This paper offers a critical review of research in the area of gender and education in Hong Kong, and suggests the plausible circumstances contributory to its impoverished development. While it is found that "gender" has been touched upon in diverse educational literature, the way the concept is conceptualised has been limited and there has been little or no mentioning of gender in teachers’ education in the territory. Gender is popularly used as a demographic variable and, at best, equated with sex roles. In both cases, the use of the concept is devoid of what we consider a more sophisticated understanding of gender as a social construction, as relational in nature, as entangled with power relations, which, in short, fails to explain how education and gender regulate. The relatively limited conceptualisation in the field of education can be explained in two main ways. First, there has been a lack of a dialogue between the educational literature and sociological literature in the territory, where the latter is comparatively more developed. Secondly and more crucially, the limited development can be partly to do with the fact that gender equity in education is deemed a non-issue in the local community. As studies have demonstrated, Hong Kong people embrace the society as openly egalitarian with abundant opportunities for social betterment, in spite of the social injustice that many encounter. Furthermore, the locals, especially the middle class, tend to resort to individualistic and privatised strategies when confronting difficulties and uncertainties, and more so when investment in their children’s education is concerned. Against a background of increasing educational privatisation, we argue for the urgency to have a more refined theoretical understanding of gender, a re-conceptualisation of the importance of schooling in relation to gender, and the execution of gender-sensitive pedagogies and teachers training in Hong Kong.

It is probably true that the teaching hierarchy in primary schools in many countries remains gendered, as men still disproportionately occupy more leadership positions than women. However, in recent years, some countries, such as Hong Kong, also notice a steady growth of female head teachers in the teaching force. How can we make sense of an increased access to leadership positions of women? And more curiously, how do male head teachers in primary school make sense of the rise of female leaders? This paper attempts to explore the situation by critically examining the perspectives of male principals in primary schools – a “successful minority” who is thus far an under-researched group in the field of gender and education. By focusing on the narratives of 12 male head teachers who talked about the rise of female leaders and any possible differences between female and male principals, this qualitative study aims to problematize men’s views and illuminate the complexity of gender equity in education. As the paper unfolds, all male principals interviewed regarded the rise as “natural” not simply because there are more female teachers in the pipelines, but more importantly women have now overcome their obstacles, as they become more educated; get married later; bear fewer or no children; stay single; and are more career—minded. More importantly, it has also identified three main discourses that men used to make sense of “gender differences”: a) women and men principals communicate differently; b) women are more thorough but men think ‘big’; c) women manage and men lead. However, when those “differences” are closely examined, most men actually perceive women principals and their styles of leadership as less competent. In other words, even though some women have gained access to position of leadership, their effectiveness as leaders is being questioned by their counterparts, as “leadership” is still conceptualized as a male and masculinedominated domain. Implications of this

It is well recognized that primary school teaching in Hong Kong is a feminized, viz. female-dominant, occupation, yet the reasons and processes contributing to such a development have not received much academic attention. Similarly, as most people seem to know what a primary teacher is and does, the meanings of the category “primary teacher” have been taken as self-evident and is seldom subject to closer scrutiny. This paper attempts to fill these gaps by re-examining the historical development of primary school teaching via a gendering perspective. It will trace the historical changes of the teaching profession from the early colonial times to the recent context of educational restructuring, and illustrates how it has changed from “men’s work” to “women’s work” in responses to various colonial, economic, political and social factors. Moreover, the historical account attempts to also argue that the meanings of “primary teacher” are not fixed but gendered, i.e. we witness not only changes of number between male and female teachers but constant redefinitions of the role, status, and nature of women and primary school teachers. For instance, “women’s nature” has been associated with variable and malleable meanings and so does the “nature” of the occupation, which tends to promote and privilege a particular form of masculinity or/and femininity when circumstances required. At the end of the paper, some implications of a gendering historical perspective will be mentioned.

In Hong Kong, gender studies are a keenly researched area in the higher education sector. It is also our observation that many academics and teaching professionals have shown interest and growing concerns in gender issues. The anomaly is that while gender is palpably felt in classroom routines, why and how it matters rarely features in educational discourses at school level. We believe a comprehensive review of the existing literature in gender and education is needed for understanding the current phenomenon and identifying future research directions. In addition, such an exercise will also inform techniques and strategies in incorporating gender into teaching practice, the experimentation of which can be developed into gender-sensitive pedagogies. This can be considered as a form of action research that addresses the kind of gender issues that confront teaching professionals and advises how gender can be approached in subject-based teaching and learning and also professional training. Taken together, we intend to report the initial findings from a comprehensive and critical review of the current literature on gender education, and exemplars of conducting and promoting gender education identified in some specific areas; and recommend directions and ideas for research on conducting and promoting gender education at the school level.