This paper examines the links between linguistic capital, cultural capital, linguistic imperialism and the use of English as the medium of instruction (MOI) in Hong Kong. It suggests that the notion of linguistic imperialism in Hong Kong, whilst useful for analysing practices in the early days of the colonial period, is superseded by the notion of linguistic capital, though neither presents a complete analysis of the MOI issue in Hong Kong. The paper suggests that a new version of linguistic imperialism in Hong Kong may be evidenced in examining the rise of Chinese-medium education and the spread of Putonghua in Hong Kong schools.
[Copyright of Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434630008666418]

Leadership style has always been a controversial topic in educational administration and management. Following the recommendation of the Education Commission to introduce school-based management (SBM) into Hong Kong schools in the early 1990s, discussions about the kind of leadership style that is appropriate for SBM schools have never ceased. The government holds a continuing belief that SBM schools work better if they are managed by "better" principals, and emphasises the value of "transformational leadership." However, this paper articulates the limitations of that leadership style and argues for complementing it with "educational leadership," which purports that principals have an obligation to learn with others about ways of promoting student learning. Secondly, the staff should also be encouraged and helped to carry out certain leadership functions. These arguments are supported by references to the most relevant literature. The discussion is useful to school principals, leaders, and teachers by offering them a better understanding of how to facilitate the implementation of SBM.
[Copyright of Asia Pacific Journal of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188790600937292]

The Education Department of Hong Kong issued the Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools in October 1997. The policy stipulates that the use of Chinese as the medium of instruction in all but English language and literature subjects in secondary schools will be enforced with effect from September 1998. This signals a change in language policy in post-1997 Hong Kong, from bilingual to monolingual education. Traditionally English medium instruction has been more popular than Chinese medium instruction in Hong Kong secondary schools. Despite the Hong Kong government's recent efforts to promote Chinese medium education, the number of Chinese-medium schools was small before the handover. This is a documentary study investigating changes in Hong Kong government's medium of instruction policy amid political, economic and sociolinguistic changes in the last three decades. The study also explores some possible impact of the Chinese medium instruction policy proposed in the wake of change of sovereignty on English language learning. I will critique this new policy and make recommendations pertaining to the direction of Hong Kong's language education. The theoretical underpinning of the study is bilingualism and bilingual education. The model I propose will provide new insights for language teachers, language planners and policy makers.
[Copyright of International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670059908667684]