Increasingly, there is advocacy for parents to be included in partnership roles with schools. Indeed, the term 'partnership' seems to have acquired the connotation of an ideal form of parent-school relationship. This paper argues that the notion of partnership, with its accompanying suggestion of equality as a framework for the complementary sharing of responsibilities, is problematical. Based on the findings from an in-depth study of teacher leadership in three Hong Kong schools that involved as participants parents, teachers, and students, it is proposed that a more reasonable understanding of this relationship is that of a professional and client association, where both parents and teachers are aware of their responsibilities and that these responsibilities are at once both demarcated and shared according to that understanding. At the same time there is also a need for teachers and parents to concentrate on building more concrete links for consistent and regular teacherVparent communication, as significant student learning now takes place informally at home, via the Internet.
[Copyright of Teaching Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210601151573]

Governments around the world have adopted school self-evaluation as an essential corollary to the local management of schools. Typically this has been accompanied by prescribed frameworks, indicators and scoring systems, tending to promote a form of ritual self-inspection rather than an ongoing and dynamic process of self-evaluation. It is argued that these have derived more from an accountability imperative than an improvement motive and as such have tended to disempower rather than empower schools. This article examines the inherent tensions between external accountability and internally driven school improvement. The example of Hong Kong's new relationship with schools is used to illustrate how those issues play out in the implementation of large-scale reform, drawing parallels and contrasts with Ofsted's New Relationship with Schools in England. The responsiveness of Hong Kong's Education Development Bureau to evidence from independent research carries lessons for other countries in which such evidence has been ignored or marginalised by policy-makers. It is, in many respects, an exemplary case study of change management.
[Copyright of School Leadership & Management is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632430802292332]

This article examines the evolution of language-in-education policy in Hong Kong during the first six decades of British rule (1842-1902). In particular, it analyses the changing roles and status of the English and Chinese languages during this formative period in the development of the colony's education system. The textual and statistical data presented in the article provide a corrective to the claim that the British imposed English on their colonial subjects and in the process rode roughshod over the indigenous languages. The evidence suggests that Hong Kong's education system provided opportunities for native students to attend purely Chinese schools, purely English schools or mixed-medium schools. Although the British apparently attached more importance to English teaching, they were generally at pains to emphasise that English should not be studied at the expense of Chinese. The findings indicate that language policy (be it Chinese or English in orientation) was always tied in some way to Britain's political and economic interests in the region.
[Copyright of Journal of Educational Administration and History is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220620600984214]