香港特區國民教育的議論批判

Critique of National Education Discourse in the HKSAR

2011年5月，課程發展議會公布了《德育及國民教育科課程指引（小一至中六）：諮詢稿》，進行三個月公眾諮詢。本文是筆者對有關諮詢稿的回應，包括：（1）環繞諮詢稿的眾多言論，筆者發現當中有不少謬論以至歪理，身為負責任的教育工作者，實須加以批判，以正視聽，使香港特區的國民教育政策議論，不致被政客的媚詞及黨派的腔調所騎刼，並回到教育與教學的實質探討上。（2）諮詢稿所建議的課程內容，犯了一個嚴重錯誤，就是把香港特區國民所身處的幾個重要制度脈絡──國家、民族與「民族國家」──胡亂配置與混淆，致使所建議的國民教育課程內容完全不符合中國歷史現實、當今國情及香港本土文化社會實況。（3）諮詢稿所建議課程內容的另一錯誤，就是把香港特區國民歸屬於錯誤的身分認同概念視域之下，致使香港學童所認同的一種國民身分，不單與中華民族的「多元一體格局」無從整合，更可能對香港國際都會的「多元文化格局」造成矛盾與衝突。（4）除了課程內容上的錯誤，建議的國民教育教學取向亦犯上嚴重錯誤。首先，諮詢稿所強調的國民教育教學取向是一種停留在Lawrence Kohlberg所謂的「成規」（conventional）層次，即只着重合模於「正面的價值觀」、「優秀的國民素質」樣版，而未能提升至「後成規」（post-conventional）層次。其次，諮詢稿更把國民教育教學取向界定為一種「激情為本」的模式，即着重引發學生的激情及情緒。試想，若香港特區未來的公民是本着由「激情」引發並墨守「成規」的態度，來處理在全球一體化下種種日形複雜的族裔、民族及國際政治問題，則香港這個國際大都會的政治生態將會出現怎樣的變化？（5）最後，本文據此提出一系列改進上述錯誤的建議。

The Curriculum Development Council issued the Chinese version of Moral and National Education Curriculum Guide (Primary 1 to Secondary 6): Consultation Draft in May 2011. This article records the formal submission of the author to the consultation. It consists of five sections: (a) Numbers of fallacies and misunderstandings about the conceptions of national education have emerged from the discourse initiated by the Consultation Draft. As a serving educator of the HKSAR， I feel obliged to put forth my criticism to these educationally harmful conceptions. It attempts to rescue the policy discourse on national education in the HKSAR from the siege by politicians and partisans’ rhetorics and to recourse the discourse back to the purview of educational enquiry. (b) One of the serious faults found in the curriculum content stipulated in the Consultation Draft is the conflation of institutional contexts essential to the national identity of Hong Kong citizens， namely the state， nation and nation-state. As a result， the curriculum content proposed by the Consultation Draft is in total discordance with the historical， national and socio-cultural contexts of the HKSAR. (c) Another fault found in the proposed curriculum content is the misplacement of the national identity of Hong Kong citizens in empirically inappropriate conceptual perspectives. As a result， the national identity to be nurtured through the proposed curriculum may not only be incongruent with the Chinese nationality， which has been characterized by Professor Fei Xiaotong as “pattern of diversity and unity，” but may also elicit contradictions or even conflicts in the multicultural context of Hong Kong as an international metropolitan. (d) Apart from the faults found in curriculum content， serious faults can also be found in the pedagogical approach proposed by the Consultation Draft. First， the teaching objective of the pedagogical approach has been identified as to inculcate “positive values” and “desirable national qualities” among Hong Kong school children. Such objective however could only prepare students up to the “conventional level” of moral development in Lawrence Kohlberg’s conception. It has fallen short of elevating them to the “post-conventional level” of moral development. Second， the proposed pedagogical approach has been defined in the Consultation Draft as the “passion-based” model. Accordingly， the major effort of the model is to “trigger” students’ “passion” and “emotion.” Imagine if future citizens of the HKSAR are all passion-prone and/or emotion-prone in handling ethnic， national and international-political issues in the ever-growing globalizing context， what would happen to the political ecology of Hong Kong as an international metropolitan? (e) Accordingly， the article will conclude with a series of suggestions in rectifying the aforementioned faults found in the Consultation Draft.