如何「讓年青的 各展所長」？- 對特首施政報告的一些回應 12 Feb 2014
香港中學校長會主席李雪英
文章刋登於明報論壇2014年2月12日
2014年1月15日，特首梁振英先生發表了他任內第二份施政報告，並以「培育下一代」，作為未來教育施政的主線。當中共有28個項目，就支援基層學生學習、以資訊科技提升自學能力、增加資助高等教育、檢視職業教育並加強生涯規劃等方面推出一些政策；另在扶貧安老助弱的範疇下，對少數族裔及有特殊教育需要學生，也有5個與教育相關的建議。若相對於2013施政報告，以「休養生息」作為教育政策的主調，新的一份施政報告無疑比之前的較「有為」。
香港中學校長會樂見現政府願意對教育作出更大的承擔，我們一直相信，培育人材關係到我們社會的未來，是任何負責任政府的首要工作。就2014施政報告，我們有以下的看法：
- 少數族裔教育：
施政報告承諾將會從「幼兒教育至中小學階段加強支援少數族裔學習中文」，具體建議包括增加幼稚園的校本支援、為中小學中國語文課程提供第二語言學習架構與及教材和評估工具、提供撥款以加強各中小學校內支援、提升學校和教師的專業能力等。
多年來少數族裔一直面對學習上的困難，現屆政府能正面回應問題，作為一個起步點，總是值得支持。但在執行時，政策與政策之間是如何配合、協調？施政報告內一方面提出為少數族裔提供中國語文課程第二語言學習架構，但同時又以協助他們融入主流中文課堂為目標，會否自相矛盾，最後難以有所成？少數族裔學生在中學階段以後的升學安排，有沒有相關政策配合？若學校只收取極少數目的少數族裔學生，教育局又如何支援？我們期望為少數族裔而設的教育政策能對焦、能有足夠力度，讓少數族裔的學生在選擇繼續升學或就業上，有充足及均等的機會。
- 殘疾學童的敎育需要：
我們樂見政府對殘疾學童學習的關注，為肩負起教育智障、肢體傷殘學生的特殊學校提供額外教師助理，並逐步下調視障學童學校及群育學校的每班學生人數至12人，同時亦提高就讀於普通學校的有特殊教育需要學生「學習支援津貼」額三成。但對大批就讀於主流學校而需要特別照顧的學生，單單提高個人津貼額，並不足以改善及提昇主流學校照顧他們的能力，特別是需要照顧有特殊學習需要學童數量多及種類多的學校。融合教育推行多年，敎育局安排了現金津助、教育心理學家疏落的到校支援、大量有效或效力不彰的老師培訓課程，但從未就著融合教育對學校老師所構成的工作量，與及學校在教師培訓、課程安排、考評調適、學校行政等等方面所要付出的，作出系統性的調查及研究。要有效推行融合教育，學校實際上需要的是常設的、有相關培訓及能力的專業人員，與及具教學經驗及熱誠的教學人員作全盤規劃。敎育當局至今仍只願按特殊教育需要學生的數目給與學校浮動性的現金津貼，學校既難作長遠規劃，負責照顧這批學生的合約職員，由於職業穩定性不高，亦欠缺晉升機會，流動性亦甚高。而在教師編制上，亦未有因應需要而增加高級學位教席，以處理當下有特殊教育需要學生的學習需要，與及作整體長遠的規劃。現金津貼不是不重要，但當照顧有特殊教育需要的學生已是學校體制的一部份，教育當局也需要調整學校體制，讓融合教育能更有系統及成效地在學校推行。
- 增加資助高等教育
為回應公帑資助學士學位數目不足的問題，政府將逐步增加副學士銜接課程、資助學生修讀指定範疇的自資學士學位課程（三年試驗期）、推行內地大學升學資助（三年試驗期）、以奬學金資助每年不多於100名傑出學生往境外升學（三年試驗期）、全額資助以鼓勵大學及專上學院取錄共約20名在非學業方面有卓越表現的學生。政府期望透過這些措施，能為「高中學生開拓更寬更廣的升學渠道」。不能否認，這些措施對短暫舒緩未有進路的副學士學生有一定作用，但前線教育工作者面對的，是高中畢業同學那種前路茫茫的無助感，與及成績不俗但仍未能入讀心儀大學及課程的失落感。
我們深信高等教育的發展必須緊扣和銜接高中教育的發展，而政府不應忘卻最初推行334新學制的理念和承諾，為落實新學制照顧學生多樣性及發揮學生多元才能等教育目標，建立一套長遠、整體及連貫的多元出路架構及相關政策措施：
- 對於文憑試成績較佳的學生，最大的問題是大學學位不足，取錄門檻過高，不少學生被逼多付學費先入讀副學士學位，再繞道爭取進入學位課程 (根據大學聯合招生辦法統計，2012及2013年獲得學士學位正式遴選取錄的人數分別為14,848及14,746。根據考評局統計，2012及2013年於核心科目中取得「3322」並於一個選修科目取得2級或以上成績分別為26,533人及28,275人)，政府必須根據國際社會發展及人才質素提升的需要，制定擴充大學課程及學位的合理和可行指標。
- 對於文憑試成績中等或一般的學生，最大的問題是副學位課程質素参差，缺乏有效監管及社會認受，而職業教育的定位又過窄過低，進修及晋升階梯未見完善和普及，難達至專業化及學位化。
- 對於文憑試成績稍遜及未能完成高中的學生，最大的問題是現時高中課程仍然過寛過深，考試一般偏重紙筆形式及語文運用，致令這方面能力較弱或有特殊教育需要的學生難於跟上，造成挫敗及放棄，越來越多學生被迫跳船或棄考。
單單增加資助高等教育的個別非核心的升學途徑，並不能有效解決學生高中後升學問題。政府必須為不同背景的學生提供各類支援及資助，優化多渠道、多接駁點、多階段可進可出的多元課程進修途徑，讓他們按各自需要及進度，實現終身學習，發展各樣才能，貢獻社會。
- 職業教育
從最近推出的人口政策諮詢，至這一份施政報告，均可見政府對「職業教育」的重視。我們認同讓學生及早瞭解自己的傾向和潛能的重要性，樂見教育局在這方向所投放的資源，雖然那並不是常額教席的增加。但從施政報告的相關段落看到的，不無讓人擔心施政報告內的職業教育只是「職前教育」，甚或是「職位教育」。我們絕對認同「行行出狀元」，但學生應該在甚麼學習階段才踏進職業培訓的門檻？施政報告內提及發展職業教育的原因是「主流教育未必適合所有青年人」，那是年青人的責任、抑或是我們的主流課程設計出現問題？學生在未完成最基本的十二年免費教育便為自己未來作出職業決定，會否過早？現在的職訓局主要收錄中三畢業同學，若大力拓展並協助「制訂策略性校園發展計劃」，我們的教育是否在走多年前才逐步轉型的職業先修學校或工業學校的回頭路？而最根本的問題是，在先進社會如香港，教育是否只為職場作預備？抑或是為培養及提昇整體國民質素？
香港中學校長會執委會於施政報告發表前，曾去信特首提出對香港教育、特別是中學教育的數點建議：1.對整體學制作全面及深入的檢討，配以實證數據；2.為學生提供公平及均等的學習機會；3.全面檢視學校、教師的工作量，讓教師們在合理的工作環境下，成就新一代的孩子。但看2014施政報告，放在教育的篇幅不短，作出的短期撥款也不少，但所見的多是以撥款來處理學校的局部問題、以現金支援來收窄學習差距、以扶貧作教育的基調、以短期（三年）的措施代替長期的規劃。我們認同施政報告對學習困難學生所作出政策上的支援，對經濟薄弱學童所作出的經濟協助，對學童多元出路及職業教育的需要作出預備。在政府未有更整全及長遠的教育政策前，這些措施尚可接受。但我們擔憂，香港的教育狀態會陷入有措施但沒政策，又或是有政策但欠長遠規劃的局面。我們期望，施政報告內所提及的教育措施，只是香港教育政策長遠規劃的起步點，而不是以零碎的政策去修補我們教育制度內的缺失。我們更期望，香港的教育制度能真正地「讓年青的，各展所長」。
Newspaper article on our views on the Chief Executive’s Policy Address 2014
Written by Miss Lee Suet Ying, Chairperson of HKAHSS 2/12/2014
Summary
To the Policy Address 2014 (PA), we have the following response:
- Education for ethnic minority students
The PA promised to step up support for ethnic minority students to learn Chinese from kindergarten to secondary school. The measures include increasing school resources and support, introducing a curriculum framework for learning Chinese as a second language and enhancing teachers’ teaching capabilities. While we welcome these initiatives, we have concerns for their implementation. First, the government’s measures to promote learning Chinese as a second language for ethnic minority students contradict its objective of shifting them to the mainstream Chinese curriculum. Further, is there any policy on their higher education studies? How would the Education Bureau support schools with a small number of ethnic minority students? The answers to these questions are still pending.
- Education needs of physically and mentally challenged students
We are glad to see the government’s moves to address the needs of these students by increasing the number of teaching assistants at school, reducing the class size and increasing learning support grants for students with special needs in mainstream schools. But merely increasing learning support grants is inadequate to improve the capability of mainstream schools to look after these students, especially those that have a large number of students with a wide range of special needs. Integrated education has been implemented for many years, but research and studies on teachers’ training and workload, curriculum arrangement, assessment and administrative responsibilities of schools are still lacking.
To implement integrated education effectively, schools need professionals with relevant training and capability in their regular establishment and teachers with experience and dedication. Mere cash grants that fluctuate with the number of students admitted each year makes it difficult for schools to have long-term planning and a stable staff force due to job insecurity and lack of promotion opportunities. Schools need more senior graduate master teachers in their regular establishment to handle matters related to students’ special learning needs and to make overall long-term planning. Though cash grant is important, adjusting the school structure to achieve effective integrated education is no less significant.
- Increase subsidies for higher education
To deal with the problem of inadequate subsidized undergraduate places, the government will introduce a number of non-core higher education routes such as subsidies for students in self-financed degree courses and subsidies for studying in Mainland or overseas universities. Undeniably, these measures may temporarily ease the demand for university places, but it cannot ease the helplessness and disappointment felt by senior secondary school graduates and students with fair results but fail to get into their preferred university or courses.
For students with better results in the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (DSE), their problems are inadequate university places and high admission requirements. For those with average results, the problems are that top-up degree courses vary in quality and do not have adequate regulation and recognition. Vocational education is too narrow and too low in qualification, thus providing them little chance for advancement academically and professionally. For students with poorer DSE results, the problem is that the secondary school curriculum is too wide and too hard with emphasis on written examination and language ability. Just increasing subsidies for non-core higher education routes cannot solve the demand for post-secondary education. The government must formulate a reasonable and feasible need-based target for expansion of university curriculum and admission. It must provide more support and subsidies as well as diversified higher education opportunities for students of different backgrounds.
- Vocational education
While it is important for students to know their career preference and potential early on, we are worried that the vocational education envisaged in the PA is just job training. At what stage during their school life should students receive career training? Is it too early for them to make career decisions when they have not finished their 12-year free education? If we promote a strategic development plan for the Vocational Training Council campuses, are we going back to the old days when we had prevocational and secondary technical schools? Is education to serve career purposes only or to nurture and enhance the quality of our citizens?
From the PA, we can see that the government tries to solve education problems by grants and subsidies, by substituting long-term planning with short-term measures. These short-term monetary measures may be helpful, but if the government stops here, we would end up having measures with no policies, or policies with no planning. Our ultimate yearning is to unleash students’ full potentials.