Writers on colonial education have generally assumed that colonial curricula were tools of metropolitan political and cultural 'hegemony'. In particular, it is alleged that colonial history curricula neglected or ignored the histories of indigenous populations. Through analysing the case of Chinese History in Hong Kong, this article demonstrates that these assumptions are highly misleading. Far from exercising 'hegemonical' authority over the school curriculum, the colonial government was to a large extent the prisoner of its local collaborators. For reasons of political as well as educational expediency, in the post-war years the government initiated a conservative Chinese History curriculum to be taught alongside the separate subject of 'History'. Subsequently, a strong Chinese History subject community evolved, who by appealing to nationalist sentiment were able to resist successfully the calls for reform. As a result, efforts by both the colonial and post-colonial administrations to resolve the anomaly of having two history subjects have proved fruitless.
[Copyright of Oxford Review of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305498032000045386]

Personal and social education has become an important area of development in education in Hong Kong. Given that much of the literature on personal and social education is Anglo-American or European, what is the influence on the largely Chinese settings in Hong Kong? This paper will examine some of the debates of what constitutes personal and social education. The significance of competing contexts in the development of personal and social education will be analysed in detail. Comparisons will be made between Western and Chinese (especially Confucian) views on personal and social education. Attempts will be made to come up with a notion of personal and social education which is suitable for the Hong Kong context
[Copyright of Comparative Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050060020020435]

公民教育委員會為了解民眾對公民教育目的及範疇的認識，於1986年11至12月期間策劃一次民意調查，並委託雅捷市場研究社負責這項研究。此研究結果撮要的內容包括：市民對互助委員會、業主立案法團、區議會、市政局、區域市政局及行政立法兩局議員辦事處的認識，以及對這些組織的意見；撮要還包括公民意識、市民對選舉的認識和參與、市民對公共事務的認識和參與等。

此報告書是高中生公民意識的調查研究，內容包括研究方法、研究結果（個人資料、公民意識、對時事新聞／消息的關注、參與課外活動的情況、價值取向等等）、及對問卷的分析與結論。報告中亦有輯錄公民意識與公民教育研討會講詞，包括以下各講題：一、從香港教育制度看公民意識與公民教育（梁一鳴）；二、從學校行政的角度探討公民教育（李柏雄）；三、從社會工作者的角度看公民意識與教育（麥海華）：四、香港大眾傳播媒介與青少年的公民意識。此外亦附有其他參考資料及活動教材資料。

This is the second report on the evaluation of the implementation of the guidelines. It introduces the background, purpose, and coverage of this evaluation exercise. It describes the development of civic education since the last evaluation in 1986. The report includes the methods of the second evaluation, the results of the statistical survey, the observation results by subject inspectors and district education officers, conclusions, and some recommendations. The report ends with the summary of recommendations and appendices (sample of the questionnaire, graphic presentations, and examples of civic education topics for project work and extra-curricular activities).