45
-
18
-
REPORT BY MR. G. R. SAYER.
I regret to find myself in a minority of one: but the reason is not far to seek. Unlike my fellow committeemen I am officially responsible for the arrangements which they seek so radically to improve upon. Nor does the repeated assurance of our Chairman that, though officially detailed to attend, I do so as a private individual and not as Director of Education make it much easier for me to join them. The fact is that even in my private capacity I find it less easy than they to accept some of the arguments advanced in favour of change. For example when the Heads of the Grant Schools, in a memorandum accepted en bloc by my colleagues, base their recommendation for the engagement of a Chinese expert from China on the ground that "the teaching of Chinese in Hong Kong lags behind",-not the teaching of Chinese in China-but the teaching of English in Hong Kong": the argument does not impress me.
Nor do I regard as by any means conclusive the verdict of the Anglo-Chinese schools on the efficiency of the teaching in the primary vernacular. It is true it is based on the personal observation by experienced teachers of the intelligence of the children at the point of transfer to the English system: but it must be remembered that the siu hok does not profess to lead to the English system but to the
chung hok"; moreover it cannot be assumed that the child who transfers to the English system is a typical product of the “ch'o siu"; indeed the probability is that he is not.
Again I cannot follow Mr. Sloss when he urges the scrapping of our existing normal school for rural teachers and the substitution of a school on an African model. If I am correctly informed that the problem of the African teacher is how to handle a very primitive and uncultured people, it seems to me that the African model is highly unlikely to suit Hong Kong.
Moreover with the best will in the world I am unable to divest myself of official experience gained over three years and more as acting Director of Education.
That experience, while not I hope blinding me to our weaknesses, has given me a strong sense of the complexity of the problems; and the importance of accurate diagnosis.
In particular I have a firm conviction of the need for a carefully devised economy.
Hard facts compel me to be satisfied with limited objectives and a gradual approach to their attainment.
As regards the existing training course for undergraduates at the University I was regretfully unable, on economic grounds, to support the proposal to extend it to five years.
In my opinion 4 years should suffice to provide the material required.
For the same reason I suggested in committee that the Director's attention might be invited to the possibility of reducing the Vernacular Women's Normal Course from 4 years to 3.
On economic grounds too I had, before entering the Committee already decided on a limited programme of substitution of European Teachers by Anglo-Chinese in the Government Anglo-Chinese Schools.
To the proposal largely to increase the amount of money to be provided by Government for studentships at the University I subscribed, but only on the explicit understanding that I did so in a private and not an official capacity.
As regards the proposal to establish, under the joint control of the University and the Education Department, a training college for Anglo-Chinese teachers giving
19
—
a 2 years' course to matriculants, I lent it my support, subject to the express reservation that I could not foresee the closure of the Teachers' Classes at the Evening Institute. This I did because I identify not only Mr. Sloss, the mover, with the Vice-Chancellor of the University but Mr. Sollis, the seconder, with the chief adviser to the Director on English schools. Actually I apprehend that the Director
may find that the idea of joint control presents considerable difficulties.
In the case of the Vernacular Normal Schools I found myself freer to express this view. The line of advance in my opinion is to staff all these schools, so soon as suitable material is available, with graduates of the Chinese Groups of the Hong Kong University (or some similar institution); but to leave their development in the hands of the Director and his vernacular advisers.
In this connexion it is worthy of note (and I invited my colleagues to note) that while we are by no means entirely dependent for trained Vernacular Teachers on our local training arrangements-these local arrangements do in fact provide amply for normal wastage in our urban subsidized schools, and already account for 40% of the total staff of these schools. Some 50% of these are the products of our normal schools and my suggestion to the Committee was that with a view to encouraging still more to take the normal course the Government should be asked to provide free books for all these normal classes.
G. R. SAYER.
17th May, 1938.
46
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.