香港的中學中國歷史教科書具有內容全面、體系完整、敘事客觀、持論平實、製作精美等諸多優點，但也有一些值得完善、改進和提高的地方。如沿用「女禍」這類傳統的以男性為中心的概念來形容武則天等女性統治者對朝政的參預和管理，用貶義性的詞匯稱呼歷史上的周邊鄰國和民族。但最突出的，是本文作者所認為的內容方面略顯陳舊，對中外史學界的新的研究成果吸收不夠。本文以一個在香港中學中史教科書廣泛流行然而卻不盡正確的說法，即「元朝各級官府的高級官吏，必須由蒙古人或色目人擔任，漢人最多只能做到副職」，為分析對象，從史學角度加以辯駁，期以說明香港的中學中國歷史教科書實有吸收新的研究成果之必要。

柳存仁 (1917- ) 學識淵博，被譽為 “會走路的百科全書”，他曾經任教香港羅富國師範學院 (羅師)，任職期間，於1960年出版《中國歷史教學法略論》一書。該書是一代學人暢論中國歷史教學法的專著，上世紀五六十年代，在香港出版的這方面的著述不多，書中引用了很多當時羅師學生編寫的中國歷史教案，柳氏對這些教案，都能詳加分析，我們可以從中了解半世紀前，香港師範教育有關中史教師培訓的情況。

香港政府近年大力推動教育改革，目的在培養更具能力、更全面發展的人才，使在瞬息萬變的社會增強個人競爭力，維持整體社會經濟發展和進步。而人才以生命為本，如何使每個人都有充實的生活，便正是生命教育的目的。本文嘗試從介紹生命教育的歷史和特質入手，探討生命教育與教育改革的配合。 生命教育的特質是以人為本的價值活動，能帶領學生以不同角度思考人生，它以全人教育為宗旨，內容豐富、涵蓋面廣闊，對因社會急速發展、政治制度改變和社會失範而導致的種種青少年問題如：自殺、濫藥、欺凌、違規逾軌及自尊感低落等具有撥亂反正和正本清源的作用。 生命教育的目的在協助學生認識生命、肯定生命、愛惜尊重生命、進而掌握生命，並與孕育生命的自然環境和諧共存，尋求人類與宇宙的脈絡關係，使達到全人發展。 本文建議前綫老師嘗試以生命教育為核心，組織不同範疇 (環境、智、德、群、體、美、靈和情) 的教育活動，並勾劃實踐的具體架構，供教育工作者討論。

道德教育簡稱「德育」，是五育之首，其在教育的重要性是不言而喻的。正如台灣曾昭旭 (1987) 指出在中國文化性格或說人文傳統的型塑歷程中，德育至今仍是被放在教育的首要目標，試問有哪一個香港教師會否定學校推行道德教育的重要性呢！ 然而，自從1981年本港教育署發表了一本有11頁的學校德育指引後，本港教育當局對德育的重要性好像不再重視了，在教署轄下的18個教學及資源中心裡，並沒有完全德育而設的部門。85年的公民教育指引及86年的性教育指引，均已完成修定，但卻未有對道德教育指引作出修定，是不是香港學校不再需要加強道德教育呢、香港中小學究竟有沒有推行道德教育呢？而道德教育在本港學校推行的情況又是怎樣的呢？ 為了使本港教育界對學校道德教育的情況有所了解，教聯會於97年9月開展了一個問卷調查，以了解各中小學推行道德教育的形式、時間和資源等情況，並讓各校就本港道德教育的推行提出意見和建議，以便本港特區教育當局能就學校道德教育的推行作出檢討，以確保本港教育能使下一代具備良好的品德。

不少關心兒童心靈教育的學者提倡以生命教育的方法去加強兒童的品德和價值教育；在香港課程發展處張永雄總課程發展主任曾提出以「認識生命、愛惜生命、尊重生命和探索生命」四個學習層次去培育學生的靈性教育。為了了解香港和深圳小學在推行生命教育的異同，本文將用一個試驗性的小型問卷，了解兩地小學師生看生命價值的看法；加上相關文獻和兩地小學生命教育的質性訪談個案資料，嘗試勾劃不同的社會制度和文化中，港深兩地小學生命教育的情況，並就兩地兒童心靈教育的發展作出討論、分析和建議。

The paper reports the results of a comparative study of the decision making process undertaken by students in Hong Kong and Guangzhou, China about a socio-scientific issue affecting both places.

Hong Kong people never gained autonomy and they were the ruled. What the government intended to educate people always showed the way and the trend of the officials wanted to govern their citizens or subjects. Govern mentality of education policy indicated the intentional reasons of making required citizens through schooling. Basically, the de-colonization showed that the policy of domestication was implemented during the Hong Kong transition period where the government patronized and empowered the Hong Kong people gradually through human rights adopted and political democratization from 1984 to 1997. The intentions were quite obvious presented in policy documents and responded to the historical contexts.
[Copyright © 2014 Center for Promoting Ideas, USA.]

The civic education policy at the school level in Hong Kong had emerged before the Second World War, but the Hong Kong Education Department did not really implement this civic education policy. From the statist and colonial perspectives, this phenomenon was due to several factors, such as: (1) how the Hong Kong Government coped with the whole historical period and scenarios; (2) how it implemented the related policy; (3) whether civic education policy really became part of the government agendas; and (4) whether education did clarify some crucial historical questions. This paper wants to make certain about these questions. In fact, the Republic of China adopted modern schooling system which civic education was one of school subject. But it was not the education policy of the colonial Hong Kong Government. Historical reasons about this issue require reconstructive explanation. Under this study, the understanding of misinterpreted history can be amended correctly.
[Coryright © 2014 David Publishing Company.]

English teaching and learning has taken an interesting shift in Hong Kong schools with the implementation of the New Senior Secondary (NSS) curriculum under the 334' education reform. Situating the paper within the broader considerations of the intersection of Cultural Studies and English teaching, this paper examines the challenges and prospects of teaching the new Language Arts elective called Learning English through Popular Culture module. It is argued that while the module endeavours to connect and motivate Hong Kong students to learn English through popular culture materials, the official curriculum and schemes of work, however, narrowly articulate the teaching of popular culture texts conceived as text-types'. Such a formulaic approach to using popular culture in the classroom is limiting and locks students into a procedural way of thinking' and doing' popular cultural texts. The paper concludes by offering some ways forward that might deliver what is otherwise a revolutionary and innovative curriculum. Beyond the specific case of Hong Kong, the curriculum challenge discussed is instructive for other education systems and curriculum scholars looking to develop new pedagogies from the intersecting disciplines of Cultural Studies and English teaching.
[Copyright of Oxford Review of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1110130]