Following initiations in educational reform that began in the 1990s, Hong Kong continues to experience considerable pressure for educational reform. On the surface many of these initiatives parallel reform policies/movements in Asia and indeed, globally. The success of any reform is dependent on how it is contextualised prior to and at implementation. In this article, an exploration is made into how reforms in four particular sareas, namely: professional development of principals, higher education, English language standards, and inclusion of students with learning difficulties have been conceived, contextualised and managed in Hong Kong, as it moves gradually toward increased adoption of education reforms. These areas are linked in that each describes and critiques contextualization with reference to areas such as accountability, co-operation and professional control.
[Copyright of Education Policy Analysis Archives is the property of College of Education, Arizona State University.
Access via Directory of Open Access Journals: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/]

This article investigates the use of metaphors for education in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region's (SAR) educational reform proposals by analysis of the government's Review of Education System Reform Proposals-Consultation Document (hereafter referred to as the Consultation Document; May 2000). It discovers six or seven major metaphorical schemata for education: commodity acquisition, mechanism, building construction, a path or journey of exploration, growth and nurture, with a subschema of catering. The reforms are intended to encourage internal motivation in students that will lead to their creating knowledge and to their all-round development, and the metaphorical schemata are evaluated in terms of whether they tend to reinforce or undermine these goals. Growth/nurture and journey of exploration tend to reinforce the goals of the reforms, building construction and paths seem to be neutral or ambiguous, whereas commodity acquisition, mechanism, and catering would appear to undermine them. The article also considers the ways in which metaphorical interactions such as multivalency and literalization can lead to confused thinking and argument.
[Copyright of Metaphor & Symbol is the property of Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1704_2 ]