It is important for us to be on the same page from the outset of our discourse. Thus, I will make clear who and what are included in this chapter. The primary subsets of the population included in this discourse of education for all in Hong Kong are school-age children (up to the completion of secondary education) with disabilities and persons from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Hong Kong’s journey is closely tied to its historical and political past as a British colony. As such, this chapter begins with an examination and analysis of Hong Kong’s policy development in education as a British colony and examines legislation and policies toward education equity for the above subgroups of the population before July 1997. This is followed by a critical review and analysis of the change after the handover of sovereignty to the Chinese government when the implementation of the inclusive education policy officially began. The persistent challenges caused by the elite-oriented education system and social demands in Hong Kong’s struggle toward education for all permeate the discourse. Finally, this chapter stresses the importance of understanding issues regarding difficulties in distinguishing and assessing certain disabilities (e.g. language-related disabilities) from difficulties due to cultural and linguistic diversity. This would aid the move toward education equity in Hong Kong, a vital and multicultural gateway to China, Asia, and beyond (Hong Kong Government, Brand Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://www.brandhk.gov.hk/en/#/en/about/development/launch.html, 2014a). Copyright © 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

Early childhood education in Hong Kong has experienced drastic changes since 1982 following the criticism made by the Llewellyn visiting panel and a western style play-based curriculum was recommended. The Curriculum Development Council in 2006 stated that curriculum development is a continuing process of renewals that should devetail with the development of education system globally. The curriculum renewal, however, has been based on continuous fostering the play-based approach of the 1980s, despite that in the Western world, there have been calls for a reversion to the traditional teacher-centered education paradigm in recent years. Is there a double standard in designing curriculum in this respect? Copyright © 2018 CESHK.

The University of Hong Kong (HKU), following its establishment in 1911, has assumed the mission of bridging British and Chinese cultures, to prepare European and Chinese elite youth for political and other professional careers, and thus to improve Britain's cultural influence in competition with other western powers with regard to China. Dominated by its colonial character and pragmatic orientation, Chinese education at HKU was confined to no more than a supplementary subject at the initial stage. However, colonial crisis and cultural changes in the 1920s and 1930s, together with the endeavours of local cultural and commercial elites, made advanced Chinese education at HKU necessary and possible, and led to an independent unit for Chinese education and Chinese studies being established and strengthened. Organisational and curricular reforms before the outbreak of the Pacific War in 1941 led to further modernisation and solidified the structure of Chinese education at this university, laying the essential foundation for its post-war recovery and development. The evolution of Chinese education at HKU demonstrated well the subtle entanglements of education, culture and politics in a colonial context, through which coexistence and tensions between tradition and modernity, between China and the West, and between the imperial and republican intellectuals were also vividly revealed.
[Copyright of History of Education is the property of Routledge.]

Originally, the capitalist society in Hong Kong under communism is exceptional, but the “one country, two system” formula was a makeshift stratagem by the Communist Chinese government. The twenty years of history witnessed the tension of ruling and policy implementation. Education policy in political conflicts is, of course, the other arena in the Hong Kong context which reveals competitions, controversies and struggles among the cultural hegemonic engineering. This paper can contribute to enigmatic understanding and interpretation of generating educational reform and implementing education policy in this twenty years history of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
[Copyright © 2017 Institute of China and Asia-Pacific Studies, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan.]