469
interesting and significant book makes available material which up to now has been virtually inaccessible.'
Gillian's book reproduces the 50 or so education reports to the Colonial Secretary, and in some cases the Governor himself (it is not clear how they have been 'corrected and edited'). The reports consume 381 pages plus another 134 pages for 'Notes.' The Bibliography runs to 12 pages and the Index to 42. This leaves 50 pages or so for the actual book.
The Historical and Editorial Introduction is an interesting read until it reaches the 'editorial' part. Someone obviously did a great deal of work transcribing the actual reports, many of which would have been in longhand (presumably this is where the sponsorship from the Wilson Heritage Trust kicked in). One is struck by the candour of these early reports. People were much more apt to speak their minds in those days - a point which Gillian makes and with which I totally agree. Furthermore, people's publicly expressed views tended to be rather more considered and erudite than is currently the case in Hong Kong (albeit rudeness, invective and diatribe have become deliberate political weapons). Her four short biographies of Hong Kong's early educationalists (Smith, Legge, Stewart and Eitel) are well written. As to the reports being 'virtually inaccessible,' well all are available at the Public Record Building, in Kwun Tong, but Gillian has, nevertheless, brought them all together for the benefit of "couch researchers." The Conclusion starts promisingly but deteriorates into a rather patronising dismissal of other writers on the subject of education in Hong Kong who, compared with Gillian, "didn't get it quite right."
Perusing the Reports, I was struck by early references to 'learning by rote.' Things have clearly not changed, as I can testify to in the case of my own kids, who come home laden like packhorses with homework and who are finding school increasingly dull and uninspiring. The litmus test of education in any given country/territory should surely be: Does it produce world leaders/Nobels/inventions/putting men on the Moon etc? Hong Kong, unfortunately, has some way to go in this regard and what irritates me intensely is that we have been talking about "doing something about" the education system here for over 40 years.
In the bibliography, a reference to Postiglione's (1992) Education
469
interesting and significant book makes available material which up to now has been virtually inaccessible.'
Gillian's book reproduces the 50 or so education reports to the Colonial Secretary, and in some cases the Governor himself (it is not clear how they have been 'corrected and edited'). The reports consume 381 pages plus another 134 pages for 'Notes.' The Bibliography runs to 12 pages and the Index to 42. This leaves 50 pages or so for the actual book.
The Historical and Editorial Introduction is an interesting read until it reaches the 'editorial' part. Someone obviously did a great deal of work transcribing the actual reports, many of which would have been in longhand (presumably this is where the sponsorship from the Wilson Heritage Trust kicked in). One is struck by the candour of these early reports. People were much more apt to speak their minds in those days - a point which Gillian makes and with which I totally agree. Furthermore, people's publicly expressed views tended to be rather more considered and erudite than is currently the case in Hong Kong (albeit rudeness, invective and diatribe have become deliberate political weapons). Her four short biographies of Hong Kong's early educationalists (Smith, Legge, Stewart and Eitel) are well written. As to the reports being 'virtually inaccessible,' well all are available at the Public Record Building, in Kwun Tong, but Gillian has, nevertheless, brought them all together for the benefit of "couch researchers." The Conclusion starts promisingly but deteriorates into a rather patronising dismissal of other writers on the subject of education in Hong Kong who, compared with Gillian, "didn't get it quite right.”
Perusing the Reports, I was struck by early references to 'learning by rote.' Things have clearly not changed, as I can testify to in the case of my own kids, who come home laden like packhorses with homework and who are finding school increasingly dull and uninspiring. The litmus test of education in any given country/territory should surely be: Does it produce world leaders/Nobels/inventions/putting men on the Moon etc? Hong Kong, unfortunately, has some way to go in this regard and what irritates me intensely is that we have been talking about "doing something about" the education system here for over 40 years.
In the bibliography, a reference to Postiglione's (1992) Education
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.