Using the case of Chinese schools in post-Second World War Hong Kong, this paper explores the unintended consequences of an incomplete hegemonic project. After World War II, anti-imperialist pressures and rising educational demands in the local setting propelled the colonial authorities to be more active in providing and funding Chinese schools. This development created a considerable number of vernacular institutions that were either directly state-run or generously government-financed. Nevertheless, this concession was circumscribed because the regime eschewed universal and compulsory education, and many Chinese schools remained private and unaided. Producing three different types of vernacular institutions, the state's partial incorporation of Chinese institutions unwittingly divided these schools and pre-empted them from forming a united, antagonistic identity. These findings urge us to examine carefully, when using Gramsci's concept of hegemony, the extent of compromise the powerful have actually conceded. They also hint that hegemony should not be conceived only as a conscious, conspiratorial project, for state practices occasioned by conjunctural forces may produce unintended consequences that have profound repercussions on political power.
[Copyright of British Journal of Sociology of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2012.674789]

This article discusses citizenship education, education policy and discourse to explore their relations with the exercise of power in society. Taking the case of 1990 and 1997 legislative debates on citizenship education policy in Hong Kong, it briefly surveys the substantive arguments favouring or opposing the retention of government controls over politics in schools. It then examines in more detail the discourses used by legislators which constitute students, teachers and the government. This discussion shows that not only does citizenship education represent a power relation between the state and citizens, with policy representative of the power of the state over educational workers, but also that the targets of policy are empowered and disempowered through the strategic use of discourse.
[Copyright of Discourse is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01596300600676144]

This article examines the evolution of language-in-education policy in Hong Kong during the first six decades of British rule (1842-1902). In particular, it analyses the changing roles and status of the English and Chinese languages during this formative period in the development of the colony's education system. The textual and statistical data presented in the article provide a corrective to the claim that the British imposed English on their colonial subjects and in the process rode roughshod over the indigenous languages. The evidence suggests that Hong Kong's education system provided opportunities for native students to attend purely Chinese schools, purely English schools or mixed-medium schools. Although the British apparently attached more importance to English teaching, they were generally at pains to emphasise that English should not be studied at the expense of Chinese. The findings indicate that language policy (be it Chinese or English in orientation) was always tied in some way to Britain's political and economic interests in the region.
[Copyright of Journal of Educational Administration and History is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220620600984214]