Jonathan Lai, principal, Lee Kau Yan Memorial School in San Po Kong:

This is an era of “NO Values” – that is confirmed! Ten years have passed since 1998 and the medium-of-instruction pendulum is swinging again. From one side to the other, or rather, back to square one, although the government refuses to admit the fact and gives the latest policy move a beautiful name: “fine-tuning”. Yet, who will feel fine? The Education Bureau? Parents? Teachers? Students?
While the community is deeply involved in the discussion about the so-called labelling effect that could be caused by the fine-tuning policy, what has made the pendulum swing back remains a complete mystery. No one will be interested in the mystery, they will be too busy getting their surfboards ready for the tide to turn again.
However, this mysterious force is pushing our community into an era without beliefs and values. The issue of teaching language should not be considered as something solely related to education, it should be viewed and discussed from a wider angle. It is, in fact, demonstrating how our government formulates and adjusts its public policies.
Let us have a look at the Education Bureau’s proposal. The officials are now suggesting that teachers hold a grade six in the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), considered appropriate to be able to conduct a lesson in English in the future.
What is IELTS? According to the official webpage www.ielts.org) , it is an internationally recognised English test measuring the ability of a student to communicate in English across all four language skills – listening, reading, writing and speaking – for people who intend to study or work where English is the language of communication.
Just like TOEFL, this is an English benchmarking test for students who wish to further their studies overseas and for people who are applying for migration to an English-speaking country.

How is a person’s English-speaking capacity evaluated in IELTS? The oral test consists of two sections. The five-minute section one is a general “getting-to-know-the-candidate” part with common questions such as: “Do you enjoy studying English?” Section two is a two-minute monologue, with the candidate asked to give a presentation on a set topic based on information given on a cue card.
Clearly, the test has nothing to do with English teaching – the results of IELTS are unable to tell a person’s ability to conduct a secondary school English lesson.
What makes Education Bureau officials believe so confidently that a non-English teacher holding a grade six in IELTS would be competent to deliver a lesson in biology or geography? Up until now we have not seen any evidence or research to support such a belief. Obviously the government owes the public an explanation.
In terms of command of English, what does grade six in IELTS stand for? In Australia, if a student wants to further his or her studies at a graduate school, a grade eight in IELTS is a must. In Hong Kong, both City and Baptist universities consider IELTS grade six equivalent to grade E in the Hong Kong AS-level Use of English examination. Would the public believe a teacher holding a grade E in Use of English capable of teaching a general subject such as chemistry and liberal studies in fluent English? I am afraid only someone who is ignorant of the exam requirements and content would say “yes”.
Does the government know this? Beyond doubt, nearly all officials themselves should have gone through this system and exam themselves some years ago.
Either the government did not know what level of language proficiency an IELTS grade six represented. If so, it means that our officials are ignorant and are not making policy decisions in a professional way. There again, what if the officials did know what an IELTS grade six stood for when they designed the fine-tuning policy?
This is a question we should all ask, and it is why professional teachers and principals are against the proposed fine-tuning policy.
Ten years ago, without giving the public any research findings, the government told secondary schools that code-mixing was something very bad for students and had to be abandoned. Similarly, we have not seen any research to explain why there should be some schools allowed to cling to English teaching, while the government ruled that mother-tongue should be the best teaching language in the classroom.
Couldn’t the government foresee that such an odd policy – telling the public that English-medium schools were admitting better students – would harm the fundamental spirit of mother-tongue education at that time?
Now, a generation of students has gone and the government tells the public it is time the pendulum swung back to the original side. Again, no theories, no research and no long-term plans are available to support such a move.
What can we learn from this? The fine-tuning policy move awakes all of us to the fact that we are living in an era of no beliefs and values. We are simply struggling in the ripples of political waves. Our government is not making sensible decisions based on any schools of thought or other rational considerations; it is a machine operating on political concerns.
Where have all our professional beliefs, values and practices gone? Long gone with the political monsoons.
May God bless our children – the future pillars of Hong Kong!
Jonathan Lai Ping-wah.
Alumnus principal of Lee Kau Yan Memorial School, Kowloon (a Chinese middle school since 1964).
Master of Public Administration, University of Hong Kong.
Master of Language Studies, Baptist University.
Bachelor of Arts (Chinese and English), Chinese University.
Teacher’s Certificate (special education), Hong Kong Institute of Education.