由於地緣相近、經濟相依、文化相通,粵港澳地區高等教育的交流與合作從未間斷。改革開放以來,粵港澳高等教育合作歷經以人才培養為抓手的初步探索階段、以政策保障為動力的廣泛發展階段和以機制創新為抓手的深化拓展階段。不過,粵港澳高等教育合作仍面臨國家政策缺失、價值觀念分歧、管理體制差異的障礙。基於建設粵港澳大灣區的現實背景,未來需要考慮在高等教育政策制度和體制機制上有所突破,比如建立粵港澳高等教育特區、設立粵港澳高等教育協作委員會、探索多層次合作平台。

基於史料的整理及分析,文章將20世紀香港高校的入學考試制度劃分為三大階段:第一階段為1913-1951年,香港教育司署及高校僅為英文中學畢業生辦理升學考試;第二階段為1952-1977年,香港教育司署及高校開始為香港中文中學畢業生辦理升學考試;第三階段為1978年以後,香港考評局統一辦理不同類型入學考試。三大階段的演進彰顯了開放融合、邊際瓦解、效率提升、迭代進步、廣泛對接的鮮明特征,且與教育關系規律呼應契合。

The dynamic of how civic education is framed during turbulent periods is illuminated through analysis of three Hong Kong official civic education curriculum guidelines (1985, 1996, 2012). Guidelines are publicly available, officially sanctioned statements of purpose that have particular relevance for education professionals and are used around the world to characterize educational initiatives. Our focus is on guidelines written during periods in which there was colonial hegemony by the United Kingdom (1985), an attempt to promote liberal democracy by the Hong Kongese (1996), and an assertion of Chinese nationalism (2012). We argue that guidelines about civic education are similar across these times of political turbulence. There are shifts in the content of the guidelines, but fundamental differences are not made explicit. The documents are not aligned with a theoretical framework of colonialism, liberal democracy, or Chinese nationalism, but rather, they are pragmatically oriented. The guidelines are signifiers of attempts to achieve normative stability. Copyright © 2019 College and University Faculty Assembly of National Council for the Social Studies.

The relationship between history education and political education in Asian societies is an underexplored topic. Politics have deeply shaped the development of history education in Hong Kong, as in many other societies around the world. Hong Kong history education reforms have been criticized for providing a new form of national political education. This study examines how politic education can be found in the Hong Kong history curriculum as 'latent content'. To do so, it provides a qualitative content analysis of all textual data used in 'Chinese history' and 'history' textbooks in secondary schools in Hong Kong which discuss or portray political content, focusing particularly on the themes of identity shaping and assimilation. Before focusing on the Hong Kong situation, this paper first explores how history education is a political topic in general. Then Hong Kong's complicated political legacy is described in relation to one of the unique features of history education there: the concurrence of two subjects, 'history' and 'Chinese history'. Current debates about the reform of history education in Hong Kong and the limitations of current history education in Hong Kong are examined in the next part, using data from textbooks. Our analysis shows that 1) national identity is prioritized over local identity in the textbooks, and 2) the textbooks mainly reflect a Mainland-based majority perspective and justify assimilation in history, resulting in a lack of recognition of the many different minority groups of Mainland China, of which Hong Kong people may see themselves as part. Based on the analysis, we argue that history education in Hong Kong provides a narrow political education that can impede some crucial education goals in Hong Kong.
[Copyright of Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook is the property of Japanese Educational Research Association.]

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.