熊猫宝宝的熊窝窝

This is a no-brainer for expats who arrive in Hong Kong with children who are already school-aged: since such children don't speak or read Chinese, it's international school (or English Schools Foundation schools, which I'm lumping together with international schools for pure convenience) or nothing, and in Hong Kong 'nothing' is illegal.

But for interracial couples (i.e. expat + Chinese) whose 'mixed' children are born in Hong Kong, making the school choice is not so easy.

Let's look at the local option first. The first advantage of sending your kids to local schools is fundamental: they'll grow up truly bilingual, and possibly trilingual, i.e. with Mandarin as well. Learning English isn't usually a problem, since the great majority of mixed couples in HK speak English in their day-to-day lives. Spoken Cantonese is often taken care of as well, as kids will pick up the current vernacular from Chinese relatives, playmates, etc.

It's reading/writing Chinese that's the sticking point. Children who attend international schools simply can't be immersed in Chinese, since they're surrounded by expat students who know little or none. In other words, unless you've got an exceptional child who can learn to read and write Chinese mostly outside of school, you've got to send her to local schools if you want her to acquire these valuable skills. Chinese characters are simply too numerous, and require too much sheer, brutal memorization impressed on plastic young minds, to just 'pick up' later. Some people of course do try to learn to read and write Chinese as university students or as adults, but their road is long and frustrating, and only a dedicated few achieve true competence.

Also, local schools are essentially free. This is not insignificant, in that many of the international schools charge anywhere from HKD5,000/month to double that or more by the time the kids reach secondary level. That adds up, dear friends, especially if you are prolific with your issue.

Okay then! To local schools they go! Would anyone reject these potential advantages, especially since Hong Kong is famous for producing students who are extremely well-prepared for university study, especially in math and the hard sciences?

The truth is, almost all families in our situation do just that -- they reject the local schools, and send their kids to study with expat children.

Mr Tall has heard numerous stories, for example, of mixed or expat families who placed their kindergarteners in a local school, and jerked them back out within months or even weeks. The usual reasons? The teachers were mean and hyper-critical. The curriculum was far too demanding. Their five-year-olds had two hours of homework a day. The local children made fun of the 'different' kids.

It's easy to laugh these complaints off, and assume that people who take this route should be a little more patient and tolerant of cultural differences. This is far easier said than done, however, when you're trying to convince someone who's barely potty-trained to suck it up and tough it out in a school she sees as Hamburger Hill.

The thing is, though, without some fairly bloodyminded discipline, the kid's not going to learn something that's going to be very good for her down the road. We now must confront one of the deepest complexities of cross-cultural living: which culture do you really want your child to learn, and to live as a part of? We're in put-money-where-mouth-is territory.

In western countries these days, children are assumed to be 'active learners'. They're creative, curious, and just brimming with enthusiasm for picking up new knowledge on their own, and from each other. The best educational methods, then, are those that keep teachers from getting in a student's way. Teachers should be facilitators, not lecturers or disciplinarians. They should help students 'learn to learn', so the actual content of the curriculum is worth consideration, but isn't crucial. Above all, what is important is students' self-esteem. Students who lack confidence in their abilities will be discouraged from learning. Their bright little fires will be dampened. Whatever efforts students make should be praised, affirmed, and validated, since the carrot works better than the stick. This view is essentially therapeutic, and it is based on an optimistic view of human nature.

Contrast this with the Chinese view. Students are assumed to be naturally slothful and in need of frequent correction. Creativity is valued, but should never be indulged to the detriment of mastering a solid body of basic content. Memorization and rote learning are practiced from the very early stages of formal education -- especially, of course, in learning Chinese characters. Other teaching methods are predominantly traditional as well, with plenty of lecturing. Teachers are authoritative, and notions of setting students loose to 'learn on their own', or from each other, may get lip service, but are rarely put into serious practice. It's assumed even the best students will need knowledge hammered into them at times. This view is essentially conservative/traditional, and takes a fairly low view of human nature.

Mr Tall, if you Discerning Readers hadn't gathered this already, is of a fairly conservative nature himself. He is therefore attracted to the Chinese view in the abstract. But when he thinks of Toddler Tall trotting home from preschool in the near future with a mountain of tedious homework, and crying because her teacher told her she was a lazy girl, it's much, much harder.

At least Mrs Tall and I have a couple of years to think about this. Any advice is appreciated!