Search results1 – 7 of 7
Using data from the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment, we examined determinants of children’s participation in highbrow cultural activities and its…
Using data from the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment, we examined determinants of children’s participation in highbrow cultural activities and its relationship with academic achievement in Hong Kong. We found that family socioeconomic status (SES) and home possessions related to high-status culture were important determinants of children’s participation in highbrow cultural activities. Yet, we found no significant relationship between children’s participation in highbrow cultural activities and academic achievement when controlling for other variables. We highlighted several characteristics of Hong Kong society and its educational system, including the British colonial experience, extreme focus on test preparation, and extensive shadow education, all of which may combine to explain the role of cultural resources in this East Asian society.
Immigrant children's educational assimilation has been a concern to policymakers in the former British colony of Hong Kong, which has received continuous immigration from…
Immigrant children's educational assimilation has been a concern to policymakers in the former British colony of Hong Kong, which has received continuous immigration from Mainland China. This chapter examines the academic progress of Mainland Chinese immigrant students in Hong Kong's junior secondary schools from Form 1 (7th grade) to Form 3 (9th grade). Our database is the Medium of Instruction Longitudinal Survey (MOILS) that tracks a cohort of junior secondary students in 1999–2000 from a representative sample of all Hong Kong secondary schools. We find that Mainland students start out in Form 1 at a higher level of achievement than do native Hong Kong students in all academic subjects except the English language. They attain greater subsequent achievement gains than do native students in most subjects. Even though they do not catch up with native students in the English language, they narrow the nativity gap over time. Mainland students’ high performance cannot be explained by their low socioeconomic backgrounds, or the poor- and low-achieving schools they attend. School type and age moderate the nativity-achievement relationship. Schools with low-ability students are more effective than are schools with higher-ability students in promoting Mainland students’ achievement. Older Mainland students show greater academic progress than do younger students regardless of nativity. The implications of these Hong Kong results for the United States and international studies on immigrant children's academic assimilation are discussed.
This chapter discusses the social mobility and the political consequences of three education events in Hong Kong: the extension of free and compulsory schooling in 1978…
This chapter discusses the social mobility and the political consequences of three education events in Hong Kong: the extension of free and compulsory schooling in 1978, the construction of universities after the Tiananmen repression amid popular unrest, and the creation of two-year degree programs after Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region. The chapter shows the repercussions of these events for civil society organizations and political parties. The chapter first reviews the historical context for state-society relations created by the current Special Administrative Region and the former British Crown Colony. It presents two alternative perspectives on the impact of higher education for civic development and social mobilization, perspectives rooted in neo-functionalist and in neo-Weberian sociologies of education. Next, the chapter discusses the actors and agents of political change in Hong Kong. Inferences are drawn about the social integration of new immigrants from Mainland China, as well as the opportunities for women and for lower-income students, based on analysis of 35 years of Hong Kong Census data (1971–2006). The chapter concludes by raising questions about the future ability of governments and parties to define the postsecondary policy agenda, an agenda that now threatens to escape from government control and become a flash-point of popular mobilization.