Government Policy and Institutional Practice in Tertiary Distance Education: A Hong Kong Case Study |
VOL. 7, No. 1, 83-103
In spite of a clear need for increased educational opportunities for working adults, Hong Kong has been slow to develop tertiary distance education compared with other countries in the region. The Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong opened in 1989, after more than a decade of deliberations on open and distance education in various policy committees. Although this institution clearly fills a gap in the provision of tertiary education, we argue that many important issues have been left unresolved as a result of ambiguous policy directives, low levels of government funding for adult education, restricted access to a range of courses leading to qualifications, and the need for rationalization and appropriate credit transfer arrangements for the plethora of existing open entry short courses in Hong Kong institutions. Above all, though government policy clearly pointed toward higher levels of institutional collaboration, this has not occurred. To understand this situation we examine the Hong Kong education system against the background of its laissez faire economy and the uncertainties surrounding Hong Kong's reverting to the People's Republic of China in 1997.
Malgré le besoin évident d'augmenter les possibilités d'éducation pour les travailleurs adultes, Hong Kong a développé l'éducation tertiaire à distance plus lentement que les pays avoisinants. L'Open Learning Institute de Hong Kong fut inauguré en 1989 après plus de dix ans de délibérations de la part de comités variés sur l'éducation ouverte et à distance. Bien que cette institution contribue d'une manière importante à l'éducation tertiaire, nous maintenons que plusieurs problèmes sérieux n'ont pas été résolus en raison de directives ambiguës, du niveau insuffisant de fonds fournis par le gouvernement pour l'éducation des adultes, de limites apportées à l'accès aux cours menant à la certification, et du besoin de rationaliser et d'organiser le transfert de crédits pour la surabondance de cours libres et courts offerts par les institutions de Hong Kong. De plus, bien que les directives du gouvernement indiquent clairement un désir d'améliorer les rapports de collaboration entre les institutions, il ne s'est produit aucun progrès. Afin de comprendre cette situation, nous examinons le système d'éducation de Hong Kong dans le contexte de son laissez-faire économique et de l'incertitude quant à sa réunion avec la République populaire de Chine en 1997.
Hong Kong is known worldwide for its business acumen and entrepreneurship: by adopting a non- interventionist stance in business affairs, the Government has allowed a free enterprise system to flourish. With low levels of taxation and public expenditure and a high level of private ownership, Hong Kong is a model of "small government." This non-interventionist approach is not limited to business and economic concerns. It also influences public sector policies and practices. In areas such as education and social welfare, for instance, control is often left to, or shared with, non-Government agencies.
Our concern in this paper is with tertiary education in Hong Kong and, in particular, with the way in which tertiary distance education has developed in the Territory. The education of adults outside the traditional classroom-based system (often referred to loosely as "open education") has featured in a number of Government reports over the past decade. Although currently expanding, distance education is still a relatively recent practice in Hong Kong and, in spite of a relatively high level of Government concern, major unresolved issues in open and distance education can be readily identified. These are concerned with:
Our aim is to demonstrate that although Government policy has sought to alleviate these problems by establishing a system of open education in Hong Kong, three factors impede progress toward this goal:
Our discussion is based on an analysis of Government reports and policy documents, which make reference to open distance education at the tertiary level from 1978 onwards, and on our understanding of current issues and practices.
It is not possible to understand the way in which distance education has developed in Hong Kong without some background knowledge of the education system as a whole. Hong Kong is still undergoing post World War II reconstruction, which is not surprising given that the whole economy, including the education system, was in tatters after the Japanese occupation.
In the Overall Review of the Hong Kong Education System (1981), the authors provide a graphic description of the post war situation:
When the war ended in 1945, school enrolment was under 50,000. School buildings lay in ruins, equipment was destroyed, textbooks were almost non-existent and there was a serious shortage of trained teachers. The process of rehabilitating the school system was laborious and difficult. The enormous growth of the school system since then (it now caters for 1.4 million people) began in 1949, when immigrants from China began to arrive in tens of thousands. (p. 11)
The Review goes on to describe how the foremost priority from the 1950s to 1970s was the development of primary education and teacher training. Extensive building programs were launched in the 1950s, and in 1965 the White Paper on Education Policy reorganized the primary and secondary education structure, set universal primary education as an immediate aim, and established the principle of expansion of the school sector. Only after dealing with the needs of primary and lower secondary education did Government policy turn in 1978 to senior secondary and tertiary education.
The other feature that characterizes the Hong Kong education system is privatization (either by commercial or voluntary agencies). This was common before the War and persists today, even though more education is now under Government control. Brimer (1988) cites the proportions of school children in private and Government schools in the mid-1980s.
Of the 527,000 children in primary schools in 1985, only just over 37,000 were in Government schools. All kindergarten schools are still operated privately. At the secondary level, the picture is similar in that, of the enrolment of 401,200 up to form 5 (grade 11), only 31,400 are in Government schools. (p. 333)
There are currently seven publicly-funded tertiary institutions in Hong Kong: three universities (the University of Hong Kong, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology); two polytechnics (the Hong Kong Polytechnic and the City Polytechnic of Hong Kong); one liberal arts college (the Hong Kong Baptist College); and one post-secondary college (Lignan College). These are usually referred to as the University and Polytechnics Grants Committee (UPGC) funded institutions. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, which is the newest institution, is sponsored jointly by the Hong Kong Government and the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club. In addition, several other colleges exist that are privately funded.
According to Wong (1988), in that year the UPGC-funded institutions provided 36,000 full-time equivalent places, of which 18,000 were for first degree courses. That level of provision enabled approximately 6.5% of young people to pursue a first degree and 4% to pursue non-degree studies. The Government's aim, however, is to provide a total of 40,000 full-time equivalent places in 1991; 48,000 in 1994; 58,000 in 1997; and over 62,000 by the turn of the century. Tertiary education, then, will be growing at the rate of 5% per annum. When these targets are reached, more than 14% of young people in the relevant age bracket will be able to enter first degree courses and 6% will be able to study at the non-degree level.
It is anticipated that there may be problems attracting suitably qualified staff to cater to this dramatic increase in tertiary places. Concern has not, however, been expressed about finding suitably qualified students for the available places: higher education institutions have become accustomed to numerous qualified applicants for each available place. For instance, in Hong Kong 1989: A Review of 1988 (1989), the Government Information Services reported the following admission figures for three of the major higher education institutions:
A proportion of those who could not find a place in a Hong Kong tertiary institution at that time proceeded to study overseas, but the gap between demand for and provision of higher education in Hong Kong has been wide for many years.
Resulting from this history of under-provision is a large backlog of people who, though qualified to enter tertiary education, have been unable to secure a tertiary placement in Hong Kong. Further behind still are those who missed the opportunity to undertake the final year of secondary education in a Government-funded school: this having become possible only since 1978. In addition, whether already qualified or not, residents of Hong Kong demonstrate an exceptionally high level of interest in obtaining further qualifications. Promotion in the Civil Service depends, in part, on certification and, in general, the more degrees or diplomas or short courses undertaken, the more likely is an individual's chance of success.
This account would be incomplete without referring to Hong Kong's return to the People's Republic of China in 1997 and the educational issues this raises. Many educated people, although they may prefer to live in Hong Kong, are seeking to leave before 1997 or soon afterwards, believing that the political, economic, and social character of Hong Kong may change radically under the influence of the People's Republic of China.
Qualifications recognized by other countries are highly valued. They are seen as a way of strengthening applications for citizenship elsewhere. Many individuals holding such credentials, acquired at the expense of the Government, are leaving or intend to leave Hong Kong, creating a dilemma for policy makers and planners: in order to meet the needs of an expanding
and diversifying economy, much has already been invested in the expansion of tertiary education. The Government, however, is faced with the prospect of underwriting education for people who may not stay long enough to make the contribution to Hong Kong's economy that planners had originally envisioned.
In view of the backlog of potential students who have been denied access to tertiary education in Hong Kong and in the context of a society that places great store by education for personal and economic advancement, it is not surprising that alternative opportunities for accessing education are in great demand. One way this demand has been addressed is by the introduction of short, fee-paying open entry courses, which are conducted by continuing education and extra-mural studies departments attached to the major UPGC-funded institutions. These are well-subscribed and all higher education institutions are active in this area.
In all, several thousand locally-developed short courses are on offer each year. Although the vast majority are part-time evening courses requiring class attendance, rather than distance education courses, there are a few exceptions. The Chinese University of Hong Kong offers a small number of Self Learning Packages for sale and some courses are taught through the newspaper. The University of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Polytechnic offer some Preparatory courses to enable students to sit for the professional examinations of overseas institutions, for example, the English Bar Final examination.
In general, these institutions do not make much use of distance education materials prepared locally. There are two exceptions: the School of Continuing Education at Baptist College, which offers some extramural courses in this mode, and Hong Kong Polytechnic, which supports some of its part-time courses with self-instructional materials and has five award courses offered in the distance education mode. On the whole, however, although there are numerous open entry courses available in Hong Kong, opportunities for attaining tertiary awards by distance education for programs prepared locally are minimal.
Leaving aside the distance education issue for the moment and focusing on the numerous short courses available, a problem still exists in that only a small proportion are full-length courses leading to a degree, diploma, or certificate qualification. There appears to be no way to gain credits toward a substantial qualification by accumulating short courses or by transfer. Furthermore, there continues to be no coherent policy for course transfer and accumulation of credits.
This fact was acknowledged by the Education Commission (1986) when they reported that there is already a variety of courses available which meet part of the potential demand for continuing education and retraining. But these courses are not building blocks - they are only self contained vocational qualifications. These are major deficiencies. (p. 142)
In recent years overseas institutions in the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada, and Australia, seeking to boost their incomes, have been keen to provide courses of various kinds for full fee-paying students either on-campus overseas or more recently by distance education in Hong Kong.
A combination of sharp fee increases by overseas institutions and the large pool of students completing secondary school means that there are a considerable number of students who are unable to gain tertiary places. They cannot study overseas for financial reasons, and they cannot attend Hong Kong institutions because of space limitations. Added to this group are those adults who are employed and for whom overseas or campus-based local study, therefore, is not possible. Such people continue to live in Hong Kong but enrol in courses offered by overseas institutions that provide qualifications they anticipate will increase opportunities for emigration.
Some overseas institutions undertake co-operative ventures by entering into a form of partnership with local tertiary institutions. Others operate independently without a Hong Kong base. The latter, however, are constrained by Government regulations that impose certain restrictions. They cannot, for instance, set up an office or offer tutorial support to groups of 20 students or more. Hence, they are virtually forced into a partnership or must operate without local tutorial support for their students.
It is difficult to assess how many overseas institutions offer distance education courses in Hong Kong. Newspaper advertisements would be the only way to determine what overseas institutions have not established a cooperative link with a local institution. Some idea of the numbers, however, is available from a study conducted by Tucker, Wei, and Wan (1988) who identified 26 foreign institutions offering programs in Hong Kong. Fifteen of these offered degree programs - ranging from the associate through masters and at least half of the programs involved distance learning (p. 427).
Our impression is that these numbers have been increasing steadily since that time. The success of such institutions emphasizes both the lack of opportunities for further education within Hong Kong and the desire of Hong Kong residents to obtain qualifications, especially those recognized overseas.
One significant instance of the challenge posed by overseas institutions is the Open College of the University of East Asia (Macau). Since the early 1980s it has offered distance education courses annually to thousands of Hong Kong residents - without being a Hong Kong Government approved institution. Tutorials are conducted in nearby Macau.
From this brief overview it can be seen that the education system in Hong Kong is characterized by:
Clearly, open and distance education attract little Government support. Courses offered through extramural departments are expected to cover their costs by student fees and many are seen as a means to raise additional revenue for participating departments. Overseas institutions obviously are not supported by Government for the courses they offer in the Territory.
A series of Government papers between 1963 and 1978 concerned themselves with the development of education in the primary and secondary sectors. This culminated in 1978 in a nine year course of general education being available to all Hong Kong children. At that time no coherent policies regarding tertiary education or adult and continuing education had been formulated. When Government attention turned to tertiary education from 1978 onwards it was, not surprisingly, allied to a concern for the needs of Hong Kong's economy.
The White Paper on The Development of Senior Secondary and Tertiary Education (1978) addressed the issue of access to degree courses and suggested that proposals be prepared for part-time courses designed to meet the needs of mature students, but it was private, voluntary agencies that the policy makers suggested should provide assistance with developing these much needed "retrieval" education courses for adults.
The Report of the Advisory Committee on Diversification (1979), while dealing primarily with Hong Kong's economic growth and roads to diversification of the economy, saw a link between these objectives and manpower requirements in the form of education and training, conceived mainly as technical education and industrial training. It was in the context of this Report that the idea of an open education centre, sponsored by Government with the aim of fulfilling adult education needs, was put forward as a recommendation:
The Government should embark on an in-depth study aimed, first, at a clearer definition of the purposes of adult education and, secondly, at its better coordination. This study should include consideration of a Hong Kong open education centre, that is, one with flexible entry qualifications but providing education for mature students and requiring a high degree of self learning. Such a centre might be a cost effective means of meeting Hong Kong's future needs for educational manpower. (pp. 237–238)
That Report was followed by the Overall Review of the Hong Kong Education System (1981), which attempted to derive a coherent policy for education, arguing that until that time Government- initiated reviews of education focused too much on the needs of the various sectors and too little on the overall framework for education. Among their recommendations for higher education was that part-time or external degree or associateship courses should be introduced to cater to adults working in commerce and industry who had been denied opportunities for formal education. The Review also pointed to the disarray in the field of adult and continuing education and the complexities of funding in this sector.
The field, however, is fragmented - so much so, that at present it is difficult to obtain hard facts on which a coordinated policy could be based. (p. 39)
The authors of the Review also commented on inadequate Government funding in the area of adult and continuing education.
Public criticism of the government's policy on adult (and continuing) education is not widespread but it is intense among some of the organisations and individuals working directly in the field. The burden of their complaint is that this sector has consistently been given too low a priority in educational development, that funds are manifestly inadequate and there is insufficient official recognition of the need for a massive program of retrieval education. (p. 40)
The issue of an open education centre for Hong Kong using distance learning techniques was mentioned in this Review but seen to be the province of another committee simultaneously conducting the Review of Post-Secondary and Technical Education (1981).
It seems that the lack of co-ordination referred to in the Overall Review of the Hong Kong Education System (1981) extended to the fact that several committees were considering the same issue at approximately the same time. Yet another report, prepared by a panel of overseas visitors, was also in progress. This report, . Perspective on Education in Hong Kong (1982), was likewise critical of policy and planning in Hong Kong's education system.
There is a pervasive feeling that responsibility for and knowledge about what is happening lies elsewhere; but no-one is sure where this is, or who holds the master plan. There is in short a noticeable lack of mutual trust and understanding. The current entanglement of public, voluntary, profit-making, and church-affiliated jurisdictions at the school level and of the miscellany of publicly subsidised and variously managed institutions in the post-school sector bears witness to this. Counting all the Government and private instrumentalities, there is little doubt that the education system is over-administered. The plethora of jurisdictions and lack of forward planning capacity militate against efficient management. (p. 16)
The panel of visitors also took up the theme of part-time adult education and continuing education but cast doubt on the acceptance of a centre for open distance education by the Hong Kong community.
Part-time degrees may well provide a viable alternative to full-time university education though clearly they will put not only the students but also existing university staff, space and resources under considerable stress. The introduction of a `university without walls' using the mass media is an attractive idea to us but does not seem likely in the foreseeable future mainly because of a questioning of what its viability and credibility would be. These surrogate forms of higher education are seen by some as stop-gap measures to meet the rapidly expanding demand for post-secondary education, rather than being based on the principles of continuing education. (p. 64)
In spite of these reservations, it was impossible to deny that the newly formed Open College of the University of East Asia in nearby Macau was already making inroads into adult distance education in Hong Kong in the face of Government resistance to its influence. The Open College was practising distance education using course materials purchased from established overseas distance education institutions and clearly provided one kind of economical working model for open distance education in Hong Kong.
The panel of visitors commented:
The very existence of the newly formed University of East Asia in Macau and its Open College, interested in drawing on the Hong Kong student population, has already called some of the traditional assumptions about delivery of higher education into question. We note a recent decision by the Executive Council that the Open College should not be permitted to operate study centres in Hong Kong to supplement its distance education programme; and that the UPGC should consider the question of a public- sector Open University type institution in Hong Kong. (p. 64)
Going against what they believed to be the tide of public opinion, the panel came down in favour of open distance education and mentions the models provided elsewhere in the world such as the British Open University, Telekellog in Germany, and Telescola in Portugal, as well as the "stimulant" (but not the model) provided by the Open College. As such, the merits or demerits of the Open College's system were not debated openly.
The notion of setting up an Education Commission also arose in this Report. The proposed role of the Commission, which was established in the following year, was to be a co-ordinating body through which three agencies would provide advice to Government: the UPGC, the Board of Education, and the Vocational Training Council. Ultimately the panel of visitors shifted the responsibility for developing open distance education to the proposed Education Commission:
We believe Hong Kong would profit from an increased exposure and sensitisation to these ideas and issues, perhaps by undergoing a green paper white paper process in respect of continuing education. The responsibility for this would lie with the proposed Education Commission, aided by contributions from its three constituent advisory bodies.... (p. 77)
In summary, the Hong Kong Government, pressured as it was by a demand for tertiary education and the need for trained manpower to meet the needs of a growing and diversifying economy, could not do otherwise than explore what alternatives were open to it at the time. During this period the education system was being reviewed by various committees including overseas experts and criticized strongly for its lack of coherent policy. This is evident in the way in which policy making itself was proceeding. Establishment of the Education Commission as a co-ordinating body is evidence of a desire for more control over the system as well as a greater sense of direction.
The idea of an open learning system for Hong Kong was raised repeat-edly in the various reports and reviews as a way of developing further and continuing education for adults, but at the end of this period (1978–1983) it remained only an idea.
The Education Commission Report No 1 (1984) addressed briefly the question of whether it was advisable to set up an open university in Hong Kong. Though the Commission received public comment from a wide range of individuals and organizations concerning the need for open education, it could not ignore the fact that the UPGC had also been commissioned by the Government in July 1983, on the advice of the Executive Council, to consider the feasibility of an open university for Hong Kong modelled on the British Open University. The UPGC report was completed in August 1984 and the first Education Commission Report appeared in October 1984 giving it very little time to consider the UPGC's recommendations.
On the whole the UPGC came out against the establishment of an Open University modelled along the lines of the British Open University stating the following reasons:
The UPGC considered that to replicate an institution such as the UK Open University in Hong Kong would require a scale of operation of around 70,000–100,000 students if it were to be viable. However, most of the necessary technical and academic expertise required to staff such an institution could not be found in Hong Kong and yet a knowledge of the needs of the territory in educational terms would be essential to success....
With only two universities and two polytechnics in Hong Kong, the problem of securing tutoring resources would be difficult to resolve. (cited in the Education Commission Report No. 1, p. 74)
Further UPGC objections revolved around the following:
So the idea of an open education institution modelled on the British Open University was in effect shelved at that stage, largely on the basis that it would not be cost-effective to establish such an institution in Hong Kong. Responsibility for the provision of open tertiary education continued to rest with the UPGC- funded institutions or more properly with their extramural studies departments, which provide fee-paying courses not substantially subsidized by Government.
It is in the Education Commission Report No 2 (1986) that we find the core policy recommendations leading to the establishment in 1989 of what was to become the Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong. By this time the issue of how a comprehensive program of open tertiary education was to be achieved could not be avoided any longer. Three possibilities were put forward and are summarized below:
The co-operative model would imply the creation of a co-ordinating body which would determine which institution would offer which course, thus avoiding duplication of effort (or promoting multiple efforts in areas of high demand) and ensuring the coverage was comprehensive. (p. 151)
It seemed as though some attempt was to be made to rationalize provision of open entry courses but a strong role for this co-ordinating body was seen as problematic.
On the face of it this would be the simplest approach to the problem. It would however involve considerable difficulties. (p. 151)
Basically, these difficulties revolved around credit transfer, compatibility of entrance qualifications, and who would make the final awards to students: issues with which the Education Commission was reluctant to deal. We argue that resolution of these issues is fundamental to achieving the kind of collaboration that was desired. Perhaps to avoid these problems rather than solve them the idea of a consortium was proposed:
We have concluded that something more than the cooperation of autonomous institutions is required for an effective programme, and accordingly we recommend the consortium approach. The concept here is, in effect, half way between the autonomous and the cooperative models. The participating institutions would constitute a consortium for the purposes of operating this programme, but in subscribing to it the institutions would accept that the consortium was (in some sense) an authoritative body. The consortium would allocate responsibility and funds for the preparation or selection of materials, ensure compatibility of standards and deal with the allocation of resources. The consortium would need resources of its own, such as an administrative staff, its own senior academic staff, and its own counselling staff. (p. 153)
Furthermore:
The consortium would not be an embryonic autonomous institution but an effective moderator between the participants. The consortium would represent their joint efforts; to a large extent its academic standing would be drawn from them. (p. 153)
The Report recognized that the consortium approach was not novel and cited the Open University Consortium of British Columbia as "one of the most successful developments in open education" (p. 153).
So an institution was to be born after all but seemingly modelled on the Open University Consortium of British Columbia rather than the British Open University. No comment was made as to the suitability of this model in the Hong Kong context. Indeed, nowhere is the operation of the Open University Consortium of British Colombia, or any other consortium, discussed in detail in the Commission's reports.
It is instructive to explore the feasibility of a consortium in the Hong Kong context in a little more detail here. Success of such a venture in the Canadian context in no way guarantees success in Hong Kong, where, overall, a strong sense of institutional identity goes hand in hand with a low level of institutional co- operation and where extramural studies and continuing education departments are profit-oriented and competitive and not under the same degree of Government control as the traditional education sector. Are these really the elements of a successful consortium?
Writing of consortia in Canadian distance education, Konrad and Small (1986) claim that:
The highest level of collaboration is reached when a new structure or organisation is created to manage the mutual interests of the institutions, such as an agency for needs analysis, production and marketing materials for partner institutions. (p. 111)
They go on to say that:
There is also an important element of enlightened self-interest behind the creation of any consortium. Martin (1981) emphasises that if the chief purpose of a consortium is anything other than to serve members' needs, the consortium is doomed to failure through misunderstandings and misguided priorities. (p. 111)
And above all:
Membership of a consortium is, by definition, voluntary. Hence, those co-operative arrangements which are designed a priori, or legislated into existence, do not qualify as true consortia. (p. 112)
We can observe examples of consortia in Hong Kong where the principles of voluntary association and self-interest are clearly operating: the several cases of co-operation between Hong Kong-based institutions and overseas institutions working together to offer overseas courses to Hong Kong students, mostly using distance education or a mixture of face-to-face instruction and self-instructional materials. Recalling the utilitarian value of overseas qualifications for Hong Kong people who wish to emigrate, the success of such ventures is virtually guaranteed.
What is not clear is why policy makers assumed that the context was right for a purely Hong Kong-based consortium to develop, particularly in the absence of instances of effective co-operation among Hong Kong institutions themselves and where no incentive for membership of the consortium was offered.
By vesting in the consortium the power to take its own educational initiatives as well as performing a co-ordinating role, it was beginning to look much more like an autonomous open education institution than was originally envisaged. Initially the consortium seemed to have included all institutions that offered open education courses of any kind, but in the second Education Commission Report the idea that the consortium should operate using distance education methods was included in the recommendations for the first time.
Significantly, the Education Commission did not recommend that the Government accept financial responsibility for the consortium: the long term objective was that programs be self-financing "as far as possible." The notion that adult and further education does not need Government subsidy seems to be firmly entrenched in Hong Kong (p. 162). So firmly entrenched that the Education Commission did not see the need to justify the requirement that the future consortium be self-financing. No parallel cases of wholly self-financing distance education institutions were cited and indeed it is not easy to locate one.
This report cleared the way for the establishment of what was to become the Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong (OLIHK). The matter was discussed further in the Education Commission Report No. 3 (1988), which followed up issues of implementation of plans for the formation of the Open Learning Institute. Referring once again to the "proposed consortium" the third Education Commission Report reiterates that it would not be an open university and would not produce the majority of its own courses but that it would "need an identity of its own in order to establish its reputation and ensure the momentum required for success" (p. 11).
The consortium idea persisted in the Guidelines for the Planning Committee in the Report of the Planning Committee for the Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong (1989), stating that "The OLI should be regarded as a consortium of participating institutions" (p. 60). The question that arises is just what courses or what institutions the consortium was supposed to co-ordinate. As we have said, there are very few local distance education courses in Hong Kong, though thousands of open entry face-to-face short courses exist. Presumably one approach would be to convert existing face-to-face courses to distance education courses such as was undertaken by the Open Learning Institute of British Columbia when it commenced operations in 1981 (see Mugridge, 1986). This would necessitate, first of all, sorting out coherent study programs from among the plethora of open entry courses on offer through the extramural studies departments of UPGC-funded institutions plus a high initial investment in course development to develop them into distance education courses.
The Guidelines of the Planning Committee Report offer little assistance in this regard and contain the somewhat contradictory statement:
The programmes offered by the OLI should in no way adversely affect the part-time, extra- mural, open or distance learning courses now being offered by the UPGC-funded institutions or the Vocational Training Council. (p. 60)
Thereafter the Report of the Planning Committee deals with the details of setting up the OLIHK, and these arrangements much more resemble the founding of an autonomous institution than a consortium. Hence it is not surprising that the OLIHK now operates essentially as an autonomous institution and in broad outline resembles the mode of operation of the Open College of the University of East Asia, buying in most of its courses from overseas institutions and adapting where necessary to suit local needs. Government funding is promised for the first four years (1989–1993) and thereafter it is expected to be self-funding. At the time of writing none of the UPGC-funded institutions had made a formal commitment to join the consortium. Failure to form the proposed consortium has not been debated openly and reasons for the apparent lapse of policy recommendations have not been aired. It is our conjecture that the majority of the local UPGC-funded institutions were never committed to the consortium idea. It is certainly surprising that the consortium idea continued to be mooted without open and prior commitment of the institutions involved.
In many respects the post-World War II reconstruction of the Hong Kong education system has been remarkable, as has the growth of the economy as a whole. Yet low taxation levels and competing priorities have meant that Government outlays on education are not large: the school sector is still dependent on private and voluntary agencies. Governmentfunded tertiary education is currently expanding at a rapid rate but cannot yet meet the demand for places from qualified school leavers. Adult and continuing education, though referred to repeatedly in Government reports since 1978, have not been allocated a high priority and receive minimal funding from Government.
When overseas institutions offering distance education courses in Hong Kong began to attract students in increasing numbers in the early to mid-1980s, moves were made to establish a local open learning institution and eventually the Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong was formed. In spite of the additional places its courses provide for Hong Kong residents, the issue remains as to whether the Open Learning Institute can fulfil the role in Hong Kong that policy makers originally expected.
In 1991, two years after its inception, the Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong had approximately 13,000 students enrolled and continues to expand its intake, but at a more modest rate of expansion than was originally envisaged. Unlike equivalent institutions overseas, it is required to be self- financing in the foreseeable future. It does not, and possibly could not, operate as a consortium along with other Hong Kong institutions. There is no compelling reason why this should be the case and no inducement for institutions to co-operate in this way.
So the OLI has two dilemmas to confront. Officially it operates as a consortium, but in practice it is independent of local institutions. Officially it will become self-funding in the near future, but in practice it will never have full autonomy: it is still regarded by Government as subject to its control and not an independent business organization.
Above all, to remain viable it needs to be able to remain competitive both in terms of student fees and acceptability of its courses to Hong Kong students. There are now many overseas institutions offering distance education degrees in Hong Kong whose courses were developed initially in Government-funded institutions and offered overseas to reap additional benefits to their institutions. When it comes to acceptability of courses the issues are complex. Those adult students who intend to remain in Hong Kong until 1997 and beyond need qualifications that will earn them promotion in Hong Kong. As yet business employers remain reserved about the acceptability of distance education qualifications and the Civil Service has not yet recognized qualifications obtained from distance education study. Those adults who intend to emigrate need qualifications that are recognized elsewhere in the world. The OLI's existing courses imported from abroad may well compete in this regard but since the idea of a consortium was first mooted there has in fact been a proliferation in the number of distance education courses offered by the UPGC institutions acting in partnership with overseas institutions. A market-oriented approach is adopted and there is now considerable duplication in subject areas such as business studies in which the OLI is engaged. With limited funding its potential to develop new courses is severely restricted. So in addition to the issues mentioned above the question of which market the OLI will tap in the future needs to be answered and approved by Government.
In terms of Hong Hong tertiary education as a whole, there is currently no incentive for course rationalization and for credit transfer arrangements to be developed and implemented in spite of the educational merit of such a scheme, and the situation seems to be rather much as it was before the ideas of an open education institution and a consortium were first advanced.
What we have attempted to demonstrate here is the relatively weak relationship between Government policy and education practice using distance education as an example. A more coherent system of adult education using distance education methods and allowing open entry would surely benefit the Territory's future development but for the moment it is "business as usual."
A perspective on education in Hong Kong: Report by a visiting panel. (1982). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
Brimer, M. A. (1988). Hong Kong. In T. N. Postlethwaite (Ed.), The encyclopedia of comparative education and national systems of education (pp. 332–338). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Education Commission report No 1. (1984). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
Education Commission report No. 2. (1986). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer. Education Commission report No. 3. (1988). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
Hong Kong 1989: A review of 1988. (1989). Hong Kong: Government Information Services.
Konrad, A. G., & Small, J. M. (1986). Consortia in Canadian distance education. In I. Mugridge & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Distance education in Canada (pp. 111–120). London: Croom Helm.
Martin, D. M. (1981, Winter). The academic consortium: Limitations and possibilities. Educational Record.
Mugridge, I. (1986). The Open Learning Institute. In I. Mugridge & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Distance education in Canada (pp. 121–128). London: Croom Helm.
Overall review of the Hong Kong education system. (1981). Hong Kong: Government Secretariat, Hong Kong Government.
Report of committee to review of post-secondary and technical education. (1981).
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Pri
nter.
Report of the planning committee for the Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong. (1989). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
The report of the advisory committee on diversification. (1979). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
Tucker, J., Wei, G., & Wan, C. C. (1988, August). Developing nontraditional education in Hong Kong. In D. Sewart & J. S. Daniel (Eds.), Developing distance education (pp. 426–428). Papers submitted to the 14th World Conference, International Council for Distance Education, Oslo.
White paper on education policy. (1965). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
White paper on the development of senior secondary and tertiary education. (1978). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
Wong, D. S. W. (1988). Higher education in Hong Kong and the implications for Australian institutions. Proceedings of International Seminar Australian Education Offshore, February, 17–21.
Mavis Kelly is currently Senior Educational Technologist in the Educational Centre, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. She has worked in academic staff development in traditional and distance education institutions for several years - in Australia, Canada, Japan, and Hong Kong.
David Kember is a Program Development Officer in the Educational Technology Unit, Hong Kong Polytechnic. He has worked in distance education institutions for a number of years and has special interests in student learning and academic staff development.