Time for us to question WHAT EDUCATION IS FOR
There has probably never been a human culture which has set so much store by education as the Chinese. No sooner had the stable Tang Empire (AD 618-907) emerged from the confusion and barbarism of the previous four centuries than the system of a highly ed
This encouraged families to ensure their children were schooled to the best of their ability, to aim for the top prizes. The results of that can still be seen today if one is a historian of Europe or China (and I have been both): For Tang and Song (AD960-1279) China there is a huge wealth of written material for assessment and evaluation, whereas for early medieval Europe the sources are embarrassingly scant, and largely limited to religious material, as it was only churchmen who were literate.
This can be seen now in the priorities of Chinese families: Whereas Europeans, as they get older, tend to use whatever savings they have amassed to fund a well-earned and comfortable retirement, the older generation in China tend to devote theirs – and China has much higher savings rates than any Western country – to the education of their children and grandchildren, who will need to operate in an incredibly competitive world.
Nowadays, of course, the aim of education is no longer a post in government service but success in life, however that can be measured. Some, in this hyper-capitalist age, measure it largely in financial terms, as money is the most common determinant of social status; others would see it more in terms of producing well-rounded human beings. But even the latter have to be fitted to earn a living.
The received wisdom a generation ago was that Chinese people – and East Asians in general – were extremely good at acquiring knowledge and methodical learning processes, but weak on using that systematic knowledge to think for themselves.
Chinese students studying in the West acquired a reputation for finding it difficult to ask questions and follow up ideas, preferring to wait to be told what they should know and think. This has largely become superseded; Chinese students and academics are developing a dizzying capacity to add creative forward thinking to their already formidable knowledge base.
It has been noted that Hong Kong has, by some measures, fallen behind its main competitors in terms of innovative capacity. If true, this is an educational deficit which needs to be addressed: But how does one teach innovation? In fact, one suspects, the capacity for innovation depends on factors which a deeply institutionalised education system finds it difficult to inculcate.
One advantage the mainland has made use of is the need to rebuild its education system from the bottom up after the chaos of the “cultural revolution”(1966-1976). It was thus geared to the modern world from the start, and, when radical new technologies emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, China was well placed to adapt to them – and here, also, there was no ground to catch up on the West, to whom these technologies were equally new. For obvious geographical reasons, the mainland city with which Hong Kong is most frequently compared is Shenzhen, and recent comparisons have not been favourable.
Shenzhen is generally assessed as being well ahead of Hong Kong in innovative capacity, though Hong Kong still holds up well as far as the underlying technology is concerned. Actually, this is what one might expect: Hong Kong has a well-established educational system which is good at delivering the basics, whereas Shenzhen is even less institutionalised than the mainland as a whole: Everything is new there, and it is difficult to find even a second-generation Shenzhen person.
The city hardly existed before 1980; it has no conservative traditions holding it back. Throughout its young life it has attracted the young and dynamic from all over the mainland, and has built an educational atmosphere to match.
In order to succeed in a world which is changing at an incredible speed, Hong Kong must find a balance between institutional solidity and adaptability.
It must not be afraid of mavericks and social and educational innovators. We have seen how the energies of intelligent young people can be drawn in unproductive directions; and they will not come to heel just because somebody tells them to. Education needs to provide inspiration, and a well-founded hope that one’s capacities will be appreciated and used for one’s own benefit and for that of one’s country and community. The mainland, through all the vicissitudes of her history, has always known this. Hong Kong, as things stand, is perfectly placed to spearhead forward-looking educational philosophy which combines the advantages of Chinese thoroughness and a global perspective.
Tim Collard is a former UK diplomat specialising in China. He spent nine years as an analyst in Beijing. He now works as a freelance writer and commentator.
