Teachers want it. Parents want it. Schools want it. Our children will flourish under it. There are letters of support and public surveys to back it. 

So it perplexes me that in the face of this broad community consensus and after more than a decade of planning, consultation and honing of plans, our democratic legislators - usually so vigilant in their pursuit of our democratic rights - are still deliberating.

Yes, school-based management is critical in the enhancement of quality education in Hong Kong. 

It seeks to promote participation, transparency and accountability in school management. 

Yet when we talk about taking this important step towards democracy in schools, even after more than a decade of debate, some people are still arguing that a further five years is too rapid a timetable for introducing some democratic elements in schools, and that parents and teachers can wait.

Other governments keen on the system

At an APEC meeting in Chile in April which I attended, every representative around the table was talking passionately of initiatives being taken in their own countries to build school-based management. 

Schools in Australia, Singapore and New Zealand already have such schemes in place.  Experience in all of these countries shows that the system delivers enhanced educational quality, more autonomy, flexibility, effectiveness and participation at the school level, and superior transparency and accountability for our taxpayers to see that our tax dollars are spent wisely and well.

It beats me why some people choose to see the system as a power-wrestling business and why some school sponsoring bodies have so little faith in their teachers and the parents of their students who stand ready to roll up their sleeves and contribute to the well-being of the schools.  After all, are we not all partners working for the common good?

Governments around the world are abandoning decades-old policies of rigidly dictating education policies from an omniscient centre, and power to decide how funds are spent is being devolved to the school level. 

However, when the Government in Hong Kong strives to do the same, we are being accused of holding on to power. 

In spite of being certain that we speak on behalf of parents and teachers, we have been accused of confronting and undermining our school sponsoring bodies.

Extensive consulations during law drafting 

Since 1991, when discussion on school-based management first began, every part of Hong Kong's education community has been consulted and has provided input. 

From the foundations of Education Commission Report No 7, which provided a widely-supported basis from which to move forward, legislation has been drafted through a process of careful consultation. 

Moreover, more than 40 significant amendments have been put into the legislation to allay the concerns of school sponsoring bodies and legislators.

We have reached the point where we need to stop talking, and at last take some action.  The quality and value of our children's education depends on it; our teachers support it; our parents want to roll up their sleeves and get involved.

What are the residual concerns that are being used to justify this long drawn out deliberation? 

Perhaps foremost, some school sponsoring bodies have insisted that they should not be compelled to have elected teachers and parents on their school governing bodies. 

They say that this requirement is rigid - a "one-size-fits-all" template that undermines valuable diversity in our school system.  They say that elected parents and teachers might be disruptive, and seed conflict and disagreement in the school governing body.  And they say their power to determine the vision of their schools would be undermined.

Misconceived views by well-meaning educators

I assume these views are sincerely held by well-meaning educators, but even so, they are misconceived.

* Far from providing a "one-size-fits-all", our proposals provide a "minimum legal framework" for good school governance. 

At the very heart of the legislation is a determination to enhance flexibility, variety, and the devolution of power for a school to decide what is best for it. 

As long as a school governance body includes an elected teacher and parent, and accounts transparently for how it uses the resources provided by Hong Kong taxpayers, it will be free to define its educational vision as it wishes.

* There is no evidence anywhere in the world that by having teachers and parents on school governance bodies generate conflict or disruption.

On the contrary, they have a terrific track record of working earnestly  as a team to enhance the quality of education for their children and pupils.

* With at least 60% of the votes on these governance bodies, and the power to appoint the school supervisor, it seems incredible that leaders of some school sponsoring bodies are losing sleep at night over anxieties that their power over the vision and mission of their schools might be lost.

I confess that I am becoming a bit disenchanted: having listened so carefully to people's practical concerns and suggestions - and having gone to great lengths to accommodate reasonable suggestions and requests - we are still accused of turning a deaf ear. 

Apart from repeating forcefully and wherever possible that these fears are totally unfounded, I do not know what more can be done to appease this wholly irrational anxiety.

Now that we are poised to pass down to our schools the power to manage their budgets locally, and even though I am confident that the vast majority will take their obligations extremely seriously, I cannot responsibly entrust taxpayer funds to our schools without legislated obligations for transparency, and without independently-elected parents and teachers sitting on school governance bodies.

Parents and teachers cannot do their job if they sit in an advisory capacity, there by the grace of a school sponsoring body.  They cannot be beholden. It is imperative that they sit on these governance bodies as a fundamental right. 

We have no choice but to legislate, and to expect all schools to participate.  That is not a rigid or unitary approach; it is a basic minimum standard of responsible governance.

Time to implement the system

In short, there is widespread community recognition that the introduction of school-based management will enhance the performance of our schools, enhance the educational experience of our children, and equip them better for the highly competitive working world.

We have excellent legislation that has been forged over a 10 year period, with strong and specific input from the community. 

We have had over 20 Bills Committee meetings and four public hearings since the introduction of the Bill in 2002 to review this. 

The time for nit-picking is past.  Imagine - a P2 student will enter F1 by the time this legislation becomes universal - and an F1 student will be ready to enter university. 

Is it fair to deprive schools of their parents' input in the system so far into the future?

We now have a responsibility to put words into action.  We should now get the school-based management that our schools, our parents, and above all our children deserve.  If not, then those who espouse democracy should explain the reasons why they have abandoned their democratic principles.

(This is an article by Secretary for Education & Manpower Arthur Li for publication in newspapers on May 21)