MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BGCA AND TCJM DELEGATIONS
WITH THE EDUCATION BUREAU
TO DISCUSS HOMOPHOBIC SCHOOL BULLYING AND THE TEACHING OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY IN SCHOOLS
HELD IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM, FLOOR 12, GOVERNMENT OFFICES
405 NATHAN ROAD, KOWLOON, AT 4.30 PM ON WEDNESDAY 8 JUNE 2011
ATTENDING
Education Bureau
Mr Tam Koon-che, Principal Education Officer (Curriculum Development) – Chairman of the Meeting
Mrs Chow Dik Suk-wan, Senior Curriculum Development Officer (Moral, Civic and National Education Section)
Ms Lopaka Ma, Curriculum Development Officer, Moral, Civic and National Education Section
Ms Portia Lee, Curriculum Development Officer, Moral, Civic and National Education Section
Ms Harmony Kwok, Senior Inspector, Guidance and Discipline Section
Boys and Girls Clubs Association (BGCA)
Ms Janet Yau Yuk-lan, R.S.W., Supervisor
Mr Chau Chun Yam, Project Officer, Registered Social Worker
Tongzhi Community Joint Meeting (TCJM)
Mr Reggie Ho, Chairman
Mr Leo Cheung, School Teacher
Mr Barry Lee, Treasurer
Ms Medeleine Mok, Amnesty International
Dr Sam Winter, Hong Kong University Education Faculty
Lt Col Nigel Collett, Joint English Secretary
INTRODUCTION
1. The Chairman of the meeting, Mr Tam Koon-che, introduced the representatives of the Education Bureau, and the BGCA and TCJM delegates introduced themselves and their organisations.
2. It was agreed that the draft minutes should be circulated to all attending for agreement before issue.
3. The Chairman proposed that, as there was no agenda, the meeting should take the following course:
a. The BGCA and TCJM delegates would present their observations and views of the issues;
b. The Education Bureau representatives would present what the Bureau had done so far;
c. Issues would be identified from these for further deliberations; and
d. Measures would be brainstormed.
DELEGATION PRESENTATIONS – HOMOPHOBIC BULLYING IN SCHOOLS
4. Mr C.Y. Chau presented the results of an online survey for secondary students on homophobic bullying conducted by the BGCA in 2009. The finding had revealed that more than 50% of LGBT students suffered from various forms of bullying, 13.5% even suffered from physical violence or sexual harassment because of their sexual orientation. Homophobic bullying had afflictive consequences on student victims, which included social isolation (61%), anxiety (54.2%), depression and the contemplation of suicide (22.3%). The survey had also shown that not only peers but also teachers were at fault for homophobic bullying behaviour, such as derogatory remarks about homosexuality. More than half of the respondents had reported that they would not seek help from teachers and social workers because they were not trusted and afraid that their sexual orientation would be disclosed to their parents. This survey had been made public at a press conference and was on the BGCA website. It had made the BGCA aware of the need for action to be taken to prevent homophobic bullying and had prompted them to initiate a public campaign, which had been later joined by the TCJM. Mr. CY Chau also highlighted the adverse effects of homophobic bullying by sharing a case of a victim who had developed depression and had been absent from school for two years. He stressed the need for both school teachers and social workers to address the issue. He concluded his presentation by quoting some examples of actual suicide cases in the United States of America and Taiwan.
5. Ms Janet Yau and Mr CY Chau briefed the meeting on the support provided by the BGCA to victims of homophobic bullying.
6. Mr Barry Lee presented the results of an online survey for teachers into homophobic bullying in schools conducted by the TCJM and assisted by the BGCA between September 2010 and February 2011. This survey was on the TCJM website. Despite its limitation in respect of statistical validity, the results of the BGCA online survey revealed that homophobic bullying was a problem to address.
7. Mr Leo Cheung briefed the meeting on his own experience of homophobic bullying in the school in which he had worked and stated that his experiences were similar to those revealed in the surveys.
8. Mr Reggie Ho presented the Education Bureau with copies of studies from the United Kindom and legislation and government policies concerning countering homophobic bullying in schools in countries such as Canada, Ireland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. He suggested that these, plus the results of the privately-conducted online surveys, indicated a need for a full-scale academic survey of the issue and that such would need some form of public or academic funding. He stated that this was one of the remedies sought by the BGCA and TCJM. Another area to address, he thought, was the materials published by the Education Bureau, the tone of which was very good, but the emphasis of which was placed solely on education in relationships between opposite sexes, which automatically excluded students of diverse orientations or genders. He raised the issue of teachers not having guidance to deal with the conflicts they found between their professional educational duties and their religious or ethical beliefs and stated that one of the remedies sought was a published stance by the Education Bureau giving policy on these issues.
9. Dr Sam Winter said that schools and teachers were microcosms of society and that as homophobic prejudice existed in society, it was inevitable that it did so in the education system, where, in his experience, a lack of information often led to discriminatory behaviour. In his twenty-seven years of training teachers, he had found homophobic prejudices amongst his students, who carried these into their work. He cited research from his own Department in the Faculty of Education, HKU that one in four student-teachers of Liberal Studies expressed homophobic views and that one in five believed that people afflicted with HIV ‘deserved their fate’. The problem lay in both teacher training and school policy and it was currently preventing children of diverse orientation or gender reaching their potentiality in schools.
10. Ms Medeleine Mok drew the meeting’s attention to the UN Covenants to which the Government of the Hong Kong SAR was a signatory, particularly that on the Rights of the Child. Article 19 of this laid obligations upon the state to prevent violence being done to children, and Article 2 prevented discrimination on any grounds including sexual orientation and gender diversity. These provisions covered both child-to-child and teacher-to-child relations and, she believed, empowered the Education Bureau to adopt appropriate measures including the curriculum.
11. Mr Tam Koon-che responded that he believed that whilst teachers were professionally trained pedagogically, they might not be similarly familiarised with the issues under discussion and that their awareness might need enhancing.
DELEGATION PRESENTATIONS – EDUCATION MATERIALS IN SCHOOLS
12. Mr Reggie Ho raised the second issue for which the BGCA and TCJM wished to seek remedy, namely, the lack of educational materials giving balanced views of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools and the presence in schools of homophobic material issued by religious organisations. TVB’s Pearl Report of December 2010 had discovered a homophobic booklet issued by the Roman Catholoic Church being used in education in a school of the Tung wah group of Hospitals and the TCJM was aware that a similar booklet had been issued by the Society for Truth and Light. The TCJM had met with representatives of the Tung Wah Group and with the Principal of the school in question, and had been told that the booklet had been used because there was no other source of information available to the schools. Their staff admitted that they were ill-equipped to deal with these issues and had requested the assistance of the TCJM to draw up teaching material for them and to participate in their teacher and social worker training, which the TCJM had agreed and in which it was currently involved. Mr Ho opined that this had revealed a need for the Education Bureau to both take a lead in developing syllabuses including material on these issues (material that was not based upon an assumption that all students were heterosexual or secure in their gender) and in providing materials for use in teacher training and teaching in schools. Mr Ho suggested that the Education Bureau restrict the use of the homophobic material currently found in schools.
13. Mr Leo Cheung confirmed that the Roman Catholic booklet mentioned in the Pearl Report was in use in his school.
14. Mr Tam Koon-che thanked the delegations for their presentations and stated that the Education Bureau’s work on the school curriculum had to go hand in hand with social development and that it was therefore always evolving. He stated that the Education Bureau would reflect and review on the issues raised by the delegations to see where gaps had been identified that needed filling. The Curriculum Development Institute (CDI) always consulted stakeholders including students, teachers, principals, parents, NGOs like BGCA, the Hong Kong Family Planning Association and the public and sought the views of focus groups, and it would adopt a similar approach here. It would include the views from other countries in their consideration. He believed that the discussions in the meeting were a very useful start to this process and that step-by-step change actions would be taken, though the Education Bureau had an obligation to strike a balance. Resources, he believed, would not be a problem once a policy was developed,. The way forward would be to:
a. Collect information.
b. Digest it.
c. Plan.
d. Resource the plan.
EDUCATION BUREAU ACTIONS TO DATE
15. Mr Tam Koon-che asked Ms Portia Lee to outline the actions that the Education Bureau had taken so far concerning these issues.
16. Ms Portia Lee outlined the Education Bureau’s policy, adopted since the 2001 Curriculum Reform, of ‘Whole Person Development’ which included a healthy life style and inculcation of values such as care and respect for others and responsibility. She described the promotion of sex education, which was aimed at fostering mature responsibility and enabling students to exercise proper value judgments as part of the development of the ‘whole person’.
17. Mr Tam Koon-che outlined his area of expertise in the development of the curriculum. He stated that the subjects in Hong Kong school curriculum relating to the issues raised by the delegations were under his purview. He reviewed the current approach to curriculum reform and stated that though it was unlikely that children in primary schools would be taught issues relating to sexual orientation, sex education is included in the curriculum. Secondary schools would cover definitely gender and related issues in more subjects like Integrated Humanities and Liberal Studies, though the details about coverage in science subjects were not as sure since those subjects were not under his purview. From September 2012, a new subject of Life and Society would be introduced (details of which were on the CDI website) and cover topics on human relationships, developing healthy relations with the same and the opposite sex and getting along with people of different backgrounds and gender equality, etc. The subject curriculum was designed in a way that criss-crossed knowledge, skills and values with a view to enhancing students’ ability to discuss all sex-related issues with rational, open, non-judgmental and multiple perspectives. A Life Event Approach (LEA) was also recommended for discussion in this curriculum. LEA was designed to help establish meaningful connections between students’ daily-life encounters and their learning. So the issues raised by the delegations were not neglected and had already been incorporated into the curriculum.
18. Mr Tam Koon-che said that he accepted that the inclusion of these subjects would not by themselves solve the problems raised by the delegations. The inclusion of the Life and Society topic for Junior Secondary classes S1-3 would need resources and PD Programmes (PDP) to assist teachers to teach the subject. The PDP would require resourcing in its Key Learning Areas (KLA). More subjects would be covered gradually.
19. Ms Portia Lee described the features of a holistic school curriculum that schools were encouraged to develop under the Curriculum Reform. They included covering contemporary needs of young people, in accordance with the school’s mission, being relevant to students’ daily life and related to values development and cultivating a respect for diversity and positive attitudes to addressing the differences and value conflicts in society. She stated that the Education Bureau gave guidance for schools to develop school-based curriculum and did not stipulate the exact details of learning contents in black and white. The Education Bureau sought partners to develop professional development programmes to help empower teachers with the updated knowledge and skills relating to topics in sex education from public organisations like doctors, sex educators, social workers scholars and NGOs. The Education Bureau had also developed professional development programmes on the topics of equal opportunities and discrimination. Learning and teaching materials on both areas of many forms were produced and updated continuously for teachers’ reference and adoption, including on CD Rom and the Bureau website. She listed many of these programmes and teaching resources, including ‘Gender Awareness’, ‘Sex and Sexuality: Learning to Love’, ‘Media, gender and sexualities’, ‘Analyzing the current trends and patterns of adolescents’ human relationship’, ‘Gender Discrimination and Stereotyping’ and ‘Gender Stereotypes and Personal Development’, etc.
20. Ms Medeleine Mok commented that the current programmes and actions listed by Ms Portia Lee did not include any with the words ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity’.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
21. Mr Reggie Ho asked how much direction the Education Bureau would give schools on teaching the issues objectively and scientifically. Mr Tam Koon-che responded that guidelines alone would not suffice. He believed that the important issue was teaching, and that the Education Bureau needed to address how to empower teachers to teach sexual orientation and homophobic bullying.
22. Dr Sam Winter commented that teacher training needed to be both pre- and in-service, and mentioned that HKU would shortly introduce some programmes in this area. He believed that the introduction of the right elements into the curriculum was important but that some arrangements needed to be made to monitor their implementation. As far as he knew, there was currently no such mechanism in place in Hong Kong, where it was particularly necessary as he believed that some schools’ missions would not include respect for diversity. Mr Tam Koon-che responded that he would not disagree with the significance of monitoring, but that it alone would not solve all problems. There was rather a need to get to the root of the problem by training teachers with a wider scope, breadth and depth of understanding of the issues. Planning was more important at this stage, and followed by implementation before monitoring.
23. Ms Janet Yau and Mr C.Y. Chau emphasised the need for action to be taken in addition to the curriculum if homophobic bullying was to be stamped out. With reference to study in the U.K. and U.S., Mr. C.Y. Chau suggested that anti-harassment guidelines specific to homophobia be issued by the Education Bureau. He also expressed his worry for the promotion of reparative therapy or religious efforts to change sexual orientation. He presented with the Education Bureau a copy of statement produced by 10 professional bodies in the United States, that suggests that such efforts are not scientifically based and may have potential severe harmful effects on clients, including depression and suicide. Mr Tam Koon-che stated that the Education Bureau would strive to safeguard students’ benefits and avoid bringing any harm to students. Moreover, care needed to be taken about how to do this correctly and to avoid worsening the problems due to haste.
24. Ms Janet Yau described some incidents in which school administrators had prevented teachers and social workers from taking action against homophobic bullying and from offering support to victims of homophobic bullying. She commented that school-based policies against homophobic bullying might be ineffective in some cases. The Education Bureau, she believed, needed to monitor the implementation of any curricula or policies that addresses homophobia, because some schools would fail to comply. For example, she stated that some schools did not implement the existing Sex Education curriculum. Mr Tam Koon-che responded that the Education Bureau would not accept that schools ignored curricula stipulated by the Bureau.
25. Ms Medeleine Mok stated that on these issues, schools could not be left to develop their own policies. For reasons of their mission and their perceptions of the views of their sponsors or parents they would not act on their own. She believed that the Education Bureau needed to take the lead in stopping homophobic violence in schools and that the anti-bullying policies which the Education Bureau currently had in place were ineffective because they did not specify anything about homophobic bullying, sexual orientation or gender identity. The current policies, she believed, missed this particular target because they failed to be specific, something that had been identified internationally as a necessity. Mr Tam Koon-che stated that the issue would need to be looked at in depth. EDB had done a lot on preventing bullying in schools. He agreed that more information about these particular areas should be provided for teachers. He reiterated that teachers play an important role in the issues and their awareness should be raised.
26. Mr Reggie Ho offered the services of the TCJM as a non-profit NGO with expertise in this area. He was sure that the BGCA would also offer their assistance. He said that the TCJM also sought the assistance of the Education Bureau in reaching out to schools. Mr Tam Koon-che stated that the meeting had been only a first step and that there should be focus group meetings in future. He suggested that the TCJM meet with School Councils. Mr Reggie Ho said that the TCJM would be glad to do so.
CONCLUSION
27. Mr Tam Koon-che concluded the meeting by stating that the Education Bureau would review and reflect upon the issues raised and work out the next steps to be taken. This was likely to include the formation of a focus group including those at the meeting, school sponsoring bodies, school councils, NGOs, teachers, parents and students. The meeting had demonstrated where the problems lay and the need to address them. He said that the Education Bureau welcomed more collaboration with the BGCA and TCJM on the issue of school bullying. He also said that he would welcome collaboration with Dr Sam Winter and the HKU Faculty of Education and other tertiary institutes in strengthening teacher training.
28. Mr Reggie Ho said that he believed the meeting had been very useful. He stressed that the delegations believed that it would be necessary for the Education Bureau to take a public stance on the issues discussed if changes were to be effective. Mr Tam Koon-che responded that the Education Bureau was not blind to the issue. He reiterated that EDB advocated the Zero Tolerance policy, under which bullying in whatever form was not acceptable. Though it was currently too early for any such statement, he was optimistic of making progress in time. What the Education Bureau could do currently was to raise teachers’ awareness of these issues through professional development programmes and to look deeper at the issues to discern other actions to be taken. Some of the issues raised were not matters relating to the curriculum, and these would have to be taken up within the Education Bureau in the appropriate divisions / sections.
29. It was agreed that the meeting would reconvene to discuss progress after three months, at a date to be mutually agreed. Mr Tam Koon-che would in future communicate directly with Mr Reggie Ho and Ms Janet Yau, whilst Mrs Chow Dik Suk-wan and Ms Portia Lee would continue to communicate as before with the Joint English Secretary of the TCJM to make arrangements.
30. The meeting closed at 1810 hours.
Nigel Collett
Joint English Secretary
Leo Cheung
Joint Chinese Secretary
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
小童群益會及同志社區聯席會議代表
與教育局會議
有關校園內因恐懼同性戀 (下稱恐同)而引起的欺凌及學校性教育(性傾向和性別認同)
二零一一年六月八日 (星期三) 下午四時半
彌敦道405號九龍政府合署十二樓會議室
會議紀錄（初稿）
出席者
教育局
譚貫枝先生 (首席教育主任 (課程發展)) (主席)
周狄淑韻女士 (高級課程發展主任 (德育、公民及國民教育組)
馬雪兒小姐 (課程發展主任 (德育、公民及國民教育組))
李翠碧女士 (課程發展主任 (德育、公民及國民教育組))
郭黃敏儀女士 (高級督學 (訓育及訓導組))
小童群益會
游玉蘭女士 (註冊社工、主任)
周峻任先生 (項目主任、註冊社工)
同志社區聯席會議
Mr Reggie Ho (主席)
Mr Leo Cheung (學校教師)
Mr Barry Lee (財政)
莫羨嫻女士 (國際特赦組織)
Dr Sam Winter (香港大學教育學院)
Lt Col Nigel Collett (聯席英文秘書)
簡介
1. 會議主席譚貫枝先生介紹教育局與會代表；小童群益會及同志社區聯席會議與會代表自我介紹及介紹其所屬組織。
2. 與會代表同意會議紀錄草稿須先經傳閱並獲雙方同意方能對外發佈。
3. 因為沒有預設議程，會議主席建議會議議程如下：
a. 小童群益會及同志社區聯席會議與會代表會簡介有關議題的觀察和意見；
b. 教育局代表簡介局方就有關議題採取的措施；
c. 討論以上提出的事項；及
d. 思考應對措施。
與會代表報告: 校園內恐同引起的欺凌（下稱恐同欺凌）
4. 周峻任先生介紹了小童群益會就有關中學生面對恐同欺凌所進行的一項調查。該調查於2009 年在網上進行，調查結果顯示，超過 50% 的同/雙性戀和跨性別學生遭受不同程度的欺凌，13.5% 更因其性取向而遭受肢體暴力或性騷擾。 恐同欺凌為受害學生帶來的困擾包括：社交孤立 (61%)、焦慮 (54.2%)、抑鬱和自殺念頭 (22.3%)。調查亦顯示，作出恐同欺凌行為的，不只是同儕，還有教師，例如說貶低同性戀的話。多於一半的受訪者表示，他們不會向老師或社工求助，因為他們不被信任，亦恐怕他們會向家長透露其性取向。 此調查已於較早前的一個新聞發佈會上發表，調查結果亦刊載於小童群益會的網站。是次調查令小童群益會了解他們有需要採取預防恐同欺凌的行動。這個調查亦促使小童群益會發起一個提升公眾意識的運動，同志社區聯席會議於稍後時間亦有參與這個運動。周峻任先生亦分享了一個受害學生的個案，以展示恐同欺凌的負面影響。這個學生因受到恐同欺凌而患上抑鬱，並缺課了兩年。他強調學校教師及社工需要正視此議題。他最後列舉了一些於美國和台灣發生的自殺個案作為總結。
5. 游玉蘭女士和周峻任先生簡介了小童群益會向恐同欺凌的受害人所提供的支援。
6. Mr Barry Lee 介紹了一個由同志社區聯席會議主辦、小童群益會協辦的網上調查。這個調查於 2010 年9月至2011月2 月在同志社區聯席會議網站進行，調查對象為教師，內容圍繞校園恐同欺凌。縱使這調查的統計有效性有限，小童群益會的網上調查結果顯示恐同欺凌是一個需要正視的問題。
7. Mr Leo Cheung 簡介他以前工作的學校裡有關恐同欺凌的個人經歷，並表示他的經歷與上述兩個調查的結果相似。
8. Mr Reggie Ho 向教育局呈交了一些複本，內容有關英國就恐同欺凌所進行的調查，以及各國或地區 (如加拿大、愛爾蘭、台灣、英國及美國) 就反校園恐同欺凌所制訂的法例和政府政策。 他提出這些文件以及上述私人進行的網上調查均顯示，有需要利用公帑或研究撥款就這問題進行一個全面的學術研究。此為小童群益會和同志社區聯席會議所尋求的解決方法之一。他認為，另一個需要正視的方面，就是教育局所製作的教材。這些教材的論調十分好，但其重點只放在異性關係，未必適用於不同性取向或性別認同的學生。他提出，當教師們遇上他們的專業教育職責與其宗教信仰或倫理價值觀發生衝突時，他們未有足夠指引該如何面對。他亦表示，解決這情況的其中一個辦法是教育局就以上情況公開表明立場。
9. Dr Sam Winter 表示，學校與教師乃社會的縮影，而由於恐同的偏見於社會上存在，相同的偏見於教育制度中存在，是在所難免的。根據他的經驗，在教育體制中，資訊不足經常會導致歧視行為。在他二十七年培訓教師的經驗當中，他發現他的學生有恐同偏見，而這些偏見會被帶到他們的工作上。他引用香港大學教育學院中自己所屬學系曾做的研究，調查顯示每四名通識科的受訓教師之中，便有一名持恐同觀點。另外，五分一受訪的受訓教師認為愛滋病患者承受他們應得的下場。這個問題存在於教師培訓和學校政策，而恐同偏見會妨礙不同性傾向和性別認同的學生在學校中發揮他們的潛能。
10. 莫羨嫻女士 請與會者注意，香港特區政府乃聯合國公約的簽署者，尤其是有關兒童權利的公約。當中第十九條指出，政府是有義務防止兒童遭受暴力，而第二條則禁止有關性傾向和性別認同的歧視。這些條款涵蓋兒童與兒童之間以及教師與兒童之間的關係。她認為，這些條款賦予了教育局足夠的權力去採取適當的措施 (如課程)。
11. 譚貫枝先生回應時表示，他相信教師都接受過教學上的專業訓練。他們對會議討論的議題的認知可能需要提升。
與會代表報告: 在學校使用的教學材料
12. Mr Reggie Ho 提出另一個小童群益會和同志社區聯席會議希望尋求解決方法的問題：學校缺乏為性傾向和性別認同議題提供平衡觀點的教學材料，另外就是由宗教團體發出、帶有恐同觀點的刊物於學校出現。無綫電視於二零一零年十二月播出的其中一集《明珠檔案》中報導，記者發現一份由天主教香港教區所發行、帶有恐同觀點的小冊子，被東華三院屬下的一間學校應用作教學用途。另外，同志社區聯席會議亦了解到，明光社曾發行一本類似的小冊子。 同志社區聯席會議曾約見東華三院的代表，以及該所學校的校長。他們均表示，使用該小冊子的原因，是學校並無其他可用的資料。他們亦承認應對相關議題的裝備不足，故已尋求同志社區聯席會議的協助，為他們擬訂教材及向他們的教師和社工提供培訓。同志社區聯席會議答允並已經開展有關工作。 Mr Reggie Ho 認為，這顯示教育局有需要在發展課程和教材方面 (教材內容並非假定所有學生均是異性戀和擁有穩固的性別認同)、及在教師培訓和提供教學材料方面起帶頭作用。他建議教育局限制學校使用以上提及的恐同材料。
13. Mr Leo Cheung 證實該份在《明珠檔案》報導中提及的天主教小冊子，亦在其工作的學校使用。
14. 譚貫枝先生感謝與會代表的報告。他並表示教育局在學校課程方面的工作，必須配合社會發展，故此需要與時並進。他指出，教育局會探討與會代表提出的議題以找出有需要跟進之處。課程發展處經常諮詢各個持份者，包括學生、教師、校長、家長、非政府組織 (如小童群益會和家計會) 和公眾人士，以及向聚焦小組尋求意見，而對於這個議題，課程發展處亦會採取相近的做法。課程發展處亦會參考其它國家的觀點。他相信，今次會議的討論對於開展循序漸進的發展過程，有著積極的作用，但是教育局亦有責任取得各方平衡。他亦相信，如果措施能夠落實，資源並不會是一個問題。局方後續的跟進將會是:
a. 收集資料。
b. 消化資料。
c. 規劃。
d. 就規劃提供資源。
教育局目前的行動
15. 譚貫枝先生請 李翠碧女士 概述教育局就有關議題的工作。
16. 李翠碧女士 簡介教育局自2001年開始推行的「全人發展」政策，當中包括健康的生活方式及價值觀的培育，如關愛、尊重他人、責任感等。她介紹了性教育的推行工作，而其宗旨是培養成熟的責任感和幫助學生作出正確的價值判斷。這些均是「全人」發展的一部份。
17. 譚貫枝先生概述他在課程發展的專長領域。他表示，本港學校課程中，和與會代表提及的議題有關的科目，是屬於他的職權範圍之內。他回顧現行的課程改革方向，表示雖然性取向等議題不大可能在小學階段教授，小學課程卻是包括性教育的。而中學則一定會有更多科目涉及性別及相關議題，如綜合人文科及通識科。至於理科科目的涵蓋細節，則因為這些科目不是他的職權範圍之內，故他不能如上述科目般肯定。由 2012 年9月開始，一個名為「生活與社會」的新科目將會推出 (詳情可在課程發展處的網站獲取)。這個科目涵蓋的內容包括人際關係、與同性和異性發展健康的關係、和不同背景的人相處以及性別平等等。這個課程的設計，綜合知識、技能和價值觀，目的是提升學生討論性相關議題的能力，期望他們以理性、開放、不偏不倚和多角度的態度進行討論。另外，這課程建議使用生活事件方式來進行討論。生活事件方式把學生的學習有意義地連繫到他們的日常生活中。故此，與會代表提及的議題並沒有被局方忽略，並且已經加入課程之中。
18. 譚貫枝先生表示明白到科目中加入有關議題並不足以解決與會代表提及的問題。在初中一至三年級課程中加設「生活與社會」一科需要資源和專業發展課程配合，以協助教師教授該科。專業發展課程亦需要其主要學習領域 (KLA) 的資源調配，將逐步加入更多有關議題。
19. 李翠碧女士 介紹了課程改革下、建議學校發展的整全學校課程的一些特色，包括涵蓋現時青少年的需要、配合學校的辦學宗旨、與學生的日常生活及培養價值觀相關、培養學生尊重殊異以及教導學生以積極的態度面對社會上不同的觀點和價值觀。她表示，教育局在學校制訂校本課程時提供指引，但不會明確規定學習內容的準確細節。教育局在發展教師專業發展課程時，有尋求如醫生、性教育工作者、社工、學者和非政府組織等公眾機構的合作伙伴，以幫助教師掌握有關性教育方面最新的知識和技能。教育局也提供以平等機會和歧視為題的專業發展課程，並就性教育及平等機會和歧視這兩個範疇製作教學資源，如光碟和網頁。而這些資料都是不斷更新，讓教師參考和採用。她亦列舉一系列的課程和教學資源，包括「性別意識」、「知情識性：戀愛認知」、「傳媒、性別與性」、「透視青少年人際關係之轉變及發展趨勢」、「性別歧視與性別定型」以及「性別定型與個人發展」等。
20. 莫羨嫻女士 認為李翠碧女士 所列舉的各項課程和措施均沒有包含「性取向」或「性別認同」的字眼。
討論事項
21. Mr Reggie Ho 詢問教育局會給予學校多少方向，使學校以客觀和科學的角度去教授有關議題。譚貫枝先生回應說，單是給予指引是不足夠的。譚先生相信，教授有關議題才是最重要的， 而教育局有需要研究如何幫助教師教授性取向和恐同欺凌的議題。
22. Dr Sam Winter 認為職前和在職教師培訓均有需要。他並提及，香港大學即將推出一些相關課程。他同意在課程中引入正確的元素十分重要，但監察執行同樣有需要的。根據他的了解，香港現時並沒有相關的機制，但他相信一些學校的辦學宗旨並不包括尊重多元，故此需要有這種機制。譚貫枝先生表示他不否定監察的重要性，但它不能解決所有的問題。他認為，要解決問題的根本，是培訓教師，使他們能以更闊、更深和更多的角度去了解有關議題。在現階段，規劃是比較重要的，繼而執行，然後監察。
23. 游玉蘭女士和周峻任先生強調，要杜絕恐同欺凌，需要有課程以外的行動。參考英國和美國的研究，周峻任先生建議教育局制訂針對恐同欺凌的防止騷擾指引。他亦對性取向修正治療或以宗教方式改變性傾向的宣導表示擔憂。他向教育局呈交一份由美國十個專業團體聯署的聲明複本，內容指性取向修正治療沒有科學根據和可能對當事人導致嚴重的傷害，包括抑鬱和自殺。譚貫枝先生表示，教育局會努力捍衛學生的權益和避免學生受傷害。他亦表示，必須謹慎地研究如何正確處理這個問題，並且應避免因為處理過急而令問題變得更壞。
24. 游玉蘭女士描述了學校阻撓社工和老師處理恐同欺凌的一些個案。她表示，一些學校高層管理人員會阻撓社工和老師對恐同欺凌行為採取行動，以及阻撓他們向恐同欺凌的受害學生提供協助。她認為，以校本措施打擊恐同欺凌未必有效，教育局必須監察有關課程和政策的執行，因為部份學校未必會跟從。例如有部份學校從來沒有實施現行的性教育課程。 譚貫枝先生回應說，教育局不能接受學校不執行局方規定的課程。
25. 莫羨嫻女士 表示，局方不能容讓學校自行制訂防止恐同欺凌的政策。基於學校的辦學宗旨以及其對辦學團體或家長意見的理解，學校可能會拒絕採取行動。她相信，教育局需要在打擊校園恐同欺凌上起帶頭作用。 而單憑現行教育局的防止欺凌政策是不奏效的，因為它未能特別針對恐同欺凌、性傾向和性別認同。她認為，現行的政策未能涵蓋恐同欺凌，是因為政策欠缺明確性，而國際社會經已確認，制訂明確的防止欺凌政策，是有必要的。譚貫枝先生表示，有關議題需要深入研究，而教育局已就防止校園欺凌做了很多功夫。他同意局方應向教師提供更多有關恐同欺凌、性傾向和性別認同的資訊。他重申，教師在有關議題上扮演著重要的角色，他們亦應該提升對有關議題的認知。
26. Mr Reggie Ho 表示，同志社區聯席會議作為一個非謀利的非政府組織，因著其對有關議題的深入認識，願意向教育局提供相關的協助。他認為小童群益會亦願意向局方提供協助。他表示，同志社區聯席會議亦希望尋求教育局的協助，接觸學校。譚貫枝先生表示，是次會議乃是第一步，未來應開展聚焦小組會議。譚先生提議同志社區聯席會議代表，出席與學校議會舉行的會議。Mr Reggie Ho 說，同志社區聯席會議樂於這樣做。
總結
27. 譚貫枝先生總結時表示，教育局會探討以上議題，並研究下一步的行動，當中可能包括成立聚焦小組，成員包括是次會議的出席者、辦學團體、學校議會、非政府組織、教師、家長和學生。是次會議已帶出問題的所在以及解決問題的需要。他並且說，就校園欺凌問題，教育局歡迎與小童群益會和同志社區聯席會議合作。他亦表示歡迎和Dr. Sam Winter 和香港大學教育學院以及其他專上院校合作，加強教師培訓。
28. Mr Reggie Ho 表示，他認為是次會議十分有建設性。他強調，與會代表相信教育局必須就有關議題向公眾表達明確的立場，這樣才能有效改變現況。譚貫枝先生回應時表示，教育局不會對有關問題坐視不理。他重申，就校園欺凌問題，教育局提倡「零容忍」政策，任何形式的欺凌行為均不能接受。雖然現時就改善欺凌情況下定論乃言之過早，但是他對於未來取得進展感到樂觀。現階段教育局會透過教師專業發展課程提升教師對有關議題的認知，局方亦會深入研究有關議題，以便決定下一步行動。由於是次會議帶出的議題，部份不屬課程範疇，故需要局內其它部門或組別跟進。
29. 與會者同意三個月後再舉行會議討論進展。會議日期有待商榷。譚貫枝先生將會與 Mr Reggie Ho 和游玉蘭女士直接溝通，而周狄淑韻女士和李翠碧女士 則按之前的做法，繼續就安排工作方面與同志社區聯席會議的英文秘書溝通。
30. 會議於下午 6 時 10 分結束。
Nigel Collett
聯席英文秘書
Leo Cheung
聯席中文秘書
