This article offers a new explanation for considerable continuity in citizenship education policy in Hong Kong despite the change from British to Chinese sovereignty. Focusing on the form by which citizenship education is carried out and the instruments by which it has been promoted, the article argues that citizenship education has been both enabled and constrained by a distinctive policy paradigm developed out of traditional Chinese moral education, a British ambivalence toward political education, and a reaction against Mainland Chinese Communist political education. A comparison of citizenship education policy in China, Britain, and Hong Kong reveals that a key aspect of this paradigm is a fear of indoctrination, which has been made explicit in public sentiment, policy debates, and policy programs.
[Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business.]

Confronted with the rise of a new group within its organization, Small World, an international Christian kindergarten in Hong Kong, is being forced to reconsider its boundaries. The trend towards more applications to international schools by Hong Kong Chinese, adds an extra dimension to the already extensive cultural diversity among the kindergarten's staff, students and their parents. Describing the appreciation for cultural diversity amongst staff and parents, the strategies that are used to maintain harmony and the motives that (Hong Kong Chinese) parents have for participation in the school, it is argued that only one effect of globalization on the macro level can be identified on the micro and meso level, namely indigenization. The article shows how parents, staff and the organization all try to adopt attractive or useful elements of foreign cultures without giving up their own culture, and subsequently foster multiculturalism in an attempt to reach their goals, these being the cultural competence of their children for Hong Kong Chinese parents and success for the organization. The resulting demand for the incorporation of extra foreign elements in the curriculum is forcing Small World to reconsider its boundaries.
[Copyright of Asia Pacific Business Review is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602380500135901]

After World War II the Singapore government, wishing to blend the island's several ethnic communities into a national whole, endeavored to replace Chinese schools, which imparted students with cultural-linguistic traits sharply different from those promoted in other schools. This policy, nevertheless, elicited tough resistance from Singapore's ethnic Chinese population. The government, finally, was forced to recognize Chinese schools as a discrete and integral section within the educational system. This approach reduced the tension between the government and the Chinese masses. However, it allowed Chinese schools continue to produce social fragmentation and slowed state formation. In contrast, although the government of Hong Kong had never aimed to replace Chinese schools, many of its policies unintentionally Sinicized non-Chinese schools and blurred the cultural distinctiveness of Chinese institutions; this, consequently, prevented Chinese schools from becoming a catalyst of social disintegration and helped consolidate state domination. This study suggests the connection between state formation and the educational system is reciprocal and interactive. It also urges scholars to pay more attention to the unintended consequences of state intervention when examining state formation and education.
[Copyright of International Studies in Sociology of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09620210701433761]

In the process of examining the recent and, especially, post-Handover, contributions that the Hong Kong Education Commission (EC) has made to policy concerning Continuing Education (CE) in the Special Administrative Region, the authors of this article were drawn into discussion of three underlying issues. These include the issue of conceptual clarity with regard to 'continuing education' and the operational implications of the local adoption of the fashionable worldwide mantra of 'lifelong learning'. They necessarily become involved in the need to distinguish between policy rhetoric, often employed in the form of Confucian-like exhortation, and practical applications of specific recommendations. They consider the extent to which the new polices have been implemented. While their analysis of policy process is, in an important sense, Hong Kong specific, it raises questions of international interest and concern, and this is probably most clearly manifested in the case study they offer of different arguments and proposals about the funding of CE.
[Copyright of Studies in Continuing Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0158037032000131529]

The debates I explore in this article were prompted by conversations I had with a Government Education Inspector who accompanied me on a visit to a primary school and participated in a series of workshops I organised while I was on a fellowship at Hong Kong University. May Lee's challenge to me that a non-selective education system was a luxury only the First World could afford provoked me into acknowledging a whole new dimension for our discussions of the function of segregated education for groups excluded from the mainstream. I begin by introducing the education system in Hong Kong as it was in the early 1990s. Then I go on, and discuss the activities and conversations I shared with May Lee. Patterns of inclusion and exclusion in Hong Kong reflect a deeply-respected concept of a `good school'; special schools and classes are the only settings for the provision of additional learning support. I discuss examples of each. Finally, I discuss inclusion in education in the context of a developing country, drawing on the work of Chinese, Indian and Western writers to assess May Lee's claim. Opinion is divided. I conclude that the force of an international rhetoric of inclusion obscures the continuing operation of a cultural commitment to selection.
[Copyright of Disability & Society is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599826948 ]