Are we really helping the society to get more talents?

Are we really helping the society to get more talents?

A rather long rant

The education system in Hong Kong has undergone dramatic change which accumulated into the establishment of a new examination system, HKDSE, starting in 2012.The aim of an education system is of course to foster the development of talented person for the society, but then is our system really doing this? Are we really changing for the better?

A social worker has pointed out, during an episode of Hong Kong Connection (鏗鏘集), on how the bourgeois had cast their vote of no confidence by walking away from the government-sponsored education system in Hong Kong to the international schools, which, according to some, foster learning by providing an environment that is more dynamic and less examination-oriented. This behavior is of course not without its consequences, with eventually more local Chinese occupying positions in international schools and increasingly fierce competition for the places in it. Some foreigners who worked in Hong Kong could no longer find a place for their children to study in because they simply do not learn enough Chinese to allow education in the local system, nor could they secure a place in these international schools because of the fierce competition[1].

The problem with the change is that the education system has been modified in such a way that it promotes grade inflation, disproportionate amount of resources spent on particular groups of students, and increasingly, education for those who don't really want it.

Grade inflation

We are admitting an increasing number of students into our higher education system every year - be it in the statutory universities, in the statutory institutions, approved post-secondary colleges, VTC or other institutes which are accredited by the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (What a long name!).

In the past, most of these students would have failed (and for the matter, some of them still failed) in the certificate examination (or eventually, for some, in the advanced level examination) and they do not have a chance of receiving tertiary education - their situation was perhaps not as bad as one would be in, these days, without a tertiary qualification, because a degree was not perceived as a must back then.

The grade inflation comes from three sides - the first side is that a reasonable curriculum has to be defined for a degree or other qualifications that is to be conferred; the second side is the institutional need of passing a reasonable number of students per year; the third side is the admission quality. One has to understand, that, despite the increase in overall intelligence in the general population, the number of those who could actually demonstrate good understanding in an undergraduate-level curriculum is definitely limited. I for one could not, really, achieve good understanding of a mathematics degree, for example, despite that I have finished my medical degree - it's not only a matter of intelligence, but also a matter of specific talent.

And then, now that an instructor, or a lecturer is now in charge of teaching students who failed their A-level physics AND applied mathematics, in an associate degree or perhaps a higher diploma program in the discipline of Engineering, what do you do? Do you change the curriculum? (not possible) Fail most of them? (not acceptable to the institution) or do you just inflate the grades? (the easy way out).

I am not saying that this is a specific problem of the education system in Hong Kong - in fact,  this is happening in a global scale even in the best universities - but the fact that this problem is global doesn't mean that it could immediately be passed as normal -- we still need to do something about it.

Disproportionate amount of resources spent in groups of students

In the past, there were the special education program, and there were the gifted education program (basically organized by the Faculty of Education, CUHK - The Program for the Gifted and Talented). Nowadays, we do not see as much emphasis in these and in fact, we are seeing a lot of money (and man-hour) being spent on remedial programs.

Remedial programs are definitely not news - we have remedial program, especially for language education since really long ago and it is everywhere - even in century-old establishments. The concept of remedial education is also not wrong - in a way, it is there to help those who could not learn effectively in the original classroom environment and provides a place in which the upper bar of student performance is lower, and the teacher-student ratio higher - this allows a teacher to teach a group of students in which the variance of ability is lower, and unsurprisingly this will lead to better received teaching.

The problem with remedial programs nowadays is that it is never-ending, and that it does not allow for additional time (as in academic year, not in lesson-hour) for the students to learn. A more terrible version of it has recently been developed by some band-2 schools which targeted a group of students who have trouble, but also 'hope' for a pass in the public examination - there, the students are divided into three groups:

(1) Those who are likely to fail despite remedial measures
(2) Those who are likely to benefit from remedial measures
(3) Those who are likely to pass the examination irrespective of remedial measures

And to make it further extremist, they are precluding the students categorized in (1) from coming to the remedial classes. Not that this is not utilitarian-correct,  but imagine the psychological health of the students so-categorized!

Then we look at the higher education. Higher education is an extremely expensive business, and I think most of us understood this.

The notion that the newer generation ought to have some sort of higher education has  been engraved onto the mind of parents in Hong Kong. The issue with these, though, is that they have to understand that the university is supposed to be a place for the advancement of science and arts, and we are looking for potential researchers in university education -- University education is NOT vocational training, and NOT a continuation of secondary school studies. To further the advancement of science and arts, however, is definitely not something that everybody is suited to do.

Education for those who don't really want it (and it is really parents' problem)


Most of us would understand that motivated students are some of the best students one would have in any education establishment. And the one of the worst problem we are having in the 21st century is that most of our students aren't motivated enough.

The best students often study because the subject matter itself is interesting to them - there is little else that is contributing as to why the student study. This is what people refer to as intrinsic motivation.

The lack of intrinsic motivation could be due to the vast array of distractions available these days, like computer games, TV programs, magazines, etc, but it could also be the diminished exposure of certain subjects to students which makes it increasingly difficult for students to actually find their true love -- a subject that is of their interest. For one, if you have never introduced to a subject like, bioinformatics for example, how does one get to like it?

This is not yet the worst enemy. Now that we have a wave of parents who are completely clueless as to how to rear a child, for example - we have parents who feed their newborn 3 times per day, essentially starving them to a near-fatal state, it is not surprising that they will foster learning in their child the wrong way. Some of them would provide a lot of extrinsic motivators without understanding the effect of it and the correct way of using it. And then when they find that the rewards don't work any more because of tachyphylaxis, they blame it on the teacher (you can't expect them to have learnt education psychology, could you?)

By now we can see that the causes of the motivation problem can be summarized below:

(1) They don't even get to develop the interest in a subject because they are not even exposed to it adequately.
(2) There are too much distraction these days
(3) Parents are often giving rewards the wrong way

Conclusion

With all these problems it is difficult to see how the new generation could actually learn - perhaps the education system would act as a sieve that allows only the best students to pass through, but this is currently at the cost of educating so many people who are really unwilling to learn (in "band 2 and 3 secondary schools" and in non-university tertiary education).

Could we have done better?

[1] Not that the government is obliged to provide them with it though, but this will surely hamper professionals from coming over.

[2] Formerly, there was also an examination for primary school graduation, but this is perhaps too old for me to comment on. Comments from readers with experience in the former system is encouraged. I refer the change to the changes imposed on the academic year 1996-1997. 
[3] Well, if they tried to foster their children's learning, it is already better than a 'so-what attitude' that is quite common these days... 


Edited 27.3.2012 - Mostly English usage (Too many complaints from my girlfriend)