One of the dilemmas in educational policy is how to reconcile individual rights with social demands and ease of administration. In 1978 the Hong Kong Department of Education introduced a competitive secondary school allocation procedure (SSPA) based on Internal Assessment (IA) in primary schools. It was designed to match pupils to appropriate secondary schools. Every year the girls performed better than the boys. At first the Education Department solved this "problem" by taking marks away from the girls and subsequently by employing separate gender ranking, gender banding, and gender quotas for co-educational schools. In 1995 a Sex Discrimination Ordinance was passed and an Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) set up. Complaints from girls soon came to the EOC and the department's policy was judged by judicial review. Documents presented in court will be used to illustrate the arguments about gender and cognition.
[Copyright of Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) at http://www.aare.edu.au]

What international framework, if any, is higher education subject to in terms of its work, not in the sense of validating its programmes or safeguarding its academic freedom, but in terms of its funding, its operating environment and its stakeholders? Is it viewed as a business in some sense? Is it subject to trade rules and negotiations? All of these questions have, to some extent, been raised in the World Trade Organisation's 'Doha Round' of negotiations. Has agreement been reached or has the overall operating context of economies submerged higher education, in particular agriculture? This article analyses the brief history of the Doha Round and the possible categorization of higher education within a commercial framework. Conclusions are reached at the end.
[Copyright of Education and the Law is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09539960601036235]