• 是／不是教師？
• I AM a teacher…I am NOT a teacher?

參看其他通訊

是／不是教師？

──有關大學條例如何定義「教師」及導師地位問題

大學近日打算向立法會提出修改大學條例，其中包括更改「教師」的定義。一眾關心大學發展的同仁方發現，原來大學條例所指的「教師」，只包括「職級屬副講師及以上的香港中文大學全職教學人員」。換言之，為數近五百人，佔整體教學人員超過三成，負擔教學任務最重的一群老師，一直未被大學承認。

大學條例中「教師」的定義
現時原文：

「"教師"（teacher）指職級屬副講師及以上的香港中文大學全職教學人員」

校方建議修定：

「"教師" （teacher）指職級屬副講師及以上的香港中文大學全職教學人員，而該人員為出任教授、副教授或助理教授等教師職系的職位的人士，或為接受由大學校董會不時決定委任或聘任為教師的職位的人士」

校方解釋，原文出現的時候，大學只有「副講師及以上」的老師，未有導師等類別。惟是次校方修例，未把這些前線教師納入定義，似是無意，實是有心。

導師教學最多，卻不得參與學務
由於導師不是「教師」，由系務會到教務會，他們沒有成員資格，極其量只能獲允許列席，有時甚至不能發言。大學條例早已列明這些委員會的組成方法，而所有與學務有關的委員會，都只限「教務人員」 作成員〔註〕。過往很多老師對此不滿，卻不知道箇中因由。現在，校董會通過設立兩個校內職員互選的民選席位，導師就被納入「非教務人員」一組。

不容許導師參與這些委員會，變相是否定他們在學務上的參與、貢獻及專業意見。眾所周知，導師的教學負荷最高，他們更是接觸學生最多，最了解學生學習需要，教學經驗可能最豐富的一群。他們在學務決定上被迫缺席，不單是對他們的輕視，亦是整體同學的損失。

導師長期面對剝削
從以上各種現象可見，大學一直歧視導師，故此導師在受剝削的情況下往往亦只能忍氣吞聲，因為他們根本求救無門。他們受剝的情況最少包括以下三方面：

1. 工作量大
導師長久以來面對工作量大而薪酬低的問題。大多數導師的教學工作量比一般教授多，從事語文教學的導師，更要每年負擔12班。部份導師亦要承擔不少行政工作，一些部門甚至長期依賴導師籌辦給校外人士參與的課外活動，工作量之大實在可想而知。

2. 待遇不如中學教師
與此同時，導師的入職起薪點嚴重偏低。二級導師的起薪點比學位中學教師要低五至七點，有博士學位的一級導師亦只比有合資格師訓的學位中學教師稍高兩點。中學教師每年有增薪，中大的導師卻每兩年才有一次增薪機會。是否有增薪仍要看「表現」，而每個增薪點更一分為四。再加上導師晉升機會微，發展空間小，付出與收穫甚不相符。

3. 長期聘用無望
過去十多年，大多數導師都是以合約制聘用。有些導師表現卓越，多年後竟然仍未獲轉為長期聘用，但眼見年資比自己淺得多的助理教授獲長期聘用，受歧視的感覺實在非筆墨所能形容。由於大學沒挽留這些人才的意圖，因此有些導師只好黯然離開，轉往友校工作，這對於同學來說肯定是巨大損失。

導師要正名
我們認為，大學藉此次修例的機會，必須把導師重新放在「教師」的定義中。（否則，大學也不應該迫這些老師上那些「如何做個好教師」的培訓課程。課檢中有關「教師教學表現」的問題，也不應該套在導師身上了。）

名不正，則言不順；言不順，則事不成。導師正名茲事體大，既牽涉這群老師的專業尊嚴，亦反映大學對教學有多少重視：到底這群專注教學的老師對中文大學來說，有多重要呢？

雖云本大學為研究型大學，但沒有好老師又如何能培養出好學生來成為優秀的研究人員？因此，研究型大學應該最注重教學，而不應把教學視為次於研究。研究與教學為不同專業，兩者卻相輔相成，研究人員與教學人員應該享有平等待遇。

大學校董會將在十月底的會議再次討論是項修訂，倘獲通過，則呈交立法會立例通過。我們在此公開呼籲校董會成員提出進一步修訂建義，將導師「正名」。

與此同時，我們亦呼籲對這套「教師」的定義或對導師待遇有意見的老師加入員工總會（下載入會表：http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/cuegu/download/application_form.pdf）及與我們聯絡（cuegu@cuhk.edu.hk或回覆此電郵即可），共商對策。

註：所謂「教務人員」包括：校長、副校長、各原有書院的及逸夫書院的院長、教師(只限副講師及以上的教學人員)及圖書館館長等。

回頁首　參看其他通訊

I AM a teacher…I am NOT a teacher?

Re-defining “teacher” in the CUHK Ordinance;
Re-establishing the rightful status of CUHK Instructors

Issue
Simple and straightforward as the word “teacher” may sound, one-third of CUHK’s teaching staff does not belong to the category of “teachers”, according to the University Ordinance. And such a situation will not change even though the time has come for the University to propose amendments to the dated Ordinance for LegCo endorsement.

Background
The University will propose shortly to the Legislative Council to amend the University Ordinance. Included in the proposed amendments is the definition of “teacher”. The proposal reveals a shocking fact: “teacher” has long been defined in this University as a full-time “Assistant Lecturer and above”, and the proposal is not going to change the definition. In other words, the 500-strong team of Instructors, who constitute over ONE-THIRD of the University’s teaching staff and who are shouldering the heaviest teaching load, have never been recognized by the University.

Definition of “Teacher” in the University Ordinance
Current definition:

“ ‘teacher’ (教師) means a member of the full-time teaching staff of the University of the rank of Assistant Lecturer and above;”

The proposed amendment:

“ ‘teacher’ (教師) means a member of the full-time teaching staff of the University of the rank of Assistant Lecturer and above holding an appointment in such teacher grades as Professor, Associate Professor or Assistant Professor or such other appointments as the Council may determine to be a teacher from time to time;”

Responding to CUEGU’s query, the University explained that when the definition was first drawn, there were only teachers of “Assistant Lecturer and above”. Instructor was a category yet to emerge. However, CUEGU observes that the University could have taken this opportunity of amendment to include Instructor in the definition. The fact that it has not done so implies an act not unintentional.

No Rights to Participate in Academic Decisions
Since Instructors are not considered “teachers”, they are not represented in any of the academic decision making bodies, from the Senate to the Department Boards. As stipulated by the Ordinance, the memberships of these committees are restricted to the “academic staff” only (Note). Many Instructors have long held grievances about their lack of representation, but the root cause – that they are not “teachers” – is little known. As a result of this definition, even though two staff elected seats – one for the academic staff and one for the non-academic – have been introduced to the Council, Instructors are absurdly put into the category of “non-academic staff”.

This exclusion from the academic decision making bodies is a negation of Instructors’ professional contributions to the academic development of the students and of the University. Instructors are the group that teaches the largest share of courses, reaches the largest part of the student population. They are those who understand students’ learning needs best and probably those with the most teaching experience. Their forced absence from academic decision making is a slight to their contributions and dignity, and in the long run also the loss of all students.

Exploitations
It is clear from the above that the University has since long discriminated against Instructors. In the face of exploitations, which at least include the following three aspects, Instructors are unable to voice out their grievances as help does not exist in the system.

1. Heavy Workload
It is a well recognized fact that Instructors face the exploitation of heavy workload and low reward. Most Instructors have a much heavier teaching load than their professorial counterparts. Language teachers generally have to teach 12 classes a year. Some Instructors are also loaded with administrative or project coordinating tasks (for projects that often generate revenue). Their contributions are, however, often thankless.

2. Remuneration Worse than That for Secondary School Teachers
The starting point of Instructor II is five to seven points lower than that of a secondary school teacher (GM). That of Instructor I with a PhD is only two points higher than a GM with teacher's training. While secondary school teachers enjoy an automatic increment every year, Instructor’s salary increment is subject to the bi-annual performance appraisal. To make things worse, an increment point at CUHK is further divided into four “quarter points”. Furthermore, promotion opportunity and room for professional development is also extremely limited for Instructors.

3. Dim Hope for Continuous Appointment
For more than 10 years, most Instructors are employed under contract terms. Due to budgetary requirements, even some Instructors with exemplary performance are denied transfer to continuous appointment. Such discrimination is even more visible when these Instructors witness the tenures of colleagues on professorial track with much less experience. Since the University seems to have no intention at all to retain these staff members, scores of them have joined the “sister institutions”. This trend is definitely a great loss to our students.

A Call for Rectification
To recognize the contributions of Instructors, we believe that the University should take this opportunity to broaden the definition of “teacher” to include Instructors. (Otherwise, the University should stop forcing them to attend those training sessions for “How to become a good teacher” and those questions in the CTE regarding “teacher’s performance” should be made not applicable to them.)

It is Confucius’ teaching that “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success”. Giving Instructors a legitimate name is a solemn affair. It is a matter of professional dignity for these teachers. It is also a matter of whether or not the University does take teaching seriously. It all boils down to one question: How important are these dedicated professionals to CUHK?

While the University positions itself as a research university, it should recognize that good teachers are needed to educate students who may become good researchers. Teaching should never be considered a secondary and inferior profession. Those focusing on teaching and those on research are equally important to the University and thus should be treated as equals.

The Council will consider the proposed amendments of ordinance again in late October. Once approved, the proposal will be submitted to the Legco for endorsement and legislation. CUEGU would like to take this opportunity to urge the Council members to propose further amendment to the definition of “teacher” to include all the Instructors and to give Instructors their due status.

We also urge those who have views about this definition of “teacher” and about the Instructors’ status, salaries, and benefits in the University to contact us (email cuegu@cuhk.edu.hk) and to join the CUEGU (download application form: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/cuegu/application_eng.pdf), so we can join hands in our future endeavors.

Note: “Academic staff” being the Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Heads of the original Colleges and of Shaw College, the teachers (meaning Assistant Lecturer or above), the Librarian; and such other persons as the Council on the recommendation of the Senate may prescribe. (Statue 19)

回頁首　參看其他通訊

香港中文大學員工總會
電話 Tel：8117 4594
電郵 Email： cuegu@cuhk.edu.hk
網址 URL：http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/cuegu
如果你認同我們的工作，請加入工會！ 下載入會表格