This paper introduces the core principles of Improving the Quality of Education for All (IQEA) before drawing on the experience of one school engaged in the programme in England. This school has implemented a cross-school reflection and enquiry process (lesson study) to explore a number of fundamental questions:
1.How can we generate developments in teaching and learning?
2.How can schools be encouraged to lead from within?
3.What types of evidence move thinking and practice forward?
4.How can a collaborative focus on teaching and learning establish conditions for resource sharing?
The paper discusses the extent to which lesson study has contributed to the exploration of the above questions and how the insights gained from this methodology have fed into the improvement process. In conclusion, the paper argues that this school's involvement in IQEA has contributed to significant cultural and structural change within the school.
[Copyright of Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) at http://www.aare.edu.au]

After the hand-over of Hong Kong to China in 1997, a series of educational innovations was introduced by the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government. In fact, before he took his office, the Chief Executive of the SAR, Tung Chee Hwa, had publicly announced that he would tackle education issues. Thus, educational innovation has been implemented consistently since 1997. These innovations influence the whole education system, from classroom level to system level, in Hong Kong. The Government is deliberately playing the role as the pioneer in leading Hong Kong education into a relatively more professional era. Under these recent innovations, educational leaders will work in a context which is professionalised, organically organised, decentralised and proactive.
This paper will analyse three of these innovations, namely the exchange program of the Education Department, the new appraisal program for school principals and the assessment of teachers' language proficiency. These three innovations have covered both the system and the school level. The paper will further reveal the SAR government's intention to promote a new direction for its administration: the emphasis is no longer on experience but professional performance and appraisal. This paper will also deal with the likely outcomes of this series of educational innovations and their influences on educational leaders in the 'new' Hong Kong.
[Copyright of Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) at http://www.aare.edu.au]

This paper attempts a comparative analysis of classification and framing relationships as they are exemplified in the four papers presented in this Special Issue. In particular, it interrogates Bernstein's assertion that education is simply a relay for power relations external to it and examines approaches to educational leadership and administration that follow from such analysis. It is concluded that in different times and places power relationships external to education are often complex and contested, producing a variety of relays and attempts at classification and framing that serve differing interests and are articulated through policies containing significant internal contradictions. In such circumstances contingency and immediate local influence may affect the practice of educational leadership as well as offering scope for subversion, resistance, simulated consent and collective action. The possibility of a public pedagogy through which such complexities could be articulated is raised and its importance to the practice of educational leadership affirmed.
[Copyright of Journal of Educational Administration and History is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220620802507185 ]

Leadership style has always been a controversial topic in educational administration and management. Following the recommendation of the Education Commission to introduce school-based management (SBM) into Hong Kong schools in the early 1990s, discussions about the kind of leadership style that is appropriate for SBM schools have never ceased. The government holds a continuing belief that SBM schools work better if they are managed by "better" principals, and emphasises the value of "transformational leadership." However, this paper articulates the limitations of that leadership style and argues for complementing it with "educational leadership," which purports that principals have an obligation to learn with others about ways of promoting student learning. Secondly, the staff should also be encouraged and helped to carry out certain leadership functions. These arguments are supported by references to the most relevant literature. The discussion is useful to school principals, leaders, and teachers by offering them a better understanding of how to facilitate the implementation of SBM.
[Copyright of Asia Pacific Journal of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188790600937292]

This article examines the evolution of language-in-education policy in Hong Kong during the first six decades of British rule (1842-1902). In particular, it analyses the changing roles and status of the English and Chinese languages during this formative period in the development of the colony's education system. The textual and statistical data presented in the article provide a corrective to the claim that the British imposed English on their colonial subjects and in the process rode roughshod over the indigenous languages. The evidence suggests that Hong Kong's education system provided opportunities for native students to attend purely Chinese schools, purely English schools or mixed-medium schools. Although the British apparently attached more importance to English teaching, they were generally at pains to emphasise that English should not be studied at the expense of Chinese. The findings indicate that language policy (be it Chinese or English in orientation) was always tied in some way to Britain's political and economic interests in the region.
[Copyright of Journal of Educational Administration and History is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220620600984214]