The compulsory liberal studies subject, the controversial centrepiece of the new senior secondary school curriculum, is in the crosshairs again after Occupy Central.

The subject has been a bone of contention ever since the Education Commission put it forward in a working group report in May 2003. Post Occupy, critics complained that "yellow-ribbon" teachers had used the subject as a vehicle for spreading their political beliefs, while defenders argued that the subject had encouraged students to be livelier, more politically aware and more capable of independent thinking.

The political arguments surrounding this subject have diverted attention from the core question, namely, whether the subject has helped to achieve the goals of equipping our students with the knowledge and skills necessary for navigating the challenges of the 21st century.

In the 1990s, reformists set out to remedy flaws in Hong Kong's education system, which critics complained had suffered from the early streaming of students into "arts" and "science" cohorts, thus depriving them of the chance to acquire an "all-round" education. The workload of senior secondary students, who on average studied eight subjects, was also criticised as excessively heavy.

Ever since nine years of education was made compulsory in 1978, outside the elite schools, complaints were rampant that the curriculum encouraged too much rote learning and stifled creativity and independent thinking. Subjects like Chinese history and Chinese literature, which required considerable effort in acquiring basic facts and the study of classical texts, came under heavy fire for encouraging memorisation.

In light of such criticism, educationists adopted a "reconstructionist" approach, and created the new subject of liberal studies to broaden students' knowledge base, promote social awareness and enable them to acquire the core skills of "critical thinking" and communication.

To discourage rote learning, the Education Bureau set no textbooks for the new subject, which covered three broad areas: self and personal development; society and culture; and, science, technology and the environment. Yet, this has not discouraged publishers from producing volumes of reference books and updating them annually, to keep pace with the latest developments in globalisation and environmental issues, for example.

Contrary to the bureau's expectations, liberal studies also generated ample business for cram schools drilling students in exam skills.

Reference books have come in for criticism for superficial and stereotypical representation of ethnic, national and religious diversity. In an essay on "Multiculturalism and Democracy: Diversity and Difference in Hong Kong's Liberal Studies", Dr Liz Jackson, of the Faculty of Education at the University of Hong Kong, found that "specific references to diverse cultures and religions are rather scarce in the 216-page curriculum guide".

Moreover, reference books remain "highly vague" in relating the details of the benefits of diversity in contemporary society. In discussing Islam for example, "discourse is often heavily negatively biased"; "Muslims are cast as sexist, patriarchal and backwards".

Misleading textbooks and the lack of clear guidelines on the paramount importance of avoiding bias clearly defeat the purpose of promoting a truly liberal outlook and nuanced thinking.

Feedback from teachers reveals that they find it hard to teach the "modern China" module, partly because of the controversial nature of many of the issues involved and partly because they themselves lack close knowledge of the developments of modern Chinese politics and society.

Teachers, parents and students also found a disproportionate emphasis on local politics in the liberal studies exam paper. For three consecutive years, one out of the three compulsory questions in paper one centred on politics, such as the city's governance problems and mass protests. In paper two, in which students answer one of three questions, they again tended to revolve round local issues.

As a result, liberal studies teaching is reported to be heavily focused on discussion of local, topical issues, with teachers making heavy use of media reports as teaching material.

Students and parents have pointed out that while the subject has encouraged livelier interaction between teachers and students, when political issues are involved, it is hard to be totally objective and unbiased.

Such teaching is a far cry from the way the subject is taught at top-tier universities. The General Education Foundation Programme offered by the Chinese University of Hong Kong, for example, mandates the study of classics, ranging from Homer to Confucius and the Koran.

The lack of textual studies and the reliance on makeshift, concocted material at secondary school level undermines convergence with a true liberal education at tertiary level. Left in the wrong hands, the subject risks producing the opposite effect of fostering bigoted thinking predicated on a shallow knowledge base. Our society has much to lose from a fake liberal education.

Source: SCMP