|
In
1998, due to the rigid stipulation in the contract of purchasing
water from Guangdong Province, the Hong Kong Government frittered
away 1.7 billion dollars.
In 1999, the
government's "short piling" construction misdeed squandered
0.7 billion of tax-payers' money.
In 2002, the
"penny stocks" affair caused Hong Kong citizens to
lose 11.3 billion dollars.
In 2003, the government's
slow reaction in handling the SARS cases has resulted in enormous
financial losses that could reach astronomical figures.
These losses have
not only dissipated Hong Kong citizens' hard-earned money, but
also blemished Hong Kong's reputation. So far we have witnessed
no dismissal of government officials due to these misdeeds.
Yet, why is the government so pertinacious that they want to
banish hard-working teachers from the profession by cutting
class numbers although they have made no mistakes? The government
officials' heartless stratagem to make teachers redundant is
simply to achieve their budget cut targets. Is this fair for
teachers?
Opportunity
to reduce class size
Some years ago when
China and other countries all implemented small class teaching,
when the Secretary for Education claimed that small class teaching
was his dream policy, we understood that we did not have the
resources for such implementation. But now when the birthrate
is low, should we grasp this golden opportunity to make our
dreams come true? Isn't small class teaching the wish of all
students, parents and teachers? Regrettably, the government
is not responding to people's outcries and the only item on
every policy maker's agenda is to achieve budget cut at all
costs. Anthony Leung has never considered what is best for our
children, not to mention the quality of education, or the future
of Hong Kong. Maybe he has blinded by his preoccupation of how
to reduce budget. I really wish Arthur Li could once again exercise
his kingly power manifested in his attempt at university merging
and fight against Anthony Leung for the good of our next generations.
I would also like to ask the Chief Executive if his determination
to invest in education has, like the "eighty-five thousand
policy" vanished into the thin air.
Whenever frontline
teachers advocate the benefits of small class teaching, there
will always be some theorists or politicians who suggest that
researches are needed to back up the policy. The policy makers
even mislead people into believing that small class teaching
is impossible because we need extra cost for its implementation.
Even worse, some simply emphasize students' academic results,
completely oblivious of the main goal of education: all-rounded
development of the child. Anyone with the least common sense
would not doubt every child's need for individual attention
from their teachers. Anyone who wants our children to get better
care at school would opt for small class teaching. Even the
government advocated small class teaching when they provided
CMI schools with more English teachers to implement split-class
remedial teaching.
When we criticize
the failure of schooling, do we aim at finding the scapegoats
or the culprit? It is easy and convenient to put the blame on
teachers for failing our students, but only when we start focusing
on the real cause can we really save our children from their
present tribulation. When Anthony Leung is preoccupied with
budget cuts, when our educational policy makers have lost sight
of their vision in education, when policies are made solely
basing on businessmen's philosophy, there is no hope for tomorrow's
education
|
