PROGRESS

REPORT
ON THE JUNE 2010 HUMAN RIGHTS AUDIT OF CHINESE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL

CHINESE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP JUNE 2011


CONTENTS
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Summary of findings ................................................................................................................................. 3 Democratic decision-making processes ................................................................................................ 3 Censorship and freedom of expression ................................................................................................ 3 Socio-economic diversity ...................................................................................................................... 3 Unfair and Unreasonable Working Conditions of Security Guards ...................................................... 3 Human Rights Education ...................................................................................................................... 3 Democratic decision-making processes ................................................................................................... 4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 5 Censorship and freedom of expression .................................................................................................... 6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 8 Socio-Economic Diversity ......................................................................................................................... 9 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 9 Unfair and unreasonable working conditions of security guards ........................................................... 10 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 12 Human Rights Education ........................................................................................................................ 13 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 13 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................. 15 Appendix B .............................................................................................................................................. 19 Appendix C .............................................................................................................................................. 20

INTRODUCTION
In June 2010, the CIS Human Rights Group finished the Report on the CIS Human Rights Audit. The identified four particular weaknesses and made recommendations for improvement in those areas. It also made recommendations that cut across particular areas. This Progress Report follows up on the Report on the Human Rights Audit. It focuses on the four areas of weakness identified in the Audit: Lack of democratic decision-making processes Censorship and restrictions on freedom of expression Lack of socio-economic diversity Unfair and unreasonable working conditions of security guards and one of the cross-cutting recommendations: Insufficient Human Rights Education of students In each area, the Progress Report reviews the findings of the Report on the CIS Human Rights Audit as well as both efforts to improve and setbacks in the 2010-2011 academic year, draws conclusions, and makes recommendations.

Outside of these areas, progress remains to be made in other areas covered in the Report on the CIS Human Rights Audit, and readers of the Progress Report are encouraged to refer to the Report on the CIS Human Rights Audit for a still relevant and fuller picture of the overall situation at CIS.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The following are conclusions on the four areas of weakness democratic decision-making processes, censorship and freedom of expression, socio-economic diversity, and human rights education. For details on how the findings were arrived at, please see each specific section.

DEMOCRATIC DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

Student and staff participation in decision-making processes has not improved systemically since the Audit. A proposal to ensure participation has not been adopted by school leadership. Decisions, such as the bag rule, made during the school year were opaque and non-participatory resulting in a lack of ownership of the decisions by members of the school community. Despite this, no formal review of decision-making processes has been undertaken.

CENSORSHIP AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

The situation regarding censorship and lack of freedom in expression at CIS has deteriorated since the publication of the Audit, with methods of censorship advancing from self-censorship, to censorship by the school, including disciplinary actions against perceived offenders. There is still a lack of transparency and no clear guidelines on appropriate channels for communication and publication of materials.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIVERSITY
CIS has made no progress toward the creation of a financial aid program, nor has it taken other steps to increase socio-economic diversity at the school. This represents a failure in its commitments to its own mission statement to produce students who are compassionate, ethical and responsible individuals, contributing to local and global communities, respectful of other views, beliefs and cultures and to providing the best education possible to its students.

UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE WORKING CONDITIONS OF SECURITY GUARDS

CIS is not in line with international standards in its treatment of the security guards, as it requires them to work far more hours than are legally allowed in all other jurisdictions with a developed economy, including those in the immediate geographic region. Nearly one year after the Audit brought this to the attention of the administration, no progress has been made in addressing this urgent matter.

HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION

The year has seen significant growth in Human Rights Education at CIS. Human Rights Education has expanded from Year 10 Choices to the classroom and the entire secondary community. A new open- mindedness and eagerness to be involved and make an active contribution to local and global communities are beginning to replace indifference and passivity. However, efforts must be made to better communicate and coordinate initiatives.

DEMOCRATIC DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

Democratic decision-making at CIS was identified as a weakness in the Human Rights Audit of June 2010. In the survey, it received the highest number ofno/never responses, indicating a high level of dissatisfaction among respondents which follow-up spot interviews confirmed. Particular problems were identified: lack student voice in choosing its representatives; lack of participation of teachers in decision-making processes; lack of communication between the student body, the faculty, and the school leadership; lack of staff and student representation on the Board of Governors. The Audit stated, Students elect the student council directly. However, the interfaceto make appeals on certain issues to the school leadershipappears to be primarily on a certain relatively small number of issues. There is no formal mechanism of interaction or communication between the student council and staff meeting. There are positions of Head Boy and Head Girl, who appear to be regarded to some extent as student representatives, but they are chosen by school leadership and in this sense are not formally student representatives. In teacher interviews, the lack of opportunity to participate in democratic decision-making processes is the biggest and most frequent complaint. There are a significant number of teachers who consider this a substantial problem. Students have no representation on the board, nor are minutes of board meeting minutes or decisions made available to them on a regular basis. There is no staff participation in the setting of the staff meeting agendathere are no formal mechanisms through which teachers can participate and no formal democratic decision-making processes. The Audit made several recommendations: Install permanent positions for students, faculty, and staff on the board, and have representatives be chosen from their respective constituencies through a democratic process; allow a student council representative to attend each staff meeting in the capacity of observer Clarify relationships between the student council, other institutions, and the school leadership Make the staff meeting a decision-making body that meets regularly according to an agenda made with the participation of all the staff. All significant issues affecting the whole school, no matter their origin, must be put to the staff meeting in the form of a proposal, discussed and voted on by staff. The Human Rights Group discussed the matter with Dr Faunce. It was suggested that the HRG draw up a proposal. (Please see Appendix A for full proposal.) The main purpose of the proposal was to offer structures that ensure the participation of staff and students in decision-making processes, in particular by focusing on improvements of relations between student council on the one hand and the staff and administration on the other; by reforming the staff meeting in order to ensure staff participation; and by placing staff and student representatives on the Board of Governors. Dr Kern discussed the proposal with Dr Faunce and Mr Alexander. They rejected the most significant aspects of the proposal, in particular substantial reform of the staff meeting to ensure participation and representation of staff and students on the board. They allowed that some less significant changes could be useful, including improvements to the way

the staff meeting is run and that the Head of School might report to the school on outcomes of board meetings. An effort was later made to place the proposal on the agenda of a staff meeting in order to canvas staff opinion. The outcome of the effort was that Mr Alexander said he would make an open call to staff to join a group to discuss ways to improve the way the staff meeting is run. The call was made, but to date, the group has not convened. Thus, no improvements have been made this year to ensure participation in decision-making processes. Indeed, events occurred which arguably represent a deterioration of the situation. The bag rule was implemented through a Moongate announcement on September 20, 2010 without any prior consultation with staff or students. The student body took initiatives to express their dissatisfaction. Continuous efforts by students were required to bring about any change. If the HRG proposal had been implemented at the time, a proposal on the bag policy would have been presented to the student council and staff meeting in advance, thus leading to a more inclusive process and therefore a greater owning of the eventual decision. The significant decision on a 1:1 laptop program in the secondary school was made without any systematic input from staff or clear decision-making process. In spite of frequent requests that the decision-making process be clarified, the decision was ultimately presented to staff as a fait accomplit. It appears that the decision was made by the Education Committee of the Board of Governors, which includes no teachers. It can be argued that, given that teachers are professionals who are primarily responsible for the education of the students at CIS, their involvement in decisions affecting the education is not only a right of theirs but also would result in better decisions and more enthusiasm on the part of teachers in carrying out those decisions.

CONCLUSION
Student and staff participation in decision-making processes has not improved systematically since the Audit. A proposal to ensure participation has not been adopted by school leadership, with minimal other efforts being undertaken. Decisions, such as the bag rule, made during the school year were opaque and non-participatory resulting in a lack of ownership of the decisions by members of the school community. Despite this, no formal review of decision-making processes has been undertaken.

RECOMMENDATIONS
To school leadership: Address staff and students demands for participation in decision-making processes in a substantial and genuine manner Allow student council members to attend staff meetings as observers and to receive minutes of staff meetings Install a student representative and a staff representative, elected by students and staff respectively, on the Board of Governors Hold regular twice-monthly staff meetings twice month to discuss and decide on proposals by vote. Present major proposals to the student council before voting on the proposals at the staff meeting (refer to Appendix A for definition of major proposal) Meet student council on a regular basis To staff and students: Continue to express demands for participation in decision-making processes

CENSORSHIP AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

The Audit stated, Much of the censorship that takes place at CIS appears to be self-censorship. That is to say, no one in a position of authority explicitly states that certain types of expression or kinds of information or opinion cannot be expressed. Rather, various members of the community take it upon themselves to censor themselves, often in the fear that not to do so may invite opprobrium. Students were, for example, told on World AIDS Day not to hang posters with condoms on them. Others have noted that they have chosen not to express certain views on China for fear that they would not be appreciated. The Audit made the following recommendations: CIS should actively promote freedom of expression through stating that all views are welcome and encouraged and through educating students in Choices and Learning Enrichment about the meaning, issues and significance of freedom of expression. Consider the use of Moongate to facilitate communication and expression of views between members of the CIS community. Prioritize the development of a culture of free expression. This issue of self-censorship was brought up by the Human Rights Group in a meeting with school leadership. Dr Faunce expressed concern. The Human Rights Group then sent a letter to Dr Faunce and Mr Alexander, requesting that they actively promote freedom of speech at CIS. There was a brief response to the letter suggesting further correspondence, but no further correspondence ensued. No action was undertaken by school leadership to promote freedom of expression. Several events have occurred since the publication of the Audit that suggest the problem of constraints on freedom of expression at CIS may have been more severe than initially thought, and not limited to the phenomenon of self-censorship. Several students received punishment in connection with their expression of criticism of the bag rule, despite the fact that, as noted in the audit, CIS has no official rules or policy regarding what material may or may not be published. These events are alarming as they suggest that members of CIS can indeed be punished unfairly for producing and disseminating information and views. One email which resulted in punishment was sent from a non-CIS personal email account to voluntary signatories of the petition. Thus, CIS was censoring students outside-of-school expression. Such cases point to the need for a disciplinary committee that includes students and staff and a more transparent disciplinary process. In the case of three students who were punished, it appears unlikely that they broke any particular CIS rules at all. At any rate, the students punishment sent the message that any students who expresses views which leadership does not like or wish to hear may be subject to punishment. This summer, CIS began a subscription to Cyberoam, an Internet filtering service.It was found during the course of the school year, that the service was blocking a number of websites that could not be categorized as containing any content prohibited in the schools Internet use policy.Below is a full list of blocked websites and the dates on which it was discovered that they were blocked. 16.9.2010 hrc.org glrl.org.au thetaskforce.org iglhrc.org 6

12.10.2010 http://christiangays.com/ http://www.narth.com/ http://www.gaycenter.org/ http://www.sfcenter.org gayteens.about.com www.soulforce.org data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/158.pdf www.gayfamilysupport.com/gay-statistics.html www.lesbianinformationservice.org www.nyacyouth.org 13.1.2011 www.glsen.org 18.02.2011 http://www.dayofsilence.org/www.dayofsilence.org http://www.aeinstein.org All of the websites except one had in common that they promoted LGBT rights. The IT Department speculated that they may have been blocked due to explicit content, but no explicit content was found on the sites. The schools Internet use policy prohibits access to or use of the Internet for purposes of discrimination, yet ironically, the schools web filtering service in effect is discriminatory. The one blocked website not related to LGBT rights was that of the Albert Einstein Institute. The IT Department said that the site was blocked due to violent content, but the Institutes stated mission is to advance the study and usage of nonviolent action in conflicts throughout the world, in other words, to promote nonviolence. In all cases, when the IT Department was alerted to the blocked sites, it immediately unblocked them. has been responsive and cooperative, but if the pattern of legitimate sites being blocked continues, the IT Department should look into the matter more systematically in order to address the issue of unintentional but effective discrimination. The head of school is commended for defending academic freedom and freedom of expression in a circular sent to the CIS community in April. Yet, at the same time the head of school sent the message, Secondary leadership mentioned that it might be considering articulation of guidelines about postering. This is another cause for concern, as such guidelines could result in undue and ambiguous limits to freedom of expression. While school leadership took punitive action against students for exercising their freedom of expression and considered guidelines that could potentially reduce freedom of expression, the school year saw an increase in the number of occasions on which students voiced their views on sensitive or controversial issues. Ironically, while incidents of censorship increased, it appeared that at least certain sectors of the CIS community were censoring themselves less, even in the face of potentially grave consequences.

CONCLUSION
The situation regarding censorship and lack of freedom in expression at CIS has deteriorated since the publication of the Audit, with methods of censorship advancing from self-censorship, to censorship by the school, including disciplinary actions against perceived offenders. There is still a lack of transparency and no clear guidelines on appropriate channels for communication and publication of materials.

RECOMMENDATIONS
To school leadership: Refrain from punishing students for exercising their right to freedom of expression. In cases in which certain aspects of a students method of expressing herself might be inappropriate, the students should be alerted to this, but not punished for it, especially when the student is expressing herself about an issue in which the school leadership might have a particular vested interest. If school leadership believes punishment is appropriate, the matter should be referred to a previously constituted disciplinary committee that includes students and staff as members. Promote freedom of expression by taking opportunities to tell the CIS community of the importance of freedom of expression and of academic freedom, especially on sensitive or controversial matters. In cases where restrictions on freedom of expression might be considered appropriate, consult extensively with students and staff to determine what exactly those restrictions should be and how they should be articulated. Any restrictions should have the consensus of the community. Offer a larger number of avenues of expression to students and staff. Currently, there are few avenues by which students and staff can communicate with the CIS community, while at the same time, the secondary leadership apparently considers some of those avenues inappropriate. The solution is to offer appropriate avenues, such as assemblies intended to discuss school matters, a dedicated part of Moongate for free exchange of views, and staff meetings, which currently function primarily as information sessions.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIVERSITY

The audit found that the lack of socio-economic diversity amongst students at CIS was caused by the high tuition fee coupled with a lack of a policy to increase diversity and a lack of a financial aid program. The result is that students are admitted to CIS based on their ability to pay. This represents a clear failure in CISs commitment to the achievement of academic excellence as articulated in the schools Mission Statement since students are not admitted based on academic excellence but on ability to pay. Not only that, but it means an impoverishment of the learning environment since students do not learn amongst peers representing many different sectors and classes in society but only amongst a tiny minority. Annual tuition at CIS for one year is approximately equal to the median income of a family of four in Hong Kong. Simply put, a tiny percentage of Hong Kong residents are able to afford to attend Cashing Kong is the most unequal developed society in the world in terms of income distribution. The lack of diversity and financial aid policies at CIS exacerbates rather than ameliorates this inequality. The key recommendation of the audit to address the lack of socio-economic diversity was that CIS should articulate a goal of admitting candidates based solely on merit rather than on ability to pay tuition. Toward this end, CIS should create a financial aid program with a strategy whose eventual aim is admission solely on merit and not on ability to pay. The Human Rights Group met Dr Faunce to discuss the lack of socio-economic diversity at Cache said that if students expressed a desire for a financial aid program, it would make it easier for him to pursue it. Based on that advice, the Human Rights Group ran a petition campaign in January. (See petition in Appendix B.) The key statement in the petition was, We, the undersigned, request that Chinese International School create a comprehensive financial aid program. We think this should be one of CIS's top priorities. The petition garnered 145 signatures of CIS students and staff. It was delivered to Dr Faunce in late January. At that time, Dr Faunce announced to an all-staff meeting that he would raise the issue of a financial aid program with the board. He said he did not think that CIS was ready to make a full commitment to the principle of admission based on ability to pay but that it needed to make some start. There has been no report on the outcome of that discussion at the board meeting, nor have there been any apparent efforts to create a financial aid program. At the same time, projects requiring significant capital outlay have been approved. This indicates that CIS has the financial resources to create a substantial financial aid program, but it does not appear to be a priority of the board or school leadership.

CONCLUSION
CIS has made no progress toward the creation of a financial aid program, nor has it taken other steps to increase socio-economic diversity at the school. This represents a failure in its commitments to its own mission statement to produce students who are compassionate, ethical and responsible individuals, contributing to local and global communities, respectful of other views, beliefs and cultures and to providing the best education possible to its students.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Redouble efforts to create a financial aid program which has as its stated goal admitting students based solely on merit on not on their ability to pay. When formulating objectives and priorities, conduct substantial consultation with students and staff and take into account the views of the entire CIS community.

UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE WORKING CONDITIONS OF SECURITY GUARDS

This issue was identified as a weakness in the audit primarily because of the unfair working conditions of the security guards. The audit states: In many respects, CIS rates quite highly in this area. Teachers appear to be generally satisfied with their hours and conditions. While somewhat less satisfied than teachers, maintenance and cleaning staff also reported a fair degree of satisfaction. Students have concerns about overwork and unbalanced homework schedules, but it appears that the school is aware of these concerns and attempting to address them. However, the long work hours and few days off for security guards is a grave matter that should be addressed with urgency. There are significant outstanding issues regarding working conditions raised by students, teachers and non-teaching staff which should be addressed (see audit for specific issues and recommendations), but the matter of greatest urgency is still the working conditions of the security guards. The audit describes their situation as follows: The security guards work 12-hour shifts six days a week, for a total of a 72-hour work week. They have only four days off a month. They receive no overtime pay for additional hours worked over 40 hours. While this appears to be somewhat standard practice in Hong Kong, it is definitely not consonant with the concept of reasonable hours under fair work conditions. Security guards say they have very little time to spend with their families. Other staff are certainly not expected to work such long hours as a matter of routine. The audit made the following Recommendation: As a matter of urgency, address the issue of overwork of security guards. This should be done in collaboration with the guards and following their own suggestions for a solution. In particular, it should be done according to the following principles: 1) no overall reduction of pay for reduction of work hours; 2) all those currently employed will remain employed; 3) agreement as to what constitutes a full work week consonant with international standards (about 40 hours a week), with overtime pay for additional hours. CIS should be a leader in labor relations practices and not use patently unfair local standards as an excuse. Nearly one year later, no progress has been made in addressing this urgent matter. The CIS Human Rights Group decided not to conduct an awareness-raising campaign on the issue because of its sensitivity, involving the jobs of people in the CIS community. Instead, on October 8, 2010, the matter was raised with the Head of School in the hope of its discrete resolution. In response, the Head of School stated, Our security guards are the best colleagues imaginable, and said that CIS should take the lead in best employment practices, promising to take up the matter. The Business Office was consulted. It stated that our conditions are better than those offered by other schools, who out source the job. [sic] Several parts of the statement were unclear: Other schools in Hong Kong or other schools internationally? Which conditions were considered to be better? In spite of repeated requests for clarification, no further findings, conclusions or data were reported. The Head of School then said a survey of international school heads would be conducted. In May, the Head of School reported that he had received 18 replies to his survey of international school heads and that the weekly hours, exclusive of overtime, were the following: 40 hours: 5 schools; 48 hours: 3 schools; 50 hours: 1 school; 60 hours: 2 schools; 72 hours: 7 schools, of which one seemed to indicate that a class of guards works 12 hours x 7 days = 84 hrs. However, he did not specify where the schools were located. It is suspected that those which require security guards to work 72 hours per week are in Hong Kong, since such practice would be illegal in other jurisdictions. But even assuming that, the majority of schools reported that their security guards work less than 72 hours per week. While he reiterated that he wants to have CIS be a leader in working conditions for support staff and not just merely comply with legal requirements, he did not draw any conclusions from his survey nor say

10

whether or not CISs treatment of security guards fulfills his goal of CIS being a leader in working conditions, nor say whether or not he planned to take any further steps. The working hours of the security guards are much higher than those of international schools in other places outside of Hong Kong, even in the Asia-Pacific region, because those other schools are in jurisdictions with laws regulating maximum work hours. (In Japan, the maximum number of work hours per week is 40; in Mainland China, 50; in South Korea, 52; in Taiwan, 60; in Singapore, 62.All of these countries also have laws on the minimum hourly overtime rate as percentage of original pay: Japan, 125%; Mainland China, Singapore and South Korea, 150%; Taiwan, 160%.) Hong Kong is the only developed economy in the world in which there is no law regulating maximum work hours. Even in comparison to other workers in Hong Kong, the security guards work 28 hours more per week than the average worker. Hong Kong labor practices are not in line with international standards. After ten years of deliberation, the Hong Kong government enacted minimum wage legislation, but the minimum wage of $28 per hour, which entered into force on May 1, is far below a living wage. Not only is Hong Kong is the only developed economy with no law on maximum work hours, it also lacks other basic labor laws on mandatory overtime pay and protection of the right to collective bargaining. CIS aspires to international standards in most areas of its operations, and as the Head of School stated, it should also do so in its employment practices. Will CIS only obey the letter of the law in a jurisdiction where labor laws do not meet international standards, or will CIS ensure that all of its employees have fair working conditions? As the audit found, the security guards work far longer hours than any other group of workers at CIS. Research has shown that they must work very long hours just to support their families. This leaves them with little time to spend with their families. While other CIS employees are enjoying their leisure, the security guards are working. The most relevant international laws pertaining to the issue are the following: Article 23.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." (emphasis added) Article 24 states, "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." (emphasis added) These two UDHR articles are incorporated into the legally binding International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights under Article 7: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular: (a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with...(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;" and "(d ) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays." Under the Basic Law of Hong Kong, the ISESCR is legally binding in Hong Kong. (Article 39: "The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and international labour conventions as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force and shall be implemented through the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.")

CONCLUSION
CIS is not in line with international standards in its treatment of the security guards, as it requires them to work far more hours than are legally allowed in all other jurisdictions with a developed economy, including those in the immediate geographic region. Nearly one year after the Audit 11

brought this to the attention of the administration, no progress has been made in addressing this urgent matter.

RECOMMENDATIONS
To the administration As a matter of urgency, address the issue of unfair working conditions of security guards, in particular, that their hours worked are too many and that they have insufficient rest and leisure. This should be done in collaboration with the guards and following their own suggestions for a solution. In particular, it should be done according to the following principles: 1) no overall reduction of pay, 2) overall reduction of work hours; 3) all those currently employed full time will remain employed full time; 4) agreement as to what constitutes a full work week consonant with international standards (about 40 hours a week), with overtime pay for additional hours. The CIS Human Rights Group emphasizes that these issues should be addressed as matters of urgency. To staff and students Concerned staff and students should express their concern to the administration. This should be done with the collaboration and consent of the security guards.

12

 HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION

Human Rights Education at CIS was an overall crosscutting recommendation made in the audit. It stated: CIS should educate both students and staff about their rights. In the case of students, involve students such as those in the CIS Human Rights Group and others in the efforts. While human rights related issues are addressed in many academic subjects at CIS, the only place in the formal education in which they are directly and expressly presented is Year 10 Choices. This is commendable, though many Year 10 students reported that they found it difficult to relate to the issues they were presented. The audit stated, To a great extent, students will be more receptive to the efforts of fellow students to discuss human rights than to those of staff. This appeared to be an area of opportunity for peer-to-peer education. Some changes were made to the teaching of human rights in Year 10 Choices this year, and several rights-related topics were presented such as the Millennium Development Goals. At the same time, the Human Rights Group created a new lesson plan for Year 10 Choices in the future. (See Appendix 3 for full plan.) The two CHOICES lessons are designed to help students understand their own rights. The CIS Human Rights Group was asked by the head of Year of Year 11 to discuss LGBT issues during the CHOICES session on sexuality. The group discussed with students anti-LGBT discrimination and the use of homophobic slurs. The CHOICES session, especially effective because it was in conjunction with the LGBT week, was successful and received good response from both students and teachers. The audit stated, While Choices, Staff Meeting and Collaborative Planning appear the most likely points of entry in the current timetable, integration of education about rights should also be an aim of classroom teaching. Many teachers already incorporate rights-related subjects into their syllabi and teaching. To build on their work, the Human Rights Group contacted teachers and offered to visit their classes to discuss human rights topics. It received a very strong response from teachers and to date has visited Chinese, Drama, English and Music classes as well as homerooms. The Human Rights Group also attempted to raise awareness about human rights issues through campaigns, including: Burma Campaign screening of Burma VJ, discussion of Burmese Elections International Death Penalty Abolition Day Death Penalty debate International Womens Day Discussion forum LGBT week Discussion forum, Day of Silence, Screening of Milk th th June 4 Campaign Screening of Tank Man, Discussion Forum, June 4 Vigil

CONCLUSION
The year has seen significant growth in Human Rights Education at CIS. Human Rights Education has expanded from Year 10 Choices to the classroom and the entire secondary community. A new open- mindedness and eagerness to be involved and make an active contribution to local and global communities are beginning to replace indifference and passivity.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Building on the efforts of various groups and individuals in the school, form a Human Rights Education group comprised of Pastoral Office staff, Human Rights Group members, and other interested parties to discuss and coordinate HRE initiatives. 13

 Encourage students to play a more active role in contributing ideas to and leading Choices and Learning Enhancement sessions. To do so would entail a process whereby towards the end of the academic year, the Pastoral Office would solicit ideas for Choices and Learning Enhancement and hold a public meeting to discuss ideas for the coming year. Heads of Year may undertake a similar process at Year levels.

14

APPENDIX A

to create formal structures to ensure the participation of CIS staff and students in decision-making December 2010 CIS Human Rights Group

A Proposal

INTRODUCTION
In June 2010, the CIS Human Rights Group completed a human rights audit based on the articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights assessing CISs adherence to international human rights standards. The audit found that while the school respects and promotes the rights of staff and students in most cases, the lack of formal democratic decision-making structures was one of the schools four main weaknesses. This issue was discussed with Dr. Faunce at a meeting on October5, 2010. Below is a comprehensive proposal for a decision-making structure to ensure the participation of staff and students in decision-making processes. This proposal is intended as a concrete measure to address the democratic decision-making deficit.

This proposal regards the Board of Governors, the Head of School, the Head of the Secondary School, the Staff Meeting, and the Student Council as the main decision-making entities. The proposal outlines their relationship to one another and their main roles and responsibilities. The proposal focuses solely on the Secondary School. It may or may not be appropriate for the Primary School.

15

PROPOSAL
We believe that ensuring the participation of staff and students in decision-making not only is a matter of basic rights and fairness but also that the active involvement of the community as whole results in better decisions. The content of the decisions is better for it takes into account a wide range of views and ideas, and the consensus and buy-in that are achieved make the implementation of the decisions more successful. Ensuring student participation in decision-making through formal decision-making structures is also of great educational value. All schools should teach students how to be active citizens and should promote democratic culture. The best way of doing that is to practice it. Through taking on more responsibility for making proposals and participating in and implementing decisions, students learn how to make and execute policies that affect a community in a responsible and constructive manner. Ensuring staff participation in decision-making is the best way of making use of the knowledge, views and ideas of the staff. 22000 Board of Governors

Head of School

Head of Secondary

Student Council

Staff Meeting

16

 THE S TAFF M EETING:

The Staff Meeting is the central decision-making venue. All major decisions that substantially affect the Secondary School should be presented to the Staff Meeting in the form of a proposal and voted on by staff. The Staff Meeting should take place approximately twice a month. Items for the agenda of the Staff Meeting should be submitted no later than four days in advance, and the agenda should be circulated no later than three days in advance, in order to give staff time to prepare for the meeting. Agenda items may be presented as proposals (p), for discussion (d) and as information (i). Informational items should be kept to a minimum and disseminated via other avenues whenever possible. The Staff Meeting should primarily be a venue for discussion and decision-making. When a proposal is made, the staff vote on it. Each staff member has one vote. The vote should be counted by those running the staff meeting, and the result should appear in the minutes. The Staff Meeting should be run by a chair, responsible for compiling the agenda and chairing the meeting. There should also be a designated minute-taker. These positions can be filled on a rotating basis by different members of staff, for example going in alphabetical order. Minutes of a Staff Meeting should be distributed to staff as soon after a staff meeting as possible. The Student Council (see below) may send two representatives to the staff meeting as observers. Students may be called upon to contribute when their input is considered valuable. The Student Council may submit in writing information, opinions, suggestions and ideas to the Staff Meeting, or work together with a sponsoring member of staff to submit a proposal. Students will be asked to leave the staff meeting when confidential matters, such as the cases of individual students, are discussed. As far as possible, the number of confidential matters should be kept to a minimum and, with possible exceptions, confined to the cases of individual students. When a proposal is passed, the decision is forwarded to the Head of Secondary. In all cases, the Head of Secondary reserves the right to accept or veto a decision. The Head of Secondary should inform the staff meeting of whether the decision is accepted or vetoed in a timely manner. In turn, the Head of School reserves the right to accept or veto any decision made by the Head of Secondary and should inform the Head of Secondary and the rest of the secondary staff in writing of his decision. Approximately 20% of every staff meeting should be reserved for the Head of Secondary, who may use the time to report to the staff, to field suggestions, to discuss issues, or for any other purpose.

THE S TUDENT C OUNCIL:

The student council is elected by the student body and represents the students. It is the only student entity that represents students in the formal decision-making structure. Not only may the student council submit in writing information, opinions, suggestions and ideas to the Staff Meeting, as noted above, but it also meets monthly with the Head of Secondary to discuss issues.

HEAD O F S ECONDARY S CHOOL:

The Head of School in all cases reserves the right to accept or veto a staff meeting decision. 17

 The Head of Secondary School may make proposals to the staff meeting on any substantial decisions involving the school community. Generally, these will be major decisions, as opposed to more routine administrative decisions. The purpose of this is not to constrain the Head of Schools decision-making power but to ensure that decisions are made in an inclusive way that takes into account the opinions and ideas of the staff. As the Head of Secondary in all cases reserves the right to accept or veto a staff meeting decision, even if the Staff Meeting votes against a proposal made by the Head of Secondary, the Head of Secondary may veto that decision. The Head of Secondary meets with representatives of the Student Council monthly in order to maintain good communication. The Head of Secondary submits decisions that both the Head of Secondary and the Staff Meeting have passed to the Head of School, who in all cases reserves the right to accept or veto any and all decisions.

BOARD O F G OVERNORS:
There should be one Staff Representative and one Student Representative on the Board of Governors. These representatives should be elected by, respectively, the Staff Meeting and the Student Council. The representatives should have the same rights as all other members of the board. Agendas of Board of Governors meetings should be distributed to the Staff and Student Representatives far enough in advance that they are able to consult their constituencies. Staff and Student Representatives should also be able to contribute to the agenda. Staff and Student Representatives should submit reports to each meeting, and a small portion of each meeting should be reserved for discussing the reports.

18

APPENDIX B

The following petition for a financial aid program was signed by 145 secondary students and staff in January 2011 and delivered to Dr Faunce. Dear Dr. Faunce, We, the undersigned, request that Chinese International School create a comprehensive financial aid program. We think this should be one of CIS's top priorities. As the mission statement says, CIS is 'committed to academic excellence. We believe one of the best ways of improving education at CIS is to work toward a principle of admitting students based solely on merit rather than on ability to pay. Indeed, we would like to see the school work to formally adopt that as its goal and design a comprehensive financial aid program and a plan with clear deadlines that allows it to reach that goal. Not only do we think a comprehensive financial aid program will help CIS to fulfill its mission statement and improve its education, we also think it is a matter of social responsibility to the community of Hong Kong. The median income of a family of four in Hong Kong is approximately $15,000 a month, only a little bit more than CIS tuition. As it stands, only a tiny fraction of the population of Hong Kong can afford to send their children to CIS. Without a financial aid program, CIS is effectively excluding the vast majority of Hong Kong students, to the detriment of both Hong Kong and CIS. Introduction of such a program would also expose students already at school here to a different way of life and socio-economic background, teaching them respect of other views, beliefs and cultures as is stated in CISs mission. It is for these reasons that we strongly support the introduction of a more comprehensive financial aid program to the school. Sincerely,

19

APPENDIX C
First session Human Rights and Global Issues This may consist of: Inviting speakers to talk about Human Rights situations (e.g. Han Dong Fang, members from Amnesty International, Humanities teachers) Screenings of a documentary (e.g. Burma VJ, The Gate of Heavenly Peace, Bowling for Columbine) Presentations from individual GIG groups (e.g. FISH, World in Five etc.) as well as other extra- curricular groups (e.g. MUN, Debate Club) Resources needed: Two HR group members to introduce the session Communication and advance preparation for contacting speakers Venue Auditorium/Drama studio Second Session Human Rights at CIS This may consist of: Identifying the rights that students have as a CIS student, as Hong Kong citizen and as a global citizen. Presentation of the areas in which Human Rights at CIS could improve (censorship, democratic decision making, financial aid). Discussion and debate on the current Human Rights situation at CIS (distribution of a more Year-10 friendly audit) Resources needed: All members of the human rights group Venue: sufficiently sized classrooms

20