Letter to the Council 致香港中文大學校董會（2009年10月19日）

(This letter is in Chinese only.)

致　香港中文大學校董會

《大學條例》對「教師」的定義及導師地位問題

我們注意到大學校董會將決議通過修訂大學規程，其中包括「教師」定義的修訂。有鑑現時定義把為數甚多的導師排除在外，我們建議校董會趁此機會檢討定義，把導師納入定義之中，原因如下[1]：

1. 導師現時人數近五百人，佔整體教學人員的三份之一，是所有教學人員類別中人數最多的一群。

2. 導師負擔教學任務最重，任教班數及學生人數更遠高於全校的三份一。導師專職教學，《條例》不認導師作「教師」，實在名不符實。

3. 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。導師是接觸學生最多，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，是大學整體的損失。

4. 現時校方的建議修訂為：「"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」（斜體為新增部份）。我們認為最後一句不能有效把導師納入定義中。導師人數之多，斷不能當作例外處理。

5. 我們了解現時的定義有其特定的歷史背景（例如當初制訂時未有導師這一類別）。既然現時教學人員的結構及組成已大大不同，大學應趁此機會，儘速矯正現定義的漏洞。

與此同時，我們亦呼籲校董會關注導師待遇問題，特別是合約化、薪酬比中學教師差及缺乏前景的問題。員工總會已經組織一個「導師地位關注小組」，長遠跟進以上事項，稍後將向校方作出改善建議。

香港中文大學員工總會
會長　吳曉真
2009年10月19日

[1] 現時大學尚有「teaching fellow」及「professional consultant」等主要工作為教學的職位，亦以導師的條款聘用。

教學是專業 導師要尊嚴

－導師正名及地位問題最新進展

(for English, please click open this post's comments)

大學校董會10月20日在員工的反對聲音下，一意孤行通過大學條例修訂，並將提交立法會立法，繼續把導師撇除在「教師」定義之外，直接剝削了導師在各級委員會參與學務，參與校政的權利。

我們重申，導師是中大教師負荷最重，教學經驗最豐富的一群。以工商管理學院為例，導師在本年度負擔了整個學院一半的班數(47%)及學生人次(48%，以學額計算)。

大學對導師的歧視，導致中大教學政策未能有效吸納導師的寶貴教學經驗及意見，損失的正是學生。與此同時，大學對導師的歧視，說明了中大對教學及前線員工的輕視。

我們懷疑，這是否支付公帑的納稅人所願見到的。

在我們的壓力下，大學校董會承諾將會檢討導師的地位及待遇問題。但員工總會不會乾等校方「諮詢」。我們已開始聯絡立法會議員，向他們陳述中大導師正名及地位問題，要求他們提出修訂及催促中大改善導師地位及待遇。員工總會的「導師小組」亦將進行問卷調查及聯署行動。希望大學屆時積極參加！

Professional Consultants and Teaching Fellows

A colleague raised the issue of Professional Consultant in "Am I a Teacher" (see below). Indeed, Professional Consultant and Teaching Fellow should also be considered "teacher". And they are included in this campaign. I confirmed with the Personnel Office before that these two types of "(non) teachers" are employed under the same terms as Instructors, only that the titles they carry are different.

Just another thought: when part-time teachers can be called Adjuct Assistant Professor, why should the Univ be so mean with Instructors (and their equivalence)?

Emily
President, CUEGU

Career path of "instructor" (message from a colleague)

As a matter of fact, there are at least two types of “instructors” in this
campus:
(i) TEACHERS who spend most of their working hours in duties related to
teaching. However, they are not regarded as “teacher.” The university fails to
provide a reasonable justification for the difference in name and in reality.
(ii) TEACHERS who spend most of their working hours in teaching, and try to do
some research. They are mostly young scholars, who know the very truth that
research is important for their academic career. Unfortunately, their rank is
called “instructor,” which does not sound like a research position.
Consequently, they are neither regarded as “teacher” nor “researcher.”
Both kinds of instructors mentioned above deserve the name of “teacher.” The
university should also state clearly their career path, such as the criteria
for an instructor (TERM B) to be promoted to an assistant professor (TERM A) or
above.

Am I a Teacher?

Dear Union,

Many thanks for bringing up this issue to the University. In fact, many faculties in the University also employ "Professional Consultants". These Professional Consultants, like Instructors, are not treated as a "Teacher" or "academic staff" although their main duty is also teaching.

Cheap labor (message from a colleague)

Anonymous said...
Some instructors do high quality / impact researches that are recognized by peers in the mainstream of their expertise in the west. Yet, here at CUHK they are only regarded as cheap labor who have the lowest paid but heaviest (and ever increasing) workload. Why some people who make zero contribution in research are graded as "professor", while brilliant young scholars are kept in the instructor rank?

Discriminatory practice (message from a colleague)

Anonymous said...
I was not aware that CUHK was applying for revision of the CUHK ordinance. I was even more shocked when I found out that the University was NOT taking this opportunity to rectify the discriminatory practice that had existed for years. What did our university administrators have in mind?

Outdated entry requirement (message from a colleague)

Peter said...
Sadly, there are many PhD holders, some with Postdoc experience, being offered Instructor II only. However, their teaching load is usually not less than that of a prof. I propose to condduct a review on the Instructor rank because some of the details are ridiculous. (e.g the entry requirement of Instructor II is a Degree, which is seemingly out-dated).

Lack of research opportunity and career ladder (message from a colleague)

Dear Union,

Thank you for your effort. [...]I totally agree that instructors are not being properly recognized by the University, despite increasing expectation of them. Besides teaching, many Instructors are expected to assist / be involved in research. However, due to regulations, they will not be given to opportunity to apply for support or funding for doing research.

In fact, as an instructor, I hold the same academic qualification as the assistant professor and associate professor in the [department], in the same stream of expertise. From my understanding, my department is not interested in promoting instructors to the academic track. Clearly, the career ladder for Instructors is very limited and it is obvious that the University is not interested in giving the Instructors opportunities for further development. It is very discouraging and significantly affect the passion for us to contribute as a “teacher”.

I am very surprised and disappointed that a University, being the highest educational institute, is not committed to maintaining a high quality of teaching via proper recognition of its teaching staff. Often, instructors are the ones most interested in delivering good teaching and mentorship with students. In fact, the status recognition of instructors will also affect the trust between instructors and students. I hope the union’s effort will successfully lead to rectification and allow us to continue serving the University.

The word "instructor" (Message from a colleauge)

Dear Union

I am very glad to see we are taking up this issue. While recognising that the name 'instructor' is not the only problem here, I particularly like the Confucius quote, and would add that Instructor is definitely not an appropriate name for university teachers.

A concordance search for 'instructor' reveals that it is used almost exclusively to refer to work that does not require a BA/BSc, never mind a higher degree. See below for the results of a search (British and American English; 56 million words of contemporary English) using Collins Cobuild (http://www.collins.co.uk/Corpus/CorpusSearch.aspx).

As you will see, Instructors generally teach fitness, driving, swimming, skiing and other practical/physical skills. Useful jobs, but not associated with the teaching of academic subjects in a university. Does CUHK really want to give the impression that a third of classes are non-academic?

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

是／不是教師？

──有關大學條例如何定義「教師」及導師地位問題

(English version follows)

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。

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" onlyNote. 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)