Hong Kong is famous for its examination-dominated culture, which heavily relies on the public examinations. So ingrained has it become that the whole society is sensitive to any change in such an assessment mechanism. In recent years, the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority has used both external and school-based assessment as part of high stakes end of schooling assessment. Recent reforms have increased this reliance on school based assessment. The objectivity of external assessment is easily accepted by the society and the addition of school-based assessment components is often supported by tertiary institutions. Yet the practice of including school-based assessment results in addition to public examinations has been challenged by practitioners such as teachers in secondary schools as well as by the public. This paper focuses on understanding the views of teachers concerning school based assessment since such views are likely to add pressure to its implementation. In particular it will examine why teachers and the public appear to have more faith in external assessment rather than the professional judgment of teachers.

Large-scale curriculum reform initiated 2001 in Hong Kong has set the stage for change in the school curriculum as well as assessment. In the past, Hong Kong education was characterized by its elitist system with highly selective examinations at different levels of learning. The selective examination oriented policy had its influential impact on the schooling of Hong Kong where teaching and learning were inclined towards examinations. Since 1990, there have been changes in the assessment policy in the school curriculum with more emphasis on formative assessment, e.g. Target Oriented Curriculum. The new forms of assessment have therefore posed a different teaching and learning environment for the schools, teachers and students. By looking at the previous experiences regarding implementation in the local context, this paper will analyze various aspects of implementation of assessment policies adopted by the schools in Hong Kong. Implications will also be drawn to address the possibilities of implementation for the current policy.

Chinese is one of the significant subjects in the primary core curricula in Hong Kong. Through the acquisition of the Chinese, the students are expected to master the skills of writing, reading, listening and oral aspects of the language. Although the acquisition of Chinese seems to be similar as the English, it normally embraces more elements other than language acquisition such as the cultural and social aspects since Chinese is also the mother language of the students. It is therefore interesting to explore how the primary teachers make decisions in Chinese teaching: what are the concerns of the teachers before the lessons, what are the emphasis and interactions during their lessons and what are reflections of the teachers after their lessons. In this study, three experienced teachers were interviewed and their lessons were observed. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted before and after the lessons. The data were triangulated with the data from the lesson observations. The results of the study will shed lights on teacher education in the Chinese teaching.

After the handover, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government implemented drastic and enormous curriculum reforms, including project learning as one of the four key tasks. Over 80% of Hong Kong primary and secondary schools have adopted project learning as a curriculum task, which signifies the importance of teacher’s role and attitude in curriculum implementation. Yet the pressures on teachers and schools to achieve this result should not be underestimated. In this paper, the concept of “soft” and “hard” policy will be introduced as a means of analyzing the issues facing teachers in implementing the education reforms. “Soft” policy is characterized by persuasion, benchmarking and best practice exemplars. “Hard” policy on the other hand is explicitly embedded in legislation and budgetary allocations. This article will analyse the characteristics of project learning as a “soft” curriculum policy. It possesses features such as being practical, adaptable to context, emphasizing teaching processes, capable of being led from the classroom and is characterized by flexibility. Great emphasis is placed on conferences, seminars, sharing exemplars to promote and encourage teachers to work on this reform. On the other hand, however, the government uses “hard” means to monitor school compliance with the reforms. Thus, school self evaluation and external school evaluation are used to assess the extent to which schools are implementing curriculum innovations such as project learning. There are thus twin pressures on teachers and schools caused by the use of both “hard” and “soft” policy instruments.

In the implementation of a 10-year educational reform since the turn of the century in Hong Kong, assessment has been one of the key areas of change. The importance of changing assessment practices in the process of teaching and learning has been discussed in various government documents since 1990. In the past, assessment practices were inclined to be mainly "assessment of learning" which was more summative in nature. In the reform, schools were encouraged to put more emphasis on "assessment for learning" which was considered more of a formative nature. On approaching the mid point of such reform, significant difference in its degree and scope of development can be seen in schools. In this particular paper, the focus is assessment reform in the primary school sector. The two concepts in assessment are explored by a detailed documentary analysis of assessment policies written on basic education over the last decade. Together with reviewing the current developments on assessment change in primary schools, implications for more effective use of assessment for enhancing teaching and learning are made.

Traditionally, Hong Kong teachers are trained and performed as subject teachers in the secondary schools. The present study aimed to explore teachers' beliefs about curriculum integration in a secondary school in Hong Kong. Curriculum integration in this particular school meant the fusion of three subjects, i.e. Geography, History and Economic and Public Affairs. Case study was adopted in this study. The unit of analysis was the individual teacher. Multiple methods were used, i.e. documentary evidence, interview and observation. Triangulation of data was ensured. It was found that the teachers generally perceived curriculum integration as a means to solve the problems of the crammed curriculum. Individual teachers' beliefs about integration varied according to their different profiles of professional development. Teachers' implementation was found in accordance with their beliefs. Discussions of the case were in three dimensions, i.e. the influence of school context on teachers' beliefs, the influence of teachers' personal judgments derived from past experiences and the dialectical relationship between teachers' working context and their personal judgments. The results of the study shed light on the literature of teacher development in the upheaval of curriculum innovation. For the policy makers, it is important for them to be aware of teachers' beliefs, which, as the results of the teachers' professional development, were significant factors to the access of curriculum innovation. For the teachers, it is important to help them to be aware of their own beliefs and their respective impact on educational practice.

The control of curriculum content has been a sensitive issue in the Hong Kong school curriculum. During the colonial period, the Hong Kong Government controlled the curriculum content in various subjects, for example, by excluding knowledge concerning modern China or prohibiting overtly political material from being part of the curriculum. By law, the use of text, instructional materials and any forms of classroom instructions were prohibited except in accordance with a syllabus approved by the authority. The use of legal structures to force compliance has been termed “hard policy” since there are legal implications for non-compliance. After 1997, however, the government has given teachers a much more direct role in curriculum reform and renewal through the selection of school-based teaching materials in various key learning areas. This role has been given to teachers through a series of what might be called “soft” policy innovations where the innovations do not have the force of law but their success depend on teachers’ professional decisions more than on persuasion. With such an approach, the role of teachers has experienced vital shift, i.e., instead of being technicians teaching the prescribed texts, teachers are expected to be autonomous professionals in carrying out classroom instructions. The shift is dramatic, as teachers are used to the prescribed textbooks in their classroom teaching. The paper aims to analyze such a shift through the perspectives of government policy and its expected role of teachers. It also argues that political considerations, rather than the instructional needs of the classroom, have significant influence on the Hong Kong curriculum traditionally, resulting in neglect of teachers’ professional development and their autonomy in making instructional decisions. The move from the “hard” to the “soft” policy requires further clarification and communication between the government and the front line teachers.

OBL with its merits and demerits is now being practiced in the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIED) as well as other local tertiary institutes. Some demonize it as a "controller" type of mechanism that focuses on the effectiveness and accountability issue of programme and practice in higher education. Others support it as saying that it builds on the assumption that all learners call learn and succeed (Schwartz (1994). The approach can help give learning clear directions and serve as a basis for determining what learning has taken place. Also as teacher educators, we can use this information only at the end of a course but also during a course to improve further teaching and learning. Nevertheless, the process for creating outcomes at different levels needs to be collaborative and open. Ideally speaking it needs to involve a broad range of stakeholders. In the reality world, whether such opportunity or mechanism could exist is of critical importance. In this paper, the case concerns the implementation of an OBL programme that is developed form top down and in a post hoc manner in the Institute. From our student questionnaires and interview findings, we found great discrepancy between teaching team's and student's preference for and expectation in the CILOs and the assessment modes. These inevitably lead us to think of some philosophical and pedagogical issues like "How to decide what is most important to learn for students? By our professional judgment? Through students' voices? How to resolve the divide?' Some solutions and other issues are also presented for stimulating academic dialogue.