2018年12月3日,"高校內部治理體系創新的理論與實踐研究"課題組對香港科技大學高層領導和高教研究專家進行了訪談。通過訪談發現:創校者的民族情懷和理想主義為香港科技大學種下了注重"人文價值"的基因;理性統率感性、剛性服務人性是香港科技大學治理之魂;分權共治、治理體系服務於目標定位是香港科技大學治理之形,其實質都是服務於學者的學術自由、服務於"人"的價值;競爭帶來質量和效益是香港科技大學治理之要。以人文價值為取向,不失為當下"雙一流"大學建設的一種借鑒。

大學內部治理體系是決定大學治校育人效率的重要因素。考察和探究香港科技大學的治理架構及制度規範與建設一流大學之間的關係,發現其內部治理體系注重制度設計、強調共同治理、尊重專業治理、校院分權共治等特點對其成為一流大學功不可沒。作為有著卓越聲譽的"年輕大學"的典型代表,香港科技大學的內部治理經驗對內地一流大學建設高校具有重要的啟示意義。

香港在建設世界一流大學的過程中,體現出系統發展和高校自覺性特征。通過採取擇優發展的重點大學和重點學科計劃,在科研審核、教學質量審核和管理審核三重質量保障體系下,推動大學在大學自治、學術自由、多元籌資、提升科研與教學等多方面自覺發展。在追求世界一流大學進程中,也需要面對教學地位漂移、校園國際化水平不夠和大學合拼挑戰等議題。

香港高等教育分類發展基本戰略的核心思想是高等學校錯位發展、多元合作。教資會資助的香港院校已形成各自核心競爭力,共同構建了結構合理、特色有序的高等教育體系。香港高等教育分類發展戰略的頂層設計和院校實踐分析發現:以特色辦學促進高等教育多元發展,以多元合作提高高等教育資源使用效率,服務本土基礎上追求國際卓越的發展理念,政府宏觀引導和院校自主發展相結合的管控機制,是香港高等教育分類發展戰略運行的基本特征。

區域性高校智庫以區域發展為導向,以研究型高校為依托,以服務決策為宗旨。粵港澳大灣區的區域性高校智庫有著良好的發展基礎:智庫體系初具規模,治理結構多樣,服務形式多元,"灣區智庫"快速增長。由於粵港澳政策咨詢市場尚未實現一體化,三地高校智庫在組織建設、項目申報、數據共享、人員流動、成果轉化與評價方面缺乏協同。未來應確立協同共治理念,以機制創新促進灣區高校智庫協同發展:"高校--智庫--政府"聯動,建立灣區高校聯合智庫、灣區智庫研究基金、灣區聯合數據庫,健全人員流動機制,促進成果轉化與評價機制一體化。

This article presents a comparative analysis of national policies, implementation strategies, and regional and global aspirations to establish education hubs in Hong Kong and South Korea. The authors argue that existing definitions of education hubs do not yet sufficiently consider whether a hub's orientation is global or regional and how its funding sources direct its mission and vision. The authors first review current definitions of education hubs and then use Ranga and Etzkowitz's Triple Helix conceptual framework to analyze Hong Kong and South Korea's national policies and their hubs' distinct vision, goals, strategies, rationales, and major stakeholders. The article concludes with an updated definition for education hubs which is inclusive of purpose, mission, role in the knowledge economy, and relationships between key stakeholders, including government, higher education institutions, and industry. This research identifies key indicators of a successful hub and provides additional necessary insights for policy makers working to develop future education hubs.
[Copyright of Industry and Higher Education is the property of SAGE Publications.]

Since the mid-1990s, important education policy changes, such as the growth of Direct Subsidy Scheme (DSS) schools and the reform of the medium of instruction (MOI) policy, have been made in Hong Kong. Little is known about their impact on school segregation and educational inequality. We address this issue using six successive cycles of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study data. We found evidence for rising levels of secondary school segregation in terms of family socio-economic status and mathematics achievement from 1995 to 2011, whereas segregation declined from 2011 to 2015. We speculate that the salience of the MOI policy in expediting the segregating tendencies of the DSS sector might explain a growing magnitude of the effect of family socio-economic status on academic achievement between 1995 and 2011, and the reversed direction of such trends between 2011 and 2015. Implications are discussed.
[Copyright of British Journal of Sociology of Education is the property of Routledge.]

書院制度是近些年來我國內地高等教育的新生事物,是高校應對經濟、社會變化對高等教育人才培養模式變革積極探尋的產物。現代書院制度不是我國古代書院的簡單復現,也不是西方大學住宿學院制模式的直接照搬,而是依托本土特色,創造性地融合古代書院教育精髓與西方大學住宿學院制度特色,為適應現代社會對一流人才的需求所形成的新型書院教育管理制度。由於內地高校書院制度起步較晚、經驗尚淺,在發展的過程中問題頻出,因此對現代書院制度進行研究不僅具有重要的理論價值,而且具有較強的現實意義。香港中文大學書院制度在歷經半個多世紀發展後,目前已形成穩定的制度體系、運行模式與文化特色,其培養的人才深受行業和僱主的好評。面對香港中文大學書院制度的成功,我們不禁要追問,香港中文大學書院制度是如何產生和發展的?在經過半個多世紀的歷史演進之後,其發展現狀如何?有哪些獨特之處?對剛剛起步且問題頻出的內地書院制度有哪些可借鑒之處?本研究綜合運用文獻研究、歷史研究、比較研究和個案研究等多種研究方法,系統、深入探究香港中文大學書院制度的歷史演進與現實狀況,提煉香港中文大學書院制度的主要特點;然後結合我國內地高校書院制度存在的問題,為我國內地高校書院制度的優化提供可資借鑒的啟迪。本研究除緒論和結語外,主要分四個部分展開論述。第一部分是香港中文大學書院制度的歷史演進。該部分從歷史的維度對香港中文大學書院制度展開梳理,將香港中文大學書院制度的歷史演進分為“初步籌建期”、“書院改制期”、“緩慢發展期”、“快速發展期”四個時期,從歷史的向度追溯香港中文大學書院制度的流變,展現香港中文大學書院制度演進的獨特圖景,探尋香港中文大學書院制度演進邏輯和基本規律。第二部分是香港中文大學書院制度的現實狀況。該部分主要從書院育人理念、育人內容、育人方式和育人機制四個方面對香港中文大學書院制度的現實狀況進行解讀,勾勒香港中文大學書院制度的基本特徵,闡明香港中文大學書院制度的運作機制。第三部分是香港中文大學書院制度的主要特點。該部分通過對香港中文大學書院制度歷史演進與現實狀況的研究,總結和歸納香港中文大學書院制度的主要特點。香港中文大學書院制度主要特點包括中西合璧:匯古今通中西造就獨特模式;以生為本:以書院學生全面發展為書院旨歸;三位一體:教育、管理與服務相融相依;博文約禮:以文化內涵為書院價值凝練。第四部分是香港中文大學書院制度對內地高校書院制度的啟示。該部分首先分析我國內地高校書院制度建設現狀,然後結合我國內地高校書院制度存在的問題,提供有益啟示。對內地高校書院制度的啟示主要包括理清書院與學院的關係,造就書院持久活力;改善書院導師評價機制,塑造和諧師生關係;融教育、管理與服務三位一體;積澱書院文化特色,凝練書院文化內核。

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to systematically analyze the neoliberal challenges and problems facing public schools in the particular Hong Kong context.Design/methodology/approach: Based on a systematic and critical analysis on the history and socio-political context of Hong Kong's school policies and practice as well as the official documents and statistics, this paper examines the impacts of neoliberalism in four main aspects of school education in Hong Kong: school governance, accountability, privatization and government expenditure.Findings: Convergence, as well as deviation, on neoliberal globalization occurs in the particular Hong Kong context. School bureaucracy has irresistibly expanded. Policymakers have placed increasing emphasis on instrumentally evaluating schools while decentralizing, diversifying and privatizing education. School leadership has become focused solely on succeeding within those imposed performance management and metrics, pulling ahead of school competitions and prioritizing easily quantifiable and measurable tasks. Teachers have faced a potential threat from the loss of autonomy through the market logic and consumerist metrics. The rise of privatized education has further intensified school practices based on competitiveness and performativity. On the other hand, resource cutbacks and financial constraints – problems that are generally inflicted by neoliberal discourse – have rarely occurred in Hong Kong.Research limitations/implications: This study is part of concerted efforts in research that adopts the comparative and critical perspectives emerging from different social contexts to consider and flesh out how neoliberalism look across the school systems, how it challenges the systems differently, and how it evokes various responses from within the systems (Apple, 2001). Taken all the efforts together, a finely nuanced understanding of the trails of neoliberalism can help collectively re-discover school education as a social good