首先曝光的是投訴機制名存實亡。同校教師指出，辦學團體此前兩次接到針對校長 的匿名投訴後，只要求後者作書面解釋，其後如何處理，乃至有否處理，均不了了 之；今次接到林老師的具名投訴後，竟反向校長查證她在校內情況，直接引起今次 悲劇。
這顯示一般管理層處理投訴的弔詭之處：對匿名投訴，管理方能以「保護私隱」為 由官官相衞，或以「無法查證投訴事項」直接拒絕受理；對於具名投訴，則處理提 出問題者，當作處理問題，把投訴（者）交回校長自行解決。如此不顧前線死活的 冷血官僚思維，無疑令人心寒。
校本管理衍生問題
當問題愈揭愈多，辦學團體則開始回應「校長已休假，入住沙田醫院精神科」及已 設立「獨立調查委員會」，一句「調查未有結論前，不作評論」便能金蟬脫殼。這 公關技巧純熟不已，這只是為了拖延至傳媒失去興趣，淡化事件而已。當局是否真 的有心檢討機制？實是疑問。
其次，事件發生之前，乃至林老師自殺之後，校監和眾多校董到底做了些什麼？正 如校政專家雷其昌日前所言，「人的問題」才是癥結所在。為何負責遴選校長的校 董和校監，會選出一位品格有爭議，乃至可能患有精神病的人擔此領導重任？
過去數年，他們有否詢問任何一位離職教師出走原因，以了解教員離職率為何一直 高企？筆者不反對精神病患者擔當校長要職，但辦學團體是否有責任向教職員、學 生及眾多家長交代他們這聘用決定，以及說服師生繼續大愛包容，支持該校長帶着 月薪 10 萬「抱病」休養？
多年以來，「一切為了學生，為了學生一切」的教改口號響徹雲霄，校本管理也成 為拆牆鬆綁的象徵，但從今次事件可見，校本管理同時衍生出官僚卸責、專制弄權 等問題，卻從沒有受各方重視。一如作家 Eldridge Cleaver 所言︰「如你不是答案的一 部分，便是問題的一部分」。筆者心底還是衷心希望，辦學團體東華三院的反思和 檢討，會是「答案」的一部分。
梁亦華(2019.03.29)︰從教師自殺看辦學團體監管責任，《信報財經新聞》，C04，教育講論。
__________________
English Summary
-
In an article contributed to HKEJ, Mr
Leung said the school sponsoring body's ineffective complaint handling system
is the major culprit causing a teacher to commit suicide.
-
The school sponsoring body could decline to
process complaints lodged anonymously, citing lack of evidence or privacy
reasons, while cases lodged with complainants' names provided will be handled
by the principals, who may be the very persons they complained about.
-
Mr Leung also said the school sponsoring body
has not even looked into the reasons behind teachers' resignation; while the
school-based management has been used by government officials as an excuse to
shrug off responsibilities.
A Teacher’s Suicide and the Accountability of School Sponsoring Bodies
Teacher suicides are tragically not uncommon. Yet the recent death of a primary school teacher provoked a level of public outrage few had anticipated. In most previous cases, schools followed a familiar script: a brief expression of sorrow, a few polite words praising the deceased as “dedicated to teaching”, coupled with the claim that no obvious signs of emotional distress had been detected. Parents, meanwhile, tended to focus less on the dead than on whether their own children had been affected, sometimes even questioning why the teacher had chosen to die on school grounds and frighten students in the process. This case unfolded differently. It was only because fellow teachers from the same school collectively spoke to the media that the incident drew sustained public attention.
The causes of suicide are always complex. Even so, the information already in the public domain points unmistakably towards deeper failures in the governance and management culture of both the school and its sponsoring body.
The first issue exposed was the hollowness of the complaints mechanism itself. Teachers from the school revealed that the sponsoring body had previously received two anonymous complaints against the principal. On both occasions, the response amounted to little more than requesting a written explanation from the principal, after which the matter quietly disappeared. When Ms Lam later submitted a named complaint, the sponsoring body reportedly turned around and sought verification from the principal regarding her situation within the school. That decision appears to have triggered the final tragedy.
The episode reveals a familiar bureaucratic paradox in the handling of complaints. Anonymous complaints can be dismissed in the name of “protecting privacy”, or rejected outright on the grounds that allegations cannot be verified. Named complaints, meanwhile, often result not in confronting the problem but in targeting the complainant, handing both the complaint and the complainant back to the very authority being accused. Such bureaucratic reflexes — cold, self-protective and detached from the realities faced by frontline staff — leave a chilling impression.
As further allegations emerged, the sponsoring body shifted into crisis-management mode. It announced that the principal had taken leave and been admitted to the psychiatric department of Shatin Hospital, while an “independent investigation committee” had also been established. The formula soon followed: “No further comment before the investigation concludes.” The public relations strategy was polished and predictable. Delay the discussion long enough, wait for media attention to fade, allow the controversy to dissipate. Whether there is genuine determination to confront institutional failures remains doubtful.
The deeper question concerns what the school supervisor and board members were doing before the incident occurred — and indeed after Ms Lam’s death. As school governance scholar Lui Kee-cheung recently argued, the heart of the matter lies in “the human problem”. Why did those responsible for appointing the principal select an individual whose character had already become a matter of controversy, and who may even have been struggling with serious mental illness, to occupy such a critical leadership role?
Over the years, did any board member ask departing teachers why they chose to leave? Did anyone attempt to understand why staff turnover remained persistently high? I do not oppose individuals with mental illness serving as school principals. That is not the issue. The question is whether the sponsoring body bears responsibility for explaining such an appointment to teachers, students and parents alike — and for persuading the school community to continue extending compassion and support while a principal earning a monthly salary of HK$100,000 takes prolonged sick leave.
For years, education reform slogans proclaiming “everything for students” have echoed across Hong Kong, while school-based management was celebrated as a symbol of decentralisation and institutional flexibility. Yet this incident exposes another side of school-based management: bureaucratic evasion, concentrated authority and the diffusion of accountability. These consequences have long existed, but attracted remarkably little scrutiny.
As Eldridge Cleaver once wrote: “If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.” One can only hope that the reflection and reckoning now facing Tung Wah Group of Hospitals will become part of the solution rather than another exercise in institutional self-preservation.
Leung, Y. W. (2019.03.29). A Teacher’s Suicide and the Accountability of School Sponsoring Bodies. The Hong Kong Economic Journal, C04.
沒有留言:
張貼留言