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.

A number of East Asian education systems (e.g. Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Shanghai, Singapore and Taiwan) have gained international prominence over the years, due to their rapid climbs to top positions in international tests such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). For example, Hong Kong was placed 17th in PIRLS reading literacy, and Singapore ranked 15th in 2001, but within 5 years, they garnered 2nd and 4th places in 2006, respectively. In the 2015 PISA results, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taipei, Japan and Beijing-Shanghai-Jiangsu-Guangzhou (B-S-J-G), China, were top achievers (OECD, Report on PISA 2015: results in focus. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2016).The sterling report cards of these East Asian systems, combined with the declining performance of western systems such as those of the United Kingdom and the United States, have led the West to a “look East” drive for inspiration. Whether it be scholarly publications or media articles, much literature has been generated on the “success” of education in East Asia, which has become “the new ‘poster boy’ in the global discourse of education policy borrowing” (You and Morris, Compare 46(6), 2016, p. 883).Increasingly, a good education system is considered one that not only produces high achievements but is also equitable in terms of the distribution of its success across the system and its student population. Perhaps a more nuanced understanding of these East Asian education systems could be facilitated if we could examine them considering both equity and quality issues, since the pursuit of each often affects the other. The chapters in this book illustrate that excellence and equity are not independent and separate but can be paradoxically intertwined. Copyright © 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.