of Planned Change

But in comparative terms the imbalance in Hong Kong is such more

A brief review of the existing attempts to aid implementation in Hong Kong

The Subject "Resource Centres": These were established to provide resources

as a result of the change or introduction of a new syllabus. They usually focus

The Provision of Classroom Resources: The details of the policy to provide

as key features of successful curriculum development exercises elsewhere.

( 8) the preparation of staff development training;

existing priorities within the Education Department generally and the

means that any evidence of implementation can be used, regardless of its

The Selection of Innovations

Personnel and Resources

implementing curricular policy. Priority is given to the recruitment of teachers

of problems, policies and constraints has no clear parallel elsewhere. It is

The Selection of Innovations

a more flexible approach to the specification of teaching approaches and feed-

The Strategy of Public Assessment

curriculum in practice will continue to be defined by the publications of the

of Innovation In Developing Countries (Paris: UNESCO, 1977).

You might also like