This paper describes the moves towards greater inclusion in the Hong Kong education system and the problems that have arisen from those moves. It then describes the introduction of an adapted version of the Index for Inclusion, called the Indicators for Inclusion in Hong Kong, in order to stimulate greater progress. As the adapted Hong Kong Indicators for Inclusion are developed in a unique education culture and based on a particular notion of inclusion, it may be of interest to international readers to see the impact of culture differences in shaping the Indicators. Further, the Hong Kong Indicators for Inclusion are connected with school self‐evaluation and performance standards. The interaction between inclusion and school evaluation will be explored. The paper questions the use of the indicator system to drive inclusion in Hong Kong and the assumptions regarding the capacity of schools for self‐review.
[Copyright of International Journal of Inclusive Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603110500430674]

The assumption that increased autonomy and responsibility at the school site-level will result in enhanced performance of schools is often problematic. Cheung and Cheng (1996) suggested that in order to ensure school effectiveness, self-management practices at the individual teacher, group, and school levels are necessary. This article reports the findings of a case study of multilevel self-management in 3 Hong Kong primary schools. It revealed that the practices of multilevel self-management were associated with enhanced school performance at multilevels. Further, teachers' self-management practices determined largely the success of the school's self-management and demonstrated significant influence on the practices of work groups and the school.
[Copyright of School Effectiveness and School Improvement is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/sesi.13.3.253.3428 ]

Kindergarten teachers in Hong Kong are blamed for not putting child-initiated learning theory into practice. Their competence is challenged. An earlier study ( Li, 2003 ) suggested that the professional development of kindergarten teachers was limited by their inability to extend thinking beyond their own personal concerns so that the needs of the children were not the major determinant of their classroom practice. It was argued that to confront and modify the teachers' personal beliefs the presence of models, action research and joint collaborative activity were the keys. This report was a follow-up study of a school-based project, providing opportunities for teachers to engage in collaborative investigation of school curriculum and of pedagogical innovations. In this study, the practice and belief of a group of around 60 teachers were tracked during their participation in the project and the merits of peer coaching, mentoring and collaborative teamwork were examined. Classroom observations and semi-structured interviews (40-60 minutes) were adopted as the main research procedure. Teaching records, videoed teaching episodes and feedback on project workshops were sources of data collected for triangulation. The findings of the study suggest that collegiality holds some promise for change in teachers' practice, though questions concerning the constancy of change are of concern.
[Copyright of International Journal of Early Years Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0966976042000225534]

The 'Teaching and Learning Quality Process Review' (TLQPR) recently completed in Hong Kong had an emphasis on education quality work. This paper analyses how, from the perspective of academic staff in one university in Hong Kong, the good intentions embedded in that idea are enhanced or subverted by the broader 'quality system' setting in which staff operate. A 'critical incident' survey suggested that useful changes would involve the following. First, focus on a 'lean' philosophy and an associated examination of the extent to which (essentially administrative) system requirements are 'adding value' to the fundamental aims of achieving quality in teaching and learning outcomes. Second, build adaptability into the system by giving staff the maximum flexibility to translate a minimal set of overall requirements into activities. Third, tolerate staff and groups who 'break rules' in rational and well-intended ways to optimise intended outcomes. Fourth, develop a culture of trust between staff and management.
[Copyright of Quality in Higher Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320500074899]