Who Should Participate in the Development of Teachers’ Professionalism? | 「教師專業發展」誰來參與？
Who Should Participate in the Development of Teachers’ Professionalism?
Executive Committee
The Hong Kong Association of the Heads of Secondary Schools (HKAHSS)
25 April 2022
The Education Bureau (EDB) announced on 19 January 2022 in a Press Release[1] that the Council on Professional Conduct in Education (CPC) will officially come to an end on 1 May 2022. While the announcement may not be a bolt out of the blue, many were appalled by the fact that the EDB did not consult the education sector over this, nor had it really understood the difficulties in the operation of the CPC. Abruptly halting the operation of the CPC, which has been operating for more than 20 years with members coming from direct elections or being appointed by the government from within and outside the education sector, really stunned and worried many educators. This also reminded people how the EDB suddenly announced in January 2021 that the Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre (HKTC), which was established in 1987 with an aim to promote teachers’ professional development and in-service training, would cease to operate on 1 September 2021 without any prior consultation. With a vision to enhance professional development in education, The Hong Kong Association of the Heads of Secondary Schools (HKAHSS) has been nominating representatives throughout the years to join these 2 organizations which have their unique historical mission. We are really very much concerned about their cessation within such a short period of time.
The CPC was officially established in April 1994. The Education Commission then agreed that “setting up an autonomous governing body for the teaching profession was a worthwhile goal”[2]. This was based on the recommendations of the Education Commission Report No.5 in 1992 which first and foremost suggested the establishment of a Council on Professional Conduct in Education. It further recommended that “a few years after the Council is set up (say five years), the possibility of setting up a statutory professional governing body should be reviewed by the Government.” [3] Unfortunately, up till now, there has been no progress at all in this area. The CPC is therefore not given any legal status and its function is also very limited. When handling cases of complaints, CPC does not have any authority to summon nor to carry out investigation. If the respondent or the school does not cooperate with the CPC and/or procrastinate his/her presence in the hearing, it would seriously affect the progress and efficiency in case handling. Despite encountering various difficulties and limitations, Council members in successive terms have been steadfast in their effort in promoting teachers’ professional conduct. Upon extensive consultation, the task of revising the Professional Code was completed in 2019. Yet, this newly-revised Professional Code has been shelved till now and it will most likely become a historical document.
Who will substitute the function of the CPC?
We are very much concerned about the impact upon the dissolution of CPC, especially the possible hindrance that frontline educators may encounter in their striving for upholding teachers’ professionalism.
The Education Commission Report No.5 in 1992 stated that “The Council should have two main tasks. It should first draw up criteria against which, in the eyes of practising educators, the conduct of their peers should be judged. Once such criteria are drawn up, the Council will then be in a position to mediate objectively in conflicts among teachers or between teachers and other sectors of the community; and to offer sound advice to the Director in resolving cases of misconduct.”
We cannot help but ask the following questions upon the dissolution of the CPC:
- Will there be any new system or organization to undertake the function of the CPC in consultation and in formulating teachers’ Professional Code? How can we ensure that the set of criteria is drawn up “in the eyes of practising educators”?
- Will the new organization work like the CPC with broad representation in its membership?
- How would mediation be done objectively? How will cases be handled and processed in an fair and equitable manner?
- In dissolving the CPC, will there be any concrete plan from the EDB to promote teachers’ professionalism?
While the dissolution of the CPC is a foregone conclusion, we expect the EDB would make thorough plans and announce as soon as possible how frontline educators can continue to make contribution on issues related to professional development and professional conduct. Their active participation in the discussion on the underlying vision and principles as well as an appropriate mechanism is of paramount importance.
How can we ensure that the Teachers’ Code of Conduct to be released can fully reflect the views of practising educators?
In the Press Release, the EDB expressed that “Regarding teachers’ code of conduct, as announced in the 2021 Policy Address, the EDB will provide clear guidelines and examples on teachers’ professional conduct, which are expected to be completed with this year.” We believe that the EDB is discussing and formulating related guidelines in full swing. Yet, we wonder how this new Teachers’ Code of Conduct would benefit the teaching profession without the active participation of front-line workers. Whether the new code can embrace their opinions and expectations is in doubt.
The Education Commission in their Report No.5 stressed that the set of criteria for professional conduct should be “through consultation to gain widespread acceptance of these criteria among all sectors of the education community”. We therefore expect the EDB will sincerely and extensively consult the opinions of the education sector regarding teachers’ code of conduct and the setting up of an appropriate mechanism and system to tap views of different stakeholders in the future. With teachers’ participation and according them the due respect they deserve, Hong Kong teachers’ professional conduct and ongoing professional development can then be enhanced.
How can an organization with wide representation to promote teachers’ professionalism be established?
The Press Release announcing the dissolution of CPC concluded that “The EDB calls on education sector to work together to enhance teachers’ professional conduct, establish a professional and high-quality teaching force, raise the professional status of teachers, and boost public confidence in the teaching profession.” We earnestly want to know through what channels and which mechanism the EDB is going to work with the education sector hand in hand so that all can contribute in the area of teachers’ professional conduct.
We believe that Hong Kong needs a statutory professional governing body with wide representation in its membership. There should be teacher representatives through direct election, representatives nominated and elected by different professional bodies, parent representatives, appointed EDB officials and representatives from different social sectors. Through this, the EDB could continue to solicit opinions from different stakeholders and discuss with the education sector on how to optimize the mechanism to promote teachers’ code of conduct. At the same time, it can make use of different channels to link up with education workers for better communication, discussion and the dissemination of the contents of teachers’ code of conduct.
How can fair and equitable case handling procedures be demonstrated?
Unlike other professionals, teachers in Hong Kong are registered by the Government, which is also the gate-keeper. Under the present system, the CPC would first determine the validity of cases involving disputes or alleged professional misconduct. If the validity of a case is established, members of another group would proceed with the hearing. The complainant and respondent would have equal rights and sufficient opportunities to provide relevant information to the CPC directly. After the hearing, the CPC would provide their recommendations to the Permanent Secretary for Education.
If all cases involving disputes or alleged professional misconduct are solely dealt with by the EDB in the future, this signifies that teachers’ professional conduct, registration and the follow-up of complaints are all handled by the EDB only. Under this situation, many questions will arise regarding the independence and neutrality of the handling procedures. Will the voice of frontline teachers be heard? How can procedural justice be demonstrated? And how can the education sector be convinced that cases of complaints will be handled in an fair and equitable manner?
To promote education professionalism in Hong Kong, a set of teachers’ professional code that is broadly embraced by the education sector is much needed. The code will also serve as an objective yardstick in handling disputes of educators or alleged professional misconduct. This will provide concrete and clear guidelines for educators to follow so that they can have peace of mind and stay focused on their work. If the Professional Code which has been in force for more than 20 years is to be shelved, when will the substituting code come by? When will the consultation be done? We sincerely hope that the EDB will widely collect views from the education sector and formulate suitable Professional Code in time as well as put in place a fair and open complaint handling mechanism, which can only be finalized after thorough discussion with the education sector.
Other options for promoting education professionalism
In the announcement of the dissolution of CPC and the remarks on its work, the EDB has mentioned the Committee on Professional Development of Teachers and Principals (COTAP) alongside with the CPC. The EDB also expressed in the Press Release that “EDB would continue to strengthen the collaboration with COTAP and continue to collect the views from various sectors through multiple channels, strive to promote teachers’ professional conduct and strengthen teachers’ ongoing professional development.” While COTAP has been making substantial contributions to the professional development of principals and teachers since its inception, we wonder whether it can really replace the function of the CPC?
In its terms of reference, COTAP is set up to “to advise the Government on policies and measures relating to the professional development of teachers and principals at different career stages of professional growth. It also provides a platform for promoting professional sharing, collaboration and networking with various stakeholders in school management, educational bodies and organizations.”[4]
From this, we see that the functions of COTAP and CPC are different. The goal of COTAP is to enhance teachers’ ongoing professional development and promote the efficacy of school leadership. It is not established to handle complaints about disputes or alleged professional misconduct. Neither has it a mechanism to accept or handle complaints and cases. The T-standard[5] proposed by the COTAP is different from the “Code for the Education Profession of Hong Kong” by the CPC as they are serving different purposes. In the future, if the EDB is the only adjudicating party of any complaints or cases related to frontline teachers’ professional misconduct, how would the opinions and suggestions of the education sector be effectively heard?
Conclusion: How can teachers’ professionalism be really promoted?
Teachers play a pivotal role in education and they are the great driving force behind education reforms. In recent years, front-line teachers have been standing tall on professionalism in helping students through challenges one after another while also striving to maintain the education quality. We believe that teachers need to be duly respected and recognized so that their potentials and capabilities can be fully unleashed. This will definitely promote teachers’ professionalism and the quality of education which will ultimately benefit the younger generation we serve.
In collaboration with Hong Kong Policy Research Institute, the HKAHSS released a research report on “How to promote Hong Kong Secondary School Teachers’ Professional Status and Social Recognition”[6] in June 2021. Secondary Principals and teachers being interviewed expressed that establishing a self-regulatory professional body would enhance the social recognition of teachers and their professionalism. Over 80% of parents shared similar views.
To promote the quality of education and teachers’ professionalism in Hong Kong, the EDB should not be the only one party involved. It should actively consider establishing a statutory professional governing body which would involve frontline teachers so that they can participate in handling cases of complaints, stipulate Professional Code in Education and the promotion of professionalism. With due respect and professional autonomy, teachers would be assured and education can be returned to the hands of the professional.
[1] The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Press Release “Council on Professional Conduct in Education to officially end”: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202201/19/P2022011900648.htm?fontSize=1
[2] The webpage of CPC: https://cpc.edb.org.hk/en/background.htm
[3] Education Commission Report No.5, June 1992, Hong Kong, Paragraph 8.18: https://www.e-c.edu.hk/doc/en/publications_and_related_documents/education_reports/ecr5_e.pdf
[4] COTAP’s terms of reference: https://cotap.hk/index.php/en/about-cotap/terms-of-reference-cotap
[5] T-standard: https://cotap.hk/index.php/en/t-standard
[6] Research Report on “How to promote Hong Kong Secondary School Teachers’ Professional Status and Social Recognition”: https://www.hkahss.edu.hk/2021/07/09/how-to-promote-hong-kong-secondary-school-teachers-professional-status-and-social-recognition-2/
「教師專業發展」誰來參與？
教育局於2022年1月19日透過新聞公報[1]，宣布「教育人員專業操守議會」（下稱「操守議會」）將於5月1日停止運作。「操守議會」被停止運作，雖不能說事前毫無徵兆，但教育局未經諮詢學界意見，未有深入瞭解操守議會經歷的困難，便貿然解散運作了20多年、成員來自選舉或政府委任的教育界及非教育界代表的教育專業團體，實令不少教育工作者感到錯愕。這舉措也讓人回想到，教育局同樣在未經諮詢下，於2021年1月宣布「香港教師中心」由9月起停止運作。「香港教師中心」自1987年成立，以促進教師專業發展及在職培訓為目標。香港中學校長會一直關注教育專業發展，多年來均派出代表參與這兩個組織的工作，對於這兩個具獨特歷史意義的組織在短時間內先後被解散，實深表憂慮。
「操守議會」成立於1994年4月。當時教育統籌委員會認同「為教育專業成立一個享有自主權的管理組織是個理想目標」[2]，遂於1992年《第五號報告書》建議首先成立一個教育人員專業操守議會，並建議「在議會成立數年後（例如五年後），政府應檢討可否設立一個法定的專業管理組織」[3]。可惜過去20多年，就成立法定專業管理組織方面，一直未見寸進。操守議會不但未具有法定地位，職能亦十分局限。在處理投訴方面，操守議會沒有傳召權，沒有調查權，若當事人或學校拒絕與議會合作，或是拖延出席聆訊，即會嚴重影響議會處理個案的效率。雖然操守議會的工作面對重重困難，但在歷屆成員的努力下，仍能於2019年初完成「專業守則」的修訂工作，並廣泛諮詢學界意見，為提升教師專業操守付出努力。可惜新修訂的守則擱置多年仍未被使用，更即將成為歷史文件。
誰來替代操守議會的職能？
我們十分關注操守議會解散可能帶來的影響，更擔憂前線教育工作者在維繫教師專業可能遇到的窒礙。
1992年《第五號報告書》提出操守議會應主要負責兩項工作：「首先，議會應根據現職教育工作者的觀點，訂定專業操守的準則，作為評定同業操守的根據。待這些準則擬備後，議會將可客觀地調解教師之間、或教師與社會其他界別之間的衝突；並可就處理有關行為失當的個案，向教育署署長提供恰當的意見。」
我們不禁會問，當操守議會結束後：
- 會否有新的制度或組織承接操守議會在諮詢及制定教師專業守則的工作？如何確保專業操守的準則，能「根據現職教育工作者的觀點」訂定？
- 訂定專業操守準則的新組織會否如操守議會般具廣泛代表性？
- 如何做到「客觀地調解衝突」？處理個案時，如何彰顯在公平、公正情況下進行？
- 在解散操守議會的同時，教育局有沒有具體的替代方案，以提升教師專業？
當操守議會被解散已成定局，我們期望教育局能及早作出規劃及宣布，如何讓前線教育工作者能繼續就專業發展及專業操守發揮影響力，並與學界共同探討建立教師專業的原則、理念及機制。
如何確保新的教師專業守則能反映現職教育工作者的觀點？
教育局在政府新聞公報提出：「在二零二一年《施政報告》公布，教育局會就教師專業操守提供清晰的指引及示例，預期二零二二年內完成。」我們相信局方正密鑼緊鼓討論及制訂相關指引，但沒有學界參與的「專業守則」，如何能真正反映現職教育工作者的意見及期望？
《第五號報告書》曾提出：「透過諮詢，使這套準則得到各個教育界別廣泛接受。」我們期望教育局能認真及廣泛諮詢學界對教師專業守則的意見，並就未來建立合適的機制及架構聽取不同持份者的聲音，使香港教師專業操守及持續專業發展得到真正的提升，讓教師參與並得到基本的尊重。
如何建立一個具廣泛代表性的組織以提升教師專業？
政府新聞公報指出：「教育局籲請學界攜手，繼續為提升教師專業操守努力，建立專業優質的教師團隊，提升教師專業地位及鞏固公眾對教師團隊的信心。」我們期望瞭解，教育局會提供甚麼渠道、透過甚麼機制，讓學界可以攜手為教師專業操守作出努力？
我們認為，香港需要一個具有廣泛代表性的法定教育專業管理組織，成員可包括：透過直接選舉產生的教師代表、由不同學界專業團體推薦並選舉產生的代表、家長代表、教育局委任的成員，以及廣泛代表社會不同界別的人士。教育局能藉此繼續廣納不同持份者的意見，與學界一起討論如何優化提升教師專業操守的機制，並透過不同渠道與學界連繫，與各持份者討論及解說教師專業守則的內容。
如何彰顯個案處理在公平公正情況下進行？
與其他專業不一樣，香港教師註冊由政府把關。現時，涉及教育工作者的糾紛或被指行為失當的個案，可由操守議會不同組別的成員議決是否立案。若決定立案，則由另一組別成員負責聆訊，投訴者和被投訴者均有同等及充分機會向操守議會直接提出與個案有關的資料。聆訊結束後，操守議會向教育局常任秘書長提供意見。
假如將來所有涉及教育工作者的糾紛或行為失當的個案全由教育局處理，這意味著教師專業守則的擬定、教師的註冊、跟進投訴及作出裁決等，均由教育局「一手包辦」。前線的聲音能否如實反映？程序公義能否彰顯？個案處理程序的獨立性會否容易被質疑？投訴個案能否在公平、公正情況下進行，讓學界信服？
香港需要一套得到教育界別廣泛接受的《香港教師專業守則》，作為提升教育專業、處理糾紛或被指行為失當個案的依歸，讓教育工作者在有例可依下，安心、專業地做好教育工作。若把施行20多年的「專業守則」束諸高閣，那替代守則又何時面世？何時進行廣泛諮詢？我們期盼教育局能廣納學界不同意見，及時制訂合宜的守則及公平公開的投訴機制，並在落實前充分與學界商議。
提升教育專業的其他方案
在解散或評論操守議會時，教育局多次將教師及校長專業發展委員會（COTAP）與操守議會相提並論，教育局發言人在政府新聞公報說：「教育局未來會加強與 COTAP 協作，聽取前線教育工作者及其他持份者的意見，並繼續透過多元渠道蒐集各界意見，致力提升教師的專業操守及加強教師的持續專業發展。」COTAP成立至今，在促進校長及教師專業成長有其貢獻，但COTAP 是否真的可以取代操守議會的功能？
COTAP的職責「是就與教師及校長在職業生涯不同階段的專業發展的有關政策和措施，向政府提供意見。委員會亦提供平台，以促進教師及校長與學校管理層、教育團體和組織內不同持份者的專業交流、協作及聯繫」[4]。
由上可見，COTAP與操守議會的職能並不相同。COTAP 成立的目的，是為了促進教師持續專業發展及提升學校的領導職能，並不是為了處理教育專業失當的投訴而設立，也沒有接受投訴、處理投訴個案的機制。而COTAP所提出的「T-標準＋」[5]與操守議會的《香港教育專業守則》內容發揮著不同的目的和效能。日後，假若只單由教育局處理涉及任何有關教育前線人員違反專業操守的裁決，如何有效聽取學界的觀點及意見？
總結：如何能真正提升香港教師專業？
教師是執行教育的主體，也是推動教育改革的靈魂。面對近年教育工作困難重重，特別在疫情下，教師一直持守專業，在能力所及的範疇，協助學生渡過難關，維持教育質素，充分展現香港教師的專業精神。我們認為教師專業須受尊重、獲認同，方能發揮最高能量，真正提升香港整體教師專業操守，維繫教育質素，讓孩子得益。
本會與香港政策研究所於2021年6月發表「如何提升香港中學教師的專業地位及社會認同」研究報告[6]，受訪的中學校長和教師表示，成立具法定地位的專業自治機構，能更有效提升香港教育工作者的專業地位，有效提升中學教師的社會認同。不約而同地，問卷調查中亦有超過八成的家長認同此建議。
提升香港教育質素與及教師專業，不能單由教育局一手包辦，教育局應積極考慮成立一個包括前線教育工作者、並具備法定地位的教育專業管理組織，讓教育前線能參與處理投訴、制訂專業守則、提升教育專業等工作，使教師能真正得到尊重和專業自主，讓教育專業回歸專業！
香港中學校長會 執行委員會
2022年4月25日
[1] 香港特別行政區政府新聞公報《教育人員專業操守議會將正式結束》：
https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202201/19/P2022011900644.htm?fontSize=1
[2] 教育人員專業操守議會網頁：https://cpc.edb.org.hk/tc/background.htm
[3] 教育統籌委員會（1992）《第五號報告書》第8.18段：https://www.e-c.edu.hk/doc/tc/publications_and_related_documents/education_reports/ecr5_c.pdf
[4] COTAP的職責：https://cotap.hk/index.php/tc/about-cotap/terms-of-reference-cotap
[5] T-標準+：https://cotap.hk/index.php/tc/t-standard
[6] 「如何提升香港中學教師的專業地位及社會認同」研究報告：https://www.hkahss.edu.hk/2021/07/09/how-to-promote-hong-kong-secondary-school-teachers-professional-status-and-social-recognition-2/