Editor's Notes

Editor's Notes

If 1997 belongs to Information Technology (IT), for education, 2001 should belong to Curriculum Reform (CR). In 1997, the most important catchphrase in the first SAR Chief Executive's policy address is " Information Technology"; in 2001, the most important event must be the launch of the formal Curriculum Reform document, "Learning to learn: The way forward in curriculum development" in June. The momentum that was triggered by the CE in his unequivocal commitment to IT has swept through all sectors of the community and is affecting all aspects of our life, education not least. With the new access infrastructure to information through the Internet and the sophisticated multi-media technology, we are now witnessing dynamic and revolutionary changes in teaching and learning.

However, nothing, not even the impact of IT, can compare with the potential impact that could be released by the new Curriculum Reform. Central and fundamental to the spirit of the reform is the shift of the focus from the teacher to the learner, from knowledge-learning to information-mastery, from learning for examination to learning for life-long learning skills and whole-person development, from classroom learning to life-wide learning. In the new paradigm shift, the success of the curriculum is evaluated not on how much knowledge has been amassed by the learner, but on how much the curriculum contributes to the development of generic skills and to the empowerment of the learner's ability to learn. The document, a culminating product of two-years of discussion and consultation, not only sets the tone for curriculum policy for Hong Kong but also sets the action schedules for its implementation in the next ten years. Already we have seen significant changes in the educational system such as the abolition of the Academic Attitude Test (AAT) for Secondary School Places Allocation, the restructuring of banding in secondary schools, to mention just a few. The government's commitment and determination in implementing the spirit and policy of this curriculum reform leaves nothing to doubt.

To some this curriculum reform seems a dream-come-true, a belated awakening to our mission in education for our children, a romance in reality; for others, it may still seem too remote, too idealistic and too theoretical. For those in the field of special education, there is the search for the relevance of the document, which promotes the one-curriculum-for-all principle, to special educational needs. To address these issues, the Special Education Society of Hong Kong chose for the topic of its 2001 Annual Conference: "The Romance Behind Curriculum Reforms" (課程改革: 浪漫背後). Invited to discuss the many dimensions of this issue were Dr. Li Chi-kin, a reputable scholar in curriculum studies, Mrs. Susan Leung, a long-serving curriculum officer in special education, Dr. Ng Kwok-hung and Kwan Wai-fong, two special school principals known for their pioneering work in school-based curriculum development/reforms. For those who missed the opportunity of sharing the wisdom of our speakers with the 100-odd colleagues on 5 May 2001, we have prepared abridged versions of the key speeches and a summary of the forum discussion in this issue of the Forum.

Curriculum reforms and the impact of inclusive and integrated education on teaching strategies form an integrated theme around the seven papers published in the current issue. Almost by co-incidence (or telepathy?), both our local and overseas colleagues are focusing their concerns on similar issues, student-focused learning, mixed ability teaching, teacher empowerment and learner-centred curriculum planning, assessment and implementation. Cathleen G. Spinelli in her paper, "Interactive Teaching Strategies and Authentic Curriculum and Assessment: A Model for Effective Classroom Instruction" echoes the learner-focused principle of our curriculum reform by stressing the importance of involving the students in the learning process and using the real life (authentic) experience and needs of the students as the basis of learning. Effective learning is more likely to be achieved if students are allowed to actively plan, participate, and "peer-teach" in the learning process and much more so in "authentic" situations. Such instructional strategies are not just applicable and necessary to special needs students but also to students in general education.

In fact, in these days of inclusive education, the duality of special and general education is fast becoming antiquated. All teachers should have "shared responsibilities" of our students, irrespective of abilities (or disabilities), race, language, culture and socio-economical background. This is the message behind Esther Kau-to Leung's paper, "A Case for Unified Teacher Preparation Programs". Leung's proposal stems from her deep concern of the low morale and the exodus of teachers from general and special education in the States resulting from the inclusion of special needs students in the "general classroom". The dichotomized training system that prepares the general education teachers to be "curriculum" specialists and special education teachers to be "instructional-strategy" specialists is no longer workable nor adequate, "as general education teachers are now expected to teach a wide range of students and special education teachers are expected to teach a wide range of content areas in the school curriculum". That is the case for the States, where inclusion has been widely practised for many years. What is the message for Hong Kong?

Back in Hong Kong, the implications of the new curriculum on teachers in special schools and its relevance to the learning of severe mentally handicapped (SMH) students are the concerns of many teachers and 連明剛 (John Ming-gon Lian). In his paper "當前香港課改與嚴重弱智學校課程發展之銜接" (Coupling the Current Education Reforms in Hong Kong with the Curriculum Development in Schools for Severe Mentally Handicapped Children), Lian begins by reminding us that curriculum reforms need not be taken just as additional burdens to teachers' already hefty workload but as an opportunity to enhance the quality of education and teacher professionalism. In this light, the relevance of the new curriculum should be taken as an opportunity as well as a challenge. Through school-based curriculum development, teachers could assume ownership of the new curriculum by giving their interpretation of the principles and practice inherent in the new curriculum in the context of their own schools. Lian reported in some details how teachers in SMH schools illustrate with vivid examples the application of generic skills learning and key learning areas in their schools. The one-curriculum-for-all concept need not be a myth.

While it is the right for students of mixed abilities to be placed under one educational system and one curriculum framework, the question is raised on whether students of mixed abilities should be taught in the same group. This is the issue discussed in "The Effects of Ability Grouping on Low-achievers' Motivation and Teachers' Expectations: A Perspective from Hong Kong" by Corina Choi-chun Chang and Peter Westwood. Their research identifies several negative effects of placing low-ability students in the same group, with both teachers and students losing interest in learning as a result of constant failure. The goal of education is not to identify the able from the less able but "to enable every person to attain all-round development according to his own attribute". For low-ability students to achieve this goal, they should be given the opportunity to experience frequent success, to feel empowered and motivated by recognizing their own capacity to learn. Only then can they be motivated to exert their effort in learning and only then do they see value and ownership of the learning process.

The empowerment of students through interactive learning is the common theme of the two action research papers, "「合作學習」對改善「小學加強輔導教學計劃」學生數學學習的成效" (The Effects of Co-operative Learning on Improving the Learning of Mathematics by Students from Intensive Remedial Teaching Programme in Primary Schools) by吳慧儀、香煥瓊(Ng Wai-yee and Vivian Heung) and "Implementing Problem-based Learning for Unmotivated Students in a Practical School in Hong Kong" by Shirley Wai-mun Yip and Vivian Woon-king Heung. Both studies confirm Spinelli's observation that learning is more effective if students are actively involved in the process. That applies particularly more so to students with low learning abilities and low learning motivation. The message to us cannot be more loud and clear. There is always excitement in the Editorial Board in receiving action research papers from frontline teachers. Action researches are the frontline workers' practical response to theories in curriculum reforms and as such they are important elements for the successful implementation of the reforms.

Still on the note of student empowerment is the paper, "Person-centered Planning: Support for the Transition Process and Developing Self-determination" by Sheri B. Moore from the States. This time the issue is on transition from school to work for disabled students. As with learning, success rate in transition to work and employment could be enhanced if the planning is based on the person's own understanding of his abilities, areas of needs, personal choices and plans and dream for the future. Incidentally, is not the attainment of such self-understanding and self-realization the primary goal of education, the vision of any curriculum reform?

In these days of economic downturn and depression, Hong Kong can be said to be very fortunate and blessed as the government has been resolute and steadfast in its determination to proceed with our educational reforms. There has never been such vision; there has never been such supply of resources; there have never been such opportunities for improving the quality of education for our children. As teachers we should grasp this opportunity to ride the tide. The process may be rough as colleagues like 天藍may share with us her "7-11的啟示" (Seven-eleven Revelation) in the ordeal she faces amidst the hustle-bustle of school-based curriculum development work. As long as the learning of our children can be made more effective, more meaningful, more enjoyable and more "authentic", ANYTHING is worth.

A. Tse