In recent years, both Singapore and Hong Kong have been ranked top in international education rankings. They are widely admired as high-performing education systems (HPES) and, not surprisingly, among the best education systems in the world. The success stories of Singapore and Hong Kong education have aroused widespread attention internationally among different stakeholders, such as policymakers, researchers and practitioners, to investigate if it is possible for their policies and practices to be learned and borrowed by other countries. In this article, we stress the importance of context in understanding policy phenomena and possibilities for policy transfer. The Singapore and Hong Kong education systems are facing critical issues such as the economization of education, educational disparities and the paradigm shift from meritocracy to parentocracy. How well they deal with these policy issues will determine if their present international standing continues into the future. This article provides a critical review of their education policies to explore how these policies can be refined and adjusted in order to cope with the challenges facing both education systems.
[Copyright of Infancia Y Aprendizaje is the property of Routledge Journals, Taylor & Francis Ltd. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2018.1434043]

The World School Leadership Study (WSLS) aims to gain empirical insights into functions, job models, practices, job satisfaction, and the professional health of school leaders on a global scale. The study builds on two pre-studies previously described. The WSLS is designed as a quantitative study on practices and resilience of school leaders. It will feature a strong international comparative component (the common core of the survey) but also allows national add-ons for country specific research needs and interests. At the moment, around 30 countries have decided to participate, including for instance Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, England, Spain, Cyprus, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, China, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Mexico, and the US. - There are two levels of coordination. The overall design is coordinated by a core research group in collaboration with members from all around the world that form the international research consortium. On the national level, the study is coordinated and conducted by national coordinators who ally with the respective national and regional bodies to guarantee high acceptance in the profession and, therefore, high response rates. National and regional bodies include governments, authorities as well as school leadership (and teacher) associations and unions, depending on context. Complementing the members of the international core research group and the national coordinators is an international advisory board, comprising well-known senior researchers from different continents. - The study will consist of several phases: • Decision on the focus of the research questions, development of hypothesis, operationalization; • Decision on national add-ons for country specific research needs and interests; • Thorough examination of the existing research instruments by an international panel of experts (this will be done with the aim to identify relevant factors of school leadership practices

University education has been thrust into the limelight by policymakers in Hong Kong and Singapore in recent years. Reforming university education thus has become a norm for both city-states. This article reviews and compares some recent developments in the university reforms in both city-states. It argues university education, as a public policy area, is not immune from the profound influence of such concepts as accountability, performativity, quality assurance and market relevance, which prevail in a wider policy context of public sector reforms and governance changes. Hong Kong and Singapore's university reforms are similarly extensive, ranging from the admission mechanisms through to the governance and funding systems. This article has four main sections. The first sketches a paradigm shift in the policymaking process and the changing state-university relationships in the age of globalization. The second reviews and compares some recent developments of the university reforms in both city-states. The third turns to assess the impacts of the reforms on university stakeholders. The final section is the conclusion.
[Copyright of Higher Education Research & Development is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436032000083625]