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]

The twin policy domains of accountability and autonomy have featured in recent education reforms in many countries, signalling new relationships between governments and educational institutions. Despite different national and localised contexts, a number of common 'global' trends have been identified. However, simultaneously context-specific differences are also evident. For us, the concept of 'globalisation', when it implies policy homogenisation, is too blunt an instrument to critically analyse these major reforms. We would argue that there are still too few studies on globalisation processes grounded in detailed examinations of particular historical times and geographical spaces. Our research is located within the tensions between global commonalities and localised differences.
This paper reports research on changing accountability and autonomy in higher education in three 'Asian' countries. Empirical data has been collected in the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Singapore in an attempt to begin to redress a 'Western' hegemony in such research. Within each national context two different types of universities became case study sites for the analysis of both commonalities and differences in accountability and autonomy policies and practices. The current paper focuses in particular on the conceptual and methodological framings of the research and presents some preliminary findings.
[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]

Higher education systems are in a constant state of change nearly everywhere. In particular, the changes in the socio-economic context caused by the impact of globalisation have inevitably led to changes to the university sector. Since capitalism has generated new global infrastructures that information technology has played an increasingly important role in the global economy, the popularity and prominence of information technology has unquestionably changed the nature of knowledge, and is currently restructuring higher education, research and learning. It is in such a wider policy context that an increasing number of institutions of higher learning are being established with new missions and innovative configurations of training, serving populations that previously had little access to higher education. Apart from accommodating a larger number of students, higher education institutions are required to improve their administrative efficiency and accountability in response to the demands of different stakeholders like government, business, industry, and labour organisations, students and parents as well. The present paper reflects upon the impacts of globalisation on national policy, with particular reference to examine how the higher education sector in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China has been transformed under the increasingly popular / global tide of marketisation and decentralisation. There are a lot of changes in common between the higher education sector in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China and that of elsewhere, which suggests that higher education developments in these societies have been affected by the similar trends of globalisation. But before we jump to this conclusion, maybe we should also bear in mind an alternative hypothesis that local factors are crucial and determining factors for changes. More specifically, this paper sets out in this wider policy context to compare and contrast the similarities and differences in terms of the copying strategies