Introduction
Language policies in education are an important mechanism by which states manage social and political conflict. A central concern of language policy analysis is the role of particular policies in mobilizing public opinion, channeling political energy, and allocating economic resources. Policies can be used to create, sustain, or resolve conflict (Tollefson 2002). It is important to keep in mind that state authorities or particular ethno linguistic groups in some settings may view language policy conflict as advantageous for their own political aims. In other settings, a major goal of policymakers may be the use of educational language policies to reduce the potential for social and political conflict. Conflicts about language policy usually have their source in group conflicts in which language symbolizes some aspect of a struggle over political power and economic resources. Therefore in order to understand language policy debates and the role of language policy in contemporary states, we must examine the underlying social, economic, and political struggles that language can symbolize. The symbolic value of language can have profound consequences, not only for language minorities seeking to negotiate complex and changing identities, but also for dominant groups seeking to retain various forms of political and economic power (Tollefson 2002). The medium of instruction depends on different countries. The policy that dictates the medium of instruction is affected by various things in the environment. This paper intends to compare and contrast the medium of instruction policies in post colonial Hong Kong SAR and post colonial Singapore.
Medium of Instruction policy in Hong Kong
Language of instruction has been a controversial issue for more than a century in Hong Kong. On the one hand a majority of official reports and academic studies have called for Chinese as the language of instruction (Li 1999). But the demand was largely ignored and instruction continued to be offered in English because of the exigencies of colonial rule and the need to maintain Hong Kong's international economic competitiveness (Liu 1999). This changed somewhat in 1974 when schools were allowed the choice between English and Chinese, though in practice an overwhelming majority continued to teach in English. More drastic change came about in 1998 when all schools, except those explicitly exempted, were required to teach in Chinese: eventually, 307 schools were designated as Chinese-medium schools and 114 as English-medium schools (Liu 1999). The public views Chinese schools as inferior and resents the denial of English-language teaching to its children. Businesses too are opposed to the change because they fear that a downgrading of English would reduce Hong Kong's international economic competitiveness. There is no indication that the government is considering a reversal of the policy (Evans 2006).
In Hong Kong, English is an important part of the school curriculum from kindergarten. Students start learning English when they enter preschool. In primary and secondary schools, English is taught as a compulsory subject. The universities in Hong Kong adopt English as their official medium of instruction, with the exception of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, which is the only bilingual university in the territory. At university level, English language-enhancement programs are provided for university students irrespective of their majors to help strengthen their English skills (Braine 2005). The medium of instruction in Hong Kong is both English and Chinese depending on the school and whether it is private or public. Before English was used as a medium of instruction but lately schools under the government are not allowed to use English as a medium of instruction. Chinese has been the medium of instruction. A small number of government primary schools and secondary schools are permitted to use English as the medium of instruction. For private schools English has been the medium of instruction. In these schools English is learned from Kindergarten until they reach a tertiary level of education.
Medium of Instruction in Singapore
Although the provision and financing of education in Singapore is more dominated by the state than other emerging countries, the government began to withdraw somewhat in the mid 1980s. Singaporean leaders are sensitive to allegations of educational inequities and go to great lengths to ensure the appearance of fairness. In recent years the government has launched measures it claims are designed to help children from groups that do not perform well in schools (Ramesh 2003). The education system in Singapore consists of six years of primary education and four years of secondary education. Singapore was one of the few countries in the region with no compulsory education, but this changed in 2003 when its six years of primary schooling became compulsory. The turn of the millennium appears to be an exciting time for Singapore. There is constant talk of the need to re-examine old ways of thinking and doing things, and of the concomitant need for creativity and innovation. Education policy has been a prime instrument for the fostering of both economic development and social cohesion ever since the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) came to power in 1959. It is, therefore, unsurprising that education policy-makers, schools, principals, teachers, and students are being swept along in a literal tide of newly launched policy directives (Ramesh 2003).
The Singapore Government continues to be ambitious in its plans to use education as a key linchpin in its efforts to promote economic development and social cohesion. Several issues will continue to bedevil policy-makers for the foreseeable future. One of these is the issue of how to bring about sustained change in such areas as curricular initiatives. No amount of government exhortation about the desirability of such innovations will succeed unless teachers are first given the opportunity to engage in reflective thinking about these innovations. Given the increasingly hectic work schedules of most teachers in schools, it will be very difficult for them to have adequate time to engage in such thinking (Da Cunha 2002). The last thing policy framers desire is for teachers to go about their teaching in an unreflective, uncomprehending manner, giving the appearance of change while leaving fundamental areas of change untouched. Equally troubling would be the prospect of teachers, parents, and students merely treating the new assessment modes and subject matter as yet more hurdles to be cleared in the same way as the current hurdles have been crossed. Other dilemmas related to the tension between diversity and conformity, such as those brought about by the ranking of schools, will continue to trouble schools. The challenges and dilemmas involved in managing a culturally diverse, and now increasingly class-stratified population, will not prove an easy task either (Dixon 2005). The first language learned in Singapore by half the children by the time they reach preschool age is English. English is also the primary medium of instruction by the time a student reach primary school. For most subject English is the language used, Chinese, Malay and Tamil languages are not taught in English, recently there is provision for the use of English at the initial stages. At present few schools have tried to integrate language subjects with mathematics and the sciences, using both English and a second language.
Contrasting and comparing the medium of instruction for the 2 countries
In Hong Kong English was used as a medium of instruction but lately schools under the government are not allowed to use English as a medium of instruction. The Hong Kong government initiated changes that would make sure that the use of English as a medium of instruction would be minimized in some schools and Chinese would be the sole medium of instruction. In Singapore English is the primary medium of instruction. The government supports and encourages the use of English as a medium of instruction. In Hong Kong the use of English as a medium of instruction depends on the type of school. If the school is a public school then it is required to use Chinese as a medium of instruction; if the school is a private school it depends on the school if it wants English or Chinese as a medium of instruction. In Singapore all schools are required to make use of English as a medium of instruction. Private or public schools have to make sure that English is used as the medium of instruction. In Hong Kong there are a few calls to bring back English as the medium of instruction. Some of those who grew up using English as a medium of instruction wanted to bring back the use of English as a medium of instruction. In Singapore the goal is to combine English with the other official languages as a medium of instruction. The country wants to expand further English and its use in the education system. For both countries English has been an important medium of instruction whether it is primary or not. English contributes to the education of both countries and helps in opening both countries to the international scene. English made sure that communication will not be a cause of strained relationships with various individuals.
How’s the motivation of the new medium of instruction policies?
In Hong Kong the new medium of instruction aims to bring a sense of nationality to the people. It aims to promote Chinese to young people. It aims to make sure that the students would remember their past and use it in the present. In Singapore the medium of instruction aims to ensure that no ethnic group or nationality is forced to learn the language of another. It wants to make sure that communication would be easier and easy communication would be learned initially in schools. The use of English as a medium of instruction aims to interconnect Singapore to the world economy. The use of English as a medium of instruction wants to make sure that students can easily understand the global scenario and in the future make decisions that are acceptable to the global standards.
How’s the reaction from the community?
There has been a debate in Hong Kong over the use of English as a medium of instruction. Some people prefer to use Chinese as the medium of instruction. They believe that Chinese is still the most acceptable medium of instruction. They believe that Chinese will help the students reach the goals they have. Some people prefer to use English as a medium of instruction. They believe that English should be learned by the children so that once they grow up they will be ready to study in a university and communicate in the workplace. The proponents of English as a medium of instruction believe that a child needs to have a mastery of English so that they can face the challenges of university and office life. They believe that English as a medium of instruction will be important for future generations in competing in the market. In Singapore there has been no complains against the use of English as a medium of instruction. The government is behind the use of English as the medium of instruction in schools. The people have made good use of English as the medium of instruction; it helped them compete with other countries. English as the medium of instruction helped in making competitive students that are prepared for global challenges.
The future of the medium instruction in HK and Singapore
It may take some time before Hong Kong replaces Chinese as a medium of instruction. Even if there are people who question the change of medium, the government is motivated to maintain Chinese as the medium of instruction in public schools. The political, social and cultural scenario called for the use of Chinese as a medium of instruction, it contributed to the decision of changing the medium of instruction. Only another change in the political, social and cultural scenario would create a future change in the medium of instruction. In Singapore the medium of instruction might not be changed but it might be modified and merged with the country’s other language. English as a medium of instruction has created positive results to Singapore’s education system; this will result to strengthening English as the medium of instruction.
Conclusion
Hong Kong has the right to choose the medium of instruction, the change to another medium of instruction is what the government has seen as a plausible solution to the social problems of the region. English might not be used as the medium of instruction for most schools but English is still being taught as part of the curriculum. This might prevent any problems and should still help the students to prepare for studying in a university and working in a multinational firm. Singapore’s use of English as a medium of instruction shows that it is open to global communication. Its move to improve the medium of instruction shows that it gives value to all languages that its people have spoken.
References
Braine, G (ed.) 2005, Teaching English to the world:
History, curriculum, and practice, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Da Cunha, D (ed.) 2002, Singapore in the new millennium:
Challenges facing the city-state, Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies, Singapore.
Dixon, LQ 2005, The bilingual education policy in
Singapore: Implications for second language acquisition,
Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA.
Evans, SE 2006,’Language policy in British colonial
education: Evidence from Nineteenth-Century Hong Kong’,
Journal of Educational Administration and History, vol. 38,
no. 3, pp.293-312.
Li, DC 1999,’ The functions and status of English in
Hong Kong: A post 1997 update’, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 67-110
Liu, LH (ed.) 1999, Tokens of exchange: The problem of
translation in global circulations, Duke University Press,
Durham, NC.
Ramesh, M 2003, Social policy in East and Southeast Asia:
Education, health, housing and income maintenance,
RoutledgeCurzon, New York.
Tollefson, JW (ed.) 2002, Language policies in education:
Critical issues, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment