CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Why should governments and schools want reform? A basic premise in most

reforms is that something in the system has gone astray, which warrants fixing. This

simple reasoning, however, is only partially valid given that any reform carries some

degree of uncertainty and risk of failure. The fact that the reform process tends to be

complex and chaotic aside (Fullan and Miles 1995, 405), reforming disturbs old

structures, and in some cases changes the rules completely by which games are played.

Therefore, it is sometimes argued that caution and the status quo, rather than change,

might be the aspiration. In this light, it is interesting to consider the case of recent

curriculum reform in Japan and Hong Kong, both of which have educational systems

that have been regarded as relatively successful in their local socio-economic contexts

but which are nonetheless confronted by growing discontent at home with the state of

their schooling. In either system, curriculum reform is generally marked by a political

tendency to decentralize. In particular, it is considered obligatory for decentralization to

1
address the curriculum development process in order to bring about substantive change.

This necessarily calls for a transfer of control from the central authority to educational

agents who are closer to the chalkboard – schools and teachers. Unfortunately, in

systems where traditions are weak for schools and teachers to take care of their own

curricula, such decentralization spawns problems of its own. How then was “reform”

done in Japan and Hong Kong? What are the broad similarities and differences between

the local conditions and developments in and through which reform took place?

This study will examine the recent policy and practice of decentralized

curriculum development in these two places. The scope of the study is confined to the

junior secondary school level1. The subject of inquiry is focused on describing, rather

than explaining, the specific reasons, conditions, practices and processes, and

implications of introducing the reformed programs concerned, namely, (1) project

learning and school-based curriculum development (SBCD)2 in Hong Kong, and (2)

1
That is, Forms 1-3 in Hong Kong secondary schools and Japanese junior high schools. In some
educational conventions, this translates into the 7th-9th grades. An exception to this is the case of JP Six
(See Chapter Five), which was a primary school in semi-rural setting, but it was never used in such a way
as to contribute to generalization about Japanese junior high schools. Its relevance mainly comes as an
object of contrast with junior high schools which reportedly experienced more pedagogic difficulties in
integrating curricular content across subjects.
2
“Project learning” and “school-based curriculum development (SBCD)” in this study are used
specifically to refer to two separate initiatives sponsored and promoted by educational authorities in Hong
Kong. Because, in practice, “project learning” has neither been promoted under the same rubric as
“SBCD” nor shared identical goals or practices with the latter, I was reluctant to classify it as SBCD, as
taken in the general sense. Theoretically, however, project learning could be defined as one subtype of
SBCD, which, in turn, falls under the still broader context of decentralized curriculum development.

2
Sōgōtekina-gakushū (Integrated Learning) in Japan. By integrating classroom

observations conducted during fieldwork in Japan and Hong Kong, I would like to

venture a number of comparisons between the conditions and developments of these

reformed programs in Japan and Hong Kong. I will also draw reference from the

relevant reform policies and their history in an attempt to interpret school and teacher

practices in decentralized curriculum development.

Decentralized curriculum development is only a recent development in the

education history of Japan and Hong Kong. This slow advent is not unpredictable as the

systems had until recently been dictated by a center-to-periphery mechanism to control

their curriculum. While being highly academically-oriented and examination-bound,

these systems in earlier periods of economic development provided a seeming answer to

the demand for a steady supply of productive workers.

Towards the late 1980s and 1990s, however, old and new problems loomed

large on the educational landscape. Basic education in Japan, for example, was

criticized for its being too uniform in its curriculum, lacking flexibility and

overemphasizing academic teaching at the expense of student individuality and

3
creativity. In Hong Kong, the situation was broadly similar, with an elitist orientation

remaining more or less throughout the colonial period.

From the 1980s, educational policies in Japan and Hong Kong and the systems

themselves increasingly came under fire. Pressures mounted for curriculum reform,

which were accentuated by calls for decentralized curriculum development to

“diversify” school education on the one hand, and by more deep-rooted concerns for

maintaining academic standards on the other. In Japan, reform efforts related to

Sōgōtekina-gakushū were by no means immune to distractions from competing

government concerns on the reform agenda, such as the 5-day school week, and content

of the academic curriculum itself. Controversies about the curriculum reform directions

divided educationalists and the public in Japan, while schools, parents and the

government in Hong Kong were facing a similar situation.

The need for decentralized curriculum development can be discerned as an

implicit acknowledgement of the demands to devolve curricular control and

responsibilities to schools themselves. One can perhaps view this development in two

ways: it burdens the schools with new tasks in their own curriculum development, while

4
schools gain new, albeit restricted, freedom to make school curricula more relevant to

their local needs. As long as this transfer of control is not a zero sum game, there is

room to hope that school conditions and the quality of the reformed programs would

improve, if some of the current problems are resolved.

5
1.2 Methodology

The practical value of studying, in a right spirit and with scholarly accuracy, the working of foreign

systems of education is that it will result in our being better fitted to study and understand our own.

- Sadler [reprinted] 1964, p310

Using the case study research method, this research project carries the purpose

of yielding a general understanding of a complex educational phenomenon, namely,

decentralization of curriculum development as reflected in some reformed programs in

Japan and Hong Kong. It draws on several kinds of relevant literature (both primary

sources and secondary sources related to anthropology, education and sociology).

I have concentrated my effort mainly on studying the school and classroom

practices and processes involved in selected reformed programs (namely, project

learning and SBCD in Hong Kong and integrated learning in Japan) at the junior

secondary school level (7th-9th grades) with some attention to the related policies and

official interpretations from the government.

6
 A comparison of curriculum reform in the two systems may be justified on

several grounds: (1) critical analysis of the reform conditions and developments in a

locality is made easier by introducing an outside perspective; (2) comparing may reveal

possible global trends otherwise not accounted for in studies of single closed systems;

and (3) through field observations in two systems, one can identify context-bound or

culture-free variables in reform practice (Rosenmund 2000), which might be obscured

or confused in policy documents.

This study can be categorized as one of locational comparison (Bray 1999). The

subjects for study (reform policies, and school conditions, practices, and processes, etc.)

were found to be quite comparable and this formed the basis of later analysis. Being

educated mostly outside Hong Kong, I felt quite comfortable adopting an outside

perspective towards assessment of the two systems of Japan and Hong Kong. Bray

(1999) and Stevenson and Stigler (1992, 17) support this use of the outside perspective

in comparative education analyses for its potential to “make the familiar strange”.

Further, in comparative studies involving the curriculum, Rosenmund (2000) argued

that a clear distinction should be made between the study of curriculum development

process and that of curriculum decision-making.

7
 There are basically two components in the study on which analysis and

comparison were based: (1) policy study using literature and policy documents and (2)

fieldwork using qualitative methods.

For policy study, I relied mostly on literature in English (for both Japan and

Hong Kong), together with selected literature in Japanese for the study of socio-cultural

background and historical developments concerning the Japanese educational system

(mainly basic education) and educational reform. For Japan, I included local policy

documents (both in printed and electronic form) as my primary references. For Hong

Kong, I drew heavily on scholarly writings by local educationalists and researchers of

other disciplines specializing in curriculum and educational reform. Primary sources in

the form of government policy documents were frequently exploited in discussing

general developments of the policy discourse over the past two decades. Very little

literature has been written to date dealing with the subjects of my investigation (notably

project learning in Hong Kong and Integrated Learning in Japan). Although there is a

growing literature on SBCD in Hong Kong (school-based curriculum development), I

found it relatively too localized or specific, and thus not appropriate in my later analysis

8
of fieldwork since most subject schools chosen were engaged in reformed programs of

rather different nature than the so-called SBCD in Hong Kong’s context3.

For fieldwork, qualitative methods were used for data collection. Investigations

were mainly focused on the reformed programs’ activities in schools and classrooms

through participant observation. I also did semi-formal interviews with school teachers

at each subject school (both Japanese and Hong Kong schools) and occasionally

informal interviews with school principals or vice-principals (mainly in Japan), which

provided additional information especially on technical and resource problems

encountered by the schools and teachers. In the case of government sources, I conducted

interviews with one senior official and one Project Learning officer at the CDI4, and one

senior committee member at the CDC 5 in Hong Kong. In Japan, my interview

informants were mainly assistant superintendents at the various local boards of

education (of various administrative levels) and government professional teacher

training centers. One interview was undertaken with an officer in charge of “integrated

learning time” matters at the Bureau of Primary and Secondary Education, Ministry of

Education, Japan.

3
Refer to an explanation on this in the discussion of project learning and SBCD in Chapter Four (4.8).
4
Curriculum Development Institute
5
Curriculum Development Council

9
 I chose to conduct the study through combined methods of

documentary analysis and qualitative fieldwork because I was interested in knowing

what was taking place on the school scene beyond the sometimes limited or insufficient

accounts given in policy documents. Through conducting participant observation in

Japanese and Hong Kong schools and classrooms, I was able to accessed information

about the process in which teaching and learning were done. Interviews with school

teachers and principals further informed me on the general trends of how their local

reformed programs developed in relation to policies and local conditions. The other

interviews with government agents provided data which were particularly useful in

helping me understand the governments’ school support systems and other practical

issues (which could be quite specific to a given geographic locality in the case of Japan).

For a more thorough discussion of the fieldwork, refer to “Methods” in Chapter Five

(5.2).

10
1.3 Structure of the Thesis

This thesis is a comparative study of certain types of reformed programs

related to decentralized curriculum development in Japan and Hong Kong. For this

reason, it is necessary to look at the conditions and developments in both systems in

order to identify some of my bases for comparison. The thesis consists of six chapters.

The introductory chapter (Chapter One) introduces my subject of inquiry and gives a

brief overview of the local backgrounds. The following three chapters are devoted to

literature reviews and discussion of the relevant policy discourses and their

developments. Chapter Two outlines the developments, characteristics and critical

perceptions of the postwar Japanese educational system. Chapter Three is mainly

concerned with postwar developments leading to the recent educational reforms. It also

introduces my subject of fieldwork investigation in Japan, Sōgōtekina-gakushū, and

attempts to relate it to a larger framework of curriculum reform. In Chapter Four, I will

discuss the historical developments of the Hong Kong educational system, the

curriculum, the curriculum development process, and recent trends of decentralized

curriculum development. The later parts of the chapter attempt to outline the policy

discourse in recent curriculum reforms and give definitions of my subjects of fieldwork

11
investigation in Hong Kong, project learning and SBCD. A preliminary comparison

between the educational systems in Japan and Hong Kong is given at the end of the

chapter. Chapter Five opens with a discussion of the methods I used in fieldwork. It then

presents and describes the extensive accounts of data which I had collected at local

schools and government agencies in Japan and Hong Kong. Analyses of the data (in the

form of two summaries related to the local systems) are given at the end of the accounts

on the subject schools, to present my interpretations on specific issues. The final chapter

(Chapter Six) concludes with my discussion of the trends of curriculum reform as

described in the policies and observed through fieldwork in local schools. Comparisons

between the two systems are made in relation to the practices and processes of reform.

12
 CHAPTER TWO

PERCEPTIONS OF POSTWAR EDUCATION IN JAPAN

2.1 Introduction

The history of modern Japanese education is one of both change and continuity.

While socio-economic displacements have at times entailed or catalyzed educational

change in Japan, there have also been quite remarkable continuities in the ways

education is practiced. Even today, these continuities in education may be observed at

both the system level and the microscopic level of human interactions within and

outside the classroom. The system has been generally described as successful in

creating a productive workforce well-trained in fundamental skills, and in providing a

formal framework for some equality of opportunity.

However, ever since the postwar system was established, there has been

continuous debate on how it should be run, what goals it should fulfill, and more

recently, how it should reform to respond to society’s problems as well as education’s

own perceived failures. The standardized and uniform nature of most Japanese school

education has been frequently criticized in the form of doubts about whether the

existing system can produce independent and creative individuals with the skills and

attitudes needed for the country’s future development.

13
 The aim of this chapter is to provide an account of the major perceptions of

education in Japan, focusing primarily on the postwar period. The chapter will be

organized into several topical units, containing (1) an introduction of the historical

contexts, (2) national concerns in education, (3) curriculum and educational control, (4)

the lingering themes of egalitarianism, standardization and uniformity in education, (5)

dichotomy between holistic and text-centered education, (6) educational cultures and

values and (7) conclusion.

2.2 Historical Background of Japanese Education

The history of modern Japanese education cannot be complete without

considerations of what preceded the postwar era. In large part, it may be said that the

legacy of prewar education comes in the form of cultural norms and values related to

how education is perceived and what social benefits it promises, and the general social

practices that reinforce such norms and values by regulating the way recourses and

opportunities are distributed in the society. In addition, the study of prewar education is

important as it has provided a model to react against for many Japanese educators, even

while others look back nostalgically at some of its features. It is often present as an

unspoken influence in postwar debates.1

1
I am indebted to Dr. Peter Cave (HKU) for this insight. Personal contact, September 2001.

14
Education in the Tokugawa era

Japanese society is often seen as one motivated for all forms of training and self-

improvement. This national enthusiasm is not necessarily a modern phenomenon but

has its roots in schooling traditions dating back at least to the Tokugawa period (1603-

1867). During this period, government-sponsored schools for the samurai, hankō

(domain school) and gōgaku (local school)2, and decentralized private schools for the

commoners, terakoya (literally, temple school). With these establishments, educational

skills like literacy and numeracy (and mastering the Confucian classics for the ruling

class) became fully recognized for their importance. Alongside these were numerous

forms of apprenticeship and vocational training, which also played crucial parts in the

daily cultural and economic activities.

Tokugawa legacy

According to Dore, the Tokugawa practice of using schools to promote “docile

submissiveness” among the masses continued into the modern period. At the same time,

the Tokugawa ideology of collective goals contributed to militarism as well as to

economic advance in later periods (Dore 1965: 291-316). In a similar view, Rohlen

(1998) argues that Tokugawa Japan was probably already one of the most advanced

nations in schooling and training on a global comparison. Tokugawa education laid the

2
Also read as kyōgaku (See Dore 1965: 226). Okano and Tsuchiya (1999) define gōgaku as “local
schools, which accommodated the samurai class residing outside the feudal capitals” (p14). This paper
follows Dore’s (1965: 226-228) and Passin’s (1965: 14-15, 19, 50) writings. It should be noted that at
different times of the Tokugawa period, composition of pupils attending the so-called samurai and
commoner schools varied.

15
foundation for efficient borrowing of Western knowledge and technologies and for the

creation of a well-educated workforce for industrialization.

In terms of cultural continuity, Tokugawa education also left its mark on some

of the educational concepts and institutions that survive into modern times (Dore 1965:

50-56; Passin 1965: 53-61; Rohlen 1998). Examples of these include “a common

universe of discourse” (Passin 1965: 59), the high value attached to self-improvement,

the recognition of idealized virtues like motivated effort, self-discipline and

perseverance, and the paradigmatic learning approach typically characterized by initial

strict emulation of an ideal form, followed by reflective criticism and eventually a

flourishing of personal creativity (White 1987: 99-100; Rohlen 1998: 6-7).

Education since the Meiji era

Modern Japanese schooling began with the Meiji regime’s attempt to build a

suitable educational system for its modernization needs. In 1872 the first Education Law

(Gakusei) was enacted, followed by ambitious efforts to create a network of “modern”

schools across the country, ranging from elementary to university levels. Economic

realities and social inertia, however, soon ensured that early implementation of the law

was met with limited success (Okano and Tsuchiya 1999: 15-16).

Education in the Meiji period (1868-1912) gradually shifted from an earlier

liberal approach to a nationalist conservative one. In 1890, the Imperial Rescript on

Education (Kyōiku Chokugo) reconfirmed the emperor’s supreme moral authority over

the legislation. Not surprisingly, the official ideology also demanded that education was

16
for the state, not for the students (Passin 1965: 88, 149-153; Cummings 1980: 22;

Okano and Tsuchiya 1999: 17). A series of nationalistic rituals, such as pupils lining up

during morning assembly to honor the emperor’s picture and the Rescript, was

developed, and survived until 1945. Around the same time, Mori Arinori, the nationalist

first Minister of Education, advocated the creation of an educational dichotomy that

distinguished “academic study” (gakumon) for the elite from “education” (kyōiku) for

the masses. Later developments seemed to reflect strong influences from such discourse.

For instance, the academically-oriented imperial universities were granted

disproportionate amount of resources and prestige while post-primary vocational

schooling was greatly expanded to accommodate the non-elites (Okano and Tsuchiya

1999: 17-20; see also Passin 1965: 92-99).

Prewar legacy since the Meiji era

It is important to note that prewar education was organized as an elitist multi-

track system. From 1900 through 1945, this non-progressive nationalist system only

grew to become more pronounced in its features. Apart from the separation of academic

and vocational trainings, a hierarchical distinction of elite and non-elite schools

(particularly at the tertiary education level) became an increasingly significant factor for

career chances. In many cases, the meritocratic emphasis on educational background

was manifested through employment practices of the time (Passin 1965: 123; Rohlen

1983: 58-61). Passin argues that educational elitism brought about two immediate

results: fierce competition in the form of middle-high school entrance examinations for

good schools, and a concentration of the best students in a small number of elite schools.

17
He also notes that “the Japanese schools, like those of France, were severely

competitive in the early stages, and then eased off at the university level” (Passin 1965:

107). This observation remains valid to some extent even to this date.

Occupation reforms

Efforts to build a new postwar schooling system did not begin immediately after

Japan’s 1945 defeat, in part due to war destruction and economic hardship. In 1947, a

new US-directed Constitution was written and subsequently two educational laws were

enacted under the auspices of the US Education Mission (1946). The Occupation

educational reforms shortly followed, albeit in a chaotic manner (Wray 1999; see also

Okano and Tsuchiya 1999: 30, 33), which brought major changes to both the schooling

structure and curricular content. The aims of the reforms were multifaceted: to

demilitarize the country, to decentralize the school system, to democratize the Japanese

people, and to eventually bring about a society founded on principles of equality (Dore

1958: 227-241; Cummings 1980: 29-36; Okada 1998: 92-101; Hood 2001: 19).

The changes to the educational system structure were significant and permanent.

The old multi-track schooling system was gone, replaced by a new “6-3-3-4” single-

track one: six years of primary school, three years of middle school, three years of high

school, and four years of university — the first nine years of schooling being free and

compulsory. Coeducation became universal at public middle and high schools while the

former vocational education was absorbed into high schools (as vocational courses) or

18
vocational high schools (Kaigo 1965: 91-94; Rohlen 1984: 71-72; Okano and Tsuchiya

1999: 33-35).

Within the curriculum, there were deliberate efforts to eradicate elements of

nationalist education and wartime ideology. Alongside purges and forced resignations

of teachers, the courses of moral education, geography, and Japanese history were

temporarily suspended. In due course, the militaristic and ultra-nationalistic content in

school textbooks was removed. And among other measures, a new subject called

“Social Studies” was introduced as part of the effort to “democratize” the Japanese

people. Dore (1958), however, seems skeptical about the effectiveness of this new

course in democratization and describes the teaching of the subject as mechanical and

non-interactive (p238-239).

Nonetheless, changes in the curriculum did result in generally more

progressively-oriented school teaching as regulations relaxed (Inagaki 1986: 81). Dore

(1958) argues that the most important aspect of the Occupation educational reforms was

not structural. Rather, it was at the social and political levels that important changes

tended to occur. This was reflected in the gradual growth of certain grassroots

“democratic” practices in and outside schools. According to him, even in the postwar

years leading to the early 1950s, most Japanese schools were non-authoritarian and

“fairly liberal” (p238), in that independent study by the child was more emphasized than

it had previously been in primary schools (p228-229), coeducation became generally

accepted and approved by parents (p235), and the student’s effort as well as ability was

rewarded (p232).

19
Developments since 1947

Although no major reform initiatives were to be taken until the late 1960s,

Japanese school education for the next two decades presented a subtle picture of

selective adjustments, as political parties, the bureaucracy, business interest groups and

teachers unions all battled to influence the course of education. The result was that

Japan succeeded in achieving some of the educational goals put forward in the

Occupation reforms but largely did so in its own ways. For one thing, the Ministry of

Education (MOE) had been interested in bringing back a more centralized system as

well as certain nationalistic features from the prewar times. This necessarily meant

conflicts with the Nikkyōso (Japan Teachers Union), which was ideologically opposed

to the bureaucracy and committed itself to “democratic egalitarian education” as

sanctioned by the new Constitution. Eventually, the conservative camp gained the upper

hand and reasserted its control on some aspects of school control and the curriculum

(Okano and Tsuchiya 1999: 35-47).

New initiatives for change

By 1967, amid the university disturbances, the MOE began to see the need to

reform the school system so as to introduce “flexibility” and “diversity”, themes that

would remain relevant well into the 1990s. The reform initiative that followed was,

however, not successful, partly because of a lack of support both within and outside the

government, and partly because it had failed to produce alternatives to the standard 6-3-

3 schooling system (Schoppa 1991: 3-4). In 1984, under the Nakasone administration,

20
the government undertook a new initiative, this time assigning the job of charting out

the reforms to a supra-cabinet advisory body, the Ad Hoc Council on Education

(Rinkyōshin). Despite the high-profile government endorsement and initial popular

support, the second reform initiative also proved inconclusive and unsatisfactory. The

Rinkyōshin proposals were eventually left to the MOE for implementation. During the

1990s, more reform proposals were drawn up and refined by the government. The

pressures for educational changes seemed to mount over the years as prolonged

economic recession and “traditional” troubles such as school refusal and youth violence

lingered on, rekindling questions of whether Japanese society’s problems were rooted in

the postwar school system. A more thorough treatment of these will be given in the next

chapter.

2.3 National Concerns in Education

For most people in Japan, education is seen as the sure avenue to success but it

can also mean brutal pressures from competition. The list of entrance examinations that

a person is expected to struggle through over his lifespan never seems to end, starting

from exams for some good kindergartens through myriads of TOEIC and other tests for

career advancement. For the state, the need to create highly competitive human capital

in this resource-strapped country has always been express and urgent. As far as it is

concerned, school education remains the chief and convenient way to legitimate

knowledge, transmit skills, reproduce cultural norms, and select talents.

21
 In his 1965 study, Passin demonstrates the effects of rapid educational

expansion on the social structure in 1960s Japan. He notes that education, especially at

the high school and university levels, continued to be of critical importance for gaining

economic benefits, social status, and general security for oneself and one’s family.

Educational background was relation-bound. Success in the early periods of one’s

education had great implications for the types of social “cliques” a person might be able

to affiliate himself to and advance own ambitions in other areas along the “Ladder of

Success”. Since Japanese universities had been exclusively ranked in a hierarchical

order even in the prewar times, graduates of the elite schools were always guaranteed

greater social and economic benefits (Passin 1965; Goodman 1989: 25-26, 28). The

expansion of higher education in the provincial areas, Passin notes, had only a limited

effect on the polarized distribution of relational benefits from university education. Dore

(1958: 238) and Passin (1965: 112) observe that even in the 1950s and 60s, much of

school teaching and learning was centered on preparing students for university entrance

examinations. Passin also rightly points out that, with the expansion of high school

education and the subsequent pressure put on universities, the real venue of entrance

examination competition had shifted from the middle school-high school to high school-

university transitions (p112).

While Cummings (1980) and Rohlen (1983: 312) have made a case for Japanese

education’s being an exam-based meritocratic system, Goodman offers a slightly

modified view that Japan is an “educational background society”, not one of educational

ability, citing Johan Galtung’s term “educational degreeocracy” (Goodman 1989: 26).

22
 Explaining the centrality of education in Japanese society, Rohlen (1998)

suggests four major characteristics of modern Japan that he believes have been relevant

to its educational developments. First, according to him, Japanese society is one made

up of “employers and employees”, where educational credentials and trained skills are

essential to career, social status and other personal ambitions. Second, Japanese society

is “to a significant degree a meritocracy” molded by educational competition. Third,

Japan lacks natural resources; the skills and cooperation of its citizenry naturally need to

combine into highly productive organizations, capable of adapting to and inventing new

technologies. Fourth, Japan is “not a society with a privileged traditional caste, nor is it

one divided between a small educated elite and the masses”. Rather, the success of

Japanese modern sectors is hinged on the “skilled participation of the great majority of

Japanese”.

White (1987) agrees on the existence of a resource “scarcity syndrome” (p11)

and recognizes the importance of academic credentials for securing a good occupational

future in Japan. Many Japanese mothers, the parent usually entrusted with the singular

task of raising children and taking care of their education, are full-time home

“educators” or, as they are sometimes known, kyōiku-mama. Their lives revolve around

minute things like preparing lunchboxes for the child, preparing for a class together

with him and attending PTA sessions (Lewis 1995: 69-71) – details and routines that are

thought necessary for the long-term healthy growth of the child.

If competition in the school does not stifle the child, he or she will certainly

have plenty of opportunities to intensify activities during off-school hours. Beyond the

23
formal classroom teaching and home tutoring by mothers, a significant portion of child

education also takes place in the form of school clubs and other extracurricular activities,

and tutoring at private bodies (juku for primary and middle schools students and yobikō

for high school students). (Rohlen 1983, 1998; White 1987; Fukuzawa 1994; Ichikawa

1989). They are significant aspects of Japanese education since teaching and learning

do frequently take place outside formal classroom education and involve the family,

fellow people at school clubs and perhaps cram schools. All these reflect the intensity

and breadth of the Japanese educational experience inside and outside the school.

2.4 Curriculum and Educational Control

Traditionally, the definition of the curriculum tends to be a bit ambivalent. For

one thing, the bureaucracy, schools and teachers each have their own interpretations of

the inputs and outputs at the classroom. This easily gives rise to differences between the

text and the practice of the curriculum. For simplicity, we are here resigned to taking the

curriculum to mean “authorized knowledge” or what is expected to be taught at schools.

Standardized compulsory education in Japan is inextricably linked with the

national curriculum. As Rohlen (1984) notes, the Japanese system is “guided by

detailed national standards and a fixed curriculum” (p117-118). Across the entire

country, he further observes, students of the same grade need to learn the same materials

within the same time frames with the help of the same textbooks and facilities. While

the students’ abilities to cope with the same pace of study is likely to vary, “the iron rule

24
of national standardization works to systematically preserve a general level of equal

opportunity” (p118).

As far as education up to the middle school is concerned, the curriculum

generally contains non-academic elements (music, art, sports, field trips and clubs, etc)

in addition to academic ones – a division reinforced at the middle school level. Middle

schools retain elementary schools’ emphasis on developing the whole person but put

increasing stress on a text-based, teacher-centered instructional approach in order to

adapt to the future entrance exams (Fukuzawa, 1994: 61). According to Fukuzawa,

public school teachers rarely deviate significantly from texts officially approved by the

Ministry of Education. Two reasons are cited for this: (1) “the pace and intensity of

classroom instruction allow for little room for innovation”; (2) “the national curriculum

forms the basis for high school entrance exams”.

The Japanese system is seen by some as a centralized system when compared

with most other developed countries (Inagaki 1986; Fukuzawa 1994). For the advocates

of the centralization view, Japanese education has been dictated by the bureaucracy

since MOE guidelines, approved texts and teacher training for exams “wrest

instructional control out of the hands of individual teachers and even individual

schools” (Fukuzawa 1994: 64).

Cummings (1980), on the other hand, argues that while both the conservative

(MOE) and progressive (Nikkyōso) forces have been unable to claim decisive control

over the system, each has etched out its own spheres of influence, with the

25
conservatives holding greater sway on finance and the curriculum whereas the

progressives have greater influence on school and classroom activities (p40-76). This

essentially means a general dichotomy at the macro and micro levels of educational

control in the Japanese system, each deserving attention and an appropriate research

approach.

2.5 The Lingering Themes: Egalitarianism, Standardization, and Uniformity

Three important concepts stand out in the discussion of Japanese educational

achievement and reforms. These are egalitarianism, standardization and uniformity.

They are linked but not identical ideas.

The first concept, egalitarianism, can be traced back to the postwar new

Constitution and the 1947 Fundamental Education Law (Kyōiku Kihonhō) which set out

the principles of equal opportunity of education. Cummings (1980) was convinced that

postwar Japanese education, guided by an egalitarian ideology and armed with an

equalitarian teaching culture, had been successful in transforming the society where

educational and social opportunities had been efficiently equalized [up to the 1980s]. He

summed up his points as follows:

Equalitarian education has provided increasing proportions of successive cohorts of young people with

the cognitive skills and motivation necessary for advanced education. As a result, increasing proportions

of young people have sought and attained advanced education. With the decreasing variance in

26
educational attainment, social background variables decline as predictors of individual attainment.

(p276)

According to Cummings, egalitarianism contains a moral orientation, which penetrates

deep into Japanese schools and has a far-reaching effect on the larger social

environment. In actual instruction, teachers are relatively free from external interference.

Many of them identify with egalitarian values and a few are even committed to using

education to “revolutionize” the consciousness of their students. Schools are organically

organized and stress moral education. The relative equality in cognitive performance

eases the need for children to rank among themselves. The lack of hierarchy within the

classroom is consistent with the egalitarian moral message passed on by the teachers. It

is thus not unreasonable to assume that egalitarian school teaching helps promote social

continuity and harmony even beyond its physical boundaries (p274-275).

The prime example of standardization in Japanese education is, of course, the

national curriculum. The curriculum delineates what is legitimate knowledge in schools.

It also defines the scope of materials to be tested in open examinations. While

traditionally the MOE has used its elaborate guidelines to “persuade” schools into

cooperation, thereby facilitating control and monitoring, in the postwar years, the early

Courses of Study (Gakushū-shidō-yōryō; first published in 1947) were mere

“guidelines” but they became legally binding and more prescriptive from the 1950s,

when struggles with the teacher unions gave the ministry the chance to justify this shift

(Okano and Tsuchiya 1999: 35-39). Naturally, textbook authorization also forms part of

the standardization business. The MOE uses it to determine what textbooks it desires or

27
does not desire to appear in classrooms. On some occasions, such acts have been

considered excessive or even unconstitutional and provoked tiring lawsuits regarding

textbook contents. One of the well-known examples of this involved the history book

author Saburō Ienaga’s long and tiring legal battles against the authorities for removing

a textbook’s description of the Japanese army’s wartime brutality (Okano and Tsuchiya

1999: 43).

Uniformity in school practices may be described as another national

phenomenon. Uniformity exhibits itself notably in areas such as in teaching methods,

teacher training and qualifying examinations. Practices of uniform wearing and

checking in Japanese schools are well-known. Many schools, from kindergartens to

senior high schools, tend to be built with the most similar designs and organized in

similar fashions as the teachers themselves play a significant part of collective school

management (Goodman 1989: 26; Rohlen 1998). Group-based teaching and student

class management, the two frequent modes of Japanese classroom experience, are

probably also reflective of a larger social practice, in which consensus-building,

cooperation and harmony are valued and stressed over leadership in most daily

interactions.

2.6 Dichotomy between Holistic and Academically-focused Education

The Japanese schooling experience cannot be summarized in a handful of

general statements. However, it may be possible to analyze it through studying the

28
various practices and dynamics involved at different stages of Japanese child

development. In general, learning and teaching in Japanese schools are characterized by

two competing educational concerns, namely, “holistic” or whole-person development

and text-centered, exam-bound transmission of knowledge (Fukuzawa 1994; Lewis

1995; White 1987).

The concern for holistic personal development is reflected most strongly, and

with declining emphasis over the succeeding developmental stages, in the preschool up

to the middle school education. Daily preoccupations of learning and teaching involve

such things as socializing the child to normative ideals under group settings, nurturing

self-discipline, and experimental activities. In whole person development, “the

definition of teaching includes not only transmission of explicit knowledge but also

counseling, guidance and discipline” (Fukuzawa 1994: 61-62). Many overseas

commentators, particularly those from America, have been quick to observe that these

educational preoccupations might have qualitative effects on the practice and product of

classroom teaching, such as choices about ability grouping and mixed ability grouping

and the presence or absence of ability-based streaming and tracking (Rohlen 1983,

1998; Cummings 1980, 1989; Ichikawa 1989).

In its practice, Fukuzawa shows that lifestyle guidance (seikatsu-shidō), a

significant component of non-academic educational experience up to the pre-high

school period, is commonly used by middle school teachers for disciplinary purposes. It

is designed to socialize the student into “ideal” lifestyles and attitudes both in and out of

school so that his or her behavior may conform to the prescribed image of an ii-ko, or

29
“good child” (1994: 69). She then argues that by virtue of the egalitarian nature of

Japanese schooling and the lack of a mechanism to segregate the “trouble-maker”

students, discipline of this kind is seen doubly indispensable to the success of classroom

instruction. The emphasis on holistic personal development decreases as the child

progresses through the middle school into the high school, which is the venue for

intensive text-based instruction influenced by the need to prepare for the fierce

university entrance exams, with minimal or no considerations for accommodating

diversity in personal abilities and needs within the school (Fukuzawa 1994; Rohlen

1998; Okano and Tsuchiya 1999). However, variations do exist from school to school

and they deserve more investigation since the recent reform initiative has seen

experimentation of various forms across the educational system.

As mentioned in the earlier section, the notion of egalitarianism is a very

powerful one among the pedagogic philosophies in Japan. It is perhaps consistent with

the whole-person emphasis. Education is supposed to provide an equal chance for all,

regardless of one’s socio-economic backgrounds, talents and disabilities. The inclusive

and egalitarian nature of Japanese education is reflected in that “compulsory education

(to ninth grade) is an undifferentiated system – no streaming, nor special programs for

the gifted, the learning disabled, or any special groups.” (Fukuzawa 1994: 62).

30
2.7 Other Educational Characteristics: Cultures and Values

As already discussed in section [1] of this chapter, the Tokugawa legacy still has

its influences on modern society’s perceptions and practices in education. Some of these

are re-manifested as people’s propensity for having collective goals, others as the prized

notions of perseverance, of effort-over-ability, of motivated self-perfection and perhaps

of nurturing the human mind. In the following, we will try to discuss some of the

educational cultures and values that are relevant to the Japanese educational experience.

Up to high school, most Japanese classroom activities are frequently carried out

on a group basis, which means there are a host of attendant educational concepts to go

with them. A good Japanese child, “typically”, lives a well-disciplined and organized

life. In the case of lower grade school education, where whole-person development is

much emphasized, the central goal for the child revolves around things like friendliness,

persistence, energy and self-management (Lewis 1995: 44-51; see also White 1987:

110-122). To the goal of “friendliness”, the multiple connotations of tomodachi

(friends), shinsetsu (kindness, goodness, favor, and generosity), yasashii (gentle, kind-

hearted) and nakayoku (enjoying harmony or good friendship) are attached.

“Persistence” usually corresponds to the Japanese terms of gambaru, doryoku, and

konki – all stressing some degree of perseverance despite hardship. The ubiquitous

genki of a child stands for his “physical energy or exuberance” (Lewis 1995: 49); he or

she is constantly expected to “play energetically” or “be energetic”. Finally, self-

management relates to a child’s ability to such things as to take care of himself and keep

the place around him neat.

31
 White (1987) gives an elaborate discussion on the role that Japanese mothers

have in parenting and child education. She uses Japanese psychological notions like

“amae” (dependence, or the desire to be passively loved) to describe the key

“relationship between love and success” (p22). According to her, the Japanese family is

defined by the relationship between the mother and the child, not husband and wife. A

Japanese mother’s place is in bringing up a healthy, intelligent and well-behaved child.

Her ultimate reward and pride are measured by the educational success of her child

through the numerous entrance exams spanning his lifetime. Goodman (1989) and

Fukuzawa (1994) seem to support this view, citing the high status of motherhood in

Japan. Goodman (1989) also suggests that Japanese women’s social roles are

significantly restricted by a male-dominated workplace as well as by a powerful, though

not necessarily accurate, image of the ideal Japanese female who subordinates her own

interests to supporting her husband in work and her children in education.

At the same time, popular society in Japan has a well-defined set of expectations

about how a child should be properly raised and socialized into the adult world. It is the

job of the teachers and mothers to ensure that the child conforms and some of the

expected qualities of a good child have already been treated in Lewis’ discussion. A

typical good child is motivated, cooperative, well-disciplined and always performs

academically at high levels (White, 1987: 21). Such terms as “otonashii (mild, gentle),

sunao (compliant, obedient, cooperative), akarui (bright-eyed), genki (active, spirited,

energetic), hakihaki (brisk, prompt, clear) and oriko (obedient, smart)” (White 1987: 27;

also cited in Fukuzawa 1994) evoke the ideal image of the Japanese child – itself

32
reflective of the normative ideals for an adult. A separate vocabulary exists for

describing the means by which the character and social developments of a child may be

advanced. These include “gambaru (to persist), gaman suru (to endure hardship),

hansei suru (to reflect on one’s weakness)” (White 1987).

2.8 Conclusion

It should be clear by now that the Japanese system is more dynamic than some

would assume it to be. Changes in the Japanese educational system have taken place at

various levels throughout the modern period. Not all changes came as a result of

reforms. The word “reform” merely reflects the authorities’ position and their wishes to

cause the system to move in some prescribed directions – with the assumption that

something in it had gone awry. In any case, reform does not guarantee successful

changes. Neither does it promise an outcome of something “new”. For instance, in the

1990s, despite calls for liberalization, many schools had seen a comeback of

nationalistic rituals such as singing the national anthem (kimi ga yo) and raising the

national flag (hi no maru) at morning assemblies, both being controversial because of

Japan’s troubled war past.

Some of the postwar “innovations”, like the introduction of single-track

schooling, tended to be more significant and readily observable. At the same time,

educational cultures and values may represent the domain of continuities and resistance

to change. But even this cannot be taken for granted. Change may also occur in people’s

33
perceptions about education, albeit perhaps more slowly. As we will see in the next

chapter (Chapter Three), in the more recent initiatives, the notions of “individuality”

and “diversity” have been perennially stressed and become some of the new educational

goals that the government and business sector seek to promote. This naturally means

that the traditional Japanese school environment is being questioned and deemed hostile

to the creation of diverse and individualistic qualities. On the other hand, some

institutions and practices in school education might not be well-suited to change. The

issues of how to revitalize the system, motivate schools and parents, and involve other

sectors of society in the nation’s educational quest thus present a challenge to Japanese

policy-makers and educators alike.

34
 CHAPTER THREE

POSTWAR EDUCATIONAL REFORMS IN JAPAN

3.1 Introduction

This chapter is concerned with specific postwar educational developments in the

Japanese system leading to the recent educational reforms. Towards the end of the

chapter, I will introduce my subject of fieldwork investigation in Japan, Sōgōtekina-

gakushū1, and attempt to relate its significance in the context of decentralized

curriculum development and recent curriculum reform.

Before my discussion on postwar educational developments, it would be helpful

to note some peculiar points about education in Japan. Although the Japanese

educational system is frequently described as remarkably stable, calls for change have

been constantly voiced throughout the postwar period. The educational system is

generally seen as crucial for the development of human behavior and culture. Various

actors of society – the government, the industries and the public – may hold competing

yet overlapping interests in education and preference for its direction. Officially

designated reform is considered the chief means to transform the existing structure as

well as to alter the aims and content of education. The issue of control of education

often underlies some particular reform debates, making the reform process ideological

1
総合的な学習

35
and political rather than merely educational or pedagogical. Finally, education is related

to social control and educational changes are said to reflect certain ideological changes

with regard to how we should manage our social environment (Cummings 1980: 3-15;

Schoppa 1991a; Lincicome 1993: 123; Amano 1998: 152, Fujita 2000: section3; Hood

2001: 9, 14-17, 129).

3.2 Early Postwar Educational Reforms

Occupation Reforms and Their Reactions

As discussed in the previous chapter, the educational reforms initiated under the

US Occupation were heavily influenced by three major concerns of the time: to

democratize, demilitarize and decentralize Japanese society (Dore 1958; Cummings

1980: 29-39; Rohlen 1983: 1, 63-76; Horio 1986: 32; Tsuchimochi 1993; Amano 1998:

154-156; Okada 1998: 92-130; Okano and Tsuchiya 1999: 30-35). Education was

chosen as the main venue for carrying out the reforms. Subsequent educational policies

and legislations, notably the Fundamental Law on Education (enacted 1947), espoused

equality as well as principles of democracy and world peace as the new dominant

ideology in place of prewar nationalistic indoctrinations (Cummings 1980: 31-32).

Significant changes had taken place in the schooling structure as the prewar

multi-track system gave way to a comprehensive coeducational 6-3-3-4 single-track

system, one that was deemed important to the development of uniform standardized

education in Japan, guided by the spirit of egalitarianism. Some researchers noted that

36
the single-track system, together with the ever-growing stress on school entrance

examinations, had contributed to the formation of a meritocratic society, which

nonetheless displayed elitist qualities (especially in higher education) passed on from

the prewar system (Passin 1965: 108-116, 117-148; Rohlen 1977; Amano 1998: 158-

160).

While the original Occupation reform initiative proposed comprehensive

education throughout the 6-3-3 schooling structure, in practice, senior high schools

tended to depart in focus from the first nine years of compulsory education (described as

“non-selective and neighborhood-based”) and instead put increasing stress on “selective

and specialized” kinds of schooling (Green 2000: 420; Wray (1999) and Tsuchimochi

(1993: 215-216) argued that the US Occupation reforms were never implemented fully

to what had been intended. Neither were they a sole product of US educational policy-

making. Wray (1999) described the reforms as ill-paced, chaotic and disruptive to a

Japanese society struggling to recover from war destruction and suffering from

“financial starvation” (See also Okano and Tsuchiya 1999: 33-35). The reforms,

according to Wray, produced a number of detrimental results for long-range Japanese

education, ranging from deteriorating vocational education, lower academic standards in

post-elementary schooling to great hardship for individuals, local communities and the

government.

During the 1950s and 1960s, “counter-reforms” against the Occupation reforms

took place as the Ministry of Education (MOE; Monbushō, now Monbukagakushō)

reasserted its control over the curriculum and almost all other aspects of educational

organization. Horio and others noted that with the ending of the Occupation, Japanese

37
education experienced a broad socio-political trend of restoration, which declared the

need to correct the postwar “hyper-democratization” (Horio 1986: 32; Okano and

Tsuchiya 1999: 35-39). A series of government measures were carried out for forming a

more centralized system. Some of the major “counter-reforms” included: the system of

teacher appraisal for teacher control (1957); the textbook screening system for textbook

authorization (1958); the national academic achievement tests (1961-1964, soon

abandoned); the nomination system (as opposed to one by election) for local boards of

education (1959).

3.3 The 1970s Reforms

The late 1960s and early 1970s marked quite an important watershed of

Japanese educational development. Human rights movements at home were gaining

momentum, with intensifying teacher union actions and the establishment of lobby

groups such as those for the disadvantaged burakumin. At the same time, both the

government and industries wanted a stronger state role in managing the social problems

during the time, education being one of the target areas (Okano and Tsuchiya 1999: 45-

47).

By the end of the 1960s, the Japanese economy was dramatically transformed.

As education was traditionally viewed to play an instrumental role in economic progress,

the government came to take a large stake in “mobilizing” education for the country’s

economic development. High on its agenda were further promotion of [higher and

specialized] education, improved science education, and an improvement in the quality

of teachers (Hood 2001: 21). Schoppa also noted that the many of the demands for

38
educational change in the 1970s were economically driven. As the Japanese grew

increasingly dependent on international business and fast-changing science and

technology industries, the government was urged by many quarters to reform education

in order to bring it into line with a society of “more diversely talented and creative

workers”, ready for a “life-long learning system” (Schoppa 1991a: 2). Apart from

economic considerations, concerns were also raised about such trends as school

violence and “falling moral standards” regarding youth behavior. As expected,

reformers from the traditional conservative camp called for a strengthening of moral

education (especially at the lower secondary schools) (Hood 2001: 21-22).

According to Schoppa (1991a), the 1970s initiative started with the then

Minister of Education Toshihiro Kennoki’s little-known “request for advice” from the

Chūkyōshin (Central Council on Education) in 1967. Later in 1969, a series of high-

publicity university disturbances sparked heightened political interests in educational

reforms. This was followed by reports from the OECD (Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development) in 1970 and the Chūkyōshin in1971 (Hood 2001:21-22).

However, the subsequent reform proposals were largely left unimplemented. Few

significant changes were made to the system after the Chūkyōshin recommendations.

Schoppa (1991a) and Hood (2000) summarized the reasons for the initiative’s lackluster

results as Chūkyōshin’s limited government backing, the lack of financial resources in

the wake of the oil crisis, and that the society was generally unprepared for

Chūkyōshin’s “radical” report.

39
 Towards the end of the 1970s period, Rohlen (1977) observed that trends of

educational inequality were setting in Japanese society. He argued that cultural and

financial capitals of one’s family would become increasingly important in educational

investment of future generations. While Cummings and others suggested that Japanese

society was becoming more like a meritocracy due to the “persistent growth of large

organizations that stress educational criteria in hiring and promotion”, Rohlen argued

that the Japanese meritocracy appeared evolving toward a “relatively fixed status

framework, characterized by much competition, but declining rates of mobility” [that is,

an expanded elite in a stratified society] (p70). Rohlen’s conclusion seemed to be quite

accurate and hold particular relevance for studies of educational reforms since the 1980s,

where Japan faced dramatic economic and demographic changes, namely, prolonged

economic recession and trends of graying population and declining birth rates (shōshi-

kōrei-ka). The issues of cultural and financial capitals and social mobility would

certainly be important to the discussions of such things as privatization and school

choice.

3.4 Educational Reforms since the 1980s

The Nakasone Initiative

Many of the social and economic concerns of the 1970s initiative seemed to

remain in the reform initiative started in the 1980s, though there were new

interpretations and suggestions for solutions of the problems. The postwar system, both

40
admired and criticized for establishing Japan’s uniform standardized education, was

again brought to the center of heated debates. Nakasone Yasuhiro, former Japanese

Prime Minister of the mid-1980s, even declared a “total settling of postwar political

accounts” (sengo seiji no sōkessan), signaling his own and some of his LDP followers’

intention to correct the Japanese educational system from the “excesses” of American

influence since the Occupation (Schoppa 1991a, 1991b; Hood 2001).

In 1984, Nakasone won the Diet’s approval for his proposal to set up a supra-

cabinet advisory body known as the Rinkyōshin (Ringi Kyōiku Shingikai: NCER,

National Council on Educational Reform or AHCE, Ad Hoc Council on Education) to

work out an agenda for the Japanese educational reforms. Specifically, the Rinkyōshin-

guided reforms were to deal with the various educational and socioeconomic problems

of the time. A series of serious debates then followed over the nature, means and goals

of educational change. Many of the themes debated, ranging from the notions of

“liberalization” and “deregulation” to “individuality” and “internationalization”, remain

unsettled and controversial to date. The full impact of some of the reform measures

implemented needs to be examined in some future time.

The reform debate initiated in the 1980s took place against four major

backgrounds (Schoppa 1991a: 4-6, 49-52; Fujita 1997: 49-52; Cave 2001: 174-176;

Hood 2001: 21-24), which seemed to show a historical connection with various postwar

establishments:

(1) Since the late 1970s, Japanese schools have been seen to confront increasing

internal disorder which takes the form of school breakdown (gakkyū hōkai),

41
 school violence (kōnai bōryoku), bullying (ijime) and school refusal (futōkō).

Within Japan, these educational problems are sometimes taken to have

“pathological” origins. Authorities [mainly the traditional conservatives]

thus hold that reformed teacher training and increased moral education are

necessary as a response to the school disciplinary problems.

(2) Over the past two decades, discontent with the quality of Japanese education

has arisen from such conditions as fierce competition for entrance-exams,

“managerialist education” (kanri-shugi kyōiku) (Fujita 1997: 49; 2000:

section 3), standardization and a rigid schooling system. These are said to be

partly or wholly responsible for educational problems such as uniformity,

exam-centeredness, excessive disciplinary control, oppressed individual

creativity and general stress and pressure from study.

(3) Trends of globalization and computerization in the socioeconomic spheres

have led to calls for reforming Japanese education so as to produce

individuals with the right skills and attitudes to deal with growing and

complex global transactions.

(4) As Japanese society gradually moves toward diversified lifestyles and values,

the notion of “individuality” (kosei) has received heightened attention with

respect to its meaning and relevance to individual’s rights. The debate on

individuality involves such issues as school choice, diversification and

personalization of the curriculum and courses, and the maintenance or

abandonment of true egalitarian education.

42
The Reform Agenda

Among the calls for reforms, privatization of schools was one of the main

themes that circulated within the debate. Nakasone himself had supported the idea,

believing that privatization would leave school education to free-market forces

(Schoppa 1991a: 68) and help reduce the bureaucratic control of the MOE in school

administration. Advocates of privatization have raised calls for expansion of diverse

forms of private education at the level of compulsory education.

Another potentially significant reform proposal concerned the relaxing of the

school district (or catchment area) system, which would give parents more choice in

selecting school and individualized education. Though Nakasone was described as not

being very specific about “jiyūka” (liberalization) he had publicly expressed support for

introducing “an element of competition into the whole school system through policies

of jiyūka and jūnanka [flexibilization]” (Schoppa 1991a: 70). Jūnanka is closely

connected to the notion of government deregulation (kisei kanwa), which Nakasone and

some of his party followers wanted the MOE to undergo in order to, hopefully, reduce

uniformity and rigid standardization in the educational system (Schoppa 1991a: 70).

Nakasone also advocated jiyūka on the ground that liberalization of rules regulating

school choice would force school to become economically more competitive in free-

market conditions. Jiyūka and jūnanka are in fact two distinct concepts since free

competition is possible without concurrent deregulation by the bureaucracy (and vice

versa). However, as Schoppa pointed out, Nakasone and his advisors tended to mix the

two ideas and usually referred to them simply as “liberalization” (jiyūka) (1991a: p70).

43
Some LDP members, holding the MOE to be too conservative and behind times

demanded corresponding deregulation in the curricular content, among other things.

By August 20, 1987, the Rinkyōshin had produced four reports to set the

direction for reforms. Thereafter it was officially dissolved and left the implementation

of its recommendations to the MOE. A great range of proposals was produced but only

a limited number of these were actually or partially implemented. According to Schoppa

(1991a), there were at least six main areas marked out for implementation, each

standing varying odds for success (243-250):

(1) Teacher training was reinforced with the introduction of the “conditional

year” to assure that teachers graduate from their training having acquired the

appropriate personal qualities and abilities.

(2) A new MOE advisory body, the University Council, was created in 1987 to

take over Rinkyōshin’s role of deliberating over and overseeing university

reforms.

(3) Rinkyōshin proposed that the university entrance examination, offered

nationwide among national and public institutions once a year to date,

should include private schools and be offered more frequently each year on a

more flexible basis. However, with the general reluctance of private

universities to participate in the scheme, reform progress had quickly lost

momentum since the late 1980s.

(4) A number neoliberal-neoconservative measures were brought into the

curricular reform, notably the expansion of moral education, the

institutionalization of the national flag and anthem in schools, and the

44
 sanctioning of “teaching-based-on-ability” at the middle school level to

allow for “flexibility”.

(5) A credit-system was proposed for upper secondary schools. This could have

provided the more talented academic high school students the opportunity to

proceed at faster pace and skip grades. However, in practice, the MOE and

local authorities only considered employing the credit system at lower-

ranking schools for students of the lowest ability range.

(6) Measures were taken since 1987 to strengthen local authorities, though it

remained uncertain whether the relevant changes would result in local

diversity or actual increase of MOE control.

Like the credit-system upper secondary schools and probationary teacher-

training year, measures such as curriculum “flexibilization” [decentralization] and

expensive expansion programs (aimed at expanding graduate education and promoting

basic research) were only partially implemented and their success has yet to be gauged

after some observation period has elapsed. Meanwhile, there are other concurrent but

relatively more controversial reform proposals at hand. Schoppa and others argued that

their chance of successful implementation was slim, given the absence of a conservative

consensus during policy-making and the MOE’s inherent political conflict of interest in

implementing the measures (Schoppa 1991a: 246-250; Lincicome 1993: 14). These less

promising measures include liberalization (free-market school choice) reform, textbook

deregulation, university entrance examination “flexibilization”, six-year secondary

schools, gifted education reform, university administration reform (hōjin-ka, or

45
incorporation), switching to a September school start, unifying of kindergarten and

nursery administration and revision of the Fundamental Law of Education.

3.5 Perceptions and Critiques of Recent Educational Reforms

Reform as Policy-Making

Schoppa (1991a) argued that the recent Japanese educational reforms was a

case of “immobilist politics” where a status-quo-oriented educational establishment

resisted against attempts to change it under a number of conditions: (1) the lack of a

conservative consensus among the actors of policy-making including the MOE, the

LDP education zoku (bunkyō-zoku, an intra-party clique specializing in educational

issues) and the reformer initiator Nakasone himself (p251-252); (2) prolonged one-party

dominance of the LDP whose vested interests likewise discouraged it from upsetting the

educational establishment (p252-253); (3) a narrowly segmented educational sphere

whereby policy-making is much restricted within the educational sub-government,

characterized by conservatism inside the immediate area concerned (p253-255).

Of course, there are other problems with reforms characterized by the top-down

policy-making processes described in Schoppa’s study. For instance, progressive

educational critics, such as Horio, and pedagogical reformers, such as Sato Manabu

(professor of Tokyo University engaged in action research), had questioned the

46
legitimacy of politically-directed initiatives and advocated more grassroots educational

research and innovations at the school level.

Liberalization: the Search for “Individuality”

For critics who believe Japanese education is plagued by excessive uniformity

and standardization – the same factors that have putatively contributed to postwar

educational equality and high standards in academic and basic-skills training in

compulsory education – the questions most germane to the reforms concerns how to

introduce diversity and promote individuality within the system. Liberalization seems to

be the general trend. However, reformers and the public alike are clearly divided over

the relative importance of individualization in schools as well as the means for bringing

about change.

Fujita viewed the current educational reform initiative as one guided by the

“concurrent themes” of individualization and deregulation. The first pertains to

individual educational choice and the second to accountability of the schools.

According to him, educational policy-making in Japan has been dominated by the

camps of “sensationalism, neoliberalism, neoconservatism and reformism” (2000:

section 3). The arguments of the progressive, neoliberal and neoconservative “overlap

with each other to an importance degree” especially in areas like reduced central control

and increased educational choice. “Reform itself seems to be the goal, not the means to

improve education” (2000: section 3). There is inadequate attention given to the

investigation or reappraisal of the actual effectiveness of reform measures. In the light

47
of “reform suprematism”, radical measures may even threaten to remove the good and

efficient components of the educational system (Fujita 1997: 50).

Fujita (2000) cited three main policies which he saw as critical and

problematic: (1) the five-day school week measure, which will be fully implemented

from 2002, effectively causing a reduction of class hours and presumably educational

content; (2) the combined middle-high school (or six-year secondary school) education,

which, if expanded, would seriously challenge the existing 6-3-3 school system and lead

to the formation of a partially multi-track one; and (3) relaxation of the school district

system (jiyūka) among elementary and middle schools, which will likely bring with it

the concerns for school ranking and tracking as well as early selection at the lower

secondary educational level.

On the goals and effectiveness of the reforms, Fujita (2000: section 3) held that

the current educational reforms had been misguided. “Radical” political reforms within

the government and social organization convince many that deregulation and reformism

are the general trend and education must not be exempt from it. “Current policy

arguments and reforms measures in elementary and secondary education seem to be

irrational and deceptive.” What Fujita referred to is a misfit between the educational

problems and their proclaimed solutions. According to him, the shortened school week

and increased school choice are not the answer to school breakdown and other school

disciplinary problems as some reform policy-makers had claimed them to be. Instead,

the current measures deal with changing the structure of educational opportunity.

Similarly, an installation of the six-year secondary education would lead to a partial

48
multi-track system, which potentially holds great significance for changes to the

elementary and secondary schools. With liberalization, increased parental choice and

increased number of six-year secondary schools, the shape of lower secondary public

school education would inevitably be distorted. Many of Fujita’s concerns were

articulated in relation to the egalitarian educational ideals in Japan: “the formation of

elitism, school ranking and tracking, the problem of early selection and exacerbation of

school maladjustment among children” (2000: section 4).

Deregulation and Flexibilization: Reforming the Structure

As mentioned in Schoppa’s and Fujita’s analyses earlier, during the 1980s and

90s, the issues of reforming the 6-3-3 schooling structure and of decontrolling school

zones and removing restrictions on school choice had become one of the major focuses

of the educational reform debate. Reform activists from the neoconservative and

neoliberal camps alike lobbied for structural changes to the educational systems. For the

neoconservatives, who were represented by Koyama Kenichi, a former Rinkyōshin

member and a closer advisor of Prime Minster Nakasone, the most relevant educational

problems were not such things as school violence or school refusal (Schoppa 1991b: 65).

The traditional conservatives’ call for increased moral education and teacher training

also ranked low in the neoconservatives’ priorities. According to the neoconservative

view, the most critical problems concerned the rigidity and standardization of the

educational system, and the answer to which would be a relaxing of MOE control

(Schoppa 1991b: 65). Many of the neoconservative proposals certainly challenged the

emphasis on equality and egalitarian and values, which so epitomized postwar Japanese

49
education. These included: the decontrolling of the curriculum and reduced textbook

censorship; the introduction of banding, tracking and greater course specialization

among students at lower levels of schooling; the allowing of the formation of more

diverse kinds of private and public schools by relaxing the school establishment

standards and the rigidity of the 6-3-3-4 framework; and the allowing of greater school

choice for parents and introducing free-market competition among the schools (Schoppa

1991b: 66). In short, in the neoconservative line, liberalization (jiyūka) should proceed

along with various levels of flexibilization (jūnanka).

On the other hand, Horio (1986), who sided with the left-wing progressive

camp, was in full sympathy with the teachers’ unions’ (Nikkyōso [and Zenkyō])

egalitarian and democratic ideals (p35) and was fundamentally interested in seeing more

liberalization in schools in the form of increased freedom for research and educational

practice (involving teachers and educational researchers). He was against increased

school privatization and deregulations on school choice. Like some other educational

critics, Horio criticized the government for failing to reconcile the conflicts between the

actual educational conditions and its policies pretending to improve them. He argued

that the Rinkyōshin had been less interested in appraising the “actual situation of schools

and pupils in crisis” than in how to consolidate Japan’s world economic position (p33).

According to Horio, the hallowed tenets of egalitarianism in Japanese education should

not be compromised for the sake of enterprise interests and the development of

leadership qualities, which the neoliberals and business groups wished to promote.

With the latter’s proposals, he contended, the “inevitable result [would] be an even

more competitive, meritocratic and hierarchical system, reproducing with increasing

50
clarity the discrepancy between the technocratic elites and a massive deskilled

population” (p34). Horio then proposed that the reforms should be pursued with an ideal

in mind – the egalitarian ideal embodied in many postwar educational institutions.

Rather than an enhanced meritocratic elitist construct, Japan needed to work for a

“technological society supported by a highly educated majority of people who can share

in the responsibility and decision-making at all levels in industry and politics” (p34).

Internationalization as an Ideology

Internationalization (or globalization) has come to dominate the rhetoric of

educational debates and policies in many countries. Japan is not immune to this.

Lincicome (1993: 123) argued that Japanese authorities and critics of education alike

are fond of the term “kokusaika” (internationalization) because “[T]he real significance

of the internationalization movement lies in its very ambiguity”. The lack of a concrete

universal definition of the term provided a “discursive space” for competing camps of

the reform debate to contest the aims and content of kokusaika (p125).

Similarly, Kobayashi observed that the concept of internationalization in

education was often poorly understood within Japan. It was generalized to mean (1) the

teaching and learning of foreign languages or foreign knowledge (with a dominant

Western focus), or (2) simply a tool for advancing the nation’s political, social and

economic interests (1986: 65). Because of this ambiguity, there were risks that

internationalization in Japanese education might be exploited to reinforce past

nationalistic trends in education, instead of rectifying them (p66). Hood (2001) also

51
seemed to agree on the existence of this ambiguity. He noted that Nakasone’s own

educational ideology claimed that internationalism and “healthy nationalism” could be

combined as “healthy internationalism”. The Rinkyōshin took up this interpretation and

coined the word “atarashii kokusaika” (new internationalism) to suit its policy language.

To Nakasone and his followers, “healthy internationalism” was related not only to

relations with foreign countries but also to the Japanese identity (p55).

Kobayashi argued that the very closed, uniform nature of the Japanese system,

in terms of such things as educational methods and curriculum, would continue to stand

in the way of internationalizing efforts, which could not bring about successful results

by the introduction of “novel educational policies” alone. He cited two examples of

conflicts between reforms for internationalization and the existing system. First,

programs for internationalization are viewed as disadvantageous for entrance

examinations and thus their relative importance tends to be marginalized. Second, the

“excessive sense of rivalry and egoism” generated within the school system preoccupied

with entrance examinations certainly does not promote the kind of values and attitudes

congruent with an international society, which should instead emphasize “independence

and participation” (p70-71).

After its establishment in 1984, Rinkyōshin was charged with the task of

studying the broad issues of “coping with internationalization” (kokusaika he no taiō).

The subsequent policy recommendations it produced was clearly marked by a familiar

rhetoric: the need for the creating of “cosmopolitan Japanese” and a range of other ideal

qualities such as mastery foreign language skills, thorough knowledge of foreign

52
countries and cultures, an ability to appreciate cultural differences and an “international

consciousness” (kokusaiteki ninshiki) (Lincicome 1993: 124-126). Coupled with these

is a range of complementary qualities, equally desired in the future generation:

individual character (kosei), creativity (sōzōsei), independence (jiyū), self-discipline

(jiritsu), and personal responsibility (jiko sekinin). To add to the ambiguity of its

educational policies, the government attempted to juxtapose nationalist ideology on the

internationalist movement (Kobayashi 1986: 66; Schoppa 1991a: 64-65; Lincicome

1993: 125-130). According to official interpretations, cosmopolitan Japanese should

also be imbued with a thorough knowledge and deep respect for Japanese tradition,

culture and society (Lincicome 1993: 126). In fact, as Lincicome noted, “[the] paradigm

of kokusaika posits the cultivation of a Japanese consciousness, rooted in respect for

Japanese culture and tradition, as a prerequisite for pupils development as

internationalists” (Lincicome 1993: 144). This again clearly reaffirmed Schoppa’s and

Fajita’s observation about the ambiguity of the term “internationalization”.

As observed by Kobayashi, the curriculum for “international studies” was

generally not accepted by the mainstream academic high schools. It tended to be treated

as some quasi-vocational course conducted at the less competitive non-academic high

schools. Ironically, Lincicome observed, while some of these international studies

courses have produced students of impressive qualities and attitudes of “international

consciousness” that Rinkyōshin had hoped for, under the existing educational system,

the high school graduates of such programs could not realistically aspire to important

government and other social positions. (Lincicome 1993: 142-144). In other words, the

53
social structure had not undergone the necessary changes to accommodate educational

reforms.

Entrance Exams: the Crux of the Problem?

Rohlen concluded in his 1983 study that social position and rank in Japan come

to be quite determined by the time of [high] school graduation. Education, accordingly,

is very important to the understanding of Japanese social structure. The high school

level represents the watershed of the most fundamental differentiation in Japanese

education (1983: 112). One obvious consequence to the lack of progress in

liberalization and in reforming the university entrance examination system, Rohlen

suggested, was the continued reliance by students and parents on private supplementary

education such as home tutors (katei kyōshi) and cram schools or private preparatory

institutions (juku and yobikō). Even in the 1970s, Rohlen observed that “[t]he

establishment of greater equality educational opportunity in public system rather than

cooling off parental (and student) drive is only likely to encourage more ‘private sector’

activity given the high level of competitiveness focused on educational achievement”

(Rohlen 1998b: 15). This is still very much a true reflection of the Japanese educational

landscape even today. With over-dependence on private supplementary education, there

also come the questions of inequality in educational opportunity through differences in

family income and “cultural capital”, a point we have touched on earlier.

Like Rohlen, Lincicome contended that “the single biggest obstacle to the

internationalization of Japanese education may be the highly competitive entrance

exam” (p144). In the case of high schools, the existing system was still very much

54
narrowly centered on university entrance examination preparation. A strictly defined

curriculum, concerns for teaching schedule and resource constraints mean that there is

little room for integrating “international education” in these schools (p144). According

to Lincicome, entrance examinations not only influence the courses of study for primary,

middle and high schools as sanctioned by the MOE but also affect attitudes of students,

teachers and parents on the content and goals of education.

Interested in the notion of maintaining the egalitarian spirit in Japanese

education, Horio (1986) rejected the government’s claim that once privatization of the

public sector of education was set in place, competition of free choice [over schools

across catchments] would produce a “positive, invigorating” effect on the system. He

saw the relevant policies as problematic: the private sector would be put in an

unmistakable advantage (since they retain the rights to decide over such things as length

of school week and teaching practices); private preparatory schools would flourish

while the public schools would be ruined (p33). While there are others who share his

concerns, Horio’s view that privatization would lead more students to rely on

supplementary education (juku and yobikō) remains an unsubstantiated one.

3.6 Recent Curriculum Reform and Definition of Sōgōtekina-gakushū

Despite the incessant Japanese concern about their educational “troubles” and

the ongoing poignant debate on what Japanese education should become, a gradual

development of government interests in “liberalizing” part of the school curriculum

took shape among policy-makers towards the late 1990s.

55
 Not surprisingly, these “new” interests seem to have been re-molded from some

of the old policy discourses since the Nakasone years. Recommended changes in the

curriculum included: (1) reforming and reducing content of the academic curriculum,

(2) a more student-centered teaching approach for “individualized” learning, (3)

promoting learning activities related to “learning through experience” and problem-

solving, (4) increased emphasis on elective programs, and (5) the introduction of

Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan2 (Integrated Learning Time) in the school curriculum

(MEXT 1999a). To some extent, they were a reaction to the persistent conditions of

Japan’s highly academic system which had been found increasingly unsatisfactory in

the country’s attempt to respond to evolving socio-economic challenges brought on by

external and domestic forces.

What the government demanded to see was an increase or, at least, change in the

school’s role and capacity to provide education suited to the needs of school students on

whom a host of new (and old) expectations was showered. The strategy to achieve this

was something quite “radical” in the light of postwar educational developments –

schools were given some form of autonomy to design, organize and teach part of the

reformed curriculum, as defined by the New Course of Study (for primary and junior

high schools) published in 1998. A new component of the school curriculum called

Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan was to be introduced in stages starting from 20013 for

2
総合的な学習の時間
3
The actual full-scale and formal introduction Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan was scheduled in April 2002
for primary and junior high schools. The preceding year, 2001, was used as an experimental phase where
schools were allowed to develop and adopt a less ambitious version of their own reformed programs (that
is, Sōgōtekina-gakushū).

56
primary and junior high schools. According to the Curriculum Council4 (part of the

larger advisory structure of the Central Council on Education, Chūkyōshin), the

introduction of Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan was based on the following rationale:

It is imperative to ensure the provision of timetabled school hours for schools to undertake, in full

capacity, diversified and relevant teaching and learning activities within their own local or school

contexts. It is also very important to ensure the same time provision to facilitate cross-subject, integrated

learning activities in the hope of developing qualities and abilities [in school children] who can

demonstrate an independence in dealing with social changes in relation to globalization and the

information age. (Curriculum Council 1997) 5

In a final recommendation report on curriculum policy, the Council further

specified the use of Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan as a means to promote development

of student’s ability to learn and think independently, in both study and “real-life”

contexts. The purposes of Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan included:

(1) promoting abilities to discover subjects of interest, learn independently,

think independently, make one’s own decisions and solve problems, through

allowing schools to develop their own reformed programs devoted to cross-

subject integrated learning activities or other activities which stimulate

students’ interests;

(2) promoting skills for collecting data, researching, analyzing, presenting and

conducting discussion with others;

4
教育課程審議会 (Kyōikukatei-shingikai)
5
各学校が地域や学校の実態などに応じて特色ある教育活動を自由に展開できるような時間を
確保することには重要なことである。また、国際化や情報化をはじめ社会の変化に主体的に対
応できる資質や能力を育成するということを考えると、教科の枠を超えた横断的な・総合的な
学習をより円滑に実施するための時間を確保することも大切なことである。(Mid-term report of
the Curriculum Council, 1997; online version; refer to References)

57
 (3) fostering correct attitudes for problem-solving and investigative learning

activities in an independent and creative manner; and

(4) helping students develop an awareness of “how to live” (ikikata).

(Curriculum Council 1998)6

These recommendations, challenging as they sounded, revealed an anxiety about the

Japanese curriculum, which had been seen as thus far quite unable to produce the kind

of “independent creative individuals” and social cohesion desired by an aging and

evolving society. The notion of how to enhance student’s general skills and capacity to

“live” and get properly socialized into Japanese society was especially interesting since

it was itself rather problematic in definition - it was open to many interpretations of

what skills constituted a valid growth in the particular “living skill”, which sometimes

was loosely defined as or associated with the skills to “learn independently and think

independently” (mizukara manabi, mizukara kangae) in many contexts of the recent

policies.

From 2002, most public junior schools were thus required by government

directives to include Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan in their school curriculum under the

current Course of Study. Unlike past subjects in the national curriculum, this new

component was not subject-defined. In fact, government regulations regarding

Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan were minimalist and were concerned with only the

mandatory implementation period of certain school hours (about 70-130 hours for junior

high schools) dedicated to reform programs developed by schools themselves. These

6
Online version; refer to References

58
programs, known as Sōgōtekina-gakushū (or Integrated Learning), were timetabled

learning activities of various themes and purposes, broadly delineated in the recent

curriculum policy discourse (MEXT 1999, Chapter 1). A 70-hour program spread over

the year typically had about two hours of activity periods in a week.

What is Sōgōtekina-gakushū? Essentially, this refers to a collection of school-

developed reformed programs (non-discipline-based and non-academically-oriented

school curricula) that largely target the educational goals and learning themes set by the

government but whose content and approach frequently are mediated significantly by

the school’s very own local contexts (local environment, teachers, resources, student

quality, etc.). The so-called learning themes reflected government interests in the earlier

periods of reform in the 1980s – these included the major aspirations in “international

study” (kokusai-rikai), I.T., environment, welfare and health, as well as many integrated

learning themes specific to certain geographical regions or localities which aimed at

improving education through the school-community interface (MEXT 1999).

Since the content, teaching, assessment and internal organization of the

timetable of the Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum was entirely left to the schools to

decide, this signified a major change in the ways curriculum development had been

done in Japan. Schools certainly enjoyed some form of new, albeit restricted, autonomy

in their school curriculum through the policy development. However, since the

infrastructure for decentralized curriculum development was very much in a state of

infancy, the implementation of Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan was just as likely to be

problematic. Cave (2003, 98) rightly pointed out that the given the new freedom

59
accorded to teachers in the reformed programs, they were also obliged, willingly or not,

to participate more in the curriculum development process.

3.7 Conclusion

While reform efforts in Japan have gone through cycles of flows and ebbs since

the 1980s, actual measurable changes in many aspects of Japanese education have

remained elusive to date (Lincicome 1993; Cave 2001: 185). School education

continues to be heavily standardized. School choice remains limited for the majority

among the student population. University admission continues to be narrowly defined

by exam-preparation and little changed even in testing designs. At middle and high

schools, the teacher-centered lecture approach of teaching remains the norm. As is the

case in Lincicome’s 1993 study, despite the internationalist rhetoric, certain

international studies program had been implemented more successfully at lower-ranking,

non-academic schools while their more academically competitive counterparts rejected

the programs as irrelevant to “normal” educational pursuits. A question then becomes

relevant: At least for some measures, the reforms have not been treated wholeheartedly

as worthy alternatives to the existing establishment. The so-called reforms implemented

during the 1980s (moral education expansion, nationalist and internationalist education

and establishment of the University Council, for example) have produced a relatively

minor impact on the structure and general outlook of education, especially when

considered in the larger context of transforming Japanese teaching and learning

institutions. Nevertheless, it is also clear that many reform measures are still under way

60
or yet to be implemented. It requires more future studies on our part to better appreciate

and understand the full impact of what the reforms mean.

The introduction of Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan in junior high schools and

consequently the development of partial school autonomy over their local school

curricula seemed to be an important step towards “liberalizing” parts of the Japanese

curriculum so as to account for the need for skills, values, attitudes and other qualities

not properly taken care of in the existing academic system. Although much interest in

the teaching of Sōgōtekina-gakushū had been seen in vast amount of practical writings

done in Japanese related to pedagogy (Cave 2003, 96), research on Sōgōtekina-gakushū,

particularly regarding the practices and processes during its overall implementation in

schools, is generally lacking. This study is precisely interested in the local conditions

and developments around Sōgōtekina-gakushū at certain Japanese junior high schools.

A detailed discussion of my case study of its introduction is given in Chapter Five.

61
 CHAPTER FOUR

EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM REFORM

IN HONG KONG

4.0 Introduction

This chapter contains a literature review on the education system and

curriculum reform in Hong Kong. It traces the developments of decentralized

curriculum development, in particular, project learning and SBCD (school-based

curriculum development) and give a brief outline of the curriculum development

process in Hong Kong.

Compared to the UK or Japan, mass schooling in Hong Kong has a relatively

short history. In the case of England and Wales, despite limited state participation,

universal education was introduced at the elementary level as early as 1870 and at the

62
secondary level in 19441. In Japan, where state intervention has always been strong,

universal education at the elementary level was achieved in 19002 and this was extended

to the secondary level in 1947 under the reconstructed postwar system3. As we shall see

shortly in this chapter, Hong Kong’s government provision for education did not begin

on a serious scale until the 1960s and 1970s. This, however, does not necessarily lead us

to conclude that discussion of the developments before centralized educational

provision is unimportant. Quite to the contrary, local cultures, values and norms

embedded in education have played powerful and durable roles in shaping what take

place in the classrooms and schools, as was the case in Japan as demonstrated in

Chapter Two. In the recent history of education, these have facilitated the government’s

policy in some cases while resisting or working against it in some others. The persistent

emphasis on the value of academic study, for instance, has a far-reaching effect on local

people’s perceptions and expectations of education as well as on school practices.

Consequently, generic student skills and qualities now being fervently advocated in

policies had been previously ignored or neglected in the school curriculum during

previous periods of development.

1
See Halls (1995, 1025).
2
The total enrolment rate for elementary schooling was already 90% in 1902 (明治 35 年) and 98% in
1909 (明治 42 年). See Monbushō’s “120 Years’ History of the Educational System (学制百二十年史)”,
available online at <http://wwwwp.mext.go.jp/v120nen/index-11.html>.
3
See Chapter Two under “Historical background”.

63
 As is the case in many other places including Japan, curriculum reform in

Hong Kong has often involved tensions between the interests of schools and the state.

Hong Kong’s curriculum has been in a state of flux thanks to structural changes in the

system and socio-economic dynamics in local society. Successive expansions of the

educational sectors and a shift from an elitist to a publicly-financed mass schooling

system gradually put curricular control into the hands of a central authority. Despite the

expanded state role in education, implementation of local policies was rarely a

straightforward business, partly because of the government interest to ensure both (i)

continuity in academic standards through a central curriculum framework and (ii) some

form of flexibility and diversity in school curricula through attempts in decentralized

curriculum development in non-academically-oriented learning. School-based

curriculum development (SBCD) in the local context was encouraged since the late

1980s though this had been quite restricted in progress and confined to certain types of

schools. Towards the late 1990s, interests in other forms of decentralized curriculum

development grew among government policy-makers and schools. Among these were

subject integration and project learning. The latter is the main subject of interest in this

study, as it provides a context for comparing with developments of curriculum reform in

64
Japan, namely, Integrated Learning or Sōgōtekina-gakushū.

The chapter is organized into the following parts, broadly equivalent to that

used the discussion of the Japanese educational system: (i) historical developments of

the Hong Kong educational system, (ii) educational control and policy-making by

government, (iii) formal schooling, and its structure and characteristics, (iv) the

curriculum, (v) mechanisms in reform implementation, (vi) discussion of the Llewellyn

Report as a critique on earlier-period curriculum development, (vii) developments of

curriculum reforms towards decentralization, (viii) background on project learning and

SBCD, and (ix) conclusion (preliminary comparison between the Japanese and Hong

Kong educational system).

4.1 Historical Developments of the Educational System

4.1.1 Early Developments

Hong Kong’s educational system and its developments have been seen as a

result of interactions between endogenous and exogenous forces (McClelland 1991;

65
Morris 1995: 123-131; Sweeting 1995; Sweeting and Morris 1998). The local

curriculum and its developments can also be examined in a similar light.

With its historically peripheral position, Hong Kong had almost always relied

on borrowing established models (notably from the UK) for conceptual frameworks

related to education. At the same time, local realities, such as cultural practices,

religions and ethno-linguistic concerns made it very difficult to implant any foreign

systems without some form of modifications (Ng 1984, preface; Sweeting 1990).

Essentially, the study of Hong Kong educational development calls for a degree of

consciousness about the evolving relationship between China and Hong Kong, the

mutual interactions between the government and populace and the processes of

negotiation between imported foreign institutions and local contexts.

At the same time, socio-economic dynamics, such as massive population influx

from the mainland and structural shifts in the economy, also provided another source of

impetus for change and readjustment in education. One direct impact of increased

demands for mass schooling was the quantitative expansion of educational provision

started in the 1950s. In recent decades, educational reforms were increasingly being

66
called upon to address the issue of quality, which subsequently entailed a reinvestigation

of the nature of the curriculum.

From the early colonial period, Hong Kong’s political status meant that

legitimacy had to be judged on the government’s abilities to deliver policies for local

welfare, while keeping the business sector happy. The priorities of these had changed

over time. In the case of education, the public provision of education, even at the

primary level, was not accorded with great importance on the government agenda until

the end of WWII (Adamson and Morris 1998: 182).

The government’s participation in educational provision between 1841 and

1941 can be described as minimalist or laissez-faire in its approach (Adamson and

Morris 1998: 181; Sweeting and Morris 1993: 202). Education was limited to the

purpose of producing an academic elite acting as go-betweens in trade and

administration (Adamson and Morris 1998: 182)4. Localization and vernacularization of

some parts of the educational system were sponsored and tolerated by the colonial

4
Bray (1992) seemed to have a different interpretation on what might be termed interventionist in early
educational provision. Agreeing with Catherine Jones’ point on school grants, he argued that, “[t]here was
no early intention to raise an intermediary class of English-trained natives as ‘go-betweens’…
Nevertheless, early education policy differed from other aspects of social policy in being more active and
interventionist” (p324-325).

67
government to ensure the practicality of schooling in relation to administration,

employment and other economic-political activities (Sweeting 1992: 60-65)5. Out of

this pre-war background came four main types of (primary) schools, namely,

government schools, grant schools (mainly of missionary origin), subsidized schools

(predominantly rural and Chinese-medium), and private schools. The private schools

were mainly urban and Chinese medium and formed the largest segment of the pre-war

schooling system, which catered to non-academic demands and was often questioned by

the government over its standards and purposes (Sweeting 1993: 6-9; Adamson and

Morris 1998: 182).

4.1.2 Influxes and Impetus for Change

The War and the Japanese Occupation brought an abrupt end to the old system.

As the British reclaimed rule of the colony, new “significant forces began to transform

Hong Kong – its society, its economy, and the role of its government” (Sweeting 1993:

2). In the immediate post-war decade and ensuing periods, Hong Kong’s population

5
Ng (1984) in her study of the government’s early grant-in-aid scheme also acknowledged that the
scheme might serve as some evidence of government effort to promote vernacular instead English
education, but she argued the scheme was more likely a policy of expediency to avoid tension arising
from religious and administrative concerns (p26).

68
grew exponentially thanks to an extended post-war baby boom and to a huge influx of

refugee immigrants from the mainland facing economic hardship, civil war and

subsequent political upheavals. Consequently, pressures on employment (increasingly of

the female population) and public social provisions were also dramatically increased

(Sweeting 1993: 2; Sweeting and Morris 1993: 202-203). External developments also

encouraged structural changes in local production, as Hong Kong’s economy developed

through the entrepôt-manufacturing-service pattern.

New programs of expansion in all educational sectors were required for Hong

Kong’s evolving social and economic needs (McClelland 1991: 127). Each stage of

expansion had tended to involve increasing burden on public spending with relatively

slower social returns. In contrast with the pre-war minimalist approach to educational

planning, the Hong Kong government’s policies between 1941 and 1971 were gradually

“overtaken by events and pre-empted by crisis intervention” (Sweeting 1995: 53), thus

strengthening the hand of centralism.

The early increased demands for kindergarten and primary education were met

by the rapid growth of the private sector, which flourished in the 1950s and 1960s. The

69
government, for its own part, initially responded to the “crises” of educational provision

in the following ways: build its own (government) primary schools, offer interest-free

loans and favorable building sites to voluntary (mainly religious) bodies and, albeit

grudgingly, similar aid to selected private schools (Sweeting 1993: 155-175; Sweeting

1995: 51). Despite this, the private sector remained very important well into the 1970s,

providing all kindergarten places, about 15% of primary school places and about 70% of

secondary places (Sweeting 1995: 51-52). The expanded provision of primary schooling

eventually led to an extension of demand to secondary education.

4.1.3 Increased Government Involvement

Free and compulsory education was introduced at the primary level in

government and aided schools in 1971 (Adamson and Morris 1998: 182; Bray 1992:

328; Sweeting 1995: 52) but primary education had become largely universal even

before this (Cheng 1987: 23). Free schooling was extended to junior secondary level

(up to Form3) in 1978 and in the following year nine years of education was officially

made compulsory (Bray 1992: 328).

70
 A major development following the expansion of secondary education in the

late 1970s was the government steps to phase out private secondary schools and expand

the government-aided sectors. This occurred in the context of secondary place shortages

in the mid-70s, when the government decided to adopt the Bought Place Scheme, which

consequently gave the government some control over private school standards.

The 1980s witnessed the gradual emergence of a government-controlled mass

secondary schooling system from a socially elitist one dominated by the private sector,

though, academically, the elitist tone of the curriculum was maintained during the same

period. New challenges arose as the expansion put increasing pressures on school

resources and teacher abilities to cope with students of greater disparities. Against the

background of constant concerns for “falling academic standards” (Llewellyn et al.

1982), a trend for whole curriculum and an accompanying discourse for whole-person

development slowly took root in the government policy after the establishment of a

central advisory body, the Education Commission, and related curriculum development

advisory bodies. These will be discussed in further detail in the section on curricular

reforms and school-based curriculum development.

71
4.2 Educational Control and Policy-making

4.2.1 Hierarchy and Division of Educational Control

Broadly speaking, education administration in Hong Kong is divided into (1)

policy-planning and (2) execution and supervision. Although the day-to-day processes

from policy-making to curriculum planning are said to be dominated by bureaucratic

procedures (Marsh and Morris 1991: 256; Adamson and Morris 2000: 10), the

organizational structure is a combination of a decentralized system among the

administrative bodies and a centralized one within each of them. This means that

individual bureaux, departments, and councils may have strong administrative control

over their own operations and decisions by means of bureaucratic procedures, but there

is no formal procedural structure governing inter-departmental relations.

Unlike Japan’s Ministry of Education, the Education and Manpower Bureau

(EMB), the de facto highest educational policy-making and supervisory organ in Hong

Kong, does not enjoy the same status and level of power over its so-called subordinate

72
bodies6, among which are the Educational Department (ED), the Vocational Training

Council (VTC), the Hong Kong Examination Authority (HKEA) and the University

Grants Committee (UGC). To illustrate, both the Secretary for Education and Manpower,

head of the EMB, and the Director of Education, head of the ED, are senior civil

servants separately appointed by the Chief Executive. The EMB and ED have their own

separate fiscal budgets approved by the Legislative Council.

In terms of responsibilities, the division of labor is also fairly clear-cut. The

main tasks of the EMB are to formulate and review education policies, secure funds in

the government budget, and oversee the effective implementation of educational

programs (EMB, homepage). On the other hand, the operational concerns of the ED lie

in the implementation of policies at the kindergarten, primary and secondary levels,

which includes enforcing the Education Ordinance (Cap. 279), providing and allocating

public sector school places, provision of special education, school curriculum

development, assuring school education quality, monitoring of teaching standards and

giving resources support to schools. Although the ED also nominally takes part in

developing and reviewing policies for school education, this is in fact largely taken care

6
One may instead argue that, within a local context, the Education Department in Hong Kong enjoys
comparable stature and power of the Ministry of Education in Japan, particularly with respect to control
over school operation and the curriculum.

73
by the Board of Education (BoE), a free-standing statutory committee that conducts its

own research on primary and secondary schools and coordinates with the Education

Commission on such matters.

One may speculate that the separation of the organizational structure for school

education into two policy-making and executive divisions is rationalized on practical

and historical grounds. Practically, the ED has always been responsible for enforcing

educational policies and regulating school operations. It has the natural advantage to

establish relations and connections with schools, which is reinforced by the fact that

members of the BoE predominantly are administrators and teaching professionals in

school education. Historically, the establishment of the ED long preceded that of the

EMB and Education Commission, the latter two being the products of growing demands

for policy planning relevant to the local contexts during the successive stages of recent

educational expansion.

4.2.2 Curriculum Planning

In the case of curriculum development, however, it would be simplistic and

74
misleading to say that the EMB simply makes polices and the ED implements them in

some closed operation. Educational policies in Hong Kong often come in the form of

“recommendations” by various advisory bodies and require elaborate processes of

public consultation and legislation (Cheng 1992; Cheng 1998).

The Education Commission occupies a central though not necessarily

predominant position within the hierarchy of educational advisory bodies. It is a rough

counterpart of Japan’s Rinkyōshin or Chūkyōshin, composed of a select group of

members representing the educational bureaucracy, advisory bodies, teaching profession

and the business and academic communities. While the Education Commission sets the

general direction of reforms, its role is as much a government co-advisor as a

coordinator for the other major co-advisory bodies (ECR1, 1), namely, the BoE, VTC,

HKEA and UGC, which all have ex-officio members sitting on the Education

Commission panel.

To date, the main institutions responsible for planning and developing the

curriculum are the Curriculum Development Council (CDC) and Curriculum

Development Institute (CDI). Teaching syllabuses produced by the CDC are

75
“recommended” for use at primary and secondary schools but this is by no means

mandatory (ECR4: 8). Summative assessment is separately handled by the HKEA,

which regularly updates its examination syllabuses, but this usually involves very

limited variations.

Like other areas of educational policy, curriculum development in Hong Kong

operates in a centralized system, which is often highly derivative of overseas models

and relies on bureaucratic procedures for implementation (McClelland 1991; Lo 1995;

Adamson and Morris 2000). According to McClelland (1991, 128; Morris 1995, 134,

citing McClelland), the main characteristics of curriculum development in Hong Kong

can be identified as: (i) centralized and top-down; (ii) product oriented; (iii) focused on

single subject syllabuses; (iv) sensitive to international trends but generally derivative of

British models; (v) geared towards adoption of syllabuses and resources; and (vi) taking

implementation as unproblematic.

Adamson and Morris (1995, 11-12), while echoing McClelland’s observations

about local curriculum development, further note that gaps between what is planned and

what is implemented have often resulted from the mismatch between a centralized

76
mechanism for curricular planning and dissemination strategies for certain curricular

reform initiatives such as TOC (Target Oriented Curriculum). The problems they

identify include “the tendency to rely on bureaucratic procedures, the low level of

involvement of practitioners in developing curricula, the strong washback effect from

examinations, the failure to match forms of assessment and curricular goals, and the

failure to support innovations with appropriate resources and teacher education

programs” (ibid., 12). A more detailed discussion of the reform mechanisms and

dissemination strategies is given in the later part of the chapter (4.7).

4.3 Formal Education: Schooling Structure and Some Characteristics

4.3.1 Schooling Structure and Compulsory Education

One out of five in Hong Kong’s population is receiving some form of education

in kindergartens, schools, universities and other institutions (See Table 1c). For certain

historical reasons, the 6-5-2 schooling system in Hong Kong bears a basic resemblance

to the British structure7, with some variations at the lower and upper reaches of formal

7
According to Morris, McClelland and Wong (1998, 111), the schooling system of Hong Kong in the
mid-1970s was modeled upon the British system and had a 6-(5+2)-4 structure. The seven-year

77
schooling8.

The nine-year compulsory education9, sometimes termed the more politically

correct “universal basic education”10 (BoE 1997, ii) or “general education” (Cheng 1998,

26-28), is funded by the government in the public sector (government and aided)

schools and spans six years of primary education (P1-P6) and three years of junior

secondary education (S1-S3). In the 2000-2001 period, 98.7% of the age cohort was

enrolled in the nine-year compulsory education while 91% of all junior secondary

school graduates enrolled for S4 places for the two-year senior secondary education

(S4-S5)11 (EMB 2002, Table 5, p5). The sixth form education (S6-S7) comprising

two-year matriculation program is not free but operates under heavy government

subsidy. Between 2000 and 2001, S6 enrolment rate12 was only 37.4% (EMB 2002,

Table 4, p4). Both primary education and secondary education are dominated by public

sector schools, though in recent years efforts were made to improve standards and

secondary curriculum is divided into junior secondary (S1-S3), senior secondary (S4-S5) and the sixth
form (S6-S7). This may seem identical to the current system but the various public examinations
determined the exit point of the school student differently before the expansion of secondary and tertiary
education.
8
For instance, schooling in Hong Kong is compulsory for nine years (age 6-15), instead of 11 years (age
5-16) in the mainstream 6-5-2 schooling system in England and Wales. Secondary schooling in Hong
Kong is also divided into junior and senior secondary levels by an albeit largely abandoned allocation
exercise called the JSEA system. However, steps have been taken to phase out this division.
9
九年強迫教育
10
普及基礎教育
11
Locally, secondary school classes are commonly known as Form1-Form5, that is, S1-S5, etc.
12
This refers to S6 enrolment as a percentage of S5 enrolment in the previous school year.

78
quality of education in the traditionally disadvantaged private sector, with major

initiatives such as the Direct Subsidy Scheme.

4.3.2 School Classification

As Postiglione noted, Hong Kong’s history is much characterized by “a

combination of government, government subsidized, and private form of education”

(1992, 11). Concomitant to the growing government role in school educational

provisions since the 1960s is the development of a complex system of school

classification by the Education Department (ED). Rightly or wrongly, the school type

within such a system tends to suggest to the public qualities about student intake and

performance, teacher professionalism, school facilities, medium of instruction and, of

course, the availability and level of government aid to the school.

Broadly speaking, schools following the “local curriculum” are categorized

into government, aided and private schools. The government and aided schools, together

referred to as public sector schools, receive public funding under the Code of Aid and

their operations are controlled and monitored by the ED according to the Education

79
Ordinance. Aided schools are by far the numerically most important education provider

at both the primary and secondary levels. However, according to Postiglione (1992, 12),

“most of the schools in the territory are publicly funded but privately operated.”

After the Education Commission’s recommendations (ECR3) in 1988, the

Direct Subsidy Scheme (DSS) was introduced in an attempt to regulate as well as give

autonomy to schools in the private sector and improve their standards, in particular at

the secondary level.

4.4 Curriculum

4.4.1 Academically-Oriented Curriculum and Teacher-centeredness

Like the case of public provision for mass schooling, a systematic mechanism

to plan, produce, and assess the whole curriculum is only a relatively recent

phenomenon in Hong Kong. The elitist nature of the schooling system in the earlier

periods of development had encouraged and tolerated the existence of an academic

80
curriculum across the entire schooling system13 which allowed itself to be dominated or

significantly affected by public examinations (Llewellyn et al. 1982, 31-39 passim)14

such as the HKCEE and HKALE.

Morris (1990) concludes that the problems relating to curricular provision were

linked to and worsened by the primary and secondary school expansion programs (p4).

The academically oriented curriculum for an elitist school system proved inadequate to

accommodate the needs of students who have non-academic aspirations and abilities

(ibid.).

Morris (1995) also points out that the term “academic” often does not imply

such things as the generation of ideas, creative thinking or problem-solving on the

student’s part (p125). An academic curriculum refers to one that “encourages pupils to

learn large bodies of information and forms of analysis which are selected from the

disciplines, abstract, defined by textbooks and tested by a public examination” (ibid.).

13
As recently as mid-1990s, “intense competition” for the most popular schools necessitated reforms of
the system of allocation of Primary One places because such competition was seen to “distort the
emphasis of pre-school education towards formal teaching and away from informal learning through
play” (EMB 1994, 14). Note, though, that preschool education is not officially recommended but the need
for the child to develop academic competence at this early developmental stage is clearly felt among most
local parents.
14
A thorough discussion of the Llewellyn Report in a later part of this chapter, under “The Llewellyn
Report”, 4.5.

81
 The content and activities of school teaching and learning are restricted by the

various teaching syllabuses and exam syllabuses centrally developed by the ED

(through the CDI and CDC) and Hong Kong Examination Authority (HKEA) as well as

school culture and teacher values and abilities. In schools, teachers traditionally adopted

a didactic, authoritarian approach to class teaching while the students take on a passive

role (Llewellyn et al. 1982, 34-35).

All school textbooks are produced by commercial publishers and faithfully

follow the prescriptions from exam syllabuses in order to ensure survival and

profitability. To date, the ED still regularly publishes through the CDI a “Recommended

Textbook List”15 for approved textbooks to be used in schools. According to the CDI,

“the books are reviewed by a panel of reviewers consisting of serving teachers, lecturers

in tertiary institutions, in addition to CDI subject officers. The books are checked

against the recommended syllabuses to ensure that they meet with the syllabus

requirements, the format requirements, the accuracy of content materials and their

15
The list is updated on a monthly basis and can be accessed online at
<http://cd.ed.gov.hk/cr_2001/eng/textbook/textbook.htm>. Accessed on May 21, 2002.

82
suitability for the ability of students at the respective levels.”16

4.4.2 Factors Affecting Teachers’ Role in Curriculum Development

Llewellyn et al. (1982) and McClelland (1991) observes that the terms

“curriculum” and “syllabus” are translated into the same Chinese word17. In practice,

the meanings of the two terms also are also taken freely to be interchangeable, or

confused. This is demonstrated in Morris’ 1990 study in which concluded that majority

of teachers in Hong Kong defined their main objective of classroom teaching as

covering the examination syllabuses (Morris 1990, 45-49).

Time is one of the foremost problems cited as a disincentive for teachers to

assume a more active role in tailoring and participating in developing the school

curriculum (Morris 1988, 4). Most teachers (especially home-room teachers) are

required outside their normal teaching duties to do various clerical chores and handle

counseling. The burden of some teachers is further increased with the introduction of

such initiatives as the Whole School Approach, School-based Management Initiative

16
Under “Resources” in “FAQ” on the CDI homepage, available online at
<http://cd.ed.gov.hk/misc/faq/faq_e.htm>. Accessed on May 23, 2002.
17
課程設計

83
(SMI), and SBCD. Added to the problem are large class sizes in most schools. In the

2000-2001 period, the average class size is 20.3 for kindergartens, 34.9 for

conventional-approach classes18 in primary schools, 38.3 for S1-S5 and 30.3 for S6-S7

(EMB 2002, Table 9, p8). In other words, the organization of schools does not provide

favorable conditions for school-based curriculum development.

The teachers’ reliance on the use of prescriptive centrally-devised syllabuses is

also seen as a rational development following the rapid expansion of the educational

sectors and to the general inadequacy of professional training and qualifications of local

teachers. McClelland argued on this point that “[g]iven that teacher training could not

keep pace with the expansion so that large numbers of untrained teachers have to be

recruited, a centrally devised set of syllabuses and recommendations for their

presentation made a great deal of sense” (1991, 127).

The established system of centralized curricular planning itself presents a great

challenge to the recent trends towards school-based curriculum development, despite

some overt official endorsement in the policy documents. With the public examination

18
31.7 for activity approach classes.

84
system still remaining unaltered and schools loath to risk deviating from an

academically-oriented curriculum, the impact of curricular reforms aimed at changing

classroom teaching and learning still remains to be seen. Morris (1990, 48) quite rightly

points out that “the emphasis to cover the exam syllabus in teaching is against the [CDC

teaching] syllabus’s stress on knowledge as a process and on heuristic learning style”.

4.4.3 Clear Educational Aims and the Lack of Them

According to Morris, curriculum development in Hong Kong traditionally has

been heavily influenced by the Tyler objectives model (Morris 1995, 54; Morris 1990,

6), which identifies four key stages for curriculum planning, namely, the development

of (1) aims and objectives, (2) content, (3) organization of teaching and assessment and

(4) evaluation, in a linear sequence (Tyler 1949; cited in Morris 1995: 54, and Silbeck

1984: 5).

Viewed in this context, syllabuses such as those produced by the CDC and

HKEA are more than a syllabus because they delineate the educational aims and

recommended methods of teaching and assessment, effectively delivering “an official

85
plan of what the curriculum for a specific school is intended to achieve” (Morris 1995,

1-2).

However, according to the BoE’s Report on Review of the 9-year Compulsory

Education (1997), the overall aims for compulsory education in Hong Kong were not

clearly defined for the most part of its existence. It stated:

Though compulsory education was enforced as early as 1971 (primary education only), the aims of Hong

Kong education were not made explicit until a formal document “School Education in Hong Kong: A

Statement Aims” was published by the Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) in 1993. (BoE 1997, 16)

The BoE also noted there were earlier White Papers such as that in 1974 which gave

very broad definitions of the aim of education with a utilitarian accent: “to provide for

the children of Hong Kong the standards of education which they need if they are to be

properly equipped to fend for themselves and serve their fellows in the competitive

world of the next decade.”19

19
Cited in BoE 1997, p17: White Paper on Secondary Education in Hong Kong over the Next Decade,
1974, para.1.9.

86
4.5 Mechanisms in Reform Implementation

4.5.1 General Practices

Despite the propensity of Hong Kong policy makers to view educational

reforms in an ahistorical manner20, as Sweeting observes, the history of Hong Kong’s

education is littered with failed attempts to reform, starting right from its formative

years and through the chaotic reforms of the schooling structure in the 1960s 21 .

Typically, these reforms are initiated from the center and are characterized by a

top-down, fidelity approach to implementation (Sweeting and Morris 1993: 213).

There are basic questions which we need to address so as to evaluate the impact

or significance of a reform. How do reform aims and objectives get interpreted and

translated into actions? How do reform measures become operationalized by informed

players to produce desired results? Apart from collecting empirical evidence at the level

of school actions, the study of mechanisms employed for the reform initiatives should

also be given some particular attention.

20
This was presented and discussed by Professor Sweeting at a seminar titled ‘The Education
Commission’s “New Clothes”: Education Reform in Hong Kong – Blueprint for a Brave New World or
Rejection of the Past?’ (June 6, 2002; Centre of Asian Studies, HKU).
21
This refers to the Donohue’s scheme which attempted to restructure the schooling system to “make it
more congruous with social realities” (Sweeting and Morris 1993, 203-206).

87
 Before we proceed further, a working definition of the term mechanism is

required. In this study, mechanism refers to a framework of the government’s planned

measures, implementation procedures and dissemination strategies that relate to a

certain intended outcomes, particularly changes across the system.

Previous studies on the curriculum by Morris (1990) and McClelland (1991)

have brought important insight into the nature of mechanisms for both curriculum

development and curricular reforms. In the customary cases of implementation, Morris

argued that “[t]he mechanisms used to disseminate curriculum changes by both the

CDC and HKEA rely on the classic tools of a power coercive strategy, namely

directives and requirements” (1990, 8)22. The educational bureaucracy (ED and HKEA)

and related advisory body (CDC) often see themselves (and are perceived by schools) as

sole legitimate actors to identify problems and provide solutions in the form of packages.

At the initiation23 stage, these are disseminated through official circulars and new

syllabuses which try to persuade and inform schools and teachers of planned changes
22
Policies and reforms on language proficiency have tended to be an exception to this, where government
preferences and intensions are often overshadowed by market forces. Consequently, related directives are
less influential in school decisions on such things as medium of instruction. The result is what Sweeting
terms a “laissez faire” approach to language policy which still holds true today (Sweeting 1989; Sweeting
and Morris 1993, 205; see also Llewellyn et al. 1982).
23
As part of a framework to study the stages of curriculum development, the term “initiation” technically
refers to the way in which ideas arise and get accepted. The related term “development” refers to the
process leading to adoption of some syllabuses or guidelines while “evaluation” refers to the process in
whereby information is collected relating to the decision to publish recommended syllabuses or guidelines
or to their actual implementation in schools (See McClelland 1991, 121 and Morris 1990, 5-6).

88
(ibid.). The Advisory Inspectorate of the ED, responsible for initiating and overseeing

the implementation of the initiatives (Morris 1990, 16), tends to perform “essentially

defensive and conservative functions rather than an innovative one” (Morris 1990, 8).

Morris further criticizes this implementation approach on the basis that it gave the

government a virtual monopoly over curricular decision-making through “centralizing

and bureaucratizing the process of innovation” while discouraging schools and teachers

from experimenting with any “localized or site specific curriculum innovation” (ibid.)

There is an additional dimension to the process of implementation: How are the

reform measures resourced and where do the resources go? According to Morris (1990:

10-16), the chief problem with reform implementation in this regard, is not always

under-provision but misallocation or ineffective utilization of resources24. Resources

in Hong Kong, he argued, have mainly been channeled to the initiation stage of

curriculum development (that is, the mobilization of schools and teachers towards the

adoption of a policy) with the crucial variable of teacher-student interactions being

ignored (ibid.: 10).

24
Note that this refers mainly to professional support and material resources. Time is also frequently cited
as very important for teacher participation in curriculum related reforms. See Morris 1988, 4.

89
 Several types of support and resources have been identified by Morris in his

1990 study, which include (p11-12):

(a) Subject resource centers created to provide resources and facilities in

specific subject areas as well as venue for conducting teacher training

courses. They, however, tend to be under-resourced and hence underutilized,

with limited or no full-time professional staff support, and are generally not

operated in hours convenient to the teachers (weekends and evenings).

(b) In-service training, which takes the form of courses designed for the change

or introduction of a new syllabus. These courses usually focus on

explaining changes made to the syllabus and assessment procedures or on

exhorting the merits of some government sanctioned teaching approach.

Implementation issues at school, however, are seldom addressed.

(c) Provision of classroom resources, which is sometimes done by the

recruitment of fresh graduates with no teaching experience who are

employed on some temporary basis25. The relative ad hoc nature and low

status of such provision of classroom resources guarantee that teachers

cannot expect much reliable resource base out of it.

25
Morris gives the explanation that “the status of the positions and the career structure in schools make it
difficult to employ people with the experience and capabilities to perform the task” (Morris 1990, 12).

90
 In addition to the overemphasis of the initiation stage, one may argue that, in

general, curriculum reforms (as in the case of other educational reforms) also have a

tendency of misappropriating resources for supporting the bureaucracy instead of

promoting genuine change in schools.

4.6 The Llewellyn Report

4.6.1 Overview

Despite some scholarly criticism that educational reforms in Hong Kong were

ad hoc in nature and operated in the form of crisis intervention, this may not be an

entirely fair judgment. A longitudinal documentary review of past policies suggests that

there also seemed to be some degree of coherence and continuity at least in the public

agenda of educational planning. Notably, the Llewellyn Report (1982) raised a number

of key problems in the contemporary system of the 1970s, which had experienced

significant changes resulting from successive quantitative expansion, from preschool to

91
secondary education. Many of these key problems, while mediated by previous

historical developments and social conditions, were to persist and remain relevant

throughout the course of existence of the Visiting Panel’s successor, the Education

Commission. The strong formative influences of the Llewellyn Report’s on the

Education Commission’s early reports (in particular, ECR1 and ECR2) were evident in

the fact that the key problems identified in the 1982 Report were virtually reincarnated

and dominated Education Commission’s initial agendas for educational reforms and

planning.

Clearly, the study of the genesis of the reforms in Hong Kong should include a

historical perspective. While the social and political conditions on the macro-landscape

have dramatically changed during the 1980s and 1990s, adjustments and shifts in the

education system are almost never the instant reflections of the external structure. The

problems of the education system do not spring up overnight, either. Instead, the

adjustments and shifts represent a gradual and continuous process of experimentation,

often marked by a significant time lag from where the impetus of change is first

introduced. The Part II of this literature review on Hong Kong education tries to

examine the connections between the policy reports and documents. This should help to

92
form a framework for explaining why and how the political discourse and rhetoric of the

current policy have developed.

For this study, we will concentrate on discussing documentary components that

directly deal with or are likely to be significant in our discussion and interpretation of

the Hong Kong curriculum: (i) the processes and products of the curriculum, (ii) teacher

professionalism, (iii) examinations, and (iv) medium of instruction.

Documentary reports and topics that are of peripheral relevance but still useful

for our understanding of the changes proposed or implemented in the system will

accordingly be treated with relative brevity.

4.6.2 The Report

The Report (1982) was commissioned by the Hong Kong government and was

conducted by a Visiting Panel led by Sir John Llewellyn. Its historical significance can

be summarized as follows: it recommended the establishment of a premier advisory

educational planning body (the Education Commission) to advise the government on

93
education matters and to coordinate work between the existing advisory bodies, thereby

creating a permanent institution for public educational planning; it conducted a holistic

review based on an outsider’s perspective on the local system and produced a blueprint

of policy agenda for tackling problems in education; and it recommended that the

uncoordinated and deficient curriculum development mechanism in the government

needed reorganization and strengthening (Llewellyn et al. 1982: 53-56), which later

provided the basis for establishing the Curriculum Development Council and the

division of Curriculum Development Institute within the Education Department.

Within the scope of our study, several problem areas of local education was

highlighted by the Llewellyn Report, namely, (a) the dilemma of using English and

Chinese as the teaching medium (ibid., p25-30), (b) the competitive nature and

excessive influence of public examinations (ibid., p31-39, 53-56), and (c) the various

factors affecting school teaching and learning including the curriculum, resources and

teacher professionalism (ibid., p47-61). We will briefly discuss the major criticisms and

recommendations made by the Report.

94
(a) Medium of Instruction

The Report found that the need to learn English and Chinese in most Hong

Kong classrooms had created certain “unusual privilege and burden” (ibid.: 25) for the

local students. This was complicated by the linguistic differences between the spoken

language, Cantonese, and written standard Chinese. Despite the common difficulty of

supplying teachers with adequate language competence in mass education, language

instruction in schools tended to crowd out other non-academic curriculum areas (such as

physical education and visual arts). The Report further observed that:

Many Chinese speakers find it almost impossible to master English at the level of

proficiency required for intricate thinking; and yet pupils from non-English speaking

Chinese families have to express themselves in English at school. Under these

conditions, more emphasis tends to be placed upon rote learning. (ibid.: 26)

The special status of English in relation to educational privileges and social

advancement was linked to the elitist educational system developed in earlier periods.

Rapid educational expansion, particularly of secondary schooling, created both great

95
demands for English education and problems with the quality of language teaching and

its products. The Report observed among many manifestations of this tension in schools

that:

While some primary schools manage to teach English quite successfully, many do not; and so pupils

spend a considerable portion of their (junior) secondary schooling coming to grips with the basics of

writing and speaking English. When all subjects across the whole curriculum are taught in English, those

subjects with a high language dependency (e.g. history) tend to become exercise in English language

instruction. Even in the upper secondary school we observed such low standards of English in both

teachers and pupils that the essence of the lesson was largely lost. (ibid.: 27)

In its recommendations, the Report argued that the importance of English

teaching in schools must not be reduced since Hong Kong’s political future was linked

to China, which had itself given high educational priority to the teaching of English. To

improve the quality of English teaching, the Report recommended the creation of a

“cadre of resource staff” so that every local school could enlist the service of competent

and fluent speakers to teach English as a second language (ibid.: 28). As regard the use

of Chinese, the Report stated that it “accept[s] [it] as a fact that the mother tongue is, all

96
other things being equal, the best medium of teaching and learning” (ibid., p28),

effectively recognizing the practical and educational value of the local language. It

recommended government actions to articulate a clear policy on the medium of

instruction, to tighten the codes for advertising and media broadcasts, and to “embark

on a long-term project to change parents’ and employers’ attitudes towards Chinese as a

teaching medium” (ibid.: 29).

(b) Public Examinations

According to the Report, the character and role of public examinations were

also an area creating problems. Public examinations, in particular during the early and

mid-1980s, were the main vehicle for sorting and sifting able students into their proper

stations of schooling. With the expansion of secondary education, pressures mounted

especially on the supply of limited tertiary places. This, coupled with the social tradition

of according high prestige and weight to public examinations, had contributed to

something resembling a virtual tyranny of examinations over the schooling system.

In the following ways, the Report observed how competitive examinations

97
dominated education and society in Hong Kong: (i) the high frequency of examinations

tied to entry at various stages of schooling from kindergartens to universities; (ii) the

significance of each examination result for determining the educational options that

remain open; (iii) the importance of examination performance in the conceptualization

of self-worth and peer status; (iv) the constricting effects that external

(non-school-based) examinations have on the curriculum and character of the individual

schools; and (v) the risk of inequality of life chances arising from the great differences

in quality among schools and from the fact that examination success in a given subject

often depends not only on competence in the subject but also on the medium of

instruction being used (ibid., p32).

As a response to the observations, however, the Report stated that, given the

continued expansion in secondary and tertiary education and the recurrent difficulty to

provide for all, it opposed to the idea of radical piecemeal adjustments and accepted that

for the foreseeable future there would “a need for selection and grading as a means of

allocating a small number of opportunities among a large number of qualified

applicants” (ibid., p37).

98
 Nevertheless, the Report recommended the following areas for government

actions: reducing the overall number of examinations aimed at formal selection and

allocation (ibid., p38, 55); removing the examinations for early stages of schooling

(because they are by nature “educationally harmful and socially unjust”) (ibid., p38);

abolishing the Junior Secondary Education Assessment system and replacing it with

internal assessment within the schools; and increasing effort to draw the teaching force

into curriculum development and improve the coordination between the organizations

responsible for curriculum and for examinations (ibid., p39, 54-55).

(c) Schools

The Report conducted a general review of the primary and secondary school

systems, noting the great diversity and differences of quality and standards among

schools. In the case of curriculum and teaching method, the Visiting Panel reported

encounters of what seemed to be the endemic stereotyped qualities of classroom

teaching in Hong Kong: teacher-centered, exam-oriented, text-bound, student passivity,

didactic teaching, and rote learning. The Report further observed a general apathy at

both the primary and secondary levels for innovative classroom practices that tried to

99
deviate from the established norms:

Discovery methods, team teaching and individualized instruction have little appeal to

parents, students and teachers in a situation where the ends require more didactic

means… Teacher-dominated instruction of passive student audiences seems, with rare

exception (such as the activity approach in primary and integrated science in secondary

schools), to be the accepted way. (ibid.: 53-54)

Understandably, the Report had relatively little to say on how classroom

teaching and learning could be changed. Nevertheless, it recommended the transforming

of the role and function of the Hong Kong Examinations Authority (HKEA) from that

of “controlling a public examination system to that of operating a course and student

accreditation service” (ibid.: 55). In turn, there should be more coordination between the

curriculum development division of the Education Department and the HKEA in

planning teaching syllabi and exam syllabi. At the school level, the Report also saw it

desirable to encourage (mainly post-S3) teacher participation in curriculum

development and assessment (ibid.: 56).

100
4.7 Curriculum Reforms towards Decentralization

4.7.1 The Graduate Shift to the Periphery

Not all the recent curriculum reforms have their genesis in the historically

important Llewellyn Report (1982), but some of the problems we encounter with

teaching and learning in schools today had been identified by the Report twenty years

ago. One of the noteworthy suggestions by the Report, as we have discussed, was the

new emphasis on more “periphery-to-center” strategy in school curriculum

development.

According to Adamson and Morris (1998, 11), the key initiatives in curricular

reforms before 1982 mainly impacted primary schools and these included the “Activity

Approach in 1975, the cross-curricular themes (civic, moral, sex and environmental

education) from 1981 and the addition of new school subjects such as General Studies”.

These initiatives were described by Adamson and Morris as essentially “exhortatory,

advisory and incrementalist” (ibid.). Despite the fact that the initiatives promoted

101
desirable visions of schooling, schools were left to their device to decide whether or not

to adopt them, often with uncertain costs and benefits of implementation (ibid.).

The early Education Commission Reports, ECR1 and ECR2, were devoted to

issues such as provision of secondary school places, medium of instruction and

professional teacher training, which did not directly tackle the problems of the

curriculum. It was only in ECR3 (1988) and subsequently in ECR4 (1990) that the

discussion of the needs to establish a central curricular planning mechanism in the form

of the CDC (Curriculum Development Council) and to introduce school-based

curriculum development into schools was finally raised.

As a result of a BoE report in 1988, the School-based Curriculum Project

Scheme (SBCPS) was set up in the hope of encouraging teachers to adapt the centrally

devised syllabuses to the special needs of their students (ECR3, 80; ECR4, 7; Lo 1995,

22). Morris and Chan (1998, 256) viewed the SBCPS, together with the School-based

Management Initiative (SMI), as part of a larger official discourse that involved the

parallel themes of “state provision and school empowerment”. Quite from the beginning,

school-based curriculum development (SBCD) in Hong Kong is regarded by

102
policy-makers as an attempt to meet the “special needs” of students presumably less

well-adapted to academic competition within the expanded schooling system. Very

limited attention has been given to discussing how SBCD may change the roles and

relationships of teachers and students in teaching and learning.

4.7.2 Two Growing Trends: Whole-person Development and Life-long Learning

A related development in curricular reform, the TOC (Target Oriented

Curriculum), was introduced in the early 1990s26 under the Education Commission’s

recommendations in 1990 (ECR4). Seen as a reaction to the established systems of

centralized curriculum development and assessment, the TOC tried to promote “generic

competencies that are seen to transcend the goals of individual subjects, child-centered

and task-based learning with criterion-referenced assessment, and a focus on

constructed knowledge” (Adamson and Morris 2000, 16).

According to an official report by Clark, Scarino and Brownell (1994: 9-14),

the TOC was envisaged to solve various problems relating the educational system. With

26
The initiative was originally termed TTRA (Target and Target Related Assessment) in 1991 and
renamed TOC in 1993 after an initial stony reception of the former by the schools.

103
regard to the curriculum, the TOC’s role as a framework for change was much desired.

The report stated, inter alia, that:

• It seemed necessary to attempt to overcome fragmentation and

overcrowding in the curriculum, through providing a curriculum framework

which would highlight connections across subjects and focus on the

essential rather than on atomistic details.

• Classroom practice indicated that although the aims of education had been

set out, they were not well known to teachers and were operationalized

coherently and consistently throughout the curriculum. A more coherent

system of learning targets that would permeate the curriculum as a whole

and subjects within it was required.

• The over-emphasis on rote-memorization and on the linear mastery of

decontextualised skills would have to give way to a more active and

purposeful construction and use of knowledge through engaging students in

relevant, contextualised learning tasks.

• The lack of explicit information about on what learning progress look like,

and on what students should be able to do as they make progress, would

104
 have to be rectified by attempting to describe stages or bands of

ever-improving performance.

• The view, apparently shared by many, that students are born with a fixed

amount of intelligence and aptitude for learning, and that this will remain

constant and can be tapped in academic aptitude tests, would have to be

challenged by highlighting the fact that all students can learn well, given

appropriate learning experiences, and that all students have ever-improving

capabilities, though they learn at varying speeds and have different

strengths and weaknesses27.

Essentially, the TOC attempted to remove the existing subject boundaries by

reorganizing the educational aims and objectives around a certain common core, which

targeted the key areas identified for more student-centered integrated learning, including

“inquiring, conceptualizing, reasoning, problem-solving and communicating” (ibid.: 9).

Though it started out as a “strongly promoted and resourced” (Adamson and

Morris 2000: 15) reform initiative and was seen to be significant for its potential to

27
Although it might not be obvious at first glance, what the TOC policy language advocated was a change
in the attitudes and values of the teachers towards their students, which proved to be very difficult.

105
change curricular practice and reform schools (Adamson and Morris 2000: 14; Lo 2000:

79), the TOC never quite lived up to the expectations of government planners and its

critics, in part due to a lack of proper support for teachers and schools as well as

problems arising from assessment and school culture.

By 2001, the TOC ceased to be an independent reform initiative; it was, rather,

absorbed into a new drive to promote life-long learning and whole person development.

The CDC explained the rationale for the move to make TOC as part of something else

as follows:

The TOC spirit and the positive evidence collected have all been incorporated into the development of the

primary school curriculum. Among the best practices used are the importance of setting clear targets, the

emphasis on catering for individual differences and the use of cross-curricular (generic) skills, etc. On the

other hand, undesirable practices, such as assessment for recording only and bias toward one particular

teaching and learning approach, have changed and improved. As good practices from the TOC initiative

have now been fully incorporated into the curriculum of primary schools, it is no longer necessary to use

the specific term “TOC” anymore (CDC 2001: 11).

106
4.7.3 Evolving Reform Focus in the Recent Period

Towards the 2000s, the general direction for curricular reform seems to be

centered on life-long learning and all-around development in a “globalized world” of

information age (EC 2000, 3-5; CDC 2001). The policy language also evolves into a

discourse that strongly advocates the virtues of generic skills and a more comprehensive

whole curriculum – something almost doubtlessly implanted wholesale from overseas

reform documents. Many of the generic skills are essentially seen to be what the current

system produces most inadequately, which is still very much dominated by teaching and

learning within discrete academic subjects. The CDC identifies nine skills and qualities

to be promoted in the KLAs (Key Learning Areas), namely, collaboration skills,

communication skills, creativity, critical thinking skills, information technology skills,

numeracy skills, problem-solving skills, self-management skills and study skills (CDC

2001, vi).

Since educational policy-makers have redefined the kind of “products” they

want see out of the schooling system, it would be important to look at the measures they

take to implement their policy, in particular, whether they adopt a center-driven or at

107
least tolerate a periphery-driven strategy to coexist with the former.

For this study, I will discuss decentralized curriculum development in Hong

Kong using the case of curriculum reform related to project learning and also to some

extent SBCD (school-based curriculum development).

4.8 Decentralized Curriculum Development: The Case of Project Learning and

SBCD

Broadly speaking, the three terms “decentralized curriculum development,”

“project learning,” and “SBCD” (school-based curriculum development) refer to

interrelated concepts, which require some specification for the sake of clarity in later

parts of the discussion and analysis. Of the three, “decentralized curriculum

development” is perhaps the most general in conceptualizing any curriculum

development process or practice that is not driven or controlled through a central

curriculum authority.

108
 In this section, I will try to clarify some of the key terms and concepts being

applied to my Hong Kong case study schools (which appear in Chapters Five and Six)

so as to help the readers follow my reasoning. Specifically, the key terms and concepts

in question here are: project learning and SBCD. A brief overview of the developments

leading to their advent in the Hong Kong curriculum reform will be presented. During

the course of fieldwork, concerns for ensuring comparability in my case study schools

in Japan and Hong Kong led me to decide to focus more on the study of project learning

in Hong Kong. I will, accordingly, focus on project learning and its developments more

intensively.

In proper conceptualization, “project learning” and “SBCD” refer to very

different dimensions of the curriculum. SCBD is, by its very definition, a form of

decentralized curriculum development approach in which a school, rather than the

central curriculum authority, makes decisions on most or all aspects of the school

curriculum (curricular objectives, content, teaching and assessment, etc.). Silbeck

(1984, p2) defines SBCD as “the planning, design, implementation and evaluation of

a program of students’ learning by the educational institution of which those students

are members”. This approach is said to be highly adaptive to the needs, priorities and

109
cultural patterns within individual schools which adopts it (Silbeck 1984; Cooke 1988,

pp11-12) and had been widely adopted in some western systems (notably, the UK and

Australia) until the trend was reversed during recent developments towards centralized

curriculum planning.

The term SBCD in Hong Kong’s contexts is often used in a very specific but

non-theoretical way, which refers to certain types of reformed programs (rather than

approaches) developed by schools (in the areas of local subject integration and

adaptation of government teaching syllabuses, for example). As a local reform measure,

it had a very modest origin: in the late 1980s, the government first promoted SBCD

among certain schools in the hope of relaxing control of the school curriculum and

attempt to make relevant its content to schools’ local contexts, as variance in student

abilities grew with the expansion of education in the 1980s and 1990s. There were no

attempts to make SBCD mandatory at this date. Schools were persuaded into adopting it

through a variety of subsidy schemes administered by the Education Department or CDI.

Since the academic orientation in Hong Kong’s curriculum had remained strong through

the period, many schools have only slowly warmed up to the idea of adopting this

approach. However, towards the late 1990s, policies by the Education Commission and

110
CDC re-emphasized the need for decentralized curriculum development in the recent

reform (EC 2000; CDC 2000; CDC 2001). Subsequently, the term SBCD seemed to

have recovered from its tarnished image as an alternative curriculum development

approach for students with special needs in study. Relatively few studies have been done

on SBCD in Hong Kong over the past decades. Theoretical discussion (Morris 1988;

Cooke 1988) and case studies on SBCD initiatives (Li 1990; Lo 1995; Cheng 1999)

seemed to remain outnumbered by studies interested in other aspects of the curriculum

reform.

In contrast, project learning 28 , or more commonly “project work” in

educational writings29, refers to a type of learning activity or approach. It has been quite

widely adopted by school practitioners particularly in the West in developing a variety

of student skills and qualities of a more generic nature. There are many writings done on

the subject but these are almost invariably concerned with discussion of its applied or

empirical use.

28
“Project learning” (主題研習) is the most frequently adopted form of the term in local policy
documents in Hong Kong. In the study, I will conform mostly to this convention in order to facilitate
reference with regard to the policies.
29
Still others refer to it as “project-based learning”, among many other forms. The essential element of
the concept, therefore, is concerned with the applied meaning of “project” to teachers who practice the
learning activity or approach.

111
 “Project work” can be defined as “an approach to learning which complements

mainstream methods and which can be used with almost all levels, ages and abilities of

students” (Haines 1989: 1; cited in Lee, Li and Lee 1999: 7). “Project work” is both

process-oriented and product-oriented, involving intensive activities over some period

of time (Lee, Li and Lee 1999: 7-8). It contains three basic procedural components or

stages, namely, classroom planning, conducting the project, and reviewing and

monitoring student work (Fried-Booth 1986: 6; Lee, Li and Lee 1999: 15-17). In any of

these stages, teacher feedback and collaboration should be involved. Some of the

characteristics of “project work” were summarized by Fried-Booth in the following:

Since the project is student-centered rather than teacher-directed, teacher may need to develop a more

flexible attitude towards the student work. The project is not designed to suit a syllabus, and the language

required derives not from the textbook but from the nature of the project itself. However, the project must

first be planned and discussed, and later evaluated. And it is here that the teacher can provide valuable

assistance. (1986: 5)

Lee, Li and Lee (1999) noted that “project work” can contribute significantly to

the growth in learning skills. Its main benefits include (i) fostering learner autonomy or

112
independence in decision-making, (ii) promoting cognitive development through the

process of inquiring conceptualizing and problem-solving, (iii) helping learners apply

and integrate previously acquired skills or knowledge, (iv) allowing for individualized

learning even within mixed-abilities groups, (v) facilitating rapport in classroom

through increased teacher-student interactions and a change in the “power-relationship”,

and (vi) promoting life skills through experiential learning activities (ibid.: 8-9).

There were a few writings on “project work” undertaken in Hong Kong which

mainly tackled “project work’s” applications in language learning (Allison and Lee

1992; Lee, Li and Lee 1999). Relatively few studies of a strong theoretical nature have

been done on how project learning (particularly in a broader scope beyond language

learning) is being organized within the local school curriculum. There is still less

research on the subject in relation to curriculum reform in this context, given project

learning’s relatively recent advent in most Hong Kong schools. There was also an

absence of policy discussion on project learning’s role in the school curriculum during

most of the 1980s and 1990s periods.

Towards the late 1990s, however, the educational policy discourse in Hong

113
Kong had evolved into one that favored the developments of subject integration and

“generic skills” in the school curriculum (EC 2000; CDC 2001). While this echoed the

trends of educational policy in the international context, there seemed little historical

continuity in the government’s decision to promote project learning extensively in

relation to previous developments. As in the case of SBCD initiatives, project learning

was advocated in an almost entirely positive tone. The government seemed to have

abandoned its strategy of articulating a reform discourse through negative criticisms of

the local school conditions and instead adopted a “talk-up” strategy to motivate interests

and participation of schools and teachers30.

The so-called Four Key Tasks were recommended as priorities for schools

within the gathering policy interest in “Learning to Learn” (CDC 2001). The Key Tasks

refer to (1) Moral and Civic Education, (2) Reading to Learn, (3) Project Learning, (4)

Information Technology for Interactive Learning. As a rule, they were not part of the

academic curriculum but seen as essential curriculum reform areas in which schools

should initiate or enhance their efforts. In the case of project learning, schools were not

30
I owed this insight to Professor Paul Morris, president of the Hong Kong Institute of Education, in a
personal interview (conducted on August 15, 2002; see interview transcription in Appendix). A later
interview with Dr. K.K. Chan (conducted on August 19, 2002), chief executive of the CDI, also seemed to
confirm this proposition.

114
forced into adopting it in their school curriculum, though a number of financial

incentives such as government subsidy schemes and the QEF (Quality Education Fund)

were made available to schools.

Quite suddenly, project learning became marketed as a tool and a “banner to

march behind” for schools to achieve multiple learning aims and in the process help

fulfill a score of other so-called reform goals of the government. In the recent reform

policy, it was argued that project learning should be adopted as a “strategy to learning”

because, inter alia, “project learning enables student to construct and connect

knowledge, skills, values and attitudes through a variety of activities. These activities

often involved other Key Tasks, particularly Reading to Learn, and are conducive to

students developments of moral and civic values” (CDC 2002). While the validity of

this view remains to be assessed on the project learning outcomes, there were clear

signs that the government, along with some well-equipped schools, would like to see

further development of project learning in the curriculum reform.

By the late 1990s, certain local schools had started their experiments with

project learning – not in the context of “project work” but subject integration (for

115
example, the subject school, HK One, in Chapter Five). To date, official statistics on

how widely project learning was being practiced among local schools remain

unavailable31. The fact that project learning was being promoted as a form decentralized

curriculum development aside, not every school was immediately interested in project

learning, as local conditions (school resources, student quality and concerns for the

academic curriculum) continued to dictate many schools’ priorities within the

curriculum reform.

4.9 Conclusion

Hong Kong’s educational system is broadly comparable to the Japanese system

in a number of ways. Although education in Hong Kong may have a stronger tendency

towards elitism (particularly before the matriculation level) than in Japan thanks to the

latter’s egalitarian traditions, the two systems similarly emphasized academic study as

well as competition and selection through examinations. The curriculum was defined

very much within a narrow set of subject interests, with Japan’s school curriculum being

31
According to an officer in charge project learning at CDI’s Project Learning section.

116
controlled through means such as the Course of Study, and Hong Kong’s through a

combination of centrally developed teaching syllabuses and public examinations.

Subject boundaries were strong and the teacher-centered approach was common in the

classroom. In terms of curriculum development, both systems remained relatively

reliant on a centrally–driven approach. The alternative, decentralized curriculum

development, is still in some experimental or tentative developmental stage. Towards

the late 1990s (with TOC in 1992 being something of an exception), policy discourses

had evolved towards a call for “liberalizing” part of the school curriculum. New skills,

attitudes, knowledge and other qualities were being promoted among students as the old

academic curriculum was increasingly seen as insufficient to meet the demands of

changing socio-economic needs of society. Essentially, this ushered in a partial transfer

of curricular control from the state to the schools, as the latter take on increased

responsibilities in curriculum decision-making. Understandably, in the absence of

decentralized curriculum development traditions in most schools and among teachers in

Japan and Hong Kong, uncertainty and anxiety mounted in the curriculum reform.

What kind of reforms did the governments want? How did schools respond to

them? And what were the benefits and costs?

117
 In the next chapter, I will discuss my investigation of the conditions and

developments of certain types of decentralized curriculum development being pursued

in some Japanese and Hong Kong schools. My scope of the study, as stated in the

introduction chapter, was limited to the practices and process involved in the reformed

programs of project learning and SBCD in Hong Kong and Sōgōtekina-gakushū in

Japan among school children of the 7th–9th grades.

118
 CHAPTER FIVE

FIELDWORK METHODS AND DATA

5.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present the fieldwork methods I have used in

the study and to delineate the fieldwork data collected about the reformed programs in

Japan and Hong Kong. As I have mentioned in the foregoing two chapters (Chapters

Three and Four), this study defines its subject area as decentralization of curriculum

development, which can easily encompass a broad range of curricular activities

depending on how liberally one defines such terms as SBCD. To set a realistic scope,

I have limited my field evidence to that related to (i) project learning and SBCD1

activities in Hong Kong and (ii) Sōgōtekina-gakushū (Integrated Learning) in Japan,

as seen at the junior secondary school level, for analysis and comparison. While the

defined scope is by no means comprehensive enough to cover all aspects of

decentralized curriculum development, nor does it claim to have examined the subject

area to an exhaustive extent, this exploratory study has nevertheless made a promising

attempt to relate the challenges and problems of curriculum reforms in Japan and

Hong Kong in a comparative perspective and has benefited the researcher greatly by

1
As promoted in the official policies and practiced in schools in Hong Kong. This means the term
“SBCD” in my study tends to be more specific than one would expect from more mainstream or
theoretical definitions of the term. For definitions, refer to 4.8 in Chapter Four.

119
demonstrating the need and potential for articulating a discourse in educational

research through a combined approach of documentary analysis and fieldwork.

5.2 Methods

This study identifies itself with the case study research method. In its design,

the study was intended to yield a general understanding of aspects of a complex

educational phenomenon, i.e. decentralization of curriculum development in Japan

and Hong Kong as reflected in the selected reformed programs. A case in this study

was defined as all schools collectively engaged in the reformed programs in a

particular geographical location. From the outset, deciding the methods for

investigating my research question presented a major challenge. Although much

discussion about the programs under curriculum reforms (Sōgōtekina-gakushū in

Japan, and project learning and SBCD in Hong Kong) exists in policy documents and

scholarly studies, to what extent and in what ways the phenomenon of curriculum

development is reflected in the practical settings of school and classroom life remains

an area that calls for more research inputs. In the case of Sōgōtekina-gakushū in Japan

and project learning in Hong Kong, these are relatively recent developments for

which hardly adequate amounts of documentation about school practices have yet

been done.

Since decentralization of curriculum development is a relatively recent

phenomenon both in Japan and in Hong Kong, and since the selected reformed

programs being studied have been introduced still more recently, the objective of the

120
research was to serve as an exploratory study. Unlike quantitative studies, it did not

attempt to use the method of including large numbers of cases to give fully

representative data in describing the phenomenon. Instead, the primary concerns that

guided the study had to do with (1) the need to introduce balance and variety in

choosing the cases so as to do justice to the complexities involved (Stake 1995, p.6),

and (2) the opportunity afforded by such methods to gain a general understanding

about aspects of the phenomenon (ibid.).

To elaborate, according to Stake, “the study of the particularity and

complexity of a single case, coming to understand its activity within important

circumstances” (1995, Introduction, xi). The chief purpose of case study is thus to

attempt to uncover the “detail of interaction with its contexts” (ibid.). Yin (1993: 3-41)

essentially captures the same point in his citing the conditions for the use of case

study:

The case study is the method of choice when the phenomenon under study is not readily

distinguishable from its context. Such a phenomenon may be a project or program in an evaluation

study. Sometimes the definition of this project or program may be problematic, as in determining when

the activity started or ended – an example of a complex interaction between a phenomenon and its

(temporal) context. (Yin 1993: 3)

The strengths of the case study research method, according to Yin (1993),

include: (1) the latitude to cover the richness of contextual conditions which aid us in

distinguishing variables from mere data points; (2) the possibility of including

multiple sources of evidence instead of relying on a single data collection method;

and (3) the possibility of developing distinctive strategies for research design and

121
analysis to define topics broadly, not narrowly (p.3). At the same time, limitations of

case study essentially arise from the difficulty of obtaining representative results from

samples with very few or unique cases, and thus it may not be possible to generalize

on the basis of case study findings (depending on the definitions of the case).

However, case study differs from sampling research in that its primary purpose is not

to give enumerative detail about other cases but to yield general understanding of one

particular case (Becker 1970; Stake 1995). Yin (1993) argues that the role of

exploratory case study is to help define questions and hypotheses of a future study

(whose research methods may not necessarily be that of case study) or determine the

possibilities of desired research procedures (p4-18).

A case in a case study may be defined at multiple levels to fit its research and

analysis, depending on the type of knowledge to be gained. Both Stake (1995), and

Yin and White (1986) have confirmed the methodological soundness of case study in

some urban school research, though the criteria for selecting and defining a “case”

(which can be a school, program, teacher, or student) require that it be specific as a

complex functioning entity (Stake 1995, p2). For this study, the case was not defined

as single schools, though I have, for convenience, used the term “case” to denote the

names of schools being studied in my fieldwork (For example, HK One for a Hong

Kong school). Rather, all schools in a particular geographical location were treated

collectively as one case. Thus, the three schools in Hong Kong constituted a case for

studying project learning and SBCD programs, while the first five schools in Japan

constituted another for Sōgōtekina-gakushū.

122
 It was clear that a mere comparison between such things as curricular

objectives and recommended implementation methods, which are invariably staple

features of many educational policy documents, would not serve the study very far,

since it states that its primary focus of inquiry is on describing, rather than explaining,

the specific reasons, conditions, practices and processes, and implications of

introducing the reformed programs concerned. Thus, documentary analysis was not

the main component of my methods for the study. Neither did I over-emphasize the

importance of interview data obtained with government sources in Japan and Hong

Kong, which did not prove particularly informative about school practices.

I mainly used two levels of investigation: government-level and school-level.

As the methods used imply, school-level investigation was of predominant

importance in contributing to the eventual findings of the study. Additional interviews

with notable local academics whose study specializes in the relevant reform

developments were also included to illustrate some of the intellectual reflections on

the reform debate.

For government level investigations, interviews were conducted with

government agents responsible for curriculum development policies and their

implementation. In Hong Kong, this was done with CDC/CDI2 decision-making

officials as well as officers in charge of specific curriculum development units. In

Japan, due to an obviously more complex organizational structure for educational

supervision, interviews with government agents at various central and regional (or

district) levels were needed. The government-level interviews were designed mainly

2
The Curriculum Development Council (policy-making body) and the Curriculum Development
Institute (executive body) of Hong Kong.

123
to crosscheck interpretations of government officials with discourses in the policy

documents and also to seek the authority’s clarifications when I felt that an

unexpected re-interpretation had occurred with school teachers whom I had

interviewed.

For school-level investigations, teacher interviews and observations of classes

in sessions were done with most subject schools3. The schools visited generally

displayed a variety of characteristics specific to their resources, student quality and

local social milieu. For example, in Hong Kong, the schools come in three different

bands4, which means that the schools are likely to confront rather different student

abilities and needs, with the Band One school being in a relatively more comfortable

position to introduce its school-based programs at its own pace. Similarly, in Japan,

the university-affiliated schools are better equipped both in terms of teacher ability

and finances to pursue their own Sōgōtekina-gakushū programs. Certain medium-

sized schools in a relatively rural part of eastern Kansai region seemed to encounter

fewer technical and financial problems compared with public schools in the de-

populating wards of metropolitan Tokyo. However, a large overpopulated public

school visited in the Kansai region likewise seemed to have difficulties of other kinds

in introducing a sustainable program.

3
Except one Hong Kong school, HK Three, which refused my request to observe out of the concern
that it might interfere with teaching and learning in normal classes.
4
Bands refer to the labeling system used by the Education Department to differentiate a secondary
school’s student intake quality during admission. The bands are measured on a scale of one to three,
with Band One indicating a superior student intake and (generally) school performance. Refer to
Chapter Four on the discussion of the school categorization for other details.

124
5.3 The Schools

I will introduce the schools I visited in Hong Kong (labeled as “HK One”, etc.)

and Japan (labeled as “JP One”, etc.) and present their background and my findings in

the following case studies. Access to the Japanese and Hong Kong schools was gained

in a number of ways.

In the case of HK One, I attended one of their presentation activities during a

QEF dissemination exercise5. Through personal contacts with an assistant-principal-

in-charge and school teachers, I acquired a better understanding of the implementation

strategy for introducing project learning at the school and was eventually allowed to

conduct interviews and observations at the school on several occasions. For the other

two schools in Hong Kong, I gained initial information about them through the CDI’s

and the Education Department’s online resources related to project learning and

various SBCD schemes, and later personally contacted the schools. Due to school

decisions to minimize interference to classes, I was not able to conduct observations

at HK Three. Although I had attempted to establish more contacts with schools in

Hong Kong so as to obtain a more representative sample, the process of negotiation

had proved extremely time-consuming and was often hindered by procedural matters.

Within my time constraints to conduct fieldwork both in Japan and Hong Kong, I

decided to use the current sample of schools.

With the exception of JP Six6, a primary school, I mainly obtained my

contacts of Japanese schools (1) through connections from my thesis supervisor, Dr

5
June 2002
6
Note that JP Six, an outlier in the overall sample, was not included in the final analysis about the
cases in Japan.

125
Peter Cave (who had been teaching and researching in schools in the Kansai area), for

the two public schools in Kansai and (2) through a selection of schools mostly known

to me in metropolitan Tokyo and Kantō because they were accessible online through

their homepages7. The two national public schools were themselves quite well-known

as innovative teaching centers, apart from their affiliation to their respective

universities, which were also known to locals for teaching and research related to

education. I had come to know about the Sōgōtekina-gakushū program at JP Two

about a year before the fieldwork through conference information from my supervisor.

A fellow postgraduate student had recently conducted research at another school

affiliated to JP One’s university. I was thus interested in including at least some

national public schools in my sample of selection8.

In the course of designing and conducting the fieldwork, I tired to include

schools which shared comparable qualities or conditions (school curriculum, school

types, geographic location, etc.). However, as this study was only one of an

exploratory nature regarding the subjects of inquiry, the scale of my fieldwork did not

allow me to conduct a more extensive study either in temporal or quantitative terms.

For instance, two (out of three) of the Japanese schools in metropolitan Tokyo and

Kantō were national public schools, while one ordinary public school in the same

region was examined. In Hong Kong, fieldwork was particularly difficult – Hong

Kong schools generally do not have a tradition of “opening up” to visitors whereas

most Japanese schools welcome even unscheduled walk-in visits by parents and

7
Entries listed on a Japanese school directory at <www.yahoo.co.jp>, most of which were public junior
high schools.
8
The national public schools are of a category of schools whose achievement standards and resources
levels (particularly in terms of quality of professional teachers) are in general superior to ordinary
public schools. In addition, the two schools I visited, JP One and JP Two, are university-affiliated
schools, which have served as pilot centers of educational innovations. Further descriptions of these
schools are given the individual accounts on the cases.

126
researchers alike. I was consistently refused observations at some Hong Kong schools,

causing me to discard some of my potential contacts.

Apart from that, the reformed programs in Japan and Hong Kong were, strictly

speaking, not identical in scale or extent of practice across the systems. The notion of

“project” seemed much more loosely conceptualized in Japan whereas, in Hong Kong,

“project” in project learning did come with some pedagogic framework borrowed

from literatures in English.

Nevertheless the current sample in this study may not represent a

comprehensive cross-section of schools in Japan and Hong Kong. As will be shown in

the discussion and analysis of data in this chapter, practices could vary greatly among

local contexts. One should, of course, exercise caution about generalizations of data

thus collected. As the recent curriculum reforms continue to evolve in Japan and

Hong Kong, further studies will be needed before a definite understanding of their

nature can be established.

5.3.1 The Hong Kong Cases

First, I would like to present the three schools I visited in Hong Kong. Most of

my fieldwork at these institutions preceded that in Japan, and provided some basis for

reflections on what I wished to investigate later in Japanese schools. HK One and

Two were “better” schools in the superficial sense that they seemed to have more

resources to develop their own programs, though their approach to project learning

127
was largely different. HK Three introduced a SBCD program with a heavy emphasis

on tailoring for less able students. It presented a case of school-based curriculum

development through more intense teacher teamwork with initial professional support

from the government.

Actual fieldwork in Hong Kong was conducted over a period of about four

months (between June and November 2002). A summary outlining the types of

schools I visited and the nature of my investigation (observation or interview) can be

found in Tables 5.1t-a and 5.1t-b below.

Table 5.1t-a Schools (for junior secondary forms – Form One to Three) visited in Hong Kong

School Location Type Date of visit No. of No. of

observations teachers
interviewed
HK One Hong Kong Girls aided 26.6 / 28.8 / 2 1
Island (urban) (Band One) 9.9 /
8.11.2002
HK Two The New Co-ed aided 12.9 / 2 2
Territories (Band Two) 16.9.2002
(urban)
HK Three The New Co-ed aided 3.9 / Nil 1
Territories (Band Three) 16.9.2002
(urban)

Table 5.1t-b Characteristics of the Hong Kong Schools

School Founding Type of Initiator Quality of Level of School

year founding agent of school teaching resources climate
or chief sponsor program staff
HK One 1890 Religious group Vice- High Very high Progressive
(Christian principal-
missionary) in-charge
HK Two 1984 Professional Principal Medium to High Moderately
association high progressive
HK Three 1989 Religious group Principal Medium Low to Moderately
(Buddhist) medium progressive

128
Case: HK One

This well-established girls’ school is located in a developed district9 on Hong

Kong Island. Like many other schools affiliated to mission bodies, it has a de jure

school head from the church but is administered by deputies of professional teachers

in daily operation. One of the assistant principals was specifically responsible for

supervising and organizing the school’s project learning program. External aid in the

form of technical help and professional training was sought from a professional

training center of a local university, which is running a school-partnership program

for project learning under the QEF10.

I did two principal observations during the school’s staff development days

and an interview with a teacher relatively experienced in project learning. Although

the school had joined the QEF in a sponsored project with affinities to project learning

activities, this previous venture was not sustained and was participated in only by a

select group of senior-form students. The school only formally introduced project

learning again from September (2002).

Unlike their prior venture under the QEF (lasting from approximately June to

December in 2000), HK One decided from 2002 onwards to have all Form Three girls

(about 200 of them in the entire grade) participate in project learning. The program is

heavily school-based with the help11 of an external project learning training expert

9
An old residential and mixed industrial-commercial area.
10
Quality Education Fund, a major government fund in Hong Kong to finance school projects,
improvements and research outside the grant recipients’ normal annual budget.
11
Under the Acceleration School Project (ASP), which was participated by 50 schools and lasted three
years, and currently under the Quality School Project (QSP), which is participated by 40 schools and is
to last two years starting from 2002. Both projects have been operated under the financial auspices of

129
(“school development officer”) from the Centre for University and School Partnership,

Faculty of Education at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. This training expert

has the additional connection to the school of being a former graduate. She had been

working closely with the school to involve its teachers in various sorts of training in

the past few years, notably project learning.

HK One’s project learning program, according to the assistant principal-in-

charge, was to span an entire school year. Since most students had not been exposed

to project learning and most teachers had still limited experience with the relevant

process of teaching and learning, the school decided to introduce the program in

incremental stages. Four “school development days”12 spanning the school year were

set aside for training involving all teachers and all Form Three students. On each of

these school development days, the external training expert would visit the school and

a full day would be devoted to initiating and familiarizing both students and teachers

with the processes and concepts involved in project learning.

I participated in and observed such teacher development day activities on two

occasions (September 15 and November 8, 2002). The activities were organized in a

large auditorium hall with the 200 students being split into 40 groups, each led by a

group leader (a subject teacher). Seating was informal and was generally in the form

of students and their teacher-in-charge arranging themselves in a circle. Occasionally,

the QEF. HK One is said to enjoy a waiver of fees to receive the professional training help for having
participated in the ASP, the pilot precursor of QSP.
12
These are non-teaching school days designated by the school to help teachers in professional
development. In the case of HK One, they are said to have kept this self-promoted tradition of training
for over a decade. The Education Department has recently made school development days (or a set
number of hours devoted to relevant activities) compulsory for local schools. For what purpose and
how schools organize activities and utilize their time is left to their own discretion.

130
they might abandon their seats to sit on the floor if the activities required a more

mobile form of group work or interaction.

The school development officer was the central leader of the day’s learning

activities. The method that she used might involve giving out a particular task to a

group and asking them to deal with it in an initially laissez-faire manner, eliciting

student comments or “critiques” of other groups’ approaches with regard to their

strengths and weaknesses, bringing up the “correct” concepts and approaches as some

possible better alternatives and finally asking the groups to re-do their task in a more

systematic or well-conceptualized manner. On frequent occasions, student

representatives from the groups also volunteered to come forth or were called out to

speak or demonstrate in front of the stage. Understandably, such task-based activities

could be time-consuming but they generally succeeded in helping create an informal

atmosphere of well-engaged learning.

A few teachers on the first development day occasionally reverted to a strong

coercive role during discussions but most others seemed comfortable to reside in a

less assertive advisory role (without forcing a final decision on the group, for

example). During the second visit, almost all teachers adopted the latter role,

preferring a participatory position which reduced their usual authoritative function of

being a subject teacher. Unlike the first day, students were not required to dress in

uniform13.

13
The assistant principal explained that she realized that students frequently needed to sit on the floor
and move about to do their tasks. It would be advisable to let them dress casually. This also applied to
non-project learning school development days.

131
 Most students were enthusiastic in their activities, willing to discuss, exchange

ideas and even make frivolous jokes or remarks when speaking up or demonstrating.

Neither the school development officer nor the teachers discouraged this student

tendency to be playful; the groups remained well-disciplined despite their rather large

number.

For assessment, each student was required to keep a folder to file away

materials they had used in the school development day activities and those that they

would generate during the rest of the school year. These folders were periodically

recalled for inspection by the group leaders and project leaders (eleven senior teachers

from the subject panels who helped supervise and advise the group leaders14) who

would, in turn, seek advice from the school development officer.

In an interview15 with a senior teacher who had participated in the earlier

QEF-sponsored project, it was pointed out that one of the main purposes for

introducing project learning at HK One was to simply keep the students “interested”

in the learning process. Project learning also affords students and teachers interactions

at a much more personalized level. My teacher informant also asserted that she

experienced a role change while co-supervising her students in the QEF project

(2000).

I simply could not dominate in a student group. Creating and maintaining a sense of ownership among

the students had been very important. We teachers had to learn to become “hunters” for resources and

14
Only three of the eleven project leaders have actual prior experience in project learning activities
involving the QEF project two years ago.
15
Conducted on August 28, 2002.

132
support outside the school. At the same time, we were the facilitators and advisors. Thus, in project

learning, a teacher is no longer a teacher but a friend [to the students].

In this school’s case, a considerable but implicit emphasis seemed to be put on

developing the student’s ability to communicate, articulate her own ideas and present

them confidently. The team-work that often occurred might appear fortuitous

depending on the tasks given and characters of the group members. They nevertheless

provided opportunities for negotiations, critiques, and other forms of social

interactions which may have been relevant to the school’s own objectives.

The teacher informant noted several problems in carrying out project learning

during HK One’s experience with the QEF project. These included (i) the teachers’

lack of relevant experience and knowledge in project learning supervision16, (ii) the

absence of previous school-community interactions and use of local community

resources, (iii) relatively limited cognitive ability in students (especially in lower

secondary forms) for carrying out specific tasks and activities, and (iv) the need to

maintain adequate emphasis regular subject teaching and examinations.

Support from the school management and external resources were important,

according to the teacher informant. Essentially, the school management rendered

funding available to project learning activities17, and helped make the teachers-in-

charge’s work schedule more flexible so that they could interact more with students

outside teaching. External resources were felt to be relevant more in the technical

16
This applied to supervision at all stages of the project learning process that might involve planning a
project “topic”, deciding on the research methods, locating resources and references, providing
continuous feedback and support, and assessing the final product of student work.
17
This is especially true in HK One’s new project learning program, which does not have external
financial sources as they did in the previous QEF project (2000).

133
sense. The community youth center which helped in the QEF project and the current

external trainer for the school development days were both seen as important in

providing “research leadership”. In the latter case, the teachers and students were

simultaneously given instructions and taught concepts before they started on the

actual activities. This would possibly help direct participant energies and time towards

more productive ends, since teachers and students were likely to go their own ways

without proper initiation.

Case: HK Two

A co-ed school located in the northwestern part of the New Territories, HK

Two takes students mainly from the Band Two pool18. The school is about ten years

old and has been experimenting with project learning for about two years, though the

learning approaches and emphases had evolved over time. Starting from this year

(2002), the school’s EPA19 and Computer Science were combined to form a new

school subject called project learning itself. A third element of Library Study was also

added to the project learning “syllabus”. This decision to combine the subjects20

coincided with the falling popularity of EPA as a junior secondary school subject

(being considered less connected to Economics in the senior Forms) and an increased

government policy interest in promoting more integration of subjects. All students

from Form One to Three were required to take project learning while Form Four

students were deliberately left out apparently due to examination concerns. For 2002,

18
This means it tends to have students who are moderately competitive in academic study and have a
manageable level of discipline problems.
19
Economic and Public Affairs
20
Initially, the decision was made by the school principal who left the work of re-organization to the
two subject panels.

134
additional resources were available to expand the project learning program21 thanks to

a successful application to the QEF.

A single subject panel teacher (from EPA) was put in charge of the new

subject. Other subject panel teachers were also nominally responsible but they do not

participate in the actual decision-making or developing of the project learning

curriculum (materials, teaching methods, etc). It was revealed that the project learning

teacher-in-charge herself had been occupied with duties in teaching Economics in the

senior forms, which are considered more important developmental stages for the

students because of concerns for public examinations. The actual planning and

developing of the teaching and learning activities were delegated to a newly

recruited22 project learning teaching assistant who would take, on average, about one

to two weeks to prepare the materials to be used for all classes (Forms One - Three)

prior to the learning sessions.

I conducted one observation of two different classes (Form Two and Three) at

the school (September 12, 2002). The sessions were basically characterized by a

combination of a relatively strong tendency towards the “taught” subject approach

and a moderate attempt to encourage student participation. Perhaps because of the

large class sizes (about 40 students), it seemed difficult for the teachers to resist the

temptation to “lecture”. Many of the teachers seemed, in other words, not

philosophically attuned to progressive approaches, either because of their professional

21
The school plans to invite a neighborhood community youth center to help train some of their more
able students in skills in doing surveys and questionnaires. This expanded activity might not be
sustained when the QEF support expires.
22
From August 2002, a month before the new school term. She has about a year’s prior experience
helping another school to develop project learning curriculum but admits her first degree in education
did not cover enough training specifically devoted to project learning.

135
training background or school climate and other practical constraints which

discouraged experimentation of pedagogical methods.

Student interactions were not group-based in the Form Two class, which took

place in a computer room with only twenty seats and the same number of computers;

many were forced to stand without access to the computer materials being used. In the

second class, which took place in a normal classroom, students were divided into

groups and called out to do role-play on a topic (about civic education) that interested

them. The interactions seemed more spontaneous but again, due to the large student

numbers and the amount of the materials supposed to be covered, little time was

afforded the groups to involve themselves in genuine discussion.

In general, I found HK Two’s project learning syllabus rather overcrowded or

strained with three major learning areas being involved. Although the new subject

trimmed down on materials covered in the former EPA and Computer Science, some

activities targeting different learning objectives seemed to be juxtaposed with each

other simply to appear “integrated”. For instance, the Form Two class was supposed

to refresh themselves on the concepts and procedures involved in project learning

which they had picked up in the previous school term. The topic being used to

demonstrate those concepts and procedures was related to the Basic Law23, a

component directly lifted out from the old EPA syllabus. To actually show the

materials, the teachers had chosen to use computers and give students tasks requiring

them to do simple research on the Internet about the Basic Law. The project learning

teacher-in-charge defended this by saying that the project initiation stage probably
23
The Basic Law forms the post-colonial constitutional framework of Hong Kong. Understandably,
local school curriculum and teaching related to the Basic Law have gradually gained importance after
1997 (reversion of Hong Kong’s sovereignty to China) especially in areas such as civil education.

136
requires more of a lecture-style approach for students in order to cover all the

necessary topics before they can begin on their own projects.

Besides the resource concerns, most teachers at the school had not been

trained for project learning. This may have a serious negative impact on the level of

initiative or receptivity of the teachers toward the new programs, given that perceptual

changes are rarely spontaneous in a closed system such as a school. The classes were

taught, in fact, by the various subject teachers who received only basic instructions (in

the form of a “weekly teaching plan”) from the teaching assistant before they walked

into the classroom. Not surprisingly, the teaching styles varied greatly though teachers

did attempt to let students talk and interact in a more lively and informal atmosphere.

Occasionally, however, student interactions could generate so much noise that the

teachers would decide it was better to “short-circuit” their responses. On the whole,

student behaviors were generally orderly though not always as disciplined as in the

case of HK One.

Case: HK Three

This co-ed aided school located in a developed new town in the northern New

Territories is about ten years old. Unlike the first two Hong Kong schools I visited,

HK Three seemed to have more express concerns over maintaining a reasonably

acceptable level of scholastic achievement among its less able students. Its intakes24

of students with lower abilities provided an immediate background to the need for

SBCD, as revealed in my teacher interviews. Instead of promoting project learning,

24
Mainly from the lower Bands (Bands Two and Three) according the school teacher I interviewed.

137
the school had been diverting its resources to developing a three-year old SBCD

program which focused on tailoring teaching to cope with students who had

difficulties in attending normal classes which were generally textbook-based and done

lecture-style. This school-based program was seen as an alternative for less able

groups of students from mainly the junior secondary forms, and featured tailor-made

and simplified course materials, co-teaching, intensified teacher supervision and

feedback, and task-based self-learning. As such, though this school-based program

was understood locally as the “remedial classes”, its role was not to provide extra

classes but a parallel school curriculum to cater to specific student needs25.

While being school-based, the SBCD program at this school did not involve

integration as part of its curricular objectives. Neither did the curricular content relate

to the promotion of such qualities as creativity and higher analytical skills as it was

sometimes claimed in the other two Hong Kong school cases. Instead, the program

was organized around three existing teaching subjects – English, Chinese and Math

for the junior secondary forms. There was no attempt to integrate on the ground that

integration would be unrealistic or unproductive with subjects that are so

fundamentally unrelated in learning content or objectives.

Before the introduction of the SBCD program, the subject teachers had no

particular prior training in developing school-based curriculum. The English

department head26 had taken over the leader role in putting together the first SBCD

25
Depending on the size of intakes in a given year, one to three classes (out of five to six) of students
in the lower percentiles of performance would be assigned to the school-based remedial program. Each
class has about 40 students.
26
Or “subject panel chair”.

138
English program in the school27, which served to help develop later programs in

Chinese and Math.

Interestingly, HK Three was possibly28 the school where I found the most

“intense”29 level of team-work among school teachers in planning and developing the

school-based curriculum. The fact that each “remedial class” was handled by two

teachers also increased the chance that teachers needed to communicate and negotiate

more frequently to ensure coherence in their co-teaching. Teachers in the SBCD

program would spend one to two meeting sessions to prepare for a particular class30.

After an initial brainstorming session deliberating on items to be covered according to

some particular teaching scheme31, the teachers would meet again to present the

worksheets and other materials they had prepared at home and to discuss how they

would like to conduct the class. If time was short, however, the latter procedure might

be bypassed.

To be sure, not all materials in the SBCD program were developed “from

scratch”. Remedial class teachers of the same form would use materials that ranged

from self-created worksheets, model kits borrowed from other schools, to selected

textbooks (such as workbooks as a “supplement”) for particular class sessions.

27
With the professional help from local educational authority, which I will discuss in the later part of
the account on this school.
28
Evidence on this was not available besides the interview given by one school teacher (interviews
conducted on September 3 and 16, 2002). In concluding on the following point, I have only compared
the intensity of team-work that she described in the interview with evidence I collected in the other
schools through interviews and observations.
29
This is only relative as teachers in most schools cannot afford the time to plan and develop
curriculum outside the subject teaching.
30
Note that these sessions were organized outside the teachers’ duties for subject teaching. Many of
them also had to teach in the regular textbook-based classes. This means that teachers in the SBCD
program not only may have extra workload but also face difficulty in agreeing on a common period to
meet for curriculum planning, their individual schedule being varied and overcrowded.
31
Common to the entire form but specific in content for students in the SBCD program.

139
Whether created afresh or borrowed over, further adaptation by teachers was said to

be common in most of the above cases.

In general, the SBCD program was considered a moderate success in this

school. It had afforded students who were otherwise academically unprepared an

option to master skills at their own pace. Since the content in the SBCD program was

a scaled-down version of normal subject teaching classes within the same form,

students in the SBCD program were also expected to learn the same range of skills as

normal students, even though differentiated examinations were adopted. Remedial

class students were said to have shown moderate, not drastic, improvement in their

scholastic achievement32. According to one school teacher33 I interviewed, the chief

merits that she saw in her own remedial classes included that she was able to visibly

build up the student’s confidence in his learning, to bring in more interesting materials

that appealed to the students and to help “remedial class” students to eventually return

to the normal subject teaching classes. “Without the SBCD program, I can’t expect to

see some of my former Form Three students move on to the senior forms. There is a

fulfilling sense of satisfaction in this as a teacher,” she affirmed. Some former

remedial class students seemed to be so accustomed to the less formal style in the

SBCD program that they would find the normal subject teaching class less stimulating.

Overall, she found the curricular objectives for the SBCD program and normal subject

32
When remedial students progressed through the school year, the more able ones would be placed
back into the normal stream. This essentially means that the SBCD program plays only an auxiliary
role to the normal subject teaching curriculum. The “success rate” for remedial class students to return
to a normal subject teaching class (from Form One to Form Two, for example) was about 10%, that is,
four to five students in a given class. About 20-30% of the Form Three remedial class students would
eventually succeed in moving on to Form Four. Their number at Form Six was much less.
33
The informant (interviewed on September 3 and 16, 2002) teaches Geography as subject teacher but
also taught English in the SBCD program in the previous two years.

140
teaching “essentially the same” – to impart to the students some basic skills which

hopefully would benefit them in future learning.

In remedial classes, we teachers try to play a facilitator’s role. However, because of the problem with

student attitude and ability, this may not always be the case. There is actually a higher risk that we

“dominate” over a remedial class. With simplified content and more intense teacher aid, the students

may get a little “over-protected”. In the long run, therefore, it is our hope that such students would

return into the normal stream. (Teacher interview, HK Three)

Two important factors for the relatively satisfying results of remedial classes

were identified by this school teacher. These were (i) teamwork between the school

teachers in preparing their school-based curriculum and (ii) external professional help.

The former has been discussed in the previous passages concerning curriculum

planning and co-teaching. For the latter factor, external help came in the form of

professional advice and financial and technical assistance from the government. HK

Three had been on a government project called the School-based Curriculum

Remedial Scheme. Like other participating schools, it received a subsidy for

developing the necessary resources (including teachers) for the target SBCD

program34. In the first year after joining the Scheme, the CDI (Curriculum

Development Institute) dispatched an SBCD expert (an experienced teacher seconded

to the CDI job) to demonstrate classes to teachers at HK Three. CDI maintained

regular contact with the school over the school year to monitor progress and send in

additional help when the occasion arose.

34
This refers to the School-based Curriculum Remedial Scheme, which caters to schools that want to
develop remedial classes similar to those at HK Three. SBCD projects / schemes under the ED, such as
the School-based Curriculum Project Scheme, may focus on other areas of school-based interests (non-
remedial, project-based school curricula, for example).

141
 The teacher I interviewed did not think that the workload involving the SBCD

program was significantly different from that of normal subject teaching. She claims

that “The difference lies more in the degree of difficulty of what we teach in class and

assess in the tests. The school makes sure that the work for teachers in the remedial

classes and normal classes are about the same. Otherwise, it would be unfair if every

teacher thinks that work is lighter in the remedial classes and tries to escape from

teaching normal classes.”

There seemed something left to be desired in professional support. While the

teachers at HK Three seemed to appreciate the existence of CDI’s SBCD resource

center35, it was said that the location of the single center was not likely to be

convenient for all local teachers. Most materials (such as sample kits from “model

schools”) could not be borrowed out or photocopied. In addition, the center operates

only in regular office hours and is closed on non-week days.

5.3.2 Summary of the Hong Kong Cases

All three Hong Kong schools I studied showed an assured interest in

reforming their own school curriculum, though their specific conditions and

expectations should be considered in understanding why change was called for at all.

Reforming had mainly taken the form of incorporating non-academic elements (HK

One) or re-organizing syllabuses and teaching in the classroom (HK Two and HK

35
The CDI’s SBCD section houses a resource center in Sheung Shui, a new town in the northern New
Territories. To travel there, this would on average take a teacher from HK Three thirty minutes. For
teachers working or living in more developed districts, say, a teacher from HK One, the single-trip time
needed for commuting could well be around two hours. This makes frequent use of the resource center
impractical. The CDI Project Learning section is located in urban Wan Chai on Hong Kong Island,
similarly inconvenient for schools which need support in far-flung districts.

142
Three). To a large extent, this reflected the schools’ concerns that the subject-based

central curriculum defined by the official CDI syllabuses and dictated by competitive

public examinations has become deficient, which is clear in the face of their

immediate local conditions (student abilities and resources) and the general reform

development towards a greater emphasis on non-academic / generic skills. There were

variations in each of the cases regarding priorities in the reformed programs.

Despite the general recognition by teachers that reforms were needed in the

local school curriculum, few teachers interviewed had directly exposed themselves to

any reform policy documents and thus the official interpretations on project learning

or SBCD. Most had only based their beliefs of reform objectives and approaches on

indirect sources (school management, external workshops36, etc.). Some teachers from

HK One and HK Three even argued that familiarity with the official reform discourse

was “unimportant” or “irrelevant” as government policies often failed to provide

specific guidelines and support relevant to local needs.

The relatively low government control over decentralized curriculum

development programs (as in the cases of project learning and SBCD) was, in fact, a

policy maintained by the CDI to encourage autonomy and innovations among local

schools, according to the CDI chief executive37, who argued that “uncertainty is not a

problem but rather the beauty of school-based [programs]”. In the case of SBCD, the

school-based programs are not to entirely replace the centrally-developed curriculum.

36
CDI’s Project Learning section, for example, organizes four workshops per month on project
learning topics. These sessions each takes about 40 participants. The QEF secretariat also organizes
year-round “dissemination seminars” (presentation or demonstration by former QEF project-
participating schools) which may cover project learning though these occur much less frequently than
the CDI workshops. The teachers whom I interviewed were unable to say exactly how frequently they
took part in such external activities.
37
Dr. K.K. Chan. Interview conducted on August 19, 2002.

143
Rather, according to the CDI chief executive, the government expects the primary

school curriculum to derive about 80% from the central curriculum and only about

20% from the school’s own adaptation or creative efforts in curriculum development.

For secondary school curriculum, this ratio is about 90% to 10%, indicating a still

strong concern for maintaining academic standards and the uncertainty about the

experimental nature of decentralized (or “school-based”) curriculum development.

External aid was quite frequently sought in the course of introducing school-

based programs. However, the form of aid and the duration for which the school was

aid-dependent seemed to vary considerably. I have identified two main forms of aid in

the Hong Kong schools, namely, financial and technical. These forms of aid could

come as mutually independent or in combination with each other. The highly

competitive HK One had used funding from the QEF to conduct a pilot project

originally focusing on subject integration (which was not sustained)38 while it was

currently re-introducing a project learning program out of its own budget. Under the

new program, professional training was organized in a relatively systematic manner

by inviting a project learning expert from a tertiary research institution to impart

concepts and knowledge to both teachers and students.

At HK Two, project learning had been conducted informally within subject

teaching (as some extended assignments, for example) and was now becoming

38
According to a teacher at HK One (interviewed on August 28, 2002), the project financed by the
QEF did involve some external technical assistance from a community youth center to help training the
students in such skills related to simple surveys and street interviews. The training lasted several days.
In retrospect, the teacher explained that she and her colleagues in charge of the project had felt
unconfident about carrying out the training themselves due to an obvious lack of practical experience
and knowledge in such data collection activities. This incident shows that HK One’s previous venture
in project learning also involved some, albeit limited, external aid regarding technical or practical
issues – in addition to the money that they received from QEF.

144
reorganized as a school subject itself covering formerly discrete teaching and learning

areas (EPA, Computer Science and Library Study). The relatively long tradition of

project learning as part of the school curriculum at this school had possibly

contributed to a tendency of teacher “independence”, with low incentives to invite

external technical help or participate in external professional training. In addition, the

integration of the three discrete teaching and learning areas ensured that the new

project learning curriculum was fairly crowded and remained focused on teaching

academic content rather than conducting activities genuinely relevant to “project

learning” itself39. While HK Two had successfully applied to the QEF for 2002-2003,

such financial aid, as a rule, was not renewable or directed towards professional

development of the teachers. Thus, it is quite unlikely that external financial aid

would produce a very long-term effect on the nature and quality of teaching in HK

Two’s school-based program.

With HK Three, external aid (both technically and financially) seemed very

crucial in the initiation stage when the school began introducing its SBCD program.

Direct assistance in the form of technical advice and “on-site” demonstration by

government specialist teachers40 had been made available through the school’s joining

a government subsidy scheme specifically dedicated to SBCD programs of a remedial

nature41. Technical assistance was said to be “intensive” only in the first year and was

39
I refer to that in the course of conducting HK Two’s rather academically-oriented program, the
creative element of putting together a “project” seemed watered-down in the face of other competing
concerns in teaching.
40
From CDI’s SBCD section. In this case, the specialist was an experienced English teacher relieved
from her school duties to join CDI’s SBCD team. She was dispatched to the school to demonstrate to
HK Three’s teachers how a class could be taught “differently” besides the textbooks and conventional
lecture-based teaching approach as prescribed to a whole school grade (or form).
41
School-based Curriculum Remedial Scheme, as mentioned for this subject school (HK Three).

145
slowly reduced to regular yearly contacts (via telephone) between school teachers and

the CDI officers in subsequent years as the program became more established.

As curricular objectives and content change, one may expect that the

pedagogic approach and teaching process change accordingly so as to readjust into

some efficient or optimal conditions for operation. However, this could not be taken

for granted with the three schools being studied; it was clear that they had neither

uniform starting conditions (student abilities and resources), nor equal goals in their

local reform efforts.

Based on the observations, I found that teachers at HK One seemed more

ready to give up their authoritative role and to form cooperative relationships with

their students during the school development days. This could be a result of the fact

that (i) the teachers were deliberately put under the mentorship of a single external

trainer who assumed principal responsibilities for organizing the curricular activities,

whereby the teachers’ own active role to teach (or dominate) was minimized; (ii) the

school development day training took place with simultaneous groups consisting of

teachers and students, ensuring that the trainer was able to provide her instructions in

an evenly-paced manner and to correct both teachers and students when they deviated

from the planned procedure for conducting project learning; (iii) there was reasonable

degree of assurance or confidence among the teachers in the students’ ability and

potential to learn42.

42
During the teacher informant interview (August 28, 2002), it was pointed out that many students
might not have sufficient cognitive skill to carry out their projects (refer to the HK One account).
However, during my observation on the school development days, both the external trainer and the
assistant principal-in-charge, for example, had spoken out in ways to convey messages of confidence in
the students. I did observe occasions where teachers (groups leaders) expressed the need to help
particular “weak” students.

146
 At HK Two, teachers displayed great variations in teaching style during the

project learning “class”. This was not surprising since the school did not invite any

external professional or technical help which targeted preparation of the teachers,

which could aid schools in institutionalizing progressive practices by providing a

concrete model to follow. Although external training of the students was to be

included in the 2002-2003 program43, it was unclear if this “out-sourcing” of teaching

activity would involve similar training for the school teachers. Without more long-

term inputs for improving the existing teaching methods, it would be unlikely to see

radical changes in the ways project learning was being “taught” at HK Two, which, at

this stage, remained organized in large classes and displayed a tendency towards

lecturing. I also noted that the level of teachers’ participation in planning the project

learning curriculum and generating teaching materials was rather low; only a deputy,

the project learning teaching assistant, was made to assume all the relevant duties.

Communications between the teachers were said to be uncommon44.

HK Three would have been an interesting case to conduct observations, given

the more challenging conditions in which the reformed program operated. Students’

academic abilities were said to be relatively low in the remedial classes and

disciplining could consume as much as 70-80% of a class’s time and energy.

While the teachers interviewed at the three subject schools in the case study

generally viewed their own reformed programs in a positive light, there were

43
See paragraph one of this account on HK Two. The training would mainly concern the designing and
evaluating of surveys and questionnaires.
44
Subject teachers do meet on regular basis for discussion of matter related to academic subjects.
Subject teaching nevertheless seemed to remain central at HK Two despite the forming of “project
learning” as a new school subject.

147
variations in the specific skills, knowledge and values being expected or pursued. At

HK One, within the newly re-introduced project learning program, emphasis was

clearly put on non-academic skills – data collection, analytical45, communication, and

social skills among them. These were integrated in the initiation activities during the

school development days. The external trainer had organized a considerable number

of activities whose underlying theme was to encourage the students to think and start

questioning through “multi-angles”46. Concept maps47 were introduced and

subsequently used extensively throughout the activities – a step apparently designed

to help students organize and articulate their ideas better. Intense teacher-student

interactions48 were characterized by spontaneous in-group debates and discussions.

Teamwork was especially evident both in the brainstorming and presentation sessions

with most students being actively engaged.

At HK Two, by contrast, the main objectives of project learning were tied to

subject integration, which possibly undermined the potential of project learning

activities as a learning experience to promote non-academic skills if they were

undertaken in a more student-centered approach. Since the new school subject

(project learning) was created by combining three existing subjects (EPA, Computer

Science and Library Study), its academic tone remained fairly strong as summative

45
This refers to the skill or ability which students develop in analyzing and evaluating their “research”
data in the projects. In other words, it is more akin to the notion of “critical thinking” skill described in
recent Hong Kong educational documents (CDC 2001 and EC 2000, for example) and therefore should
be differentiated from analytical skill in an academic sense.
46
For example, under a certain central theme on “Better Living in the 21st Century” designed by the
external trainer and the school, the student groups were encouraged to work on a related topic they had
chosen (which included such areas as health care, food, entertainment, genetic engineering, teenage
dating in school, etc). Each group was asked to think “horizontally” instead of “vertically” so that they
could investigate their topic across subjects (economic, social, cultural, technological considerations,
etc) and avoid linear thinking.
47
A device for organizing ideas diagrammatically.
48
The level of teacher-student interactions could be different outside the school development days. It is
understood that students would also come to meet their supervising teachers individually instead of as
full groups for discussion of their projects.

148
assessment (examinations and tests) continued to outweigh formative assessment

(diagnostic use of student portfolios, records of in-class performance49, teacher

feedback, etc.). To be sure, there were clear signs of teacher efforts to readjust the

teaching and learning approach. One of the classes observed, for example, was

entirely conducted through role-play of small student groups. The students were given

the chance (though restricted) to perform on particular learning tasks and to

subsequently give brief critiques of other groups50. Overall, the program at HK Two

seemed quite bounded within the original subjects, with the project learning

“syllabus” retaining much of the old subject components (the content of which was

now totally decided by the school notwithstanding). To some extent, I found HK Two

more a case of school-based curriculum development attempt at integration, rather

than project learning as in HK One’s case.

The school-based program at HK Three was a case of SBCD without subject

integration. Unlike the other two cases, the school’s priorities were steadily attached

to providing an alternative academic curriculum to less able students. According to

the teacher informant, the syllabus of the remedial program still contained the same

number of learning tasks (though with simplified content) as would a normal subject

teaching syllabus. Generic skills, which were expected to be covered in the other two

schools to varying extents, were not dealt with. For example, the teacher informant

indicated that she would not discuss reading skills with students until they progressed

49
A certain reward system was used at HK Two where a student would be given a token of recognition
on giving a correct response to a question during some quiz sessions. A student could respond as
frequently as he wanted and the tokens would be tallied and registered by his teachers (two co-teaching
normally) at the end of a class. This would then be translated into evaluation scores towards continuous
assessment. However, such scores accounted for only about 10% of the overall assessment, which
depended heavily on tests and examinations on the integrated subjects.
50
Critiques were not necessarily done in critical ways. Often first provoked by the teachers, these
mainly took the form of short comments given by students on how well or badly a group had
performed. The “why” questions, which dealt with where or how individual groups could improve,
were sometimes skipped due to the tight class schedule.

149
into the senior secondary forms. A teacher’s priorities lay more in providing timely

instructions and intensified in-class attention to the students so as to help improve

their self-image and confidence in the learning subjects – hence the practice of co-

teaching in all remedial classes. One notable feature of HK Three’s school-based

program was perhaps the relatively intense level of teachers’ participation in

curriculum planning. The teacher interviewed responded positively to this, saying that

the school even started to extend “co-planning” of curriculum to normal subject

teaching classes. This type of active participation in curriculum planning by teachers

was not observed in the other two subject schools. Although we could only infer that

student benefited from “co-planning” indirectly, the practice of planning and devising

teaching materials in curriculum development was likely to have a positive long-term

effect on the teachers’ own professional development.

5.3.3 The Japanese Cases

For the Japanese cases, I visited five junior high schools51 and one primary

school (which was not included in the study for analytical purposes, however). All

schools were public-funded. Of the first five, two were university-affiliated schools52

(JP One and JP Two), which are understood to engage themselves in pilot or research-

oriented teaching and learning activities with generally better quality in teaching staff

and student intakes compared with public schools in the ordinary categories. Three of

the subject schools were from the Tokyo metropolitan53 area (JP One and JP Three)

51
Roughly the equivalent to Form One to Three in Hong Kong (or 7th to 9th grades). Note that Japan
has a 3-3 secondary school system while Hong Kong features a 5-2 system. Refer to Chapters Two and
Four for more detailed discussion on this.
52
Fuzoku-chūgakkō (付属中学校)
53
Referring to the area encompassing the 23 wards (administrative districts) of Tokyo.

150
and the nearby Kantō region54 (JP Two). The other three schools are from an eastern

part of the Kansai region55 which generally features a more rural setting. The primary

school (JP Six) visit was a matter of serendipity as I was invited there unplanned56.

Due to time constraints, I have, regrettably, been forced to exclude JP Six from the

fieldwork data though references have been made to the school in the analysis in

relation to professional support issues57. For a summary outlining these schools’

background and my research activities, refer to Tables 5.2t-a and 5.2t-b. The actual

fieldwork in Japan was conducted over a month (between September and October

2002).

Table 5.2t Schools (all junior high, except one as specified) visited in Japan

School Location Type Date of visit No. of No. of

(all co-ed) observations teachers
interviewed
JP One Tokyo National 20.9.2002 1 1
metropolitan public
(urban) (university-
affiliated)
JP Two Kantō National 25.9 / 2 1
(urban) public 7.10.2002
(university-
affiliated)
JP Three Tokyo Public 26.9.2002 1 2
metropolitan
(urban)
JP Four Kansai Public 30.9.2002 1 1
(urban)
JP Five Kansai Public 2.10.2002 1 3
(semi-rural)
JP Six Kansai Public 4.10.2002 1 2
(primary (rural)
school)*
*Observation and interview data of JP Six, a primary school in Kansai, were not included in this study
though references to the school have been made in the analysis.

54
Kantō generally refers to Tokyo and the nearby prefectures surrounding it.
55
Kansai is the region roughly defined by the prefectures around Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe.
56
I was invited to visit JP Six by one of its teachers who was currently granted a partial leave (or
possibly reduced regular teaching duties) in order to study and conduct her research project on
Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan at a regional Sōgō-kyōiku-sentā (professional teacher training center),
where I was conducting a separate interview with an officer in charge of Sōgōtekina-gakushū matters.
57
See this in the discussion of “Problems and Implications” in Summary of the Japanese Cases (5.3.4).

151
Table 5.2t-b Characteristics of the Japanese Schools

School Founding Initiator Quality of Quality of Level of School

year of school teaching student resources climate
program staff intakes
JP One 1947 Head of High Very high Medium to Progressive
research high
section
JP Two 1965 Head of High Very high Medium to Progressive
(Reconstituted research high
from two older section
schools)
JP Three Late 1940s Head of Medium Medium Low to Moderately
research medium progressive
section
JP Four 1947 Head of Medium Low to Low to Weakly
research medium medium progressive
section
JP Five Late 1940s Head of Medium to High Medium Moderately
research high progressive
section
JP Six 1887 Various Medium to Medium Medium Progressive
teachers high to high

Case: JP One

This university-affiliated school has a history of well over forty years58 and is

located in metropolitan Tokyo. With its affiliation to a national university, it is also a

national public school, enjoying general prestige59. Unlike normal public schools in

Tokyo, JP One’s intakes are not restricted by the school catchment system60. Being

highly selective, it takes competent students61 from the eighteen wards in metropolitan

58
Founded in 1947, shortly after the War and around a period when the educational laws were enacted
to witness a period of rapid expansion of school education.
59
Apart from having students with generally high scholastic achievement, most university-affiliated
schools also function as innovative and disseminating centers of teaching and learning practices for the
regions that they serve.
60
A geographically-determined place allocation system similar to Hong Kong’s for primary school
graduates. In Tokyo, regular public (junior high, for example) schools in a ward are required to recruit
pupils within the same school catchment area (gakku). Although this system is slowly relaxed in
response to pressures from de-population, only Shinagawa Ward and Hino City schools are currently
allowed to take pupils outside their own school catchment area (Cave 2003, 94).
61
The average intake size in a given year is about 60, roughly the sum of two co-ed classes.

152
Tokyo, and from a similar number of administrative districts in nearby Kanagawa

Prefecture. Pupils who wish to join this school must take two entrance examinations62.

This highly selective intake system may have its merits in ensuring a secure pool of

good students who are academically able and well-disciplined so that their teachers

can devote their time and energies more wholeheartedly to teaching activities

consistent with the school research-oriented dispositions.

JP One’s Sōgōtekina-gakushū program had been in place and evolving into its

current shape over the past ten years63, and stressed a diverse variety of “elective

courses” (sentaku gakushū)64 and learning activities of an investigative nature

(kenkyūtekina-gakushū)65. Since the Ministry of Education maintained only

minimalist guidelines on the content and organization of Sōgōtekina-gakushū, JP

One’s program was essentially a continuation of the school’s existing innovations and

practices which it had independently developed, according to the school’s vice-

principal.

62
Organized around January and February each year.
63
This means that the school’s program is well ahead of the Ministry of Education’s “guidelines” for
Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan and most other public junior high schools’.
64
選択学習
65
研究的な学習

153
Summary of “category-α elective courses”66 by themes at JP One, 2002
Themes (activity titles) Activity descriptions Number of Number of
students* supervising
teachers
1 「ブックトーク」で本 Reading self-chosen books67, sharing 15 1
の世界を広げよう thoughts with fellow students and
(study the world through presenting before primary school
“book talk”) children
2 音のドラマ・言葉の音 Producing a broadcast play through 20 2
楽 (“the drama of sounds recital; and producing a “drama” using
and the music of musical instruments
language”)
3 Our Local Farm68 (study Growing flowers and agricultural 29 2
about food and produce on one’s own and learning to
agricultural processes) make simple preserved food69
4 国際理解 (“international Studying about a self-chosen foreign 25 1
study”) language or culture
5 数学セミナー (“Math Discovering the mathematical 44 2
seminar”) applications or expressions in daily
life70; making “rockets” from used
plastic bottles
6 資格について考えよう Conducting research on a self-chosen 25 2
(study about topic of professional qualifications or
qualifications) certifying examinations
7 植物に親しもう(“get to Inspecting and learning to classify 17 1
know plants”) plants on the school compound,
producing specimens and studying
about ecological role of plants
8 つくる・作る・創る Constructing various objects and 43 2
(“make, build and simple machines71 with the help of
create”) texts and guiding models
9 えほんをつくろう Making drawing and writing stories to 25 1
(make picture books) create original picture books
10 Total Healthy Life (the Using the computer and library to 10 3
study of science of health conduct study and survey about the
and sports) relationship between health, sports and
the environment72 and presenting the
work on a web page
11 生活を科学する (study Experimenting with foodstuff-making 25 1
objects in daily life in the kitchen, and studying about
through science) food’s chemical and commercial

66
There was a second group of elective courses at JP One called “Category-β” but these were mostly
subject-based (Japanese, Mathematics, Social Study and Science) electives not conducted in the same
manner as Sōgōtekina-gakushū. “Category-β”targeted only 9th graders.
67
Students could choose from any categories of books, even manga (popular comics books).
68
Fictional title to preserve anonymity of the school.
69
These included nattō (Japanese sticky beans) and pickles. The class was not restricted to girls.
70
These included geometric designs in artistic creations, statistical patterns in surveys, and puzzles in
numbers and mathematical applications.
71
The objects and machines that had been cited on the list of previous student creations (by 2002)
included robots, radios, transformers, tainted glass, mirrors, fireworks, and mini-rockets.
72
Some of the topics suggested to students included physical training of the body, stress, aromatherapy,
the functions of perfumes, neurosis, “disease and psychology”, “sports and nutrition”, drugs risks, fast
food and allergies, etc.

154
 properties.
12 英語の音とことば (the Carrying out role-play and practicing 44 3
sounds and words of speech on video screen based on self-
English) chosen English films73
* Maximum number of students for a class fixed at 25 for one supervising teacher and 44 for two
supervising teachers.

Student choice and diversity in interests was quite evident. Students from both

the 8th and 9th grades could participate in a particular “course” (elective) of their own

choice74. Unlikely normal home-room classes, students were mobile and were not

bound by their own subject teaching classes. The mixed-age group design of the

elective courses also afforded younger students the chance to work with their seniors,

effectively eliminating barriers of age and proficiency in a particular skill. Since a

student who was motivated and interested enough in a given elective course could opt

for remaining in the same elective after completing his first year, he or she would

have a choice to explore his or her interests further within Sōgōtekina-gakushū

through a two year period. Apart from leaving the choice to the student, this can

possibly contribute to more continuity in curricular content. 7th graders, who were

considered not mature enough or sufficiently equipped with the necessary skills, were

not allowed to participate in the Sōgōtekina-gakushū program.

Investigative themes were common in a number of elective courses, which

were generally well-subscribed by students, but such themes did not necessarily

permeate JP One’s entire Sōgōtekina-gakushū program. It is difficult to define what

the school perceived as “investigative”. While some courses contained activities

which more readily challenge the students to observe, report, ask questions and think,

some others did not. The former tended to involve a science or mathematics topic,

73
These were mostly animated films.
74
Decided at some point before a new school year, usually around March.

155
which exposed students to activities such as watching a teacher demonstration of

chemical processes, experimenting with making objects from plastic bottles,

investigating about food composition through cooking, observing plants through

painting75 and designing simple surveys with the aid of the computer. The courses that

apparently had a lesser investigative tone tended to focus on languages and arts. One

such English elective course had the highest number of subscribing students (44

compared to an average of below 30 with most other courses). This class took place in

a multimedia room with students who sat in free groups to practice oral speech by

imitating spoken lines from a video-taped animation. The level of teacher supervision,

as in most other cases, was limited76 though most students were well-behaved enough

to conduct their own work productively.

As far as I could observe, pedagogical practices here during Sōgōtekina-

gakushū were not fundamentally different from other schools I had also visited in

Japan. Teachers tended to keep immediate intervention and feedback in class to a

minimum level. Certainly, there were exceptions but this depended greatly on

individual teachers’ style or attitude.

Assessment, at least in the form of teachers giving timely feedback and

evaluation in the course of the program, did not seem to play a significant part in JP

One’s Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum. Students were evaluated, apparently

informally, at the end of the school year by displaying their achievement such as

artwork, survey report, or project findings. I noticed that “projects” in Sōgōtekina-

75
Students were made to draw the shapes of a sample of leaves (from green vegetables, for example)
using traditional Japanese paint brushes. They worked individually and were supervised by a Science
teacher who did no more than passively monitor their progress during my observation.
76
Only one foreign native-speaker teacher (a female Australian) was present to help students with their
English pronunciation.

156
gakushū, as in the case of other Japanese schools I visited, were loosely defined as

any student endeavor to do individual or group “investigation” by writing about a

topic (for example, “professional qualifications”) which might involved simply

mechanical transfer of information from books or the Internet to the student’s working

notepads77. Questioning, debate, or analysis was not frequently or explicitly

encouraged.

Case: JP Two

Located in the Kantō region close to Tokyo, JP Two is also a national public

junior high school founded shortly after the War78. Student choice and diversity in

curricular activities seemed equally pronounced as in JP One, if not more so. The

school’s Sōgōtekina-gakushū programs, which involved all three school grades79,

were formed with two components of basically different learning objectives and

activities: (i) “Living Together Time” (kyōsei-no-jikan) and (ii) Communication and

Skills (komyunikēshon & sukiru)80. The former focused on learning activities that

were more individualized according to the students’ interests, abilities and

motivations while the latter was more a “common core” type of curriculum focusing

on so-called holistic development of the students. Efforts were made to provide some

evaluation system for the learning activities, though to date this had been limited to

self-evaluation by the students themselves.

77
Admittedly, I have not done observations extensively enough to qualify most “projects” in
Sōgōtekina-gakushū as “unchallenging”. It is obvious that students at university-affiliated junior high
schools do have plenty of opportunities to produce challenging and quality “project work” in the form
of reports or actual objects they create. This was made known to me at JP Two where I was allowed to
see some of such student works which formed part of the school’s subject teaching curriculum. These
works tended to be more substantial, well-guided and well-researched.
78
Formally reconstituted in 1965 through the merging of two older schools affiliated to the same
university.
79
Instead of two upper junior high school grades as at JP One.
80
This was introduced only recently from April 2002.

157
 As a national public school, JP Two initiated experimentations of Sōgōtekina-

gakushū much ahead of normal public schools of the country. Sōgōtekina-gakushū at

JP Two was first introduced in 1996 in its experimental phase and became developed

into a full-scale program (curriculum) by 1997. The curriculum, however, evolved

over time. According to a teacher whom I interviewed81, over recent years, the school

had reformed its Sōgōtekina-gakushū program and made conscious efforts to

introduce continuity in the curricular content across the school grades (1-3 nensei or

7th-9th grades). Instead of making students engage in a three-year program of discrete

themes organized in three successive tiers (which replace one another and do not

overlap in the same year. See the tables below), the reformed program offered

“elective” sessions that spanned all school grades, which the students were allowed to

choose and retake in subsequent years at their own discretion82. The organization of

the resultant product resembled much that observed at JP One.

Original three-tier Sōgōtekina-gakushū program at JP Two, 1997-99:

School grade Three-tier programs organized by themes

9th grade *Environment
8th grade *International study
7th grade *Human rights, social welfare and voluntary work

(* indicates fixed themes to be covered)

81
The informant was the research head and subject teacher of the school. Interview conducted on
September 25, 2002.
82
This applied only to “Living Together Time” sessions. The zemi (seminars) for Communication and
Skills were organized separately in homerooms (large class).

158
Reformed Sōgōtekina-gakushū program organized as “zemi” at JP Two, 2000-02:

School grade Some 20 “zemi” under various sub-themes

9th grade Etc

8th grade 1 2 3
7th grade

(zemi were more fluid learning topics defined within the original themes of the
1997-99 program)

The sessions were termed zemi, or “seminars”. In the case of Communication

and Skills zemi, this often took the form of student’s participating in discussion

groups (within a normal homeroom class) under two teachers-in-charge. Only one

teacher would act as the main instructor while the other played an auxiliary role,

without actively giving instructions.

Communication and Skills zemi were newly integrated into JP Two’s

Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum (starting 2002). These took up only about 16 school

hours on the yearly schedule, compared to 60 hours for Living Together Time

sessions83. The teacher informant commented that this account of time allotted to

Sōgōtekina-gakushū had been appropriate since the school also had to readjust itself

to the new 5-day school week which was recently introduced to all public schools,

removing Saturday activities from the original schedule.

In responding to my question why Communication and Skills was introduced,

my teacher informant cited reasons which included the promotion of “self-dignity”,

83
In other words, JP Two devotes about 76 school hours each year to its Sōgōtekina-gakushū
curriculum. This is only marginally higher than the 70-hour minimum required of all junior high
schools.

159
communication skills and interpersonal skills in dealing with people in general84.

There was an additional objective. According to the teacher informant,

Communication and Skills could serve to familiarize students with particular

learning/research skills85 and develop their ability to make choices about how to

approach his or her own project or research topic. In some way, Communication and

Skills zemi helped to streamline the process of making students’ skills more relevant

to Living Together Time, in which student learning tended to be more spontaneous

and individualized.

Teaching and learning approaches seemed to be quite flexible but dependent

on individual teachers’ own decisions since each of them was fully in charge of his or

her tasks of developing curricular materials and delivering them to particular zemi86.

During the observations, the teachers’ approach to teaching varied from one class to

another. The approach used might involve initiating a learning topic87, delivering

background concepts, and provoking student interactions. Although I had seen

teachers dominating (lecturing) the class while initiating a topic, there was signs that

this might not necessarily be the most common mode of teaching as the class was

later split into groups (about 5-6 students each and together about seven groups in one

class) to carry out various activities such as group discussion88.

84
“Tairitsu” (対立). Examples of this might take the form of a student trying to secure some volunteer
work at local small businesses or welfare facilities. He is supposed to handle his tasks independently—
from looking up a contact in Yellow Pages to making actual phone calls and negotiating with the host
of a cooperative body. Students were said to have been “a little weak” in such skills (teacher informant,
interviewed on September 25, 2002).
85
Including the use of visual aid (pictures and maps) in addition to texts.
86
Each teacher is in charge of one zemi in Communication and Skills. Usually they are the homeroom
teachers of the classes they teach for normal academic subjects.
87
In Communication and Skills, these included such broad but generally stimulating titles as “Exiting
the moon” (discussing the risks and dangers in space travel), and “Points and lines” (introducing new
perspectives in observing physical objects).
88
The class was the one that worked on “Points and lines”. After initiation, worksheets prepared by the
teacher-in-charge were distributed to the groups. A group then began internal debate about the pros and

160
 For Living Together Time sessions, students from 7th through 9th grades were

free to choose any one zemi as long as a particular quota was not filled89. These zemi

were different from those in Communication and Skills in that the class unit was

different from that of a homeroom class. Teachers did not “co-teach”; a single teacher

would take over the entire duty of developing the zemi’s curriculum and organized all

the internal and external activities involved. This division of labor in curriculum

development apparently had given rise to a large number of learning sessions which

were so diverse that nearly every zemi engages its student differently in activities with

different forms of inquiries (refer to the “summary of zemi” below).

Summary of the “Living Together Time” zemi at JP Two, 2002

Title (nature of activities) Subject Quota
teacher’s on no.
teaching of
area students
1 手話を学ぼう＆朗読テープを作ろう (learn sign language and Japanese 30
produce audio-tapes of book reading for the visually impaired or
blind)
2 語り部になろう (present and articulate ideas on various themes Japanese Nil
which include human rights, “international study” and the
environment )
3 国際ボランティア活動 (be exposed to conditions in the third Japanese 20
world and participate in domestic volunteer work)
4 共生を宣伝しよう (produce short movie clips using digital tools Japanese 20
to present and discuss “global” problems)
5 物語を伝えよう (translate popular comics stories into written Japanese 20
form, and render that further into Braille texts)
6 子どもと大人との共生 (learn about children’s rights and welfare Social 30
through external visits and inviting talks) Study
7 まち自慢 (study about the local neighbourhood’s living Social 20-25
conditions for people with special needs including the elderly, Study
children, foreigners and the handicapped)
8 言葉を通して考えよう (study and produce a report about Math Nil
national and local languages in relation to their origins,
characteristics and cultures)

cons of a particular student’s propositions. Occasionally this could generate a lot of noise. I had asked
if this kind of seating arrangement also applied to normal subject-teaching classes and the answer was
affirmative.
89
There were exceptions to this. For example, one session on computer skills was restricted to 7th
graders. Students were not allowed to retake it after joining for one year.

161
9 ホントーかどうか確かめてみよう！(investigate and report on Math 30
a self-chosen subject from the mass media or the internet, which
involves collecting, processing and analyzing information90)
10 生ゴミ研究 (study and produce a report about the productive use Math 20
of organic waste in domestic households)
11 点字で音楽ボランティアに挑戦しよう (translate famous music Math 30
scores into Braille texts for the blind)
12 自然環境の観察・実験とビオトープづくり (visit tidelands91 Science 25
and forests to observe and study the quality of the natural
environment)
13 台所を科学しよう (experiment with creating foodstuff, Science 20
investigate the sides effects of chemical detergents, and study
about waste problem in consumer culture)
14 海外交流 (establish English correspondence with foreign students English 30
through letters and the internet to discuss matters such as national
and schooling cultures)
15 ソーラーカーをつくろう (build a solar energy-powered motor- English Nil
car and learn about energy problems in the world)
16 身近な環境活動について調べよう (conduct surveys to gauge English Nil
public views on “environment activities” in the school and local
community)
17 サッカーを通して「共生」を考えよう (discuss the English 20
significance and related problems of the World Cup and
participate in external visits such as that to a J-League92 team)
18 メッセージソングを通して共生を考えよう (translate foreign Music 30
songs into Japanese with understanding of its cultural background,
etc., and render that into musical performance)
19 表現してみよう (express and present oneself through multiple Art 30
means including visual art, music, language, and dance)
20 リユース・リメイク(repair or restore used objects that would Art 30
otherwise be disposed of, and discuss environmental problems )
21 様々な人の生き方に学ぼう (share stories about people who Physical 15
have lived “extraordinary lives” through hardship and produce a Education
report)
22 ものづくりを通して「共生」考えよう (create objects and Physical 30
devices from recycled materials with a mind to improving the Education
environment or welfare of the local handicapped)
23 花 (plant trees and flowers, study their growth at every stage and Physical 30
discuss their relationship to the environment) Education
24 絵本の森 (be immersed in picture books through visits to Physical Nil
libraries, bookshops, and kindergartens, and create students’ own Education
works)
25 食生活を考える (discuss and produce a report on world issues Home 30
related to food, which include pollution, food production, and food Economics
cultures)
26 コンピューターの活用 (master a wide variety of computer Technology 43 (7th-
applications, including the internet, data processing, word grader-
processing, graphic creation, chart representation, presentation only one
tools, etc.) year
zemi)

90
情報の集め方・まとめ方・読み方(jōhō no atsumekata, matomekata, yomikata)
91
干潟 (higata)
92
The Japanese Soccer League

162
 Nevertheless, it was evident that curricular content overlapped in some of the

zemi, though how the teaching and learning was done might vary significantly from

one class to another. Among the main learning areas in Sōgōtekina-gakushū officially

approved by the Ministry of Education93, welfare (zemi 1, 3, 5, 11, 22), regional

affairs94 (zemi 6, 7, 17, 20, 22) and environment (zemi 10, 12, 22, 25) were the ones

that seemed to appear frequently in JP Two’s curriculum. Very often a zemi might

have multiple learning aims. For example, zemi 1 seemed to satisfy the purpose of

linguistic and communication development and helping promote students’ awareness

about the handicapped – with sign language being a very popular subject of

Sōgōtekina-gakushū among the many other schools I visited. Not to be overlooked,

zemi with strong inclination to investigative or “creative” activities were also very

common. Zemi 15, one of the more established and popular zemi, featured year-round

student efforts to construct a motor-car powered by solar energy, which, in

observation was conducted fairly informally, with well-motivated students executing

their tasks (assembling, for example) in small groups while the supervisor was also

present to actively participate in the process of construction. Another zemi (zemi 12)

required students to form small groups to work on a subject of investigation about

93
Though the exact nature of these areas are not spelt out in the new Guidelines of Study (published in
1999 or 10th year of the Heisei reign), the Ministry states that during Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan
(total integrated learning periods), “experiential and problem-solving learning activities focusing on [1]
practical exposure to the natural and social environments, [2] observation and experimentation, [3]
immersion through visits and surveys, should be conducted around integrated or cross-subject themes”
[横断総合的な課題などについて，自然体験や社会体験，観察・実験，見学・調査などの体験
的な学習，問題解決的な学習を行う]. (“Atarashii Gakushūshidō-yōryō no nerai no jitsugen ni
tsuite,” The Ministry of Education, <http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/youryou/index.htm>,
accessed September 2002 and January 2003). Schools are allowed to reinterpret these either as part of
their existing programs (such as “special activities”, 特別活動) or entirely new programs if there are
no precursors to Sōgōtekina-gakushū activities in a particular school.
94
This refers to learning areas that focus on “practical exposure to the natural and social environments”
with a strong geographical emphasis on the immediate local or regional conditions. For example, the
urban-setting schools in metropolitan Tokyo are likely to engage in “regional affairs” learning activities
quite different from those of the schools in Kansai which organize their own program in more rural
settings.

163
microorganism in the school’s “observation pond”. After observing and recording the

samples, the students were asked to present their findings in front of the class95. Some

students presented with the aid of a large drawing paper on the blackboard containing

descriptions of their findings. However, such presentations were rather informal. It

was uncommon for teachers and other non-presenting students to ask questions or

venture feedback. In fact, when a group was presenting, uninterested groups might not

be attentive to the presentation at all, but rather engaged themselves in unrelated,

nonproductive activities. The teacher, during observation, did not intervene or

discipline. In other classes, the level of teacher intervention varied but in general, it

tended to be minimal.

Assessment and evaluation, as in the case of JP One, did not seem to be very

central to JP Two’s Sōgōtekina-gakushū program. Though some effort was made to

help students record their own study progress on a folder (a collection of schedule and

“evaluation” materials in the form of worksheets96) through the school year, these did

not seem to amount to “self-evaluation” since the records were done in very

descriptive or impressionistic ways. A typical record would include the date of a

particular zemi session, the title of a task (“decide theme” or “water quality study”,

etc.97) and a short comment (“Today, we decided the theme and hopefully we would

be working towards it next time” or “After the observation and experiment, we found

out that that the water was very dirty,” etc.98) . Teachers did inspect these folders

periodically and typically conferred their recognition by chopping a red stamp on

them. They rarely give any direct written feedback that would constitute evaluation.
95
This was conducted during a later second observation (October 7 2002).
96
ふりかえシート(furikae shīto)
97
テーマ決め；水質調査。[reproduced as stated on one of the students’ folder]
98
体研[sic]前の水はとてもきたないということがわかった。[reproduced as stated on one of the
students’ folder]. The mistake appearing on the record was not corrected by the teacher.

164
 At JP Two, Sōgōtekina-gakushū’s curricular content was deliberately

separated from that of the academic subject-teaching curriculum99. The reason was

cited as the high levels of technical complexity involved for teachers to ensure

continuity between the two curricula. Certain zemi, such as zemi 15 (construction of

solar-energy-powered motor-car), had long been introduced in Sōgōtekina-gakushū as

a stimulating experience for students interested in the scientific concepts and theories

involved, which were not considered highly relevant to testable skills and knowledge

in an academic curriculum100. The school and teachers seemed to recognize the

significance of such learning experience in the children’s overall development and

were thus affirmative about the continued existence of such zemi.

Case: JP Three

Depopulation in urban areas during the past decade had taken its toll on this

public junior high school located in metropolitan Tokyo101. There were only four

99
The separation of academic subject teaching and Sōgōtekina-gakushū curricula was said to be an
arrangement insisted upon by a former school principal at JP Two, who was otherwise non-
interventionist in teachers’ decisions on how to design and develop the their own Sōgōtekina-gakushū
curriculum (in the zemi, for example). (Teacher informant, September 25, 2002)
100
Note that the teacher-in-charge of zemi 15 was in fact an English subject teacher.
101
According to the school principal (one of my teacher informants interviewed on September 26,
2002), metropolitan Tokyo used to have about 160,000 junior high school leavers (that is, 9th grade
graduates) each year in the mid-1980s. Today, that number drops below 80,000. Public schools in
Tokyo are facing particularly fierce competition from private schools, which are in general
academically focused, and enjoy partial freedom of decision over the recent educational reforms
promoted by the government. As the future of many of these reforms (such as the five-day school week
reform) still remains uncertain, public schools are doubly disadvantaged as they tend to conform more
to the Ministry’s of Education’s reform directions, forcing themselves to curtail their own academic
curriculum in some cases, which is by far still very important in parents’ judgment over a school’s
standards and performance. The ward in which JP Three was located is one of the wealthier Tokyo
districts, which is home to many corporate headquarters, diplomatic establishments, and well-to-do
households. Local parents are said to be selective while the private school sector absorbs nearly half of
the 7th grader intakes in the case of junior high schools – significantly above the national average.

165
classes in the whole school102, consisting of less than a hundred students103. Survival

was understandably an urgent concern and the school’s preoccupations were not only

about offering a reasonably attractive academic curriculum but also about

“repackaging” itself and becoming more responsive to local parents. There were, to be

sure, signs that it did follow the Ministry of Education’s “minimalist guidelines”104 in

developing a Sōgōtekina-gakushū program of its own. On the surface at least, the

program seemed less sophisticated than those seen in JP One or JP Two, with the

learning activities being organized on a more individualized basis but with less

teacher supervision and assessment.

Like most public junior high schools, JP Three introduced its Sōgōtekina-

gakushū about two years ago (starting 2001). In the initial experimental phase, the

number of hours designated as Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan was 15, whereas in the

current full-scale program (from 2002), the number was about 70. As result of this

significant increase, school teachers were said to be encountering problems in

properly preparing the Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum105.

There was not one common curriculum per se for the classes, as students

were allowed to carry out their activities in a rather laissez-faire approach. The

emphasis of the learning activities varied for the 7th grade and the 8th-9th grades. The

102
Two 9th grade classes, one 8th grade class and one 7th grade class. The number of new student intake
was expected only to shrink further in future across the entire ward, according to JP Three’s school
principal (interviewed September 20, 2003).
103
There were 98 students in total: 7th graders (26), 8th graders (20) and 9th graders (42). Of these, 60
were boys and 38 girls.
104
For example, the Ministry recommends that Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan (number of school hours
devoted to Sōgōtekina-gakushū) should range between 70-130 hours. JP Three’s program used the
minimum of 70 hours. In addition, Sōgōtekina-gakushū can be arranged in two ways according to the
Ministry, namely, “classes” to be arranged in alternate weeks or in consecutive weeks. JP Three’s
program followed the latter case.
105
Teacher informant (subject teacher and research head) interview, conducted on September 26, 2002.

166
former seemed to be focusing on welfare (fukushi-gakushū) and the latter on the

mixed themes of job preparation (Shokugyō-gakushū) and social interaction (fureai)106.

The 7th grade class (only one class) was conducted under the charge (26

students) of a homeroom teacher. Welfare was the main theme for the 7th graders. I

did one observation of the class. Students were asked to report on the volunteer work

they had done during the summer vacation, which served as an extension of

Sōgōtekina-gakushū outside the school. Individual students107 were apparently given

prior choice to decide on the type and nature of volunteer work that they wanted to do.

Such work included helping out at a kindergarten, picking up garbage on the streets,

cleaning up public toilets, and learning to make Braille texts for blind people. The

students were supposed to be independent in arranging the contacts and negotiating

with the hosts of cooperative bodies if any were involved (though, in fact, the local

community’s businesses and welfare facilities, for example, might have already given

prior consent to the school to allow student visits)108. Students came in front of the

class to present their own summer volunteer experience, often with strips of “prompt

notes” in hand for self-reference. The presentations, however, tended to be descriptive

about mechanical processes, which were usually followed by brief comments by the

student (kansō) about his or her experience109.

106
Although it was not cited by the teacher informants in my interviews, a few students chose to work
on “report topics” that seemed to carry titles akin to “international study” (kokusai-rikai). Examples of
these included “Hong Kong” (Hon-kon), “The history and culture of dance” (dansu no rikishi to bunka),
and “The relationship between world’s fairy tales and imaginary creatures” (sekai no dōwa to kūsō no
seibutsu no kakawari).
107
Occasionally, students worked in pairs.
108
This is also the case with JP Five.
109
An example of a student’s comment: “It was tough but I think there was something worthwhile
about the work” (つらいのだが遣り甲斐があると思います).

167
 Teaching style in this class could be described as non-authoritative, and

moderately interactive. There were “question and answers” sessions in between

presentations and students were reasonably engaged and attentive during these

sessions. The supervising teacher110, while not always actively encouraging student

comments or giving feedback to every presenting student, did on some occasions,

attempted to clarify unfamiliar concepts and backgrounds (such as the mechanism

involved in preparing Braille texts). Still on other occasions, the presenting students

were expected to supply those concepts and backgrounds themselves.

There was one issue remaining in supervising a class such as this, namely,

that the teacher did not necessarily monitor students’ external progress closely enough.

As a result, very enthusiastic students might benefit more from their own involvement

in the experiential learning whereas less motivated students might turn out to spend

their time less in ways that were more productive or relevant to the expected learning

tasks. For example, one student reported that he did “chobbora”111 (“a tiny volunteer

work”), which turned out to be helping out an elderly woman to cross the street in a

single incident. Subsequently both the teacher and his fellow students challenged him

on what should properly constitute volunteer work. However, it was clear that

previous and timely feedback from the teacher could have been more helpful.

According to my teacher informant, the school had no intention to introduce

co-teaching in future 7th grade classes, citing the very diverse interests of the students

and that an additional teacher was unlikely to change the quality of supervision very

dramatically. In addition, it was said that at this school “Sōgōtekina-gakushū was first

110
A Japanese language subject teacher.
111
Highly colloquial expression for chotto shita borantia (ちょっとしたボランティア).

168
and foremost the children’s own work to learn through investigation” 112 . The

arrangement of supervision by the home-room teacher was considered more a merit

than otherwise since, according to the teacher informant, familiarity between the

teacher and students from the same home-room made it easier for students to seek

help113.

Students in the two senior grades had a larger chance to explore their own

specific interests by conducting a year-long114 mini-research project, locally known as

“Sōgōgakushū no kojin tēma”115 (individual themes for integrated learning). In the

case of the 9th graders (42 of them), the two classes were “merged” and students were

allowed to conduct their on research more or less on a single-person basis. Although I

had seen students gathering in small groups to perform teamwork such as sharing

information or discussing a topic, each student had his or her “individual theme”

named and designed independent of other fellow students.

“Individual themes” of learning/research activity of 9th graders at JP Three (2002)

“Themes” Remarks116
1 サッカー (Soccer)
2* 金閣と銀閣 (Kinkakuji and Ginkakuji Regional but non-Tokyo related
temples)
3 捨てられた動物たち (Stray animals) Community-related
4 ヴェネチアガラス (Venetian glass) “International study”-related

112
総合はあくまで子供達が自分で発見する。(Teacher informant, interviewed on September 26,
2002)
113
聞きやすいから、授業はこれからもずっとこのように行います。(Teacher informant,
interviewed on September 26, 2002)
114
This could extend into a second year if the student started to work on the same project in his or her
8th grade.
115
総合学習の個人テーマ
116
Themes marked with an asterix “*” are directly or partially related to localities in Kyoto in the
Kansai region. “Regional” (chiiki) refers to that the theme deals with particular cultural or historical
feature in a locality. “International study” (kokusai-rikai) here refers to themes loosely related to a
foreign topic (such as history or culture as seen in the table above). “Community” and “welfare”
themes seem to be ones that deal with cross-region (not necessarily local) or national issues.

169
5 香港 (Hong Kong) “International study”-related
6* 東大寺 (Tōdaiji temple) Regional but non-Tokyo related
7 すし (Sushi)
8 バスケット (Baskets)
9* 清水寺 (Kiyomizudera temple) Regional but non-Tokyo related
10 刀剣 (Swords and blades)
11 クリスマス (Christmas)
12 手話 (Sign language) Welfare-related
13 カラス (Crows)
14 保育園と幼稚園のちがい Community-related
(A comparison between nurseries and
kindergartens)
15 保育園と幼稚園のちがい Community-related
(A comparison between nurseries and
kindergartens)
16 老人介護 (Home care for old people) Welfare-related
17 ギター (Guitar)
18 ギターとピアノについて (Guitar and
piano)
19 沖縄の歴史と文化 (The history and culture Regional but non-Tokyo related
of Okinawa)
20 茶 (Tea)
21 天然石 (Natural rocks)
22 アイスクリーム (Ice-cream)
23 ケーキ (Cakes)
24 音楽建築について (Acoustics)
25 庭園 (Formal gardens)
26* 北野天満宮 Regional but non-Tokyo related
(Kitano-mantengū shrine)
27 食べ物の公害 (Food poisoning) Community-related
28 座禅 (Zen meditation)
29 昔から現代の乗り物 (Transport mediums
now and in the past)
30 ふれあいと反逆について (Social Community-related
interactions and rebellion)
31 子どもの遊び (Children’s games)
32* 東京と京都の事件の違い (A contrast of Regional but not limited to Tokyo
events in Tokyo and Kyoto)
33 スポーツの発生の地 “International study”-related
(The origins of sports)
34 三国志の歴史 (The history of the Romance “International study”-related
of the Three Kingdoms)
35* 石庭 (Zen gardens) Regional but non-Tokyo related
36 世界の童話と空想の生物の関わり (The “International study”-related
relationship between the world’s fairy tales
and imaginary creatures)
37 心理療法 (Psycho-therapy)
38 児童心理学 (Child psychology)
39 着物 (Kimono)
40 呪い (Cursing)
41 ダンスの歴史と文化 (The history and “International study”-related
culture of dance)
42 [Title not stated]

170
 During 8th and 9th grades, students were practically given full freedom to

choose or design their own “individual themes” (subjects). This implies that no single

one teacher would be able to handle supervision of even a small group of students,

given the diversity and specificity of their projects. During the observation, I had

asked three individual students (9th graders), whether they thought that their

supervising teachers had played an important role in their projects (which included

helping them decide an “individual theme” and giving other forms of feedback in the

course of their projects, etc.). Nearly all students responded negatively. Two students

(individual themes 10 and 17) commented that there was “no need” for them to

consult teachers. A third student (individual theme 9) said that he did ask a teacher at

one point regarding how to organize his findings. He also had approached the teacher

for advice on which topic (individual theme) to choose but eventually decided on it at

his own discretion. Teacher-student interactions in the course of the students’

investigations or other projects, therefore, seemed to be fairly limited.

A number of problems regarding Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan had been cited

by the teacher informant and the school principal117 of JP Three. These included the

(1) varying student abilities in designing and managing their own “individual themes”;

(2) relatively low level of experience and skill of the teachers to instruct and supervise

students, and therefore lack of feeling of self-efficacy on their own part; and (3)

concerns for maintaining the quality of academic subject teaching which competes

with Sōgōtekina-gakushū for time and resources. In the case of the first problem, it

was said that students came with quite different levels of motivation and skills, which

affected how much they could learn within the Sōgōtekina-gakushū as the activities

117
Interviewed on September 25, 2002.

171
were so individualized. One area students might encounter difficulties was how to

decide a feasible individual theme. Secondly, the teachers were said to lack the ability

to “teach” Sōgōtekina-gakushū118. Consequently, the effectiveness of the Sōgōtekina-

gakushū program was not rationalized since teachers did not input as much in

developing and delivering the Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum as they would in the

case of academic subject teaching. Thirdly, according to the school principal, the

simultaneous introduction of Sōgōtekina-gakushū and 5-day school week in the junior

high schools had strained certain school’s ability to teach academic subjects, with

Sōgōtekina-gakushū being sometimes attributed as a factor in falling academic

standards. It was said that Sōgōtekina-gakushū, being different in curricular objectives

and content, distracted schools from teaching and learning activities that would

otherwise be focused on the academic curriculum. Nevertheless, JP Three’s teachers

were said to be generally supportive of the introduction of Sōgōtekina-gakushū, which,

according to the school principal, should not be subordinated under academic subject

teaching. He claimed that there were other public schools which “cheated” by, for

example, using up to 3 or 5 hours of Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan for English classes

under the name of “international study”.

Case: JP Four

This public school is located in a medium-sized urban center in the eastern

Kansai region119. It is the only junior high school for the school catchment area120 it

118
先生たちは指導力がない。(Teacher informant, interviewed on September 25, 2002)
119
This area, where JP Four, JP Five and JP Six are located, is demographically rather peculiar in that it
does enjoy a net population growth from trans-regional migration over the recent decade whereas
childbirth rate declines nationally. Demands for basic education actually grow in response to this local
trend.

172
serves, and takes students regardless of intake quality. Consequently, it seemed to

suffer from the problems of overpopulation of students121 and strained resources122.

Average academic attainment of the students was said to be not as high as most other

local public schools. A lack of ability to “teach”123 Sōgōtekina-gakushū had been

cited by teacher informants themselves which was manifested in many ways during

observation ranging from teacher inaction to discipline, low levels of supervision and

feedback, to a general apathy towards the Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum itself.

A common Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum was being used for all students.

The curricular content or learning focus varied from 7th through 9th grade. Many of

these home-room-based classes offered opportunities for students to perform

voluntary work or make external visits to “understand” better the local social and

natural environments. Thus, Sōgōtekina-gakushū at JP Four seemed to emphasize

experiential learning, which tended to exploit learning opportunities afforded by

increased interactions between the school and the locality around it. The specific

learning activities involved aimed at developing students’ abilities to “explore,

exchange and express” 124 . In addition, the Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum was

120
This means that nearly all primary school graduates from the same school catchment area have no
choice but to go to this particular junior high school.
121
There are about 890 students, making JP Four the third largest school in the nearby region. This
compares unfavorably with national public schools (such as JP One and JP Two which have about 300
students each) and other local public schools I visited, such as JP Five. Average class size at JP Four is
about 36-39.
122
Particularly space since Sōgōtekina-gakushū generally requires individualized or group-based
activities whose student size is ideally smaller than what would be in homeroom teaching.
123
Shidōryoku (指導力)
124
These were original translations by the school for 探求する力 (tankyū suru chikara), 交流する力
(kōryū suru chikara), 表現する力 (hyōgen suru chikara). “Tankyū suru chikara” was defined as the
ability to “decide on a question to be investigated, conduct research, analyze and solve [problems]” [自
分で課題を見つけて調べて考えて解決していく力]. “Kōryū suru chikara” was defined as the
ability to “communicate and discuss with people and carry out activities related to surveys and
experiential learning”[人と相談して調査・体験活動などを行う力]. “Hyōgen suru chikara” was
defined as the ability to “express one’s thoughts through various means, and inform people effectively

173
expected to produce a certain “desired image” of the students, namely, one that was

“sympathetic and kind”125 and “independent and well-motivated”126. The curriculum

in practice was broken down into three stages, to be covered roughly in the 7th

through 9th school grades. This arrangement seemed to reminiscent of JP Two’s old

three-tier Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum 127 , which devoted the separate years to

groups of related skills, values or knowledge to be mastered in the learning activities.

Grade-specific curricular objectives and activities of Sōgōtekina-gakushū at JP Four (2002)128

Grade Types of activities General objectives
7th 課 題 設 定 (determining a 課題に気付く、発見する喜び (acquiring a sense of
theme or topic) satisfaction from becoming sensitive to one’s own
activity topics and making discoveries)
8th 追 求 方 法 (methods and 興味・関心を維持する力。粘り強く取り込む力
approach for inquiry) (developing the abilities to maintain a consistent interest
and pursue with great perseverance)
9th 生 き 方 を 見 つ め さ せ る 視野を広める (broadening one’s view or perspective
(learning to become “fit to [in particular, about socializing the child into the adult
live” or socially well- world or dealing with the local community])
adapted)

According to my teacher informant, the school had entered a cooperative

relationship with local small businesses (banks, factories, small retailers, etc.), welfare

and health facilities (hospitals, government health agencies, employment offices,

centers for the handicapped, old folks homes, etc.) and environment-related bodies

(water treatment plants, aquaculture farms, local museums, etc.). Through these, the

students were allowed to conduct visits or other forms of inquiry with the assured the

support and help from external bodies. One recent activity was known as “machi

and clearly”[自分の思いをさまざまな方法で表す、相手にわかりやすく伝える力]. Teacher

informant, interviewed on September 30, 2002.
125
思いやりのある子ども(omoiyari no aru kodomo).
126
意欲的に活動する子ども(iyokuteki ni katsudō suru kodomo).
127
Referring to the table “Original three-tier Sōgōtekina-gakushū program at JP Two, 1997-99” in this
chapter.
128
Adapted from the school’s 2001-2002 “Research Report” (研究紀要) which involved internal
research on the school curriculum and teaching of specific. Such research practice and output are
common to all Japanese schools but a feature not found in their Hong Kong counterparts.

174
tanken” (exploration of the local town), which aimed at exposing students to the local

landmarks and historical heritage and cultural features129. Students were thought to be

otherwise too “protected” in their home or school environments.

In class observation, however, there was no sign that teachers had a systematic

teaching plan as to what and how the class should be conducted. Many classes,

particularly of the 8th graders, tended to degenerate into non-productive activities

(students chatting, shirking group duties, running out of the classroom, etc.) while the

teacher’s presence did not seem to be an effective deterrent to this.

It also seemed that teachers did not make much attempt to adjust their teaching

approach for the classes130. During the session for “machi tanken”, for example, many

classes were conducted in ways that bore little difference to subject teaching classes.

Teachers might simply ask students to read out parts of the text written in a tourist

pamphlet, which, unfortunately, was not produced specifically for educational use and,

on close inspection, did contained major mistakes 131 . While in a few incidents

teacher-student interactions did occur in some classes, they were utterly absent in

some others. My teacher informant and the school principal indicated that teachers’

general apathy towards Sōgōtekina-gakushū had directly affected how the program

was carried out in individual classes. Some teachers might even contend that more

emphasis should be put on academic subject teaching. This meant that the school

129
This was done with the help from a local tourism office. A set of maps and printed pamphlets
describing the local environment was donated by the office to be adopted as part of the teaching
materials. Teachers used these as supplementary “textbooks” in the classroom to prepare students for
visit or help consolidate their knowledge.
130
I visited mainly 8th and 9th grade classes. Duration of the observation sessions ranged from about 5
to 15 minutes. Classes within the same grade were supposedly conducting similar activities on the
same weekly schedule (for example brainstorming, discussion, etc) though they might progress at
different pace (owing to discipline and variations in student ability).
131
In one of the passages, for example, an early period of the Meiji reign was cited as the late 1980s.

175
teachers did not have a consensus on the value of introducing Sōgōtekina-gakushū, let

alone what or how to teach in it.

According to the school principal, school teachers lacked confidence in

teaching the new program because, unlike in the case of conventional subject teaching,

there was no authorized textbooks to serve as a convenient basis on what to teach in

Sōgōtekina-gakushū. In a similar light, the Ministry of Education’s Course of Study

provided no specifications regarding the practice of teaching in Sōgōtekina-gakushū

in a classroom. When I asked my teacher informant if the school’s current teaching

situation could be improved if more information from the Ministry was made

available, she argued that the more useful type of information should concern

practical knowledge in teaching132, which might come from educational specialists in

research institutions and universities, though their number was still too few

nationwide to date. Again, findings from the interviews with my informants only

confirmed a general lack of readiness among school teachers for the new program.

Understandably, assessment and evaluation played a much marginalized role in

Sōgōtekina-gakushū at JP Four. The source of the problem was often said to be a lack

of time for teachers to properly undertake supervision of the rather large homeroom

classes (averaging 36-40 students each). The lack of “ability to teach” (shidōryoku) in

general was also cited, which might concern non-learning issues such as discipline.

Resources constraints were felt in other ways. The school had a standard-size

library, which had to be shared by the whole student population whether or not the

activities were related to Sōgōtekina-gakushū. The number of computers available

132
実践的な知識

176
was only 40, barely able to cope with more than one single homeroom class to

conduct activities together. The budget for activity spending (such as that related to

external visits) allotted to each grade per year was said to be a meager 10,000 yen

(about US$80) in 2002. As was the case at other public schools, JP Four did not

receive extra finances or subsidies from the local government 133 for spending in

Sōgōtekina-gakushū.

The current state of how assessment and evaluation for Sōgōtekina-gakushū

was being done was unclear. The teacher informant, originally the leader in a team of

teachers developing the first Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum during the experimental

phase134 in 2001, was no longer a member in the development team. According to her,

the current program no longer required teachers to carry out evaluation (in the form of

evaluation sheets given to the students, as in the case of all other schools visited).

Teachers were free to decide if the practice fitted the needs of their classes. The net

result, however, seemed to a further erosion of teachers’ awareness of the importance

of practicing evaluation in Sōgōtekina-gakushū. Since every class was required to

produce some form of reports on the year’s investigation or other activities (external

visits, surveys, for example), students’ performance in Sōgōtekina-gakushū was

measured in terms of the quality of presentation 135 , written accounts and other

exhibits near the end of the school year. Some of these student works were displayed

along the corridors for interested students to view, which resembled very much the

way presentation might be done in the other schools visited. I had not been able to

133
That is, the local board of education or kyōiku iinkai (教育委員会).
134
The number of hours devoted to Sōgōtekina-gakushū was 30 during the experimental phase and
about 60 under the current program. This is in fact below the minimum amount of time (70 hours)
recommended by the Ministry.
135
I was unable to conduction observation of student presentations in class because my travel schedule
was outside the school’s timetable for such activities.

177
collect information on how systematically the overall assessment (particularly through

in-class presentations136) was done due to time constraints in my visit schedule.

Case: JP Five

A public school located in the same region as JP Four with a somewhat more

rural setting, JP Five’s Sōgōtekina-gakushū program also contained a strong emphasis

on experiential learning. By contrast, however, the school seemed more ready to

invite external professional help in organizing learning activities within the school. A

number of short interviews which I conducted with school teachers showed that most

teachers had an much more positive attitude towards of the reformed program than in

the case of JP Four. Certain practices of teamwork that had been proven useful in

subject teaching were taken over in developing Sōgōtekina-gakushū.

The types of learning activities for Sōgōtekina-gakushū found in JP Five might

not appear fundamentally very different from those at JP Four. A clear common

emphasis was put on experiential learning which promised to expose students to

interactions with the local environment. At JP Five, these took the form of whole-

class visits to local facilities, workshops and talks by specialist guests and various

forms of surveys and studies carried out by students on local conditions.

Broadly speaking, the Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum was divided into three

categories. Within each category, there were a number of related sub-categories

targeting different types or levels of skills and knowledge. Both the categories and
136
As in most other schools, in-class presentations by students were mostly carried out around October
and November. Schools such as JP Two mainly used the period between January and March to help
students make decisions in choosing “classes” (zemi).

178
sub-categories can be seen as involving (I) local or regional environment, (II)

individual’s social role and relationship with society, and (III) non-local-specific

issues on welfare and public well-being.

Summary of categories and sub-categories of Sōgōtekina-gakushū activities at JP Five 2002

Grade Categories Sub-categories or titles of activities Activity time under sub-
categories (Total number of
hours)*
7th I 豊 か な 郷 土 (explore the local April – mid-July (34)
hometown)
7th II 職場訪問学習(visit the workplace) Mid-July – October (25)
th
7 III 共に生きる―障害を持つ人への November – March (26)
理解を深めよう (“living together”-
learn to become more sensitive to the
handicapped)
8th I 身 近 な 都 市 (explore the April – June (37)
neighboring cities and towns)
8th II 職場体験 (experience work at the Mid-November – March (25)
workplace)
8th III 暮らしやすい町を考えよう (create September – mid November (23)
a town more friendly to people of
special needs)
th
9 I 私たちの日本 (explore and study April – June (35)
the country)
9th II 自分の進路を考える (learn to plan July – September (14)
about future study and work)
9th III エ イ ズ に つ い て 考 え よ う January (5)
(understand AIDS)
9th III ボランティアを通して生き方を October – December (22)
考 え よ う (get familiar with
volunteering as part of life)
9th n.a. セミナーのまとめ (review personal February – March (9)
folder [work portfolio], present and
evaluate own work)
* Activity time does not include August, which is the usual period for school summer vacation in
Japan. Total Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan for each grade is 85 hours.

This organization of the Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum was quite peculiar to

JP Five. No other schools visited designed a curriculum in similar ways so as to allow

(or require) students to re-engage themselves in a sub-category activity previously

undertaken. The purpose of this seemed to be to develop the students’ abilities

progressively through school grades and ensure that their knowledge and skills were

179
properly consolidated before embarking on more advanced studies or more

demanding activities. As the school grades progressed, the scope of study also

expanded. For example, in the case of category I activities, 7th graders were supposed

to learn on themes related to the school’s immediate rural vicinity; their 8th fellow

students were to work on themes related to a nearby urban center; and 9th graders’

studies were concerned with themes involving an even larger geographical scope

(regional or national). This arrangement thus seemed rational and quite well-designed

to expose students to learning activities of multiple purposes, providing both diversity

of activity content and some common curricular framework. However, unlike the

cases of JP One, JP Two and JP Three, student choice about the types of activities was

made virtually impossible by the design of the program.

Like the case of JP two, the activity sessions were known as “seminars”

(seminā) but were organized within the homerooms. A number of teaching

approaches were said to be adopted to suit the learning activities in different stages

during the school year. For instance, during the induction or orientation period of a

sub-category activity, the whole-class approach137 would be used more frequently,

with teachers directly instructing the class to impart basic or background knowledge.

At later stages, a certain “zone” arrangement would be used instead in which groups

of students interacted closely for discussion and other forms of teamwork.

In actual observation, however, it seemed that the teaching approach might

also depend on the teachers’ own teaching style (as adopted in subject teaching). In

137
一斉学習 (issei gakushū)

180
one class138, the teacher instructed by lecturing throughout the whole session. Still, in

most other classes, teachers might be willing to adopt a more interactive approach. In

one such class139, a teacher used a “school grade newsletter”140 (curricular material

collectively developed by school teachers on a periodic basis) to explain features of a

nearby lake (Biwa-ko), provoking questions along the way when certain new terms

appeared. Later, he also distributed clippings from a local newspaper, which

contained survey charts (opinion polls) about house design for the elderly. Students

were promptly asked questions regarding the content while trying to interpret the

chart data. Discipline was well under control. In general, students responded

spontaneously, without even raising hands. They talked freely while the class

appeared reasonably in order. The class was conducted in a very lively manner. In

another class141 next door, the teacher was instructing the class about “universal

design” in urban living, the main task of the day being the discussion of how user-

friendly were public places to people in need (particularly the elderly, handicapped

and pregnant women, etc.). Seating of the students was quite casual though no

deliberate group-seating arrangement was observed. The teacher asked his students

individually to cite desirable features or problems of accessibility they had seen or

encountered in local public facilities (government buildings and health centers, for

example). He then encouraged students to think up suggestions to help make public

space more user-friendly. The students were generally well-disciplined, cooperative

and willing to share their own ideas. While the class could be described as being

conducted in a relaxed lively atmosphere, both the teacher and students managed to

138
7th grade class. There was no special seating plan. The teacher “dominated” over the class, raising
key points and making clarifications. The teaching content seemed very organized. There was no
discipline problem.
139 th
8 grade class
140
学級通信 (gakukyūtsūshin). The particular newsletter used in class was issue number 83, indicating
that the school had been developing such materials for quite some time.
141
Also 8th grade class

181
maintain it at a sensible noise level. Boys tended to be relatively more responsive and

talked spontaneously. In two 9th grade classes, which were incidentally covering skills

and knowledge on “planning one’s future”142, the session was much quieter with

minimized interactions. On teacher used a booklet143 for “guided reading” to

familiarize students with the procedure of high school admissions. The was no evident

attempt to invite questions or interactions. The class was in general conducted in good

order though the teacher did make a point to discipline two restless students –

something that in fact rarely occurred in most Sōgōtekina-gakushū sessions observed.

The emphasis of teaching in these particular classes seemed restricted to giving

precise details.

Despite the general success of Sōgōtekina-gakushū at JP Five, teachers were

aware of some of the limitations in its present form. For instance, while students were

said to be showing encouraging evidence of development in skills related to

presentation, their skills or abilities in self-learning remained relatively weak.

Consequently, many students might not be able to advance to higher levels of study or

learning in Sōgōtekina-gakushū144.

5.3.4 Summary of the Japanese Cases

A number of interesting features had been displayed in the curricular

objectives, content, teaching approach and organization of the reformed programs in

the Japanese cases. One salient feature of the Japanese cases was perhaps the
142
自分の進路を考える
143
A booklet on high school admissions apparently prepared by the school, and updated periodically
over each school year.
144
発表の工夫が十分に見える。マナーも少し学んだ。ただ、自分で学びを進める力はまだ弱
くて、深めることが欠けている。(Teacher informant interview, conducted on October 2, 2002)

182
remarkably low levels of government involvement (both financially and technically)

in systematizing and disseminating progressive practices among the school. The

reason for this may not be treated in this study given its limited scope. Regional

differences were certainly present and affected how Sōgōtekina-gakushū was being

utilized as a means to promote skills, values and knowledge not directly linked to

academic study. In some cases, problems with the introduction of Sōgōtekina-gakushū

in junior high schools arose as a result of teachers’ general lack of skill and

experience (for example, in developing, teaching and assessing curriculum). The

intensity of these were magnified in the more extreme cases of JP Three and JP Four,

which, interestingly, were confronted by the challenges of coping with student size

and abilities put forth by opposing demographic forces in urban Japan.

Student choice and diversity in curricular activities

One common feature of the three schools in the highly urbanized area of

metropolitan Tokyo and Kantō was the emphasis on student choice and a high level of

diversity in curricular content. In the case of JP One, JP Two and JP Three, the

programs seemed to be organized in such a way that school intervention in students’

decisions related to Sōgōtekina-gakushū was kept to a minimum. Student choice was

respected as long as their choice of activities fell within the school’s guiding themes

for learning145, which, in most cases, were essentially re-interpretations of the

Ministry of Education’s guidelines in local contexts. At the two national public

schools, Sōgōtekina-gakushū “classes” were formed by students opting into a

145
Welfare, volunteer work, regional issues, environment, international study, etc.

183
particular “elective”146. Students were then required to undertake some individual or

group-based projects devoted to self-chosen topics of study or investigation.

The reforming of JP Two’s 1997-99 Sōgōtekina-gakushū program into its

current shape meant that the school’s organization of its curriculum had converged

with JP One’s model, with a high emphasis on making the activities more diverse and

possibly more relevant to individual student interests.

In the case of JP Three, students were given a similar level of autonomy to

choose their subjects of interest (“individual themes”) and conduct a year-long study

on their own or in small groups. The content of the curriculum was left entirely open

to the 42 students who made up the 9th grade.

At the two Kansai public schools, JP Four and JP Five, student choice was less

obvious because the Sōgōtekina-gakushū “classes” were organized within subject

teaching homerooms. A common curriculum was adopted for all students, its content

being defined by a number of broad themes variable through the school grades.

Student choice existed not over the broad themes of learning but only within activities

of the individual homeroom classes, as they were allowed, at some stage of the

common program, to choose topics of personal interests for study or investigation. To

be sure, diversity of curricular activities did exist in Sōgōtekina-gakushū at the two

Kansai schools though more often than not they tended to have a bias for experiential

learning in closed local contexts.

146
Called zemi (ゼミ or “seminars”) at JP Two and simply sentaku-gakushū (選択学習 or “electives”)
at JP One. Note that Communication and Skill at JP Two, a new component of the curriculum, was
organized within the homeroom.

184
Investigative work or learning through experience?

There is no reason to think that investigation-based study147 and experiential

learning are mutually exclusive on the priority list for developing Sōgōtekina-gakushū.

However, resource constraints in Japanese schools were always a realistic concern.

There is evidence that schools might want to promote certain types of learning

activities more extensively if they were deemed more appropriate or productive in

relation to local resource accessibility and student needs. Obviously, in the long run, a

Sōgōtekina-gakushū program is likely to produce students who are more advanced in

particular skills or knowledge if the curriculum is skewed towards related learning

activities that promote them, and vice versa.

As expected, the two national public schools (JP One and JP Two) were more

well-equipped to promote activities of an investigative nature with their more able

teachers, better resources148 and students of generally higher abilities. However,

student abilities did not seem to be a critical factor in the case of JP Three, which also

encouraged students to conduct individualized studies and make extensive use of

computers and the Internet for research as well as presentation. The shrinking intake

size had unexpectedly afforded the school the chance to exploit the use of resources

(teachers, computers, library, etc.). Although experiential learning of some sort

(volunteer work) was being promoted at the 7th grade, this was wholly superseded at

147
Such as majority of the electives at JP One and a large number of zemi at JP Two.
148
In terms of school facilities and budget, the national public schools may not be very different from
the normal public schools but their relatively small student population, and thus class size, makes
possible teaching in more favorable conditions. After all, teachers are the main agents of teaching and
learning; a smaller teacher-student ratio would at least favor interaction and feedback which might be
necessary in some Sōgōtekina-gakushū contexts.

185
the 8th and 9th grades by the so-called “individual themes”. The teacher informant at

JP Three commented that students actually benefited substantially from the increased

use of computers, with “nearly everyone being proficient in basic applications”149.

As shown in this case150, volunteer work was done in rather a laissez-faire manner.

Since there was no established supervision or feedback system in place for teachers151

to monitor students’ external work, it is unclear how effective this kind of

“experiential learning” could be. Despite its many limitations and the challenge of

managing student of varying abilities, JP Three’s case seemed to indicate that even

less well-equipped schools could afforded to let its students to study independently

and at their own pace, which, according to the school, had been proven reasonably

successful within the local contexts.

On close inspection, JP Two’s Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum seemed more

balanced and conformist to the guiding themes in official policies than JP One’s, in

that it did pay more attention to non-investigative and experiential-learning-based

activities, which were often integrated in multiple themes (welfare, volunteer work,

etc.). According to JP One’s principal and vice-principal152, the current program had

been in existence well before Sōgōtekina-gakushū became compulsory for public

junior high schools. One might say that school’s special status as an innovative and

dissemination center of teaching had granted it certain privileges to be exempt from

conforming totally to government guidelines153.

149
Teacher informant interview, conducted on September 26, 2002.
150
Refer to the account on JP Three in 5.3.3
151
There was only one homeroom teacher in charge and co-teaching was said to be “unnecessary”
(Teacher informant interview, conducted on September 26, 2002).
152
Interviewed on September 20, 2002.
153
Notably, the school’s 7th graders did not have to undertake any Sōgōtekina-gakushū activity. This is
a very prominent exception among all the other schools visited.

186
 From a regional perspective, experiential learning was clearly not as strongly

emphasized at the metropolitan Tokyo and Kantō schools as in the case of the two

Kansai public schools (JP Four and JP Five). In particular, JP One did not have any

particular “elective courses” that required a high level of interactions between the

students and local community or environment. Many of the learning activities were

confined to the school compound. Though there were incidents where students might

need to travel outside the school and interact with the local community or

environment (for example, electives 1, 3 and 7)154, the fact that experiential learning

was not organized as “mandatory” and school-wide155 indicates that the school might

have other higher priorities in its curriculum.

At JP Four and JP Five, activities were more defined within the broad learning

theme decided by the schools. As a common curriculum156 was adopted by the

schools, each student had a fair chance to undertake similar activities in the course of

their three-year school study. For the same reason that student choice was restricted to

individual study at the homeroom level, the schools were better positioned to steer

student’s energies and time towards activities that teachers saw as desirable.

Experiential learning activities were thus being pursued on a very extensive scale at

both JP Four and JP Five, though they might have achieved success to different

degrees.

154
As part of elective 1’s activities, students would, at some point, present their work to young primary
school children. To what extent this would constitute “experiential learning”, however, is beyond the
scope of this current study. In the case of electives 3 and 7, students do have a chance to explore plants
on their school compound, for instance. Assuming this also qualified as some form of interaction with
the natural environment, such interactions were almost certainly not organized as extensively as in the
case of the Kansai schools.
155
This was the case at JP Four and JP Five.
156
This “common curriculum” was defined more in terms of learning objectives and goals collectively
designed by school teachers. Variations of teaching styles, student and teacher attitudes, and discipline
are some of the factors that may render the actual activity process and outcomes less predictable.

187
 One feature not found in the other cases was that a close partnership between

the Kansai schools and local community had been established to ensure that interests

in experiential learning were supported and shared by institutions and individuals

(parents, for example) to bring in expertise and resources not found inside the school.

However, it was also said that a permanent cooperative relationship with the local

community was difficult to sustain, since repeated school or student requests tended

to wear the patience or resources of the host bodies157.

Again, student abilities did not seem to be a central concern for the schools to

decide whether experiential-learning-based activities should become a dominant form

of leaning in the curriculum. Rather, it seemed that schools were making logistical

calculations so as to account for their more rural regional settings. With the schools

being surrounded by local small businesses and factories, for example, it seemed

rational for them to make use of the easy access to these to organize student visits and

other kinds of practical exposure. These local features, to a large extent, were

unavailable to the schools in metropolitan Tokyo and Kantō. Similarly, in Kansai, the

proximity of the nearby Lake Biwa and the many natural water systems provided

excellent learning background with good justifications of activity costs (such as

transport)158.

While experiential learning activities were tied to interests of the local

community, their educational purposes were often multiple. Japanese children, long

thought to be over-protected by school and pampered by their parents, were also

157
Teacher informant at JP Four, interviewed on September 30, 2002. This is also a problem frequently
encountered by Hong Kong schools conducting project learning.
158
Observation and investigation activities related to the natural environment were mostly restricted to
the school compounds at JP One and JP Two.

188
sometimes regarded as unprepared for social transactions in the “real world”. This

concern was felt even at schools such as JP Two, where students’ academic

achievement was generally assured. During one of the observation sessions, for

example, my teacher informant refrained from helping a group of students (about six

or seven 7th graders) attempting to make a telephone contact, presumably to negotiate

with an external host. A few students researched by scanning though a Yellow Page

book while their fellow group members waited at the phone. Whether or not

teamwork was supposed to be involved, it was said that the students were relatively

weak in such practical skills159. Experiential learning could thus serve to help students

to learn to deal with demands such as executing tasks independently (without adult

intervention) and problem-solving, along with the many social and relational

implications in the activity.

Living together

Welfare (fukushi)160 and volunteer work (hōshi-katsudō)161 were frequently

interlinked themes in many schools’ Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum162, which could

be further expanded to include a regional emphasis if that fitted the educational

purpose163. To some extent, welfare and volunteer work were also convenient themes

159
See also the footnote on “tairitsu” in the account on JP Two.
160
福祉
161
奉仕活動
162
A third theme, human rights (人権), was included in some schools’ curriculum though it seemed to
be a less significant theme to school children.
163
Regional (or chiiki) related learning activities are ones that are concerned with experiential learning.
By requiring students to walk out of their classrooms and setting up contacts potential hosts for
volunteer work, for example, a school can easily make students become more exposed to interactions
with the local community, even if the original activities are targeting skills and knowledge more related
to welfare and volunteer work. This observation agrees with Cave’s argument learning through
experience and integration with the local community fit well with the activity agenda
for welfare and volunteer work (Cave 2003, 97).

189
to be adopted inside or outside the classroom since nearly every region in which the

schools were located must have some facilities or services accessible to teachers and

students. Japan as an aging society ensures that the need for certain types of welfare

service would only continue to grow. Apart from government efforts to promote

volunteer work in schools, the there is a growing sense of “awakening” to the need for

care related to disability among the regional or local communities. Since most

volunteer activities automatically have an experiential component attached to them,

these, according to the Ministry of Education164, should at least have a beneficial

effect on students’ becoming more caring and responsible individuals. In the mean

time, volunteer activities had already been introduced within some schools’ “special

activity” (tokubetsu katsudō) periods165 before Sōgōtekina-gakushū came into being.

It is thus not surprising that such schools re-adjusted their timetables so as to expand

students’ volunteer and experiential learning activities in the reformed curriculum.

The notion of “living together” (kyōsei166 or tomo ni ikiru167) had appeared or

featured, in one way or another, in the curriculum of most of the schools which I

visited. Some schools indicated a strong intention to incorporate welfare and

volunteer work related themes systematically into student activities – notably, JP Four,

JP Five and JP Two, whose programs included a whole group of zemi called “Living

164
Volunteer work and “learning through experience” (taiken-katsudō) are being promoted not under
the MEXT section responsible for curriculum development (初等中等教育局) but under the one for
“life long learning” (生涯学習政策局). Under the current initiative children volunteer activities, it is
suggested that ideally, if not compulsorily, school children should undertake volunteer work regularly
after school or during the weekend, which coincides with the curtailing of the normal school weekly
schedule to five days. For reference on this, refer to the MEXT at <http://housi.mext.go.jp/>. Accessed
January 2003.
165
This usually takes up 35 hours of the total school hours (980 hours) in a year for each junior high
school grade, according to the current Course of Study. The range of special activities can be very
broad (school “festivals”, group travel, volunteer work, etc.), which aims at developing a variety of
personal and social skills.
166
共生
167
共に生きる

190
Together Time”. Some other schools seemed less enthusiastic about this. JP One, as

mentioned, had a well-established elective-based program, whose content the school

was not keen to change as it had, reportedly, proved quite successful in promoting

skills and knowledge more relevant to the school’s children. JP Three, on the other

hand, had given its students free rein over their interests of study. Only a handful of

them had chosen to work on a topic related to welfare or volunteer work and

presumably this did not necessarily call for experiential learning.

Still, it was likely that students choosing to work on a welfare or volunteer

work related topic would confine their activity inside the classroom for at least a

significant portion of their time. Certain types of student activities were meant to be

sedentary by their nature. For example, preparing Braille texts (tenji)168, one of the

popular activities with a strong association with both welfare and volunteer work169,

required the students to exercise great patience and skill while remaining seated for

long periods of solitary work. Sign language (shuwa)170 could appear either as an

isolated subject of learning or as an integrated component in an activity related to

welfare or volunteer work (or both). Another topic being brought up in welfare-

related activities was “barrier free” (baria-furī) access for the handicapped (visual-

motor handicaps), especially at urban public facilities171. In class, students might be

168
点字
169
At JP Two, there were at two zemi that directly involved the preparation of such texts. At JP Three,
one 7th grade student (out of a class of 26) chose to work on Braille texts as his summer volunteer work,
which was quite unusual since the activity was of a more demanding nature.
170
手話
171
In JP Four’s curriculum, all 7th graders would undertake a common (welfare-related) activity on how
to improve the living environment for people of special needs. The wheelchair (kuruma-isu) itself made
for a good topic of discussion in many classes here and in other schools. At JP Five, part of the 8th
grade Sōgōtekina-gakushū was devoted to similar activities (category III, under the title「暮らしやす
い町を考えよう」). JP Five’s activity included conducting surveys (on “people of special needs”),
preparing presentation materials and arranging for an open session with some external guests involved
in the surveys. The presentation was supposed to be done with PowerPoint.

191
asked to discuss how accessibility to people of special needs172 could be improved

and design their own user-friendly facilities, which, in reality, had very little chance

of being implemented outside the school, if at all.

The main purpose behind activities related to “living together” seemed to be

cultivating desired personal and social qualities, which were characterized by an

active interest in “human rights”, sensitivity to the disabled (and other special social

groups), and some general sense of kindness which might, for example, be expressed

as “omoiyari no aru kodomo” (emphatic child) in JP Four’s curricular objectives.

Independence by accident or by design

A number of terms and concepts used in the recent policies on Sōgōtekina-

gakushū173 had been re-cast in curriculum planning at the school level. The notions of

“learning independently, thinking independently” and “living independently”174 were

particularly proverbial and powerful. Many schools had faithfully borrowed these

words in their own annual reports of internal research175 but, in practice, it would be

difficult to interpret which activities constitute the growth of learning, thinking and

living (as if all three could be attained simultaneously). It is still more difficult to

172
“People of special needs” refer to the physically disabled, audio-visual-motor handicapped, elderly,
and even foreigners in JP Five’s case.
173
Curriculum Council 1998.
174
“自ら学び、自ら考え” (mizukara manabi, mizukara kangae) and “自ら生きる” (mizukara ikiru).
The term “ikiru” is particularly problem because it involves a host of open interpretations about what
makes up a well-adapted, active, yet perhaps individualistic student in modern living. In fact, in many
cases of policy documents, “self-learrning” and “self-thinking” seemed to be prerequisites of “living
independently”, rather than parallel or comparable goals. For example, according to the Curriculum
Council’s Final Report in 1998 (ibid.).
175
Kenkyū kiyō or kenkyū kiroku. Schools often document their curricular plans, schedules, activities,
sample student works in these published volumes. The internal research is usually put in charge of a
research head (also a subject teacher).

192
measure proficiency achieved in a skill – particularly when so many schools had not

exploited the potential teacher feedback and evaluation.

Interestingly, however, the idea of “independence”176 seemed to have been re-

interpreted in the context of Sōgōtekina-gakushū as a form of student self-reliance or

autonomy, free of both teacher intervention and assistance. In many cases during the

process of conducting an individual “project” by the student177, teachers absented

themselves from giving immediate feedback or guidance at the scene. The practice of

co-teaching was avoided at JP Three because student interests were too diverse and

“Sōgōtekina-gakushū should be all about students doing their own work [thus

additional supervision unnecessary] ”178. It was also interesting to note that all 9th

graders at the school were allowed to work on “individual themes” chosen by each of

them. Group work, while present in the course of students’ interacting and exchanging

information, was not encouraged, contrary to conventional practices in some subject

teaching.

Almost invariably, evaluation of Sōgōtekina-gakushū activities, either on

session or more long-term basis, was almost entirely done by the students themselves

(completing evaluation worksheets being the most common forms). Even though

teachers did inspect students’ folders and evaluation materials, if any, it was

uncommon for them to give practical advice and comments beyond occasional words

of encouragement.

176
主体性 (shutaisei)
177
For example, in the case of JP Three, and to some extent JP Two.
178
Teacher informant interview at JP Three. Refer to the account on this school.

193
 As observed in class, teaching approaches could vary significantly even within

the same school (depending on the activity of the day and personal teaching style)

though teachers generally seemed to adopt a minimalist policy towards supervising

students. Disciplining was rare179. Teachers might simply ignore the idle students and

carry on instructing others. This was also true at schools that were more prone to

discipline problems, such as JP Four. In the case of the national public schools,

classes were conducted in very good discipline though idling or shirking of group

duties might occur as another form of distraction. I had not observed any practice of

teacher disciplining in relation to procrastination.

Problems and implications

While most school teachers and principals whom I had interviewed generally

held a positive view of Sōgōtekina-gakushū for its potential to fulfill multiple

educational goals, some were more frank about its practical limitations and

weaknesses. Some of these limitations and weaknesses were linked to teachers’ own

skill and expertise in developing and teaching Sōgōtekina-gakushū which, being

freshly introduced, had put new demands and expectations on teachers180. Assessment

was a frequently cited problem spot – both in interviews with school teachers and on

government published surveys – though teachers rarely insisted that radical changes

should be made to the ways assessment and evaluation were being done in schools.

The other problems were related to the local conditions in which Sōgōtekina-gakushū

179
Only at JP Five did I observe in a class a teacher openly admonishing two restless students for not
paying attention (Refer to the account on the school).
180
This was perhaps less felt to be so at the two national public schools where teachers had been
experimenting with their locally developed programs 4-10 years before Sōgōtekina-gakushū was
formally introduced.

194
was being operated: student quality, competing concerns from academic teaching,

resources, government aid and support.

In a recent research report by the Tokyo Professional Teacher Training Center

(TPTTC 2001)181, a survey of junior high school teachers on their views of

Sōgōtekina-gakushū found that, “communication and cooperation between

teachers”182, “assessment and evaluation”, “teaching methods”183, “curriculum

planning” 184, “scheduling”, “developing teaching materials”, and “teacher

motivation185” were among the many top concerns in schools. In my own

interviews186, school teachers also cited “teamwork” as one of the more critical

factors for successful implementation of Sōgōtekina-gakushū. Perhaps it was not

accidental that the more successful187 schools (JP One, JP Two and JP Five) did

feature a high level of teacher teamwork and active participation (especially at the

stage of developing of the curriculum188). Teachers at the two national public schools

functioned as virtually autonomous curriculum developers, responsible for their own

181
This report was commisioned by the Center and produced by serving junior high school teachers
(there were ten of them, all from schools in metropolitan Tokyo and outlying urban centers within the
Tokyo municipality) on an ad hoc team. The teachers conducted the research non-working periods and
the entire research spanned about one year.
182
先生の共通理解[or, mutual understanding]や連携
183
教師の指導（支援）方法 – “teaching (and support) methods”
184
Referring to curricular content, activities, etc.
185
教師の意識. Alternatively, this might be translated as “consciousness as a teacher”. Some of such
variables were not well-defined in the surveys.
186
Interviews at JP One, JP Two and JP Five. I had used a short questionnaire to ask my informants to
name from a list of factors that might have contributed the relative success or failure in their schools’
Sōgōtekina-gakushū programs.
187
I judge this on the quality of teaching and supervision, overall process of teaching and learning in
Sōgōtekina-gakushū well as well as some of the student performance and works during observation. It
is perhaps unfair to overlook the fact that individual students in other schools did perfrom well in their
activities or that the programs might be successful in ways not observable during my visits. However, I
have also taken into account of school teachers and principals’ own comments in appraising their state
of Sōgōtekina-gakushū. In general, JP Three viewed itself as achieving some moderate success in its
own contexts. The interviews at JP Four with the teacher informant and school principal were of a
much more critical kind of evaluation.
188
Referring to the design of content and activities. As said, however, many teachers at these schools
also adopted a minimalist approach towards supervision and evaluation, as in the case of JP Three and
JP Four.

195
students and activities in the electives (or seminars). JP Five featured a model of

collective curriculum planning (and also planning of a common timetable). Its

teachers were generally very responsive to my questions189 and well-informed about

the state of how Sōgōtekina-gakushū was being run in the school. At the other two

public schools (JP Three and JP Four), the sense of teacher involvement was much

more diffuse. In the case of JP Three, teachers’ input in developing the Sōgōtekina-

gakushū curriculum must be relatively low compared to most other schools as this

fitted the school’s laissez-faire approach to give students maximized choice and

freedom in their learning activities. In the case of JP Four, some teachers were

described as “resistant” to Sōgōtekina-gakushū. It did not seem that the teachers had

arrived at a consensus about how the program should be organized or run. For

example, when my teacher informant was involved in the curriculum development

team (resigned from early 2002), the school used to periodically publish a newsletter

as some common teaching materials for Sōgōtekina-gakushū, much like the way in it

was being practiced in JP Five. However, this newsletter had been removed from the

current school year. Self-evaluation forms, commonly used in many schools visited,

were recently made optional at JP Four at the “convenience” of some teachers.

Although many teachers whom I interviewed expressed their concern that

assessment and evaluation in their current forms might not be done in the ideal way,

few contended that radical changes were forthcoming or possible. Even in the more

established programs at JP One and JP Two, evaluation was mostly done by the

students evaluating themselves. In-class feedback and written feedback during

inspection of self-evaluation forms were quite limited. Assessment in many schools

189
I conducted informal interviews with two school teachers at JP Five besides a more detailed, semi-
structured interview with my main teacher informant.

196
might take the form of presentations (“interim” and year-end, for example) and

displaying students’ work (along corridors, on blackboards, or by special display

arrangements in the classrooms190). I conducted observation191 on one of the

presentation days at JP Two. The presentations were characterized by very flexible

arrangements – much like a collection of mini-open days by the different zemi.

Students (working in groups of varying sizes) made scheduled presentations, so that

interested parties could visit them to share the activity. Teachers were not present to

monitor most of the time. In general, students seemed to be quite engaged and

enjoying their activity. However, since observations of the presentations was not

made compulsory, the presenting zemi groups actually presented only before a

relatively small audience. As in the case of the earlier in-class observation at JP Two,

students’ attention could be difficult to maintain, with some either turning restless or

idle. Since a group-based approach was adopted at JP Two for the students’ year-long

projects, individuals’ development in skills depended a lot on self-discipline—there

was no formal means to deter procrastination or buck-passing. Not surprisingly, at JP

Two and JP Five, one of the common problems cited in Sōgōtekina-gakushū

assessment was associated with measuring the proficiency of skill192 acquired by

individual students. The teacher informant at JP Five commented that teachers

“simply had no time” for assessment and evaluation193.

The cases of JP Three and JP Four illustrated most cogently the problem in

which student quality affected Sōgōtekina-gakushū. Quality here had its aptitude and

190
For example, in one zemi (zemi 19) at JP Two which involved “inventing new forms of sports”,
students were demonstrating their efforts by performing inside the school stadium. Another zemi (zemi
23) was occupied with tending to plants which the students had grown for their activity.
191
October 7, 2002.
192
熟練度 (jukurendo)
193
Teacher informant interview, conducted on October 2, 2002.

197
discipline dimensions. Both schools were said to have students with varying levels of

learning abilities. Teachers’ teaching approach at the two schools, at least from what

was observed, was minimalist. Under these conditions, one may suspect that JP

Three’s program performed at similar standards as JP Four’s. However, in terms of

school teachers’ own attitudes and appraisal about their home programs, JP Three’s

teachers appeared markedly sanguine towards students’ performance or results despite

the fact that the school was suffering from operational problems arising from regional

population decline. To be sure, the schools started with very different emphasis in the

way they organized Sōgōtekina-gakushū. JP Three’s program spanned about 70 hours

over the school year whereas JP Four’s contained only 60 hours194, the least of all the

five schools. If the relative length of time devoted to Sōgōtekina-gakushū reflected the

relative level of confidence that a school had towards its program or students, then JP

Three was probably more certain about where it stood. In any case, JP Three did not

report the same kind of teacher apathy mentioned at JP Four. In this light, it seemed,

an approving or supportive teacher body might help render a reformed program

function more successfully. Apart from this, I noticed that students at JP Three were

generally more well-behaved (in particular, students of the 9th grades). At JP Four,

however, student behaviors were less predictable across the school grades, with

certain 8th classes being prone to disorder or idling. On this, my teacher informant at

JP Four commented that “It would be good if the teachers try to intervene more. It’s

no good without a sense of purpose.”195

194
60 hours for 7th and 8th graders and 59hours for 9th graders. Under the MEXT guidelines, these were
considered below the required minimum Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan for junior high schools.
195
先生方はもう少し指導したらいいが、やはり目的意識がないとだめである。(Interview
conducted on September 30, 2002)

198
 The two national public schools were at an advantage as far as student and

teacher quality was concerned. Nonetheless, they were not immune to pressures from

the need of maintaining their standards in the academic curriculum. JP One, for

instance, had deliberately kept the 7th graders out of Sōgōtekina-gakushū. Both JP

One and JP Two’s programs contained approximately the minimum level of school

hours as required by the Ministry of Education. The need to cope with parents’

expectations in academic achievement might be just as keenly felt at JP Four, where

students were known to experience discipline problems even during subject teaching

classes. As mentioned, its program contained only 60 school hours196. Since all

schools insisted that the Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum should in no part be

subordinated to the academic curriculum or be integrated into it, the Sōgōtekina-

gakushū could well be competing with other teaching concerns on a school’s

timetable. This problem was probably aggravated in some schools’ cases by the recent

introduction of the 5-day school week.

Resources were sometimes a problem for schools depending on the criteria by

which they were being defined. Financially, few schools reported discontent resulting

from the costs in operating their programs. Funding for Sōgōtekina-gakushū was

usually created from within the schools’ fiscal budget. Although local governments

(that is, the boards of education197) had not been directly subsidizing schools to carry

out Sōgōtekina-gakushū, a recent initiative198 offering moderate grants had been put in

196
By contrast, the neighboring JP Five’s program was 85 hours for each grade, the longest of all
school visited.
197
教育委員会
198
ゆたかな体験活動推進事業 (“Initiative for the promotion of enriched experiential learning
activities”, yutakana taiken katsudō suishin jigyō). A pre-condition on the use of related grants was that
activities should be devoted to “exploration of the countryside and nature”. (Interview with an officer-
in-charge at the Bureau for Primary and Secondary Education, Ministry of Education, conducted on
September 24, 2002)

199
place to promote activities with a strong link to experiential learning in regional and

local contexts. These amounts were in the order of about 100,000 to 140,000 yen

(US$800-1,120) per year, which seemed barely sufficient for a large school such as JP

Four. In addition, the money was also supposed to be shared with the programs of

“Special Activities” (tokubetsu katsudō). Nevertheless, financial concerns were

seldom cited as critical. At JP Five, for example, the school attempted to control costs

by making students pay for their own transport during trips to welfare and other

outside facilities.

In terms of the schools’ infrastructure, most schools felt that they were not

well-equipped for the types of activities conducted in Sōgōtekina-gakushū. JP Five’s

provisions of facilities and equipments were visibly better than JP Four’s despite the

latter’s larger student size. Each homeroom at JP Five had a computer set whereas

almost no other schools visited had similar provisions. A typical Japanese school’s

computer room had about 40 machines – at larger schools such as JP Four, facilities

were clearly strained since other teaching activities also competed for resources. In

schools where Sōgōtekina-gakushū was organized around homeroom units (JP Four

and JP Five), conditions in class tended to be crowded, with reduced flexibility to

adjust teaching and learning approaches (such as adopting special seating).

Another form of resources came as expertise and aid from the local

community. Such resources were seen particularly relevant to the curricula at JP Four

and JP Five, both featuring extensive programs of activities related to experiential

learning. As mentioned earlier, though it was possible for schools to establish a stable

partnership with the local community (businesses, welfare facilities, etc.), repeated

200
requests risked straining the ties while nearby schools might also compete for access

or resources. According to the teacher informant at JP Two, national public schools

were by far in a better position to elicit help of an academic kind from the universities

to which they were affiliated199. The converse was probably true of ordinary public

schools (notably, JP Five with its more rural, secluded location), which tended to rely

on partnership with public facilities, businesses and individuals within the local

community200.

Given that Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan was only introduced recently in most

junior high schools201, the framework of resources and support for schools and

teachers seemed to be still in a nascent stage of development. I had interviewed a

number of “assistant superintendents”202 in metropolitan Tokyo and in the Kansai

region, and inquired about the state of professional or technical support from the local

199
For example, the principal of JP One was an academic researcher (PhD) at his own university and
took up his current post at the junior high school by rotation. The former JP Two principal was a well-
known scholar of child education and had written extensively on Integrated Learning. Apart from
affiliation reasons, most national schools found their paired-up universities readily accessible in term of
logistical distance.
200
For example, according to my JP Five teacher informant, the school recently invited an “etiquette
consultant” from a local bank (located in a nearby urban center) to conduct a series of workshops at the
school. The results were said to be quite satisfactory – “[子供たちは]マナーも少し学んだ”
(Interviewed on October 2, 2002). A fee was paid to the guest instructor.
201
All the schools studied, except JP One and JP Two, started their full-scale reformed programs in
April 2002, after a one-year experimental phase with much shorter activity hours.
202
指導主事 (shidōshuji). These are relieved subject-teaching teachers from schools who serve
contract periods at the local boards of education (various administrative levels) and other government
educational authorities. Their job includes, for example, inspecting schools and delivering practical
advice on subject teaching not unlike what is practiced by the Hong Kong CDI’s (Curriculum
Development Institute) professional team, though the system of assistant superintendents (指導主事制)
in Japan has a much longer history than Hong Kong’s case. The interviews were conducted (between
mid-September and mid-October, 2002) at the following agencies with the assistant superintendents in
charge of matters related to school curriculum and Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan: one ward-level board
of education in Tokyo (1), the Tokyo Municipality Board of Education (2), the Tokyo Professional
Teacher Training Center (2), and one regional general education center (総合教育センター) in Kansai
(1). The number in brackets indicates the number of assistant superintendents interviewed. An
additional interview was conducted (September 24, 2002) with an officer in charge of Sōgōtekina-
gakushū-no-jikan matters (Bureau for Primary and Secondary Education, 初等中等教育局) at the
Monbukagakushō (Ministry of Education).

201
governments. I was told that at regional (municipal203 and prefectural) levels, there

were professional training centers204 available to school teachers to enroll in periodic

courses devoted to themes of teaching in Sōgōtekina-gakushū. However, the scale of

such courses to date, in terms of their class size, was probably not sufficient to cope

with actual demands for training in the entire local system. For instance, most

individual monthly courses at the Tokyo Professional Teacher Training Center

(TPTTC) had a quota of about 60 teachers.

In Kansai, I met one primary school teacher who was on partial leave to

conduct her research on Sōgōtekina-gakushū at a regional (prefecture-level) general

education center. She was conducting her research full-time while returning to her

school205 regularly for practice in collaboration with her colleagues206. She was,

however, the only teacher in a “researcher” capacity in the prefecture to devote her

time and energy to research on improving curriculum and teaching practice at her

home institution. There was no junior high school teacher conducting similar

intensive training or research at the said general education center. The primary teacher

commented that, at the present stage, the level of sharing experience and information

related to Sōgōtekina-gakushū was very limited among schools, especially at the

transition between primary and junior high schools. In metropolitan Tokyo, according

to TPTTC, junior high school teachers did conduct similar year-long research on

Sōgōtekina-gakushū at the training center but not in a full-time capacity. It seemed,

203
That is, the Tokyo municipality.
204
For example, the Tokyo Professional Teacher Training Center and regional (prefecture-level)
general education center in Kansai.
205
JP Six, a primary school in rural setting in Kansai. I did not include observation and interview data
of the school in this thesis out of the concern for time constraints in my research. The practice of
teaching during Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan was actually quite innovative and systematic compared
to that in junior high schools. Primary school teachers were also said to be in a better position to
develop and integrate school curricula of the type found in Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan.
206
I visited the school on October 4, 2002. Observation data was not included in this study (See
previous footnote).

202
then, that research and innovation devoted to Sōgōtekina-gakushū did take place at the

grassroots school level though this had been done in very localized and closed

contexts. It is unclear how effective this would be as a means to disseminate practice.

According to the Ministry of Education207, there is a so-called “model

schools” (moderu sukūru) 208 system among schools clusters209 in a region in which

the schools rotate to undertake experimentation of some form related to school

education. The experimentation would last about two years and might deal with issues

unrelated to Sōgōtekina-gakushū (such as special activities and moral education). I

had inquired of JP Four’s school principal if the model school had in any way proved

helpful to their home program. His response was negative, citing that any schools,

including JP Four itself, could become a model school through rotation. Schools also

needed to account for their very specific conditions and thus experience that had been

proved successful in a school might not be copied at another. My teacher informant at

JP Four210 also acceded to this view, saying that practical advice and expertise from

some academic research institutions might be more worthwhile in helping schools

improve their programs, though accessibility had been a problem.

Apart from government budget constraints, direct technical support from local

governments did not seem to be very common or adequate for the following reasons:

(i) local boards of education do not have a specialist section devoted to professional

support for Sōgōtekina-gakushū; (ii) most assistant superintendents are teachers with

207
Interview with an officer-in-charge at the Bureau for Primary and Secondary Education, Ministry of
Education, conducted on September 24, 2002.
208
モデルスクール
209
For example, there were seven schools in the particular cluster in which JP Four belonged,
according to the JP Four’s school principal (interviewed September 30, 2002).
210
Interview conducted on September 30, 2002.

203
expertise in subject teaching and might not be able to give cogent advice to schools on

Sōgōtekina-gakushū; (iii) inspections and visits to school are infrequent or arranged

on a “request” basis, while the inspected schools’ agenda may deviate from

Sōgōtekina-gakushū in favor of higher priority issues; and (iv) most schools seemed

to be content with their autonomy afforded them in Sōgōtekina-gakushū which, by

definition, is a form of decentralized curriculum development under the government’s

minimalist guidelines.

5.4 Comparison between the Japanese and Hong Kong Schools

Comparing the reformed programs in Japanese and Hong Kong schools is

possibly the most interesting and challenging part of this study. The fieldwork

conducted in Japan and Hong Kong revealed a diversity of school practices not

reported in policy documents and most other government sources. There are certain

broad trends (such as reformed curricular objectives) where comparisons may be

made between schools in the two systems. In terms of the governments’ approaches to

introducing and implementing reforms, quite significant differences exist, even

though schools are nearly always given a high level of autonomy over the design and

running of their programs or curricula. The availability of professional and technical

support is also an area with which schools’ performance seems to be strongly

correlated. The problems arising from assessment are broadly common in the two

systems as the reformed programs focus on skills or abilities not previously accounted

for in academically oriented school curricula.

204
Qualities being sought in children

Most schools in Japan and Hong Kong were explicitly citing the student

abilities to think, report data, and present as areas to be promoted in their programs.

This applies to the two project learning schools in Hong Kong and all Japanese cases.

HK Three seems to be an odd case because the school-based curriculum targeted a

special group of students whose primary needs, according to the school, were to

master tailored subject materials in order to re-enter the mainstream academic

curriculum. Many school teachers in Japan whom I interviewed seemed quite

conscious of the reform policies’ language and were able to relate immediately to

such as the terms as “learning independently, thinking independently, and living

independently” (though their interpretations might vary). There same level of general

sensitivity to policy discourse might not be said of the Hong Kong cases; some

teachers simply dismissed the need to be familiar with reform policies for their

frequent “lack of relevance” to local needs. In general, the study skills involved in

activities of an investigative nature were seen as essential goals of learning (as in the

two project learning Hong Kong cases and the Japanese cases). However, the

boundaries between the terms such as “think”, “analyze” and “understand” might not

be very well-defined in the course of teaching and learning through the local

languages.

Another set of skills commonly expected of children in Japan and Hong Kong

were linked to development in social, communication, and problem-solving areas.

These might be either explicitly spelled out as curricular objectives or implicitly

approved during the learning activities. In most Japanese cases, for example, living

205
together themes (welfare, volunteer work, human rights, etc.) tended to involve

activities of experiential learning, allowing schools to fulfill multiple educational

purposes through their programs, in particular those that aimed at promoting students’

interactions with the local community. In Hong Kong, project learning was said to

have helped improve teacher-student bonds through intense and interactive group

work (HK One). The skills thus promoted in the programs are best described as life

skills, which were somewhat more emphasized in Japanese than Hong Kong schools.

As mentioned earlier in the chapter211, “independence” seemed to an essential

quality sought in Japanese school children by their teachers. Such expectations were

especially clear in schools where investigative study was being stressed strongly (JP

One, JP two and JP Three). In terms of teaching approach, classroom practices such

as minimalist teacher intervention also suggested a teacher conception that “leaving

children alone” was an important requirement for cultivating students’ independence.

Some schools, in fact, discouraged group work or co-teaching, thereby increasing the

level of need for individual work (JP Three). As a rule, self-evaluation was practiced

in all Japanese schools studied, which might be also connected to the same idea of

reducing teacher’s presence in the learning activity. In Hong Kong, attempts were

made to adjust the teaching approach for project learning and school-based

curriculum programs, though it did not seem that teachers actively encouraged

independence through exiting their role as supervisors or monitors. Teachers at HK

One, for example, seemed to have become more willing to give up their authoritative

role and act as co-learners of the student groups. However, observations suggest that

teachers were conscious to remain engaged in the activities, frequently giving

211
Summary of the Japanese Cases, 5.3.4.

206
feedback and help to students. The situation in HK Two was one that showed a

tendency for teachers to revert to authority role and lecture-style teaching. Therefore,

student independence did not seem, at least in practice, to be as strongly promoted in

schools in Hong Kong.

A certain “communal consciousness” was another quality quite peculiar to the

Japanese schools. This consciousness was related to a student’s ability to empathize

with special needs groups and to interact with or even contribute positively to the

local community. Many of the Japanese schools studied (except perhaps JP One and

JP Three) indicated a strong inclination in their curriculum to include or promote the

said quality through a variety of activities related to “living together” themes and

experiential learning. There were no Hong Kong schools reporting a similar interest in

promoting it systematically.

Creativity and individuality are student qualities that were much coveted in

Japanese policies. Yet schools seldom referred to these terms explicitly in their

Sōgōtekina-gakushū curriculum. At the project learning schools in Hong Kong, these

were possibly more clearly spelled out as expectations of the learning activities. Both

in policy and practice, project learning was taken to be a process of “knowledge

creation”, even though the validity of this use of the term was seldom questioned.

Clearly, the qualities of creativity and individuality were less articulated in the

curricular objectives of the Japanese cases. It is possible that they become interpreted

more frequently in the contexts of student’s ability to conduct investigative work and

learn independently by his own choice. I had not been able to seek most school

207
teachers’ clarification on the above relationship as a result of the inherent limitations

in my study.

Design and operation of the programs

Policy requirements provided an interesting contrast in the rationale for reform

between Japan and Hong Kong. Official statistical evidence on how widespread

project learning is in Hong Kong has not been available, since it was being promoted

in an indirect manner. The figures on SBCD practice were limited to participant-

schools on some of subsidy schemes, even though certain well-equipped schools, such

as HK one, have actually developed their own school-based curricula in recent years

in the light of subject integration. All junior high schools in Japan, in principle, were

required by government command to install Integrated Learning Time (Sōgōtekina-

gakushū-no-jikan) regardless of their local conditions (resources, student abilities,

teacher readiness, etc.). Their Hong Kong counterparts seemed to be more

autonomous in their decision to introduce project learning or SBCD programs. To

start with, Hong Kong’s Education Department212 is rarely in a position to force

curriculum policy on schools; the local curriculum has long been controlled through

the system of public examination rather than through elaborate mandatory guidelines

such the Course of Study in Japan. Consequently, the Hong Kong schools decided

their curriculum change largely out of considerations based on their local needs. It

also seemed that certain “trendy” educational developments would attract enough

attention from school management leadership that reforms could begin spontaneously,

if with the right provision of resources and support (such as the case of the QEF

212
Now reconstituted and absorbed into the structure of the Education and Manpower Bureau.

208
project for integration and project learning at HK One). Nevertheless, one may argue

that the Japanese mechanism succeeded at least in ensuring wider implementation of

the particular reform through its more direct, power-coercive approach.

In Japan, while as noted the inclusion of Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan was

mandatory to all schools, the Ministry’s minimalist guidelines213 had meant a free rein

for them over the curricular content and organizational approach – whether or not the

activities operated in fixed schedule inside the school and were continuous throughout

the year, for example. A comparable level of school autonomy in all the three Hong

Kong schools was observed in their decisions over curricular content (HK One, for

example) and curriculum organization (HK Two, for example, which “taught” project

learning as a school subject), in addition to their local freedom over timetabling (all

Hong Kong cases). To some extent, this autonomy among schools fits well with the

notion of decentralized curriculum development, though a distinction should be made

on the macro-level of school control by the governments. The school reforms in Japan,

except perhaps in the cases of national public schools studied, seemed largely brought

on by coercive means. However, since most Japanese schools claimed their nominal

receptiveness to the introduction of Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan, one cannot rule out

the possibility that certain Japanese schools might have started similar reformed

programs even without government directives. For one thing, Special Activities

(tokubetsu katsudō) had been in operation in most schools’ curriculum, and tended to

promote activities related to experiential learning akin to that in some schools’

Sōgōtekina-gakushū. Meanwhile, elective courses (sentaku gakushū) had been

developed before Sōgōtekina-gakushū at certain better-equipped schools (for example,

213
Stipulation applied only to the amount of time involved in Sōgōtekina-gakushū.

209
JP One), which served as a basis for developing and organizing the later reformed

programs.

One area in decentralized curriculum development where some Hong Kong

schools and most Japanese schools might depart was the conceptualization of the

relationship between their reformed program and the academic curriculum. In the case

of Hong Kong, only one school showed a genuine effort to detach the academic

emphasis from the reformed program (HK One). The other two were displaying either

a partial (HK Two) or no inclination (HK Three) to de-emphasize academic study

activities in their overall school curricula. Obviously, this is related to the kind of

curricular objectives that the schools seek to fulfill, with non-academically oriented

programs being more interested in promoting new criteria of assessment such as those

about generic or life skills and vice versa. In the case of Japan, the need to separate

the Sōgōtekina-gakushū and academic curricula was almost unfailingly cited by

schools and teachers, echoing an official policy by the government. To some extent,

one might say that the Japanese educational authorities were relatively successful at

least in getting this particular message across to schools and, in particular, school

teachers who played vital roles in the processes of developing curriculum and

teaching. With some exceptions (probably due to a lack of preparation or motivation),

school teachers generally tried to adjust their teaching approach in class. Sometimes

this might even manifest itself as an overemphasis on developing children’s

independence (shutaisei) through conscious non-intervention or minimalist

supervision.

210
Support, resources, and infrastructure

In general, I found that the schools in Hong Kong were better supported as a

result of the availability of external help (professional assistance and finances in the

forms of non-renewable grants or renewable subsidies). Hong Kong’s QEF (Quality

Education Fund) served, to some extent, to encourage school experimentation on a

voluntary and competitive basis. It was sometimes thought “prestigious” for a school

to successfully compete for the grants, as it carried a brand effect on the particular

school endeavors involved. Inside the school, this might help improve the morale and

the level of motivation of teachers in project activities as a form of general

recognition. The teachers whom I met and interviewed at HK One and HK Two

seemed to be a case of this. Apart from the QEF, the Education Department (or

through the administration of the Curriculum Development Institute, CDI) provides a

number of subsidy schemes directly related to SBCD at schools while still some

others are open to both project learning and SBCD. These were valuable external

resources and financial incentives to schools as they offset some of the cost risks in

the case of a failed attempt in experimentation. Besides material support, the CDI’s

professional teams (the Project Learning and SBCD sections) gave specialist advice

and technical support of some form to schools engaging in the relevant curriculum

development or teaching activities. Help from the CDI was thought to be very

important during the school-based program’s initiation stage at HK Three, for

example.

In Japan, however, the support and resources from the government seemed

much more limited and less varied. Although schools had recently started to be given

211
moderate-sized funds for experiential learning-related activities214, there were no

direct external financial sources to date specifically for Sōgōtekina-gakushū. The local

boards of education and professional teacher training centers215, roughly counterparts

of Hong Kong’s CDI, had not established a special section devoted to helping schools

in Sōgōtekina-gakushū. Most assistant superintendents (shidōshuji) remained

specialists only in their profession as subject teachers and might not have the

expertise to give schools the relevant assistance. As such, schools in Japan seemed to

adopt a self-reliance strategy: national public schools took advantage of their special

ties with affiliated research institutions while ordinary public schools reached out to

the local community for partnership or aid. The system in which school teachers

became temporarily relieved to join professional teacher training centers or general

education centers for research (as in the case of JP Six’s teacher) seemed to be a very

positive development in helping transform school practice. Nevertheless, in its present

form, its impact is likely to remain highly localized and confined to individual schools,

until more government efforts are made to involve a larger number of teachers which,

of course, would call financial budget into question among other implications.

The schools in the two systems were quite similar in terms of physical

resources at home (activity and teaching space, computers, etc.), though the abilities

of school teachers (themselves the main form of school resources), might be a

difficult area to compare and is beyond the scope of this current study. Since the

schools’ facilities were basically designed for subject teaching, schools tended to

encounter problems (for example, HK Two and JP Four) when the activities

214
Under yutakana taiken katsudō suishin jigyō. See this in the discussion of “Problems and
Implications” in Summary of the Japanese Cases, 5.3.4.
215
Or general education centers (総合教育センター) at the prefectural level in regional cases.

212
demanded or warranted a change in teaching and learning approach. Computer

provisions were almost always thought to be inadequate to the needs of large groups

of students involved in investigative work.

Problems and challenges in the school curriculum

Apart from resources constraints, the problems and challenges in the school

curriculum were inherently linked to other school conditions in a local context.

Broadly speaking, teacher readiness and student quality were important factors that

affected the quality and shape of teaching and learning. Approaches being adopted to

teaching and assessment might be closely related to student’s performance in learning

both in the short term and long term. While teaching approach (personal teaching

styles and use of co-teaching, for example) did sometimes vary among schools in

Japan and Hong Kong, there were certain patterns in these within individual schools

depending on the nature of learning activities. In general, Japanese teachers seemed

more ready to adjust their teaching approach, even though, from an observer’s point

of view, the ways in which their classes were conducted did not always produce

evidence that the learning activities had been accorded optimal levels of supervision

or feedback. Student abilities were taken into account in schools’ calculations in

selecting curricular content and activity approach, though this might not always be the

case (JP Three, for example, where the reformed program was organized in a totally

laissez-faire manner at the two senior grades). Disciplining concerns and pressures

from the academic curriculum had often interfered with the effectiveness of reformed

programs in Japan and Hong Kong.

213
 One conspicuous area of concern identified by teachers in Japan and Hong

Kong was their own lack of relevant skills and experience in developing and teaching

the curriculum in reformed programs. Most subject teachers were not equipped with

professional knowledge about the new or alternative approaches to teaching and

assessing reformed curricula. Time constraints were sometimes cited to justify lower

teacher interest in even more well-equipped schools (HK One and JP Two). Relevant

professional training (noted only in the case of HK One among the schools studied)

might be thought difficult or unavailable due to practical or financial reasons. A low

level of teacher readiness seemed to have hindered the development of the reformed

programs at certain schools (HK Two and JP Three), while in some extreme cases

teacher resistance might contribute to the actual setbacks in curriculum development

(JP Four).

Student abilities and discipline were major issues especially for schools whose

priorities in the curriculum and teaching lay more in maintaining equitable

achievement standards among their students (HK Three, JP Four, and to a lesser

extent, JP Three). In schools with students of varying abilities, school expectations

tended to be moderated, while the learning activities and their objectives might be

biased towards a narrower set of student skills or attitudes deemed more urgent or

relevant in the local contexts. Disciplining or the lack of it could affect the

performance quality of both individual students and an entire class though the

consensus among Japanese teachers seemed to point to a general acceptance of the

minimalist approach.

214
 Finally, pressures from teaching academic subjects and concerns for managing

a viable timetable were clearly felt in almost all schools. In Hong Kong, this had

reduced the potential of project learning as a student-centered learning approach in

some schools in the light of their re-emphasizing subject content (HK Two). In some

other schools, school-based curriculum was confined to a “remedial” status despite

the proven relative success in the local contexts (HK Three). Most Japanese schools,

including the two national public junior high schools, were adopting the minimum

level of Integrated Learning Time (Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan), a sign that schools

were concerned to maintain a reasonable emphasis on subject teaching. Since the

Sōgōtekina-gakushū and academic curricula were officially pronounced separate

pursuits, the two continued to directly compete for time and school resources.

Nevertheless, some schools had reported positive effects of Sōgōtekina-gakushū in

helping students apply and integrate learned skills in subject teaching work or

assignments, in particular, with regard to presentation (JP Two and JP Five). In Hong

Kong, among the project learning schools, the appraisal by teachers on the utility of

project learning activities broadly echoed the view in Japan, citing a relevance to

long-term study or life skills but caution about an immediate connection to academic

study.

215
 CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION

As stated from the outset, this study is interested in the conditions and

developments in and through which decentralized curriculum development has become

part of the practice of Japanese and Hong Kong schools. The subjects immediately

falling into my consideration are the rationale, practices and processes, problems and

implications of the reforms, particularly at the school level, since it is where

re-interpretations of policies and individual actions tended to take place. Discussion of

some of these has been dealt with in the previous chapters.

Despite the differences in organization, the systems of both Japan and Hong

Kong have hitherto been operated in ways whereby centralized curriculum development

effectively dominated what went on in schools. The school curriculum, teaching

approach, and assessment were designed and pursued in such a way that the systems

were meant essentially to prepare student to cope with examination concerns defined by

perhaps a rather narrow set of subject interests. Institutional traditions (teacher readiness

216
in terms of their perceptions and awareness of alternative teaching styles, and their

relevant abilities to develop, teach and assess the curriculum, for example) for

school-based evaluation or assessment geared towards non-academically-oriented skills

and knowledge are generally lacking. It was thus not surprising that most schools, both

in Japan and Hong Kong, reported difficulties of varying levels and forms during the

introduction of the reformed programs, all of which were effectively school-based.

On the question of why decentralized curriculum development was adopted in

the case of project learning and SBCD programs in Hong Kong secondary schools and

in Japanese junior high schools, I would like to argue that the two factors of (1) the

historical development of reform policies in the two systems and (2) the local school

attempts to realize their autonomy in school curriculum development in local contexts

have provided a window of opportunity for both government policy and school

aspirations to converge on a consensus favoring a decentralized approach.

One of the main causes for the shift to decentralized curriculum development

seems to relate strongly to the fact that governments have become increasingly deficient

or ineffective in their role of providing timely leadership and information so as to keep

217
abreast with demands for curricular change. The historical development of the reform

policies in Japan might be seen in the context of this change. Calls for educational

reform in Japan to bring more elements of individualization, internationalism, and I.T.

into the school education had been heard since the 1980s during the Nakasone period.

Since then it has taken the country nearly a decade to determine the introduction of

Sōgōtekina-gakushū. By 2001, when most junior high schools had entered their

experimental phase of the reformed programs, many concerns of schools and teachers

were centered on the lack of concrete guidelines (as in the form of a Course of Study)

for developing and organizing the curriculum in Sōgōtekina-gakushū. The Ministry of

Education’s response had been, among other things, to produce volumes of model

school practice to be distributed to schools. No attempt was made to date to publish

such materials by electronic means1, while in their course of anticipating information

from the government before and during the experimental phase (2001 for junior high

schools), some schools had grown to dismiss such information as irrelevant to their

local needs2. In other words, the Japanese educational authorities seemed unready or

unwilling to accord great importance to the financial and technical support systems for

1
According to interview with an officer-in-charge at the Bureau of Primary and Secondary Education,
Minitry of Education, conducted on October
2
This was revealed by school teachers and principals alike on several occasions of my interviews in
Japan.

218
initiating and subsequently sustaining Sōgōtekina-gakushū among the schools, although

the reasons for this may not be treated in this study. In the apparent absence of any

prospect of major institutional change at the Ministry to account for school demands, a

minimalist policy seemed logical, since it both helped divert attention from the

Ministry’s intention to delegate duties in the curriculum development process and

legitimized the increased role of schools in their curriculum development decisions. As

if non-intervention was inherently good for school development, this minimalist policy

had permeated into the school support systems, such as the assistant superintendent

system (shidōshuji-sei) within the local boards of education.

In Hong Kong, few would argue that the local central agent for curriculum

development (the CDI and previously the Education Department through their teaching

syllabuses) commands an authority over schools that is comparable to the Japanese

Ministry of Education, despite growing influence in education through expansion of

professional support systems. Although systematic efforts had been made towards

constructing a central curriculum through the professional teams of the CDI, there was

yet evidence that the government was also interested in devolving itself from part of the

curriculum development process so as to allow some degree of flexibility in the school

219
curricula3. In terms of professional support, the current systems of CDI’s support to

schools could be seen as a visible improvement from what they used to be about a

decade ago, according to scholar of the Hong Kong curriculum, Paul Morris 4 .

According to Morris, there had been encouraging signs of candid attempts by

educational authorities in Hong Kong to rationalize the relationship between policy and

practice in decentralized curriculum development – not only had policies by both the

EC (Education Commission) and the CDC (Curriculum Development Council) stressed

the importance of project learning and SBCD in the development of more diversified

school curricula, but a professional support system had also been put in place to do

justice to CDI’s enlarged role to help schools beyond subject teaching matters. This

seeming government readiness or consciousness, at least in the light of support,

contrasts strongly with the Japanese case. To some extent, one may argue that the

implementation mechanism in Hong Kong was more a case of bringing about change

through incentives, while the Japanese case tended to be more a power-coercive or

top-down approach. However, the question of which being more effective remains to be

seen in a long-term perspective since the relevant curriculum reforms had only been

introduced very recently.

3
Interview with CDI’s Chief Executive, Dr K.K. Chan, conducted on August 19, 2002.
4
A semi-formal interview conducted on August 15, 2002. (See full transcription in Appendix).

220
 In Hong Kong, and to a lesser extent in Japan, schools seemed to have a natural

tendency to rationalize their autonomy through taking control of their own curriculum.

This could only be more so, if the curriculum concerned was one not related to

academic teaching and examinations. Suffice it to say that local conditions for schools

to start reform were not always favorable in Japan. Yet the majority of the schools

which I visited showed their general approval of the introduction of

Sōgōtekina-gakushū-no-jikan. The better-equipped national public schools claimed that

their programs had virtually been developed independent of government policies or

other whims. Ordinary schools, on the other hand, seemed conscious of their very local

needs, conditions and expectations. The diversity in the curricular content and approach

to organization was probably an indicator of some of their new-found confidence in

developing school curriculum, with higher-status or better-performing schools being

more confident about engaging themselves in innovations. In Hong Kong, the relevant

reform in schools was carried out in more or less spontaneous and autonomous ways.

The availability of external financial and technical support possibly constituted an

incentive, as a result of which schools saw relatively little to lose in venturing

decentralized curriculum development. Nevertheless, the extent to which project

221
learning and SBCD were being practiced in Hong Kong cannot be thoroughly assessed

because government statistical evidence on this had mostly been limited to schools

which participated in some kind of grants or subsidy schemes, etc.

Ongoing developments in curriculum reform and interfering factors resulting

from policy changes have made generalizations sometimes difficult in my study.

Despite its many limitations, I tend to view the reform developments in Hong Kong and

Japan in a positive light though improvement can certainly be made to the ways the

current systems are being run. Decentralized curriculum development trends have seen

schools and teachers now move into new roles and functions that they have previously

neglected or been unable to realize due to a lack of incentives. The occasional confusion

and practical difficulty notwithstanding, experimentation in the reformed programs or

curricula at least dispels some of the myths that local schools could only operate around

their narrow interests in an academic curriculum defined by central guidelines and

examination motives. The recognition of certain desired learning or life skills, attitudes

and values defined in the reform contexts seems to indicate a slow conceptual change in

the notion of what constitutes proper child education in an intricate fabric of evolving

socio-economic contexts. These contexts, despite their occasional international tone in

222
the light of globalization, were in fact still much bound within local conditions and

developments. With some exceptions in policy interpretations, one may say that the

current reform in Japan and Hong Kong should, in the long run, help schools enhance

their educational capacity though that may still require some more fine-tuning or even

overhaul to realize its full potential.

223
 Appendix

Interview with Professor Pual Morris, HKIEd (August 15, 2002)

(1) On situation and trends of the curriculum: The Llewellyn Report (Llewellyn et al.
1982) described the Hong Kong curriculum as being overly academic, geared towards
competition and dominated by examinations – observations that you have similarly
made in your own studies (Morris 1990; Morris 1995). To what extent have these
conditions about the curriculum changed or not changed during the past twenty years?

Morris:
I clearly think that it [the system] has changed compared to twenty years ago
but that has not been any radical change. We still have a system that is strongly driven
by assessment though we have to be careful of not assuming that it is just all bad
because it [the assessment-based system] has certain useful functions to society,
especially that of social mobility. Without public examinations, I am not sure if Hong
Kong would have social stability in the 60s and 70s because it [the assessment-based
system] was seen to be an objective way of achieving social mobility that was not
linked to connections, corruption and nepotism.

(2) On problems in the curriculum problems: In previous interviews with a CDC

senior member and a PTU [Professional Teachers’ Union] leader, it was revealed that
a gap seems to exist over their conceptualization of what constitutes our major
curriculum problems. In your opinion, what are the most pertinent or urgent problems
concerning the curriculum that confront our system today?

Morris:
I would say the most critical problems are long-standing ones.
What people see is the purpose of schooling, the nature of knowledge and the
appropriate ways of acquiring them. In reality, we have a society which sees
knowledge in a very narrow way, an examination system that rewards that, and a
university system that reinforces it.
It [the educational system] has rewarded basically compliance – people
provide the answers that the [other] people expect them to provide; it has not really
rewarded or encouraged such things as independent thinking and critical thinking.
(That is a general comment on the curriculum.)
Along with that is a system that has highly segregated pupils according to
bands that label them, which is divisive because the more able students get more and
do better than the less able ones. This creates the third problem and the system is not
very good at dealing with pupils who are less academic. [This is] because the
conception of what is “success” is very narrow. If you do not fit into that conception,
one strongly driven by [such subjects as] Maths, Science and Languages [and] if you
are not in those areas, the system defines you as a failure. The concepts of being
different types of intelligence and different activities that are valuable (music, sport,
etc.) – these are not being rewarded in the system. Therefore, we are losing a lot of
talents. We also have a large number of pupils who are not good in this narrow area
that is defined as “valuable” even though many of them are extremely talented. Then,
you have the old problem that we are not actually sure that the system we have is

-1-
assessing the pupils efficiently. Evidence around the world suggests that many pupils,
(many very able) do not necessarily do very well by the ways their abilities are tested
in the exams. Taken as a whole, that narrow definition of what is valued in school
creates a problem that pupils who do not fit into that are not well-catered-for. [In the
case of] pupils who are gifted in terms of music or art, they may have to get private
tuition, because these are not valued areas of activities and that is, in a sense, reflected
in the society (reflected, for example, in the universities where it [education] is
defined by a very narrow conception of “academic”.)
Hence, I think, the most pertinent or urgent problems really are [how to] try to
devise a system that does not tell some pupils, very early, that they are failures and to
broaden the types of activities that we once tried to develop in schools. I also think
that we have to work on the assumption that all, or at least most, pupils have an ability
at something and the school system is there trying to give them a feeling of success as
well as to develop their basic skills.
At the same time, the assessment system does not prevent but reinforces the
narrow perceptions about academic education while the nature of the assessment we
have – paper-and-pencil tests – rewards (places a high premium on) testing procedural
and established knowledge. In other words, you test what is known, you do not test
the pupils’ ability to do things and you basically test objective bodies of knowledge,
which is what public examinations tend to do. Furthermore in Hong Kong, those
examinations, because of the language problem, have drifted towards multiple choice
and “true-false” questions. All of that puts a premium on “information”. “True-false”
is not a [way of] thinking, it is something else.
Having said that, however, I would not blame it all on the exams because, as
we know it, in schools [even] if you remove the exams, teachers do not suddenly
change their teaching, which is a deeply established part of [the system]. It is quite an
epistemological question of what society, teachers, pupils and parents think is
worthwhile knowledge; the concept of objectivity [of public assessment] is also very
powerful and deeply ingrained.

(3) Further background to change: What, in your opinion, are the strengths of our
local school teaching (that is, with regard to pedagogy and the curriculum)?

Morris:
One of the strengths of local schools is their capacity to manage large cohorts
of pupils in a small space. It is quite amazing when you look at a primary school with
its [large] number of pupils in a physically small place managing to co-exist without
major injuries or problems.
Secondly, despite the problems I mentioned earlier, the large majority of the
schools do manage to cope with the young adolescence (especially S1-3) in a fairly
reasonable way. Given that many of them, through the curricula and the system, are
not feeling any great sense of success or achievement, schools do their best to look
after these kids (despite the curriculum).
Thirdly, I would say that people who do come out of schools with quite strong
basic skills in some areas – Mathematics, Science, etc.; in computational skills of
these areas, they have basics which are quite strong if you compare internationally.
Fourthly, I would say that it [the educational experience] comes with quite a
strong sense of right and wrong (Who knows what the influences of the family are?).

-2-
But in general, [individuals] have quite strong sense of taking into account other
people’s point of view. They do not come out of the school thinking that everything is
everybody else’s fault. Instead, they are quite sensitive and they quite strong sense of
right and wrong (sometimes black and white).
Another point is a very strong sense of diligence (that hard work is valued)
and the system does encourage people to be diligent. Whether they always see it as
efficient use of their time is another matter.

Researcher:
The mentioning of the first strength is quite interesting because if you put
Hong Kong into comparison with other systems in the region (say, mainland China,
Taiwan and Japan where you also find schools trying to manage very large classes),
the local system may not be called unique. This is probably because the system had
been first developed in some earlier periods when the society was not having enough
resources to provide for the people1 [though the large class pattern has now outlived
that history]. On the other hand, the recent reforms are trying to promote certain skills
or cater to certain individual needs; a very large class is not necessarily the ideal set-
up for such reforms. Perhaps the government is likely to face some difficulty in this
area?

Morris:
This [large class in small space phenomenon] could be a strength but it could
also be a weakness. In the classrooms of Asia, pupils operate as a social unit and
teachers deals with a “class” much more than they deal with “individuals”. That [is
the basis to] allow large classes to operate.
I remember years ago doing some research, it was quite clear to me that
teachers tended to think about classes a collective group. Whereas in the West,
teachers will differentiate much more between individuals in the class and they will
be able to recognize individuals (partly because they have smaller classes, obviously).
I think, however, it [the phenomenon] reflects a different function of schooling
in Asia, which is Durkheimian, in the sense that the expectations (or functions) of
schooling are to get people to fit into society and maintain the cohesiveness and
smooth running of society, not necessarily to develop individual proclivities, etc. (I
mean, Durkheim’s description about schooling is very true in the Asian context.)

(4) On Reform direction: The last two major documents by the CDC (CDC 2001;
CDC 2002) did not open with an explicit discussion of the educational problems /
weaknesses we face in the system (such as those associated with the curriculum and
assessment [likely to be] mentioned above) though many recommendations on
curricular changes were put forward in the spirit of promoting life-long learning (or
“learning to learn”). Could you comment on this absence of the discussion on the
problems / weaknesses?

Morris:
I do not know whether this not mentioning was strategic. One possibility was
that, in the past, a lot of documents (educational policy documents) have started with
a heavy-duty critique like the Llewellyn Report (“This is wrong; that is wrong; rote

1
For Japan, see Wray 1999.

-3-
learning, etc.”). That [critique] is, perhaps to a degree, accurate but it seemed like that
policy-makers were constantly criticizing the local schools and teachers. If
strategically you deliver that kind of documents saying “You should do this. You
should do that”, it does not really work. You do not all get people to change by first
criticizing them. Moreover, I think that there was perhaps a realization of the
government that future documents might have more chance of influencing teachers
and schools if they took the strategy of not starting with a heavy-duty critique but
trying to talk about the way forward, building on strengths and concepts like these.
This is what I suspect about this strategic decision and, possibly, I think, that
[strategic decision] is right because teachers in Hong Kong would get fed up with all
these documents telling them how awful or bad they were. (In short, it might be a sort
of policy strategy.)
In this respect, it is very interesting to compare Singapore and Hong Kong.
Singapore has a very clear policy (about four or five years old) that the government
does not criticize schools or teachers; it talks them up, it talks them up the good things
they are doing, etc. and tries to make them feel good and then it feels [as if] they can
have more influence.
In Hong Kong, they have a strategy of government being very critical of
teachers, hoping that criticism will change them. I think that these documents may
also represent the recognition that starting by telling people what a bad a job they
have done is not the way to bring about change.

Researcher:
This is interesting because in Japan the “sense of crisis” about the educational
system is constantly there, at least in the recent decades. Whether or not the
government takes on a critical stance, the public and the media will have their fair
share of criticizing.

Morris:
In Hong Kong, the criticism comes from the government and the media
together. The notion of trying to create a “sense of crisis” is interesting; I think, that
has been part of the strategy in the past and it has not really worked (especially when
the object of criticism is the teachers).

(5) On curriculum integration: Our curriculum has long been considered overcrowded
(Llewellyn et at. 1982) and thus recent reviews were made to cut and combine
existing discrete subjects to make room for more worthwhile learning (BoE 1997; EC
2000; CDC 2001; CDC 2002). What would be the major obstacles in achieving the
goals of related reforms?

Morris:
The question of Curriculum Integration is indeed a very interesting one. Ever
since I have been here [at the HKIEd], there have been attempts to combine school
subjects, to reduce the overload and to reduce duplication. In the early 70s, it started
with Integrated Science and Social Studies (which never got off the ground; minority
schools used it) and then there was Liberal Studies later at the secondary [level].
The most recent and good example of the attempts to combine subjects was
that to combine the subjects of (World) History and Chinese History. Flora Kan has
done a recent study on Chinese History and parts of it look at the various attempts to

-4-
merge (World) History with Chinese History. (That, I think, may provide an answer to
your questions of what would be the obstacles.)
Clearly, the obstacles are ones that relate to status, territories and power –
subject groups (people who teach a subject are a community) want to protect their
territory and that territory is the timetable. Every time they put subjects together, you
would have groups of teachers saying “This is awful! It’s the end of the world
because we were discrete subjects and discrete communities. We don’t want to be
merged with Physics, Chemistry, Geography or whatever it is. We’ll lose our
identity.”
That argument with Chinese History, of course, has also got some political and
patriotic overtones because Chinese History portrays itself as the protectors of culture
and national identity. Ironically, in fact, Chinese History was a product of the colonial
government as it was a very special kind of Chinese History that they were teaching
(very ancient classical stuff). I think that it is really a political issue: you have got
groups of people, not just teachers – inspectors, examiners and people in the CDC – a
whole community whose career depends on the subject being a subject. You take it
away and they want to protect it (They want to protect it very powerfully). The
government in the past had never the courage to force things through because they did
not want conflict. Even with Chinese History, this government seems to be backing
off.
That is a straight question of subjects being like an industry. People do not
want their industry to decline. (It is primarily a political question, not a curricular one.)

(6) On Project Learning / Project Work: Over the past decade or so, quite a number of
schemes and initiatives have been created to support the schools’ endeavors in project
learning including SBCPS (in some cases), QEF (under Effective Learning), and
DTNS (District Teacher Network Scheme; also in some cases). Do you see any
continuity in goals among these schemes and how would you comment on the
effectiveness of such a dissemination strategy for project learning?

Morris:
I do not see any continuity in all these various projects. I would say the QEF
attempted to throw money into problems but they were not quite sure [what to do with
them]. They set up the QEF and then asked people to get bits of it. Many of these bits
really went to getting equipment like computers and IT materials in schools (though
probably if the QEF had not been there, it would come through another budget line).
I do not the get the impression that there is any strategy going on with these
various funds but there is a very loose idea, which is not well articulated, that project
learning, integration are part of school-based curriculum to try to move away from
what we have now (That is the basic root idea) and try to encourage pupils to learn in
ways that are more enjoyable and in ways that break down many of the boundaries.
One of the key features about Hong Kong schools and curriculum is very
powerful boundaries: boundaries between subjects, boundaries between primary and
secondary [curricula], boundaries between teachers and pupils, boundaries between
[the] academic and less academic, and so on. It is these boundaries that many of these
reforms are trying to break down. Project learning, theme-based learning, integration
are a way of breaking down what Bernstein called the boundaries between subjects. If
you have a project, the implication is, hopefully, that you will draw on different
bodies of knowledge to look at while developing that project. But of course, it is quite

-5-
possible for this to be subverted and the project just become an extension to
Chemistry – a “Chemistry project” as opposed to the original idea that a project is to
try to create some cross-disciplinary enquiry using different subject areas. Teachers
are very strong in protecting those boundaries – the history teachers do not want to
talk to the English teachers, the EPA teachers, Chinese History teachers, etc
(Everything is in Nappy’s narrow boxes).
In short, I would say many of these forms of school-based project learning are
different ways of trying to reduce the boundaries between the subjects (very powerful
boundaries). To go back to the earlier question, those barriers are very strongly linked
to teachers’ desire to protect their territory and their territory is linked to the subject.
Subjects are things on the timetable. When you have subjects, you have jobs,
you have promotion posts, and you have a career (So, that is a tough one). If you look
at the primary school curriculum, [they have] quite strong boundaries – Chinese
English, Math, etc. – and it continues into the secondary school.
Teachers’ identity is with the subject. The Art teachers here do not want to be
primary teachers; they want to be English teachers in primary schools; they want to be
Chinese teachers in primary schools (They do not mind that). They want a subject
identity.

(7) On central involvement in SBCD: In a discussion on SBCD in the late 1980s

(Morris 1988), you argued that in order for SBCD to develop in Hong Kong, where
foundations for decentralized curriculum development have been weak, central
support would prove particularly critical. In a similar light, how would you comment
on the nature and quality of support which the government has tried to provide over
the last decade?

Morris:
The nature and quality of support which the government has provided over the
last decade is certainly far better than it used to be. (I have not gotten into much
contact now as I used to but) essentially, back in the 1980s you used to have schools
being told to do school-based curriculum development with really no support to do it
and it ended with just producing worksheets of discrete subjects.
I get the impression now that, since the creation of the CDI, the way CDI is
operating is working much more closely related to the schools’ [ways] to develop
their own projects and to build on the projects in schools. They [CDI] have various
teams going out. I think that they are less centralized ad are working with schools and
teachers much more than they used to.
I think that has changed but I am not sure we yet have a strong culture in the
schools where they have the self-confidence to do this [school-based curriculum
development] themselves.
There was a study by Lo Yiu-chun on school-based curriculum development
in the mid-1990s. It tended to suggest that much of the school-based curriculum
development was adaptive (adapting the main curriculum), not really a very
fundamental change.

(8) On SBCD and Project Learning: Project Learning and SBCD are rarely discussed
in connection with one another in the government discourse. The recent CDC Basic
Education Curriculum Guide (CDC 2002) also treated them in separate sub-topic

-6-
volumes with very little effort to clarify their relationship. While Project Learning
was described as offering a “curriculum [that] is open, without prescribed content
[and] is always put in the context with KLAs” (CDC 2002, vol. 3C, p2), in current
school practice, however, it seems it neither has clear teaching and learning objectives
nor a well-defined assessment system. Is this the major reason why Project Learning
and SBCD (as they are generally perceived as discrete concepts by many local
educators) are receiving differential attention and commitment from the schools?

Morris:
I think, in a number of ways, your comment was right. [Nevertheless], this
goes back to what I said earlier that there is not clear understanding of what project
learning and SBCD mean and what exactly is being promoted. These mean very
different things to different people.
I think that there is an element of rhetoric about it. If I say “independent
learning” or “project learning”, people would not object to it. Obviously, these
involve learning from projects and doing school-based activities.
There is also an element of slogan about it. Therefore, people do not disagree
with them [the various concepts about SBCD, project learning, etc.] for they are
sufficiently broad terms to allow different people to do different things.
I think that you have to remember that in educational and curriculum policy
documents, you have to use a language that people agree with but often, that language
is so broad and vague that they are agreeing to very different things. In this way,
project learning to a science teacher might mean doing a project in the lab in
Chemistry while the same term for other teachers (say, of some integrated humanities)
might actually involve cross-disciplinary integrated enquires. It is important [for]
educational and curriculum policy to have a language that does not upset people and
that everyone agrees. However, the agreement is often at the expense of clarity. These
terms [SBCD, project learning, etc.] are of that nature; they are colorful terms that
teachers would nod to even when they mean very different things. What you cannot
afford to have, as far as the government is concerned, are statements (in fact, too
many statements) that people are going to disagree with. You might, therefore, end up
with statements that people agree with but they mean totally different things. That is
what it is a language’s job: a very vague language that has very various meanings for
different parties. But in so doing, the government move forward with curriculum
development by slowly trying to get some “common views” or move into a particular
direction which people may not initially agree with. They are not necessarily well-
connected.
I do not think anyone would argue that SBCD and project learning are
exclusive. Sometimes (and often) a project would appear in the context of SBCD and
vice versa but you also might have SBCD that does not involve project learning or
project learning which is not part of SBCD.
I think an interesting empirical question to pursue in schools is that “When
teachers do projects or do project learning, what is it they do? What range of activities
is being given this label?” Our teachers are now saying “Your project tonight is…”
while they used to say “Your homework tonight is…” (You really do not know [what
they want to mean]). It is really a linguistic tool or a form of rhetoric trying (if you
like) to encourage a breakdown of barriers and a different form of learning. They [the
government] know the direction and that these are all those tools to achieve it but of
course, the teacher can play the same game – they can call homework “projects” now.
It may not involve real change: what they used to do in group work they can now call

-7-
“project work”; when they used to their worksheets, they now call it “SBCD”.
Whether they are actually producing any fundamental changes in the classrooms, that
is another question.

(9) On teacher professionalism: How would you qualify the role of today’s teachers in
the school curriculum and what would be the major limitations and challenges outside
and inside the school, if a genuine school-based approach to curriculum development
is to become part of general practice?

Morris:
Teachers have tended to see themselves as the deliverers and the adapters of
the central curriculum; they have not really seen themselves as fundamentally
developing new curricula. I do not necessarily see that a bad thing, however – there
are many advantages of having a central curriculum and in many societies that moved
away from central national curricula, they [societies] move back to them, like
Australia and the UK.
But fundamentally, if you talk to teachers, [they would say that] there is a
curriculum. It is written down either as a body of topics to be covered or a list of
contents set down by the CDC (CDI) and the examination authority. Their [teachers’]
job is to deliver to the pupils and help them take the exam at the end (That is how they
see their role). They would see themselves adapting and modifying to help pupils but
they do not really want to, for example, get involved in assessing pupils.
In a way, their view is that “Here’s a curriculum and there is an exam at the
end. My job is to help you understand this, learn it and do well in the exam.” There is
a sort of reluctance (which, in a sense, is admirable) that teachers say it is somebody
else’s job to assess them [pupils] and their job is to help the kids, not to assess them.
That is always going to be a barrier to school-based curriculum development because
with fundamental school-based curriculum development, it probably involves a high
degree of continuous assessment, teacher assessment, teachers making professional
decisions – therefore, the assessment becomes teacher- or school-based as well.
Teachers have so far remain reluctant; they do not want to judge the pupils. I mean,
they judge all the time but they do not want to make final judgment on them because
their job is to help them. In a sense, that is quite admirable.
Of course, there is also a very deep-rooted notion in Hong Kong that a fair
objective system of examining pupils (as exams do determine pupils’ life chances)
should be external to the process of teaching and learning and it should be free of
favoritism, nepotism, bribery, etc. As I have said earlier, a very strong part of Hong
Kong’s social psyche is the idea that everybody would get a chance and everybody
could make it, and that it would not be a question of who they [individuals] know or
whether their teachers likes it but it would rather be decided by people [examiners]
who just have a number in front of them. That makes it fair and objective.
There is this concern by teachers and society that it is fairer to have a student
externally examined. When the student is externally examined and assessed, it would
always be a constraint on school-based curriculum development because that part of
the curriculum remains external and, of course, remains what drives the internal
[school] curricula. Therefore, what is “school-based” tends to be at the margin.
I think, I would not totally criticize teachers for the ways they see their roles.
For example, you also always have the government all the time saying “Tertiary
institutions, please accept pupils on the basis of more than their academic

-8-
qualifications, if they are good citizens, good sports people, community workers, etc.”
But of course, the next thing that comes up the newspaper is [the opinion] that judges
all the universities according to only their A-level results and implicitly criticizes
anybody who do not take pupils with just their A-level results (So, there are double
standards). Similarly, schools are asked to look for other competencies but then they
[pupils] are judged according to their exam results (Again, there is an element of
hypocrite inconsistency).

(10) On School-based adaptations: The Policy Address by the Chief Executive (HK
SAR Government, 2001) proposed to create the post of Curriculum Officer in schools
to “lead internal curriculum development” (p10), which was generally well-received
by local critics (Wong Hin-wah, 2001). To what extent do you see this development
as significant or otherwise, to school-based curriculum planning (in particular,
regarding SBCD, Project Learning, Curriculum Integration) and school teaching
culture as a whole?

Morris:
On of one hand, that is a good thing but on the other it could be a dangerous
thing (I do not know how it is working).
All teachers have got to be involved, to a degree, in making curriculum
decisions. You do not want to create a situation in schools where it becomes the
responsibilities of one person. (That is not necessarily going to happen but), for
example, the English, Math and Chinese teachers need to be making decisions all the
time discussing curricular matters. If the Curriculum Officer is a person who is
leading this in the school and making sure this is happening as a senior teacher, that
could be a good thing.
One of the problems we have traditionally in Hong Kong schools, especially
primary schools (though it applies to secondary), is that the post of the “head of
department” is not well-defined. There is a senior person (for example, in a primary
school) who takes responsibilities for Chinese language teaching. They [school
teachers] take it in turns to be panel chair but it [their operation / function] is
administrative. They do timetables, they do the textbooks but they do not provide
leadership or sit down and have meetings about teaching methods, helping kids with
problems, or the exams. Therefore, one of the things we need along with a senior
person responsible for curricula (which should be someone like a deputy principal), is
people in the schools who take on the role of curriculum [development] leaders in
particular subjects, not just the administrative leaders.
If go visit some schools overseas (for example, Australia), you will find very
quite strong curriculum middle management (somebody is responsible for the English
teachers and somebody is responsible for the Math teachers). Here, that role is very
weak. I think, this proposal [of Curriculum Officer] is trying to put somebody into
position and strengthen it.
Still, it [curriculum development in schools] needs to be not just one person; it
needs a larger pool of teacher inputs. At this stage, if you look at Hong Kong primary
schools, it is very flat: you have a principal and perhaps some kind of deputies, and
then the rest of the teachers, who take turns to be the panel chair. We need to create
people (senior people) who are in a promoted post to take responsibilities or to head a
department. That, I think, is what this [Curriculum Officer proposal] is trying to do.

-9-