Caught between Fantasy and Reality: Confucian Values and Dilemmas of Education Reform Confronting Hong Kong's Secondary Teachers

International Journal of Educational Reform

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 10-26

  Tam, Frank Wai Ming ^a   Lai, Manhong ^a   Lam, Ka Ka ^a  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35649023478     PISSN: 10567879     EISSN: 26319675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/105678790701600102     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Agne K. J., (1999). “Killing the baby”: Making all things equal. Educational Horizons, 77(3), 140–147.
2. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, et al., 74 Sup. Ct. 686 (1954).
3. Brown P., (1990). The “third wave”: Education and the ideology of parentocracy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11, 65–85.
4. Coleman J. S., (1966). Equal schools or equal students. The Public Interest, 4(3), 70–75.
5. Department of Education and Science. (1988). The Education Reform Act. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
6. Dewey J., (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
7. Duru-Bellat M., & Mingat A., (1998). Importance of ability grouping in French “colleges” and its impact upon pupils’ academic achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4(4), 281–306.
8. Education and Manpower Branch. (1991). The school management initiative: Setting the framework for quality in Hong Kong schools. Hong Kong, China: SAR Government.
9. Education Commission. (2000). Learning for life, learning through life: Reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Hong Kong, China: SAR Government.
10. Floud J. E., (1961). Reserve of ability. Forum, 3(2), 66–68.
11. Harlen W., & Malcolm H., (1997). Setting and streaming: A research review. Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
12. Kulik J., (1993). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
13. Kulik J., (2004). Grouping, tracking, and detracking: Conclusions from experimental, correlational, and ethnographic research. In Walberg H. J., Reynolds A. J., & Wang M. C., (Eds.), Can unlike students learn together? Grade retention, tracking, and grouping (pp. 157–182). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
14. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
15. Oakes J., (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16. Peterson P. E., & West M. R., (2003). No Child Left Behind: The policy and practice of school accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
17. Postiglione G. A., (1991). Education and society in Hong Kong: Towards one country and two systems. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
18. Putnam H., & Putnam R., (1993). Education in a multicultural democracy: Two Deweyan perspectives. Educational Theory, 43(4), 361–376.
19. Riley K. A., (1994). Quality and equality: Promoting opportunities in schools. London: Cassell.
20. Rogers K. B., (1998). Using current research to make “good” decisions about grouping. NASSP Bulletin, 82(595), 38–46.
21. Sievers B., (1994). Work, death, and life itself. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
22. Stevens E., Jr., Wood G. H., & Sheehan J. J., (2002). Justice, ideology, and education (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
23. Wineburg S. S., (1987). The self-fulfillment of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Educational Researcher, 16, 28–37.
24. Young M., (1958). The rise of the meritocracy 1870 to 2033. London: Thames and Hudson.