<轉載自2018年6月26日 明報 社評>
檢討自資專上教育專責小組公布諮詢文件，建議保留副學位制度，同時制訂清晰政策，確保自資課程質素，營辦機構發展情况若不理想可取消註冊。副學士課程推出10多年， 一直存在「高不成、低不就」問題，自資課程良莠不齊，儼如院校生財工具，同樣備受詬病。自資專上教育改革，關鍵在於配合社會經濟需要、滿足學生合理期望，當局若要保留副學位制度，必須加強質素把關，確保課程實際唯用，否則只是浪費莘莘學子時間與金錢。
重新定位副學士 政府勿自欺欺人
行政長官林鄭月娥首份施政報告，提出成立專責小組，檢視自資院校角色及副學位課程未來路向，由教大（前稱教院）前校長張炳良擔任主席，本年底向政府提交報告。小組研究8個月後，發表諮詢文件，建議保留副學位「雙軌制」，高級文憑和副學士繼續並行，惟兩者需要重新定位加強區分，副學士主要支援升讀學位課程，高級文憑則支援升讀跟職專教育相關的學位課程。張炳良表示，小組與不同持份者交流，大體而言學生認為就讀副學士有裨益，所以不建議取消。
2000年政府推出副學士，希望香港高等教育普及率能由當時的33%，在10年間倍升至60%，追上發達國家高中畢業生升學比率。副學士的原意，是作為中學課程與大學課程之間的一個資歷架構。政府強調， 副學士學位兼備通識教育及職業導向訓練，是「獨立而有價值」的資歷，持有副學士學位者，可以投身基層管理及相關專業的助理崗位，然而經過10多年發展，副學士僅被視為升讀學位課程的跳板。對於很多學生和家長來說，副學士存在的最大意義，只是毋須「一試定生死」，即使文憑試失手，仍可花錢買一個入讀「八大」的機會。
副學士課程超過六成屬通識性質內容，不夠職業導向，學生畢業後難以找到理想工作，還要背負大筆學債。相比之下，高級文憑以職業訓練為定位，專業技能訓練內容佔課程六成，反而做到畢業後既可就業亦可選擇升學，兩路皆通。近年副學士與高級文憑修讀人數此消彼長，實非偶然。去年當局更新副學士課程通用指標，課程宗旨部分索性刪去「擔任基層行政及管理職位」的字眼，反映副學士已偏離初衷。
政府高等教育政策重量不重質，埋下今天惡果。隨着「少子化」成為社會趨勢，中學生人數減少，未來數年全港專上本科及副學位學額更將供過於求，情况令人憂慮。副學士淪為雞肋，政府進退維谷，如果貿然廢除，對於所有副學士畢業生的學歷認受性，將構成沉重打擊，當局眼前能做的，是設法賦予副學士更多實用價值。張炳良表示，目前重點應該是提升副學位教育對社會發展的作用，深入檢視課程結構，看看如何令到副學士與學士學位課程銜接得更好。有關主張說白了就是面對現實，承認副學士最大作用就是升學踏腳石。既然大多數學生修讀副學士，不過是想有第二次機會爭取修讀學位課程，當局就不應繼續自欺欺人，空談副學士課程如何提升學生就業能力。
自資課程良莠不齊 不能只講「市場主導」
政府檢討自資專上教育，應該多從滿足社會需要角度出發。社會上不少技術工種，不一定需要大學學位，可是需求卻相當殷切，政府改革副學位制度，應該強調唯用，多向實用性質較強的高級文憑課程傾斜。同時，政府亦必須處理自資課程良莠不齊問題。特區政府施政，深受「市場主導」意識形態影響，過去10多年自資專上教育發展，大體也是由市場力量主導，現時全港有11所自資院校提供學士學位課程，「八大」轄下自資學士課程數目亦不少。自資院校開辦課程，好處是彈性較大，理論上可以迅速調整，迎合市場人力需求，然而隨着自資專上教育成為一盤賺錢大生意，政府規管不足，自然容易衍生課程質素參差等問題。
雖然自資院校未獲政府恆常資助，惟亦受惠於批地計劃等支援措施，政府本來就有責任監管其課程質素。現在檢討小組建議為自資院校建立統一規管架構，制訂評審準則，讓有能力的院校發展成私立大學，至於發展較預期差的營辦機構則取消註冊。有關做法意味政府加強介入，對於確保課程質素，應有一定幫助，問題在於當局是否有決心做好把關。張炳良舉例說，當局可以院校收生人數、師資等作為評審標準，有自資院校人士已即時提出異議，認為不應以收生人數衡量院校質素。政府加強規管，難免容易惹來反彈，然而自資課程質素參差，情况必須整頓，當局需要做到規管合度，以免措施形同虛設。
Review of Associate Degree programmes
IN a consultation document released by the Task Force on Review of
Self-financing Post-secondary Education, it is suggested that the Associate
Degree scheme be preserved, and a clear policy be formulated to ensure the
quality of self-financing courses. If the organisations offering such courses
do not showcase satisfactory progress, their registrations might be revoked,
the document suggests.
When the Associate Degree scheme was introduced in 2000, it was aimed at
boosting the universalisation rate of tertiary education from 33% at the time
to 60% within ten years, which was the proportion of high school graduates
pursuing further studies in developed countries. The original intention was to
establish a qualifications framework between secondary school education and
tertiary education. The government stressed that an Associate Degree, combining
liberal studies education and vocation-oriented training, was an
"independent and valuable" qualification, whose holders could start a
career in junior management or assistant positions in related professions. More
than ten years have passed, and the Associate Degree is still regarded as
nothing more than a springboard for undergraduate degrees. To many students and
parents, the most important raison d'être of the Associate Degree is to save
them from having their destiny determined by a single examination. Even if
their DSE examinations have not been successful, they can still have a chance of
going to one of the eight universities by parting with some money.
An Associate Degree programme is made up of more than 60% of liberal
studies education, and as such is not sufficiently vocation-oriented. Its
students have had difficulty landing decent jobs, and at the same time are
saddled with debts. A higher diploma, in comparison, is oriented towards
vocational training, with training in professional skills making up 60% of the
programme. Graduates can choose to work or pursue further studies. It is not a
coincidence that enrolments for higher diplomas have been increasing in recent
years at the expense of associate degree enrolments. Last year the authorities
updated the common descriptors and removed the words "pursue [...]
employment in an administrative/managerial position at the entry level",
indicating that the programme has departed from its original intention.
The government's tertiary education policy placed more emphasis on
quantity than quality, leading to the undesirable consequences we are faced
with today. As sub-replacement fertility has become a social trend, the number
of secondary school students is decreasing. Over the next few years, supply of
undergraduate degrees and associate degrees will, worryingly, outstrip demand.
Associate degrees have become something not good enough to get excited over,
but not bad enough to forego without regret, and the government is at a loss
what to do. Any rash attempt to abolish these programmes will seriously impact
the credibility of the qualifications held by Associate degree holders.
According to Anthony Cheung Bing-leung, the only thing the government can do
now is to enhance Associate Degrees' effectiveness in promoting social
development and carry out an in-depth review of their curriculum structures
with a view to creating a better bridge between Associate Degree programmes and
Undergraduate programmes. To put it frankly: we should face up to the fact that
the Associate Degree functions as no more than a stepping stone to tertiary
education. Given the fact that most students who enrol in an Associate Degree
programme seek nothing more than a second chance of pursuing an undergraduate
degree, the government should no longer delude itself and others by talking
blankly how Associate Degrees can enhance students' employability.
副學位課程須唯用 政府應把關保質素
檢討自資專上教育專責小組公布諮詢文件，建議保留副學位制度，同時制訂清晰政策，確保自資課程質素，營辦機構發展情况若不理想可取消註冊。
2000年政府推出副學士，希望香港高等教育普及率能由當時的33%，在10年間倍升至60%，追上發達國家高中畢業生升學比率。副學士的原意，是作為中學課程與大學課程之間的一個資歷架構。政府強調，副學士學位兼備通識教育及職業導向訓練，是「獨立而有價值」的資歷，持有副學士學位者，可以投身基層管理及相關專業的助理崗位，然而經過10多年發展，副學士僅被視為升讀學位課程的跳板。對於很多學生和家長來說，副學士存在的最大意義，只是毋須「一試定生死」，即使文憑試失手，仍可花錢買一個入讀「八大」的機會。
副學士課程超過六成屬通識性質內容，不夠職業導向，學生畢業後難以找到理想工作，還要背負大筆學債。相比之下，高級文憑以職業訓練為定位，專業技能訓練內容佔課程六成，反而做到畢業後既可就業亦可選擇升學，兩路皆通。近年副學士與高級文憑修讀人數此消彼長，實非偶然。去年當局更新副學士課程通用指標，課程宗旨部分索性刪去「擔任基層行政及管理職位」的字眼，反映副學士已偏離初衷。
沒有留言:
張貼留言