Search

The article presents the author's perspectives regarding academic freedom. The author is critical on the controversy in the Department of Education in Hong Kong, China which establishes a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the affair and suggested that the turbulent teachers be disciplined. He also investigated the Education Reform Act 1988 (ERA). Furthermore, the author suggests introducing a British Bill of Rights.

Governments around the world have adopted school self-evaluation as an essential corollary to the local management of schools. Typically this has been accompanied by prescribed frameworks, indicators and scoring systems, tending to promote a form of ritual self-inspection rather than an ongoing and dynamic process of self-evaluation. It is argued that these have derived more from an accountability imperative than an improvement motive and as such have tended to disempower rather than empower schools. This article examines the inherent tensions between external accountability and internally driven school improvement. The example of Hong Kong's new relationship with schools is used to illustrate how those issues play out in the implementation of large-scale reform, drawing parallels and contrasts with Ofsted's New Relationship with Schools in England. The responsiveness of Hong Kong's Education Development Bureau to evidence from independent research carries lessons for other countries in which such evidence has been ignored or marginalised by policy-makers. It is, in many respects, an exemplary case study of change management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In September 1997, shortly after China resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong, the Education Department announced a policy which was widely seen as a restoration of 'mother-tongue education', but which, in reality, was an elitist language selection policy. This policy, which provided for the selection of the best primary school graduates for monolingual education in English, was designed to be a cost-effective way of training in English skills for those who had the economic and cultural capital to benefit from it. Meanwhile, the majority of students were barred from sufficient exposure to English, the language of power and wealth. In this paper, I shall show that this policy draws on a strong utilitarian discourse about the centrality of English for the economic survival of Hong Kong, which was engineered by business interests on the eve of the changeover in 1997, and which helped perpetuate a form of linguistic imperialism. Meanwhile, academics whose research was used to legitimize the policy, failed to problematize dominant language ideologies that have been used to justify pedagogically unsound practices and an inequitable language streaming policy. Through documenting the voices of individual educators, I am able to delineate counter-discourses which, albeit weak and isolated, nevertheless manifested much broader educational concerns than the narrow utilitarianism and the unquestioned privileging of the learning of English skills that underlay the current policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]