In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

A Period of Crisis and Opportunity (1997–2005) 113 5 A Period of Crisis and Opportunity for Chinese History as an Independent Subject (1997–2005) During the second phase (1974–97), Chinese History was able to establish a strong subject culture and consolidate its independent status in the school curriculum. In this phase, the development of Chinese History after the handover of sovereignty to China is examined. This analysis can enhance our understanding of the politics of Chinese History, particularly the ways in which the subject community strived to protect the status and ‘tradition’ of Chinese History in the face of broader curriculum reform during this period. THE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (F1–3) When the CDI was established in 1993, Chinese History finally became an independent subject in the Humanities section, with a senior subject officer and an officer responsible for the subject’s curriculum development (unlike before when Chinese History was subordinated to History within the Humanities section of the Advisory Inspectorate). Being a fully independent subject has been of considerable importance for Chinese History, especially when curriculum developers have wanted to initiate changes to the curriculum. This is because Chinese History officers can now submit a proposal directly to the CDC for curriculum revision without having to go through the head of the History section. In this way, the revision of the junior level syllabus was speeded up, and it took only half a year from the final draft to the introduction of the new syllabus in 1997 (it was originally scheduled to be implemented in September 2000). C. N. Leung, the first officer in charge of Chinese History in the CDI (1993–96), gave the rationale for the revisions to the syllabus: Following the handover, the aim to cultivate students’ affection for the nation and its people was a must. ... The inclusion of moral/civic education was to remind teachers of the importance of incorporating this element into their teaching. 114 Hong Kong’s Chinese History Curriculum from 1945 However, the speed with which the revised syllabus was introduced meant that resources such as textbooks were not available for teachers and students. Because of this lack of planning, queries were raised about the motives for the implementation of the new curriculum. An article in the Apple Daily Newspaper on 16 June 1998 reported teachers’ discontent over the lack of relevant teaching resources for the revised junior form level Chinese History syllabuses to be implemented in September 1998; and the teachers queried whether the abrupt implementation was to please the SAR government. At first, the proposed revision was criticised also by members of the CDC subject committee. F. S. Tsang, the HKEA officer, recollected: ‘Members did not agree with the proposal put forward by C. N. Leung. We considered that, despite the so-called revision, the syllabus was still much the same as the one introduced in 1982. Hence it was “the same medicine differently prepared”. When H. C. Wong took up the task, he specified the “linked dot and line approach” that highlighted each dynasty’s characteristics. Added to this were the detailed illustrations of how to teach and the inclusion of moral and civic education in the topics. H. C. Wong considered that detailed prescription could help teachers. Wong’s ideas were adopted in the syllabus.’ In spite of these objections, and because of the dominance of the CDI officials, the proposal was accepted by the committee and a draft syllabus was issued in 1996. The development of the revised curriculum was a highly centralised process with the CDI initiating the revision and little attention being paid to the concerns of teachers. This can be seen when, in 1996, after the subject committee had finished reviewing the draft syllabus, a questionnaire was distributed in January 1997 to collect teachers’ views. According to ‘The report of the questionnaire survey’ compiled by the CDI,1 ‘53% of respondents agreed with the revision, while 44% of respondents agreed with the revision, but with reservations concerning some parts; for example, many of those with reservations felt that the overall content should be reduced and the difficult topics should be adjusted’. In spite of these reservations, however, the subject committee only made minor revisions to the syllabus: taking out the prehistoric period; changing the name of the topic ‘the Confucian politics of the Eastern Han’ to ‘the unity and power of the Eastern Han’; and changing the name of the topic ‘intellectual thought’ to ‘development of intellectual thought’. Otherwise, the report...

Share