Education Policy, Reform, and School Innovations in the Asia-Pacific Region PART III: LANGUAGE EDUCATION ~ 328 ~ Turning from Teaching in English to Teaching in Mother Tongue: Social Realities and Contradictions in Post-1997 Hong Kong Timothy Wai Wa Yuen The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong Introduction After the political handover in 1997, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government released the Medium of Instruction Guidance (MOI Guidance). The MOI Guidance aims at promoting the use of mother tongue (Cantonese in verbal language and Modern Standard Chinese in written language) in secondary schools and reducing the use of mixed code (a mixture of Chinese and English). The MOI Guidance was much resented when it was released and has remained highly controversial. This paper reviews the MOI Guidance and the controversies it arouses from a social perspective, paying particular attention to how the policy has met with the complexities in the social landscape and the reaction of the stakeholders when their interests are affected. It argues that language policy change, just like any other elements of education reform, should be grounded on careful examinations of social realities, especially on how vested interest will be affected. Apart from being a localized discussion of how language policy has become a complicated and contentious issue, it is hoped that this article can help reflection about the social complexities against which education reforms are carried out, particularly at a time when the Asian Pacific Region has seen waves of education changes. Teaching in Mother Tongue: A Historical Account Secondary schools teaching with Chinese medium of instruction (CMI) were for a long time the mainstream in Hong Kong whilst schools teaching with English medium of instruction (EMI) remained a minority. In 1958, for example, CMI secondary schools still accounted for 55% of the total number of secondary schools in Hong Kong. However, the scenario changed rapidly in the 60’s and 70’s when EMI schools quickly expanded in number and became predominant. In 1979, only 23% of secondary schools used Chinese as the medium of instruction. What caused the Chinese medium schools to lose ground? The most common cause attributed to it is that of colonialism and deliberate plans of the former colonial government in favor of EMI. This explanation, which is difficult both to verify and falsify, needs to be critically examined. To begin with, CMI secondary schools retained their mainstream status till 1950’s against the fact that the colony was founded as early as 1842. The rise of EMI secondary schools did not result from specific government policy and directives specifying the adoption of English as the official medium of instruction in schools (see Notes 1). Particularly noteworthy is that CMI secondary schools’ demise followed closely the political changes that happened in the mainland after the end of WWII. The Communist takeover in 1949 and the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950’s led to the subsequent closing of the border and put an end to the once popular path of further study and career development in China, which were pursued by ~ 329 ~ Education Policy, Reform, & School Innovations in the Asia-Pacific graduates of CMI secondary schools in Hong Kong. The comparative numbers of CMI and EMI secondary schools in terms of school number and student enrollment are given in Table 1 and Table 2 below. Table 1: EMI and CMI Secondary Schools in Hong Kong (1958-1989) Year Number of % of Number of % of EMI secondary secondary CMI secondary secondary schools schools being schools schools being EMI schools CMI schools 1958 74 45% 89 55% 1969 230 66% 120 34% 1979 333 77% 97 23% 1989 235 65% 126 35% Source: Lai, F. K. (1994). Language streaming and English standard, Modern Educational Bulletin, 32, 5-7. Table 2: Number of Students Enrolled in EMI and CMI Secondary Schools Year EMI secondary schools students CMI secondary schools students Male Female Total Male Female Total 1952 12000 4000 16000 10000 7000 17000 1961 35000 18000 53000 15000 14000 29000 1971 100000 67000 167000 25000 25000 50000 1981 No major gender 370000 No major gender 50000 difference difference Source: Adapted from Luk (2003). Hong Kong’s Education Stories: From Banyan Tree to Computer, p 160-162. Lai (ibid) explains that the growth of EMI schools (Table 1) at this period was mainly due to the development of an export-led economy in Hong Kong and the increase of jobs in both the civil service and the commercial sector that required ability to communicate in English. The relatively heavier presence of female students in CMI schools in the period 1960’s and early 1970’s (Table 2) on the other hand further underpinned the idea that parents’ choice of EMI schools for children was largely utilitarian in nature and was based particularly on the need of the job market. As girls were not expected to play an active role in the labor market in the 1950’s and 1960’s, parents were more willing to send their daughters to the CMI schools for the sake of the cherished conservative ethos of such schools. This was only reversed gradually due to the increased participation of women in the labor market in the 1970’s. Thus, it seems the colonialism notion may only be accepted up to the extent that the colonial government did not rein in the market when demand showed a strong preference for EMI places and this preference was mainly due to economic consideration. Evans, S. (2000) made an interesting note of the laissez-faire policy: ~ 330 ~ Turning from Teaching in English to Teaching in Mother Tongue: Social Realities and Contradictions in Post-1997 Hong Kong The climb down over the language circulars set the tone for language policy in education in the post-war years, for although the colonial government consistently recommended the use of Chinese as the MOI at secondary level it failed to formulate and implement a clear language policy. (p.189) From this point onward, we may also need to recognize that market demand, particularly in terms of parental wish based on utilitarian calculation, can be important in matters such as the choice of teaching medium in schools. Another strand of development in the post-war period was the rapid expansion of educational provisions in Hong Kong. In 1978, 9-year free and compulsory education was first provided. The development of massive education changed the formerly elitist nature of schooling and allowed the less academically oriented students to study in secondary schools. This in return brought in the mismatch between the teaching medium and the linguistic competence of the students. Many of these students could never have made their way to the secondary schools before (see Notes 2). In 1982, the report of a visiting panel commissioned by the government concluded that most secondary students could not effectively learn in English. In the subsequent reports (report no.1 to 6) published by the prestigious Education Commission (EC) between 1984 and 1996, there were repeated calls to encourage secondary schools to teach in mother tongue. The mixed code popularly used in many of the EMI secondary schools was particularly highlighted for criticism (EC Report 4, 1990). Meanwhile, the government adopted various measures to foster the use of mother tongue. These comprised persuasion and offering support to schools teaching in Chinese. It should be understood that throughout the entire process, the government had refrained from enforcing compliance through issuing of decree and the choice of teaching language was left to schools’ discretion. Besides, schools were also allowed to develop their own approach to mother tongue teaching, for example on a subject by subject basis or a class by class basis. Tsui (2004) explained that at the time before the release of the MOI Guidance in 1997, 94% of students were studying EMI secondary schools. The figure for primary students was almost the reverse, with 93% of the primary students enrolled in schools teaching in Chinese. This unparalleled development, also reported by Luk (op cit), underlined the difficulty to learn effectively in English in secondary schools, especially in the case of the less academically oriented students and students whose families were less in touch with English. An Outline of the Medium of Instruction (MOI) Guidance In 1997, the Education Department of Hong Kong issued the MOI Guidance to secondary schools. For the first time, an administrative decree was issued to secondary schools concerning the choice of teaching medium. The MOI Guidance aims at promoting the use of mother tongue and discouraging the use of mixed code in secondary schools, particularly junior secondary level (secondary year one to three or S1-S3).The Guidance explains the benefits from mother-tongue teaching against improvements in learning and students’ preference. ~ 331 ~ Education Policy, Reform, & School Innovations in the Asia-Pacific MOI Guidance stipulates (MOI Guidance): 1. Most secondary schools should adopt mother tongue teaching with their S1 intake starting from 1998-9 school year and progressing each year to a higher level of secondary study. 2. Upon reaching S4, some schools may want to switch to English as MOI for certain subjects. If so, they should demonstrate that their teachers and students are able respectively to teach and to learn in English. For S6 and 7, schools should be free to make MOI choices. 3. However, the Government also realizes that some schools are quite successful teaching in English. Thus, these schools may continue with English as MOI if they make an application and can prove that they can satisfy the following requirements: x Student ability: Not less than 85% of the S1 intakes of the school in the past 3 years should belong to Medium of Instruction Grouping Assessment (MIGA) Groups I and III.