「硬」政策是以法令為根據，具有法律約束力的實施政策，「軟」政策則源於國際法律和有關歐洲工會的政治分析，它沒有法令的約束力或硬性的規條，主要是經由遊說、溝通、指引、資源分享、會議等等的方式，吸引實施者採納有關的政策。由於現代社會的不斷改變，「硬」政策在推行時有很大的局限，而「軟」政策就填補了這空間，為政府的決策帶來了不同的施政效果。本文就以香港課程改革為例，從教師的層面與角度探討課程的「軟」和「硬」政策實施。自2000年的課程改革以來，香港政府採納了「軟」政策來推行新課程，以實質可觀的資源，提供各種人力、物力讓學校採用，期望協助學校實施各種校本革新。表面上，「軟」政策應該受到教師的歡迎，但事實上，教師對「軟」政策所提供的支援並不樂觀，他們所理解的「軟」政策，其實和「硬」政策只是一線之差而已。
[Copyright © 2008 高等教育文化事業有限公司.]

在推行教育改革的環境中，學校改善是一個經常被討論的課題；本文旨在分享一所學校優化行政的歷程。這所學校因應「外評報告」的建議，制定了提昇中層人員為發展策略之一；該校透過參與香港初等教育研究學會主辦的「優化小學學校行政」計劃，引入專業支援，進行適切的校本培訓及以行動學習方法去檢視學校的行政和溝通。小組同工在過程中以改善校務的學習心態，提高了對學校的歸屬感和得到專業成長。本文以敘事方式去回顧這個行動學習的經歷，並透過整理相關文獻、計劃資料和深度訪談，讓讀者了解個案的實踐知識。
[© The Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre 2012.]

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.]

Several education hubs have emerged in Asia and the Middle East in recent years with a specific focus on cross-border higher education. Through considerable efforts in policy planning and generous funding, these hubs aim to transform a country or city into an eminent destination for education, research, and training. The inherent design of these hubs raises many questions about higher education's contribution to international relations as large numbers of local and foreign actors congregate. Specifically, some education hubs are leveraging cultural heritage and colonial legacy as an instrument of soft power by emphasising shared cultural identities and values. By engaging in cultural diplomacy, education hubs seek to exert influence on the international stage. However, assumptions about shared identities and values as well as the prevailing political climate of the local society present serious challenges for policy implementation. Alternatively, an education hub can also engage with international actors based on an enduring faith in the venture of science to propel the knowledge economy - another kind of norm that underpins soft power. This paper compares Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong as education hubs that engage in soft power and cultural diplomacy.
[Copyright of Comparative Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2015.1037551]