The LegCo Secretariat released a research brief on the “support for students of different learning abilities”, the aim of which was to compare how the school systems of Hong Kong and Singapore differed. They focused in particular on their approaches to identifying and helping schoolchildren with learning disabilities in their respective public school systems.
They found that Hong Kong could learn a lot from Singapore, which does a better job at finding and helping students who need more help early in their schooling, while their different options within the same secondary schools help to maximize children’s potential according to their different abilities and interests, whether academic or vocational.
Key statistics from the Research Brief:
- 20.3% of 2013 S3 students failed to achieve basic competency in Chinese Language
- 22.9% of 2013 S3 students failed to achieve basic competency in Mathematics
- 30.5% of 2013 S3 students failed to achieve basic competency in English Language
- Fewer than 85% of Hong Kong’s P6 students achieved basic competency in the English, Chinese or Mathematics in 2013
- In 2014, only 40.4% of day school candidates for the HKDSE met the general admission requirements for local universities
According to the report, both Hong Kong and Singapore have been ranked among the best educational systems as ranked by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which was developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In 2012, Hong Kong ranked third in mathematics and second in both science and reading.
But to the government’s dismay, Secondary Three (S3) students didn’t fare so well in the 2013 Territory-wide System Assessment. The test, also known as the TSA, is administered by the government in all schools receiving government subsidies in order to assess students’ performance in Primary Three (P3), Primary Six (P6) and S3 in three subjects: Chinese, English and mathematics.
Hong Kong students’ academic performance
Almost one in three S3 students “failed to achieve basic competency” in English, while over one in four failed in both Chinese and Mathematics. These are fairly appalling statistics for a city where education is so highly prized. A staggering 27.6% of P6 students were unable to read or write English at a basic level.
See the table below to see the proportions of P3, P6 and S3 students who failed in the three tested subjects.
% of students failing to achieve basic competency in the 2013 Territory-Wide System Assessment (TSA)
With the failure rates increasing with the school grade levels, it’s clear that as students progress through the system, the schools are failing to help those who might need help the most.
While in Hong Kong, the responsibility to identify children with learning disabilities lies with P1 schoolteachers at the beginning of each school year, in Singapore they screen all children in P1 and again in secondary school for any disabilities. For the 2012-2013 school year, only 42% of public sector mainstream primary teachers in were trained in special education.
Hence, Singapore might be more effective in reaching those who need extra help. Each year, 12% to 14% of P1 students are identified to have learning difficulties. Singaporean government data from 2008 showed that their early intervention and support programmes helped 30% of those identified students to pass their year-end English exams. Those who do not pass continue to get support the following year.
Hong Kong’s banding system
Another area where Hong Kong contrasts strongly with Singapore is how they treat secondary schoolchildren who have different academic performances. Hong Kong separates children into three “bands”, or types, of schools based on each child’s academic performance. Hence high-performing students attend Band 1 schools while the students who struggle the most attend Band 3 schools. Despite this separation, all secondary students take the high-stakes Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education (HKDSE) exams, the results of which determine what universities the students will get into.
In 2001, government authorities had the brilliant idea of reducing the number of bands from five to three in order to “reduce the labelling effect”, because being categorized into three instead of five categories is going to make kids feel a whole lot better about themselves.
Meanwhile Singapore simply has different courses for students of differing ability within the same schools. The government report italicized and bolded “same secondary school” as if it were some novel, mind-blowing idea to not segregate children into entirely different schools based on academic performance.
In the starkest comparison of all, 97.5% of all P6 students in Singapore are deemed to be suitable to pass into secondary school, while less than 85% of Hong Kong’s P6 students achieved basic competency in the three TSA subjects.
Vocational training
Finally, the last main topic assessed is how both systems treat vocational training with the educational system. Hong Kong S6 students are allowed to pick two or three electives in addition to the four mandatory core subjects. One of the elective subject categories is “Applied Learning”, which is comprised of “vocational-oriented training”.
Unlike the other academic subjects, which are assessed on a five-level scale, students who take applied learning courses receive either “unattained”, “attained” or “attained with distinction” as results. Hence these subjects are not very appealing to students, even those who are inclined towards vocational training.
Since students who are less academically-oriented may take the academic subjects over the applied learning ones anyway, it may help to explain why only 40.4% of day school HKDSE candidates met the general admission requirements for Hong Kong universities in 2014.
Singapore on the other hand provide three different paths that students can take, with one path for high-achieving students, another for average students, and another for students who want to focus on vocational training. Students are able to switch from one path to another if they perform well.
Hong Kong could learn from Singapore
The research brief basically concludes that Hong Kong could learn from Singapore’s methods to identify learning disabilities early in order to maximize their chances for success, their solid options for vocationally-oriented students, and the fact that different students take one of three different courses throughout secondary schools based on their abilities and interests, whereas all Hong Kong students take the same HKDSE exams regardless of which of the three bands to which they were assigned.
It’s unclear what the Education Bureau will do with the research brief’s observations, but it definitely provide some food for thought about how we’re treating the kids who need the most help in school, and how it impacts their future.
Photo: Education Bureau website
Reader Interactions