Background: This paper analyses the role of, and approach to, policy referencing and borrowing in Hong Kong’s recent reforms that culminated in the creation of its New Academic Structure and the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education. Main argument: It argues that Hong Kong has gone further than most jurisdictions not just in responding to global influences on education reform, but in taking explicit steps to internationally benchmark its curriculum and assessment, and in involving the global community at multiple levels in the process of education policy planning and implementation. Sources of evidence and method: The paper is based on the documentary analysis of policy documents in Hong Kong, and 23 interviews with key stakeholders in the policy network, including policy-makers, practitioners and community leaders. Discussion and conclusions: While policy referencing and borrowing in the Hong Kong context can, in part, be traced to a colonial legacy, the Special Administrative Region of China demonstrates a collaborative approach to education reform involving local and international engagement that may be relevant to other systems. Its approach was informed by a measured use of policy referencing that involved ‘horizon scanning’ of other systems’ policies and practices; international benchmarking; and engaging international expertise to facilitate implementation.
[Copyright © 2016 NFER.]

Hong Kong’s high ranking in the OECD’s PISA study and other international assessments has caught the interest of policy-makers internationally who are searching for policy models and classroom practices to learn from. This paper will investigate the nature and validity of the comparative international references made about education in Hong Kong and lessons that might be usefully learned from its experience. It will do this by exploring the outcomes of research that gathered views of stakeholders in Hong Kong, including policy-makers past and present, teachers, principals, academic experts, and parent and employer groups, along with the views of policy-makers, researchers and Chinese community leaders in UK. These perspectives shed light on the reasons – within and beyond the classroom - behind Hong Kong’s success, as well as on the strengths and limitations of schooling that may be misunderstood internationally, in particular in its perceived success in achieving the holy grail of quality and equity in education. Listening to local voices raises questions as to whether strengths in one system as identified by international agencies can be used by policy-makers elsewhere to guide or justify reforms when they are not familiar with the local context and its nuances. The paper draws on work for the research project ‘Hong Kong as a Source for Education Policy in England: Rhetoric and Reality’, funded by The UK Economic and Social Research Council/Research Grants Council, Hong Kong, Joint Research Scheme.

This paper analyses how the impact of international student achievement studies and the recent economic crisis in Europe are influencing the development of educational policy transfer and borrowing, from East to West. This is contrasted with education reform movements in East Asia, which have long legacies of borrowing from so-called 'progressive' discourses in the West. England and Hong Kong are used as case studies. Since 2010, England's coalition government has prioritised its determination to look to jurisdictions like Hong Kong to inspire and justify reforms that emphasise traditional didactic approaches to teaching and learning. In contrast, Hong Kong's reforms have sought to implement practices related to less pressured, more student-centred lifelong learning, without losing sight of strengths derived from its Confucian heritage culture. Conclusions highlight factors that underpin English interest in Hong Kong education policy, values and practice and point to the need for further attention to be given to these multidirectional and often contradictory processes by researchers concerned with the study of policy transfer.
[Copyright of Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2014.928508]