Public scrutiny needed for Hong Kong education sector

Paul Yeung says naming educators disciplined for misconduct is necessary to give parents actionable information and to protect the image of good teachers

The anti-government campaign last year not only battered Hong Kong’s hard-earned achievements, but also raised a general concern about the future of the city, specifically its economic development and young talent pool. According to government statistics, between June 2019 and April 2020, among the more than 8,000 persons arrested during the anti-government campaign, about 2,000 were tertiary students, along with 1,300 underage youth, who are estimated to be predominantly school pupils. That is to say, students account for about 40 percent of the total arrestees. This staggering number not only is a worrying sign for the future of Hong Kong, but also gives rise to questions about what has gone wrong in Hong Kong’s education.

An old Chinese proverb has it that a good teacher is a strict preacher. However, two sets of figures reveal that many Hong Kong teachers have failed miserably in their preaching. To start with, about 10 tertiary educators and 100 primary and secondary teachers are among those arrested in last year’s social unrest. Furthermore, from June last year to August this year, the Education Bureau received 247 complaints of professional misconduct by teachers regarding their purported involvement in protests. These two sets of numbers reflect the increasingly severe impact of politicization on society, which did not spare even school campuses. While it is difficult to prove the correlation between the illegal behavior of teachers and students, the professional misconduct many educators demonstrated in their involvement in political activities is a real concern.

At present, the Education Bureau has an established mechanism to handle such issues. If the above educators are prosecuted, regardless of the verdict of the court, the Education Bureau will review court documents and related materials to determine whether they are guilty of professional misconduct, along with reassessing their eligibility for teaching. As for teachers who are the subject of a misconduct complaint, the

Education Bureau will also investigate the cases and take follow-up actions such as verbal reminder, advisory letter, letter of condemnation, warning letter, or even revoke their teacher registration in accordance with the Education Ordinance. Nevertheless, the repercussions of last year’s massive riots have exposed the flaws and inadequacies of this complaint handling mechanism, which has failed to keep up with the times.

The transparency in handling misconduct complaints against teachers, for instance, fails to meet public expectations. According to the latest statistics from the Education Bureau, as of early October, it has reviewed approximately 204 complaints, of which 71 were substantiated and being followed up, and 73 are deemed unsubstantiated. While the investigation was in progress, the public had little idea on how the bureau determined the justifiability of the complaints. Among the 71 justified complaints, 21 have been issued a letter of condemnation, 12 issued a warning letter, 19 issued an advisory letter, and 18 issued a verbal reminder. Similarly, although the public are stakeholders in education and were concerned about the misconduct cases, since the hearing processes were conducted behind closed doors, their right to know was greatly undermined.

In addition, the public only know the number of teachers who have been found guilty of serious professional misconduct, having been convicted by the court, having received a letter of condemnation or warning letter from the Education Bureau, or even having the revocation of their teacher registration. However, information such as their names and the schools involved remains undisclosed. This old practice might have been intended to protect the teachers and schools involved, but the downside is that the public can only rely on media or hearsay to learn about the details. This inadequate right to know is more likely to encourage the emergence of fake news, which could unfairly affect the professional image of the majority of good teachers.

In addition to the top-down management by the education authority, it is therefore also necessary and justified for the education sector to be placed under public scrutiny or supervision. Take medical practitioners as a typical profession for example. The Medical Council holds public hearings when it deals with the disciplinary issues of doctors, and discloses the name of doctors who are accused of serious professional misconduct. Such transparency is put in place to ensure public trust in the medical profession. The social function of teachers is no less important than that of doctors. Especially in recent years, the community is aware that there have been a large number of misconduct complaints involving teachers who expressed hatred, profanity and other improper remarks, or prepared inappropriate teaching materials, or allegedly violated the law. Since these educators teach in secondary and primarily schools, or even kindergartens, it is reasonable for the public to know who the “black sheep” are.

In addition to the topdown management by the education authority, it is therefore also necessary and justified for the education sector to be placed under public scrutiny or supervision.