Lee 2017

School Leadership & Management
Formerly School Organisation
ISSN: 1363-2434 (Print) 1364-2626 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20
Curriculum reform with a school-based approach:

intellectual, structural and cultural challenges
Theodore Lee, Yin Cheong Cheng & James Ko
To cite this article: Theodore Lee, Yin Cheong Cheng & James Ko (2017): Curriculum reform
with a school-based approach: intellectual, structural and cultural challenges, School Leadership &
Management, DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2017.1386647
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1386647
Published online: 08 Oct 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 25
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cslm20
Download by: [University of Florida] Date: 19 October 2017, At: 01:04

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1386647
Curriculum reform with a school-based approach:

intellectual, structural and cultural challenges
Theodore Lee, Yin Cheong Cheng and James Ko
Department of Education Policy and Leadership, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Curriculum reform with a school-based approach is often Received 5 May 2016
assumed to offer schools and teachers autonomy at the site Accepted 14 September 2017
level, thus enabling them to develop a school-based
Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 01:04 19 October 2017
KEYWORDS
curriculum and pedagogies to better fit the needs of Curriculum reform;
students. Over the past decade, school-based curriculum curriculum development;
development in Hong Kong has encountered issues that school-based management
deserve worldwide attention and discussion. By reviewing school autonomy
the experiences of two schools in Hong Kong and drawing
on international evidence, this study identifies key
challenges and difficulties in school-based curriculum
reform in three areas. Intellectually, there is a lack of a
strong and broad shared knowledge base for curriculum
development. As a result, most school-based curriculum
initiatives have been piecemeal, fragmented and shallow.
Structurally, many teachers have wasted time ‘re-inventing
the wheel’ when developing school-based curricula. This
effort has left them without sufficient time and energy to
be effective in teaching. Culturally, reliance on school
management to steer school-based reforms has prevented
the development of a new culture in which teachers have
the autonomy to make changes in their daily practices.
Without cultural changes, curriculum reforms are not
sustainable or effective. This study proposes a cooperative
platform that integrates the strengths of central intelligence
and school-based initiatives to maximise support for
curriculum development at the teacher, school-site and
system levels.
Introduction
Over the past two decades, various worldwide education reforms have been
subject to the challenges of globalisation, international competition, technologi-
cal advances and societal transformation (Barber and Mourshed 2007; Jensen
et al. 2012; Mourshed, Chijioke, and Barber 2010; Wang 2013; Zajda 2015). Scho-
lars have argued that school autonomy is needed for schools to respond to the
substantial changes and challenges of a globalised economy (e.g. Caldwell and
Spinks 2013; Law and Nieveen 2010; Priestley, Minty, and Eager 2014). A high
CONTACT Theodore Lee tthlee@eduhk.hk

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 T. LEE ET AL.
level of school autonomy that gives schools and teachers flexibility in teaching a
diverse student body is assumed to have positive impact on student achieve-
ment (Fullan and Watson 2011; Wößmann et al. 2007). While the discussion of
school autonomy is often limited to the decentralisation from the central to
site level, there is still a lack of strong international evidence to confirm the
cross-cultural validity of this assumption on about the impact of autonomy on
student performance is still lacking (Hanushek, Link, and Woessmann 2013;
Gorard 2009; Grattan Institute Report 2013; National Audit Office 2010). Some
researchers have stressed that further decentralisation within schools may be
needed, giving teachers greater autonomy (Caldwell 2010; Mourshed, Chijioke,
and Barber 2010).
Among various aspects of school autonomy, decentralised curriculum devel-
opment, or school-based curriculum development, has recently provoked inter-
national debate (e.g. Caldwell and Spinks 2013; Fullan 2001; Skilbeck 1984, 2005).
Many have doubted whether the traditional curriculum, developed and adminis-
tered mainly by central offices, can be implemented effectively at the school
level to meet the future development needs of students in the 21st century (Har-
greaves et al. 2005). School-based initiatives are encouraged to promote ‘peda-
gogically-driven’ curriculum change and pedagogical innovation in classroom
practice (Caldwell and Spinks 2013). When teachers are granted greater auton-
omy, flexibility and responsibility, they are able to respond quickly to situational
issues and meet students’ needs by innovating and developing school-based
curricula for specific contexts (Harris 2003; Kennedy 2010; Law, Galton, and
Wan 2010). Autonomy within a school is important. However, managing the ten-
sions that can result from developing the general capacity and pedagogical
capability of teachers in schools can be challenging (Koh et al. 2014; Vidovich
and O’Donoghue 2003). In this context, school leadership, which facilitates the
process of decentralisation within schools, is believed to be an important
aspect of school-based curriculum development (Kennedy 2010; Law, Galton,
and Wan 2010).
The impacts of internal decentralisation of school autonomy on the successful
implementation of school-based curriculum development at both the local and
international levels are issues with worldwide significance for educational
reforms. With the purpose to benefit policy discussion at the international
level, this article aims at exploring the impacts and challenges of increasing
school internal autonomy on the formulation and implementation of school-
based curriculum development with the Hong Kong experiences in curriculum
reform as an illustration.
The background of Hong Kong curriculum reform

Hong Kong experienced a period of rapid economic growth after the 1960s,
before it became an international Asian city. The school system shifted from a
SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 3
rapid expansion phase in the 1960s and 1970s that attempted to meet the chal-
lenge of a growing population and labour-intensive manufacturing economy to
a quality education phase beginning in the 1980s and 1990s in response to the
shift toward a service- and knowledge-based economy. The 1980s marked the
beginning of a series of education reforms, and from 1984 to 2000, the Education
Commission published several reviews, reports and reform proposals that
initiated educational changes. These can be divided into three phases.
Phase 1: top-down approach
From 1984 to 1996, Education Commission Reports Nos. 1 through 6 were pub-
lished to review existing issues in the education system. These reports attempted
to look for ‘best practices that enhance effectiveness or optimal solutions for
solving major problems for all schools at the school-site level’ (Cheng 2005a,
166). Decision-making for any initiatives or changes was centralised and con-
trolled by the central office. Limited to areas such as language teaching and
learning, teacher quality and curriculum development, the proposed policies
and reforms were implemented through a top-down approach, in which external
interventions and resources from the central office were used to direct change.
However, these initiatives were criticised as having little effect on the education
system, due to limited scope and fragmented policies (Cheng 2000). Such a top-
down approach to curriculum reform during this period meant that the major
roles of schools and teachers at the site level were often ignored.
Phase 2: school-based management

In 1997, Education Commission Report No. 7 was published, which marked a shift
of direction for educational changes. The report detailed important international
reforms concerning quality assurance, accountability and school-based manage-
ment (SBM). The notion of school-based management had in fact been initiated
in Hong Kong, when the Education and Manpower Branch and Education
Department of the Hong Kong Government launched the School Management
Initiative (SMI) scheme in 1991. Because the teachers, principals and supervisors
involved in the pilot scheme saw the shortfalls of the existing education system,
they responded positively toward the initiative (Cheng 1992; Wong 1995). The
idea was well-received by schools (Cheng and Cheung 1999), so a proposal to
implement school-based management in all Hong Kong public schools by
2000 was recommended in Report No. 7. Following the amendment of the Edu-
cation ordinance on school governance in 2004, an Incorporated Management
Committee (IMC) was set up for each government-aided school. Managerial
power was decentralised from the government to individual schools. The
school-based management framework in Hong Kong was fully in place. Within
this framework, schools were given more autonomy and flexibility in resource
4 T. LEE ET AL.
allocation and staffing arrangements and in developing or adjusting the curricu-

lum to meet their needs and those of the students. SBM can therefore enable
schools and teachers to build capacity to implement school-based curricula in
the local context.
Phase 3: curriculum reform

To meet the challenge of globalisation in the 21st century, a comprehensive cur-
riculum reform was launched in 2001 with the aim of improving the overall learn-
ing performance and achievement levels of all students. At the time, school
education in Hong Kong was criticised for its didactic approach, which heavily
emphasised examinations for the selection of students. The reform represented
a drastic change to the existing education system in terms of the curriculum and
related academic structures and policies.

The curriculum reform was initiated by the Curriculum Development Council
(1999) to enable students to construct knowledge, gain lifelong learning skills
and develop a global outlook in the 21st century within an open, flexible and
coherent curriculum framework. The proposal highlighted the importance of
school-based elements in particular (Curriculum Development Council 1999):
. [A shift from] compartmentalised and overcrowded school subjects to Key

Learning Areas for a broad and balanced curriculum
. Open and flexible framework for different curriculum organisations/courses
rather than a ‘teaching syllabus’
A school-based approach was proposed to promote curriculum reform and

development at the site level in Hong Kong schools. School-based curriculum
development was used to create a decentralised curriculum from the prescrip-
tive, uniform curriculum, to involve teachers in the process of curriculum devel-
opment and to cater to individual student needs. Schools and teachers needed
to ‘adapt the central curriculum and develop their own school-based curriculum
to help their students achieve the learning targets (knowledge, generic skills,
values and attitudes)’ and at the same time ‘fulfil certain CDC requirements
such as learning time, learning targets and essential contents’ (Curriculum Devel-
opment Council 2001, 70). In line with SBM, it emphasised responsible freedom,
responsiveness and accountability for all members of the school community.
In the years since the 2001 implementation, curriculum reform in Hong Kong
has made progress and been appraised as ‘a means of taking a high-performing
system and making it better still … ’ (Barber, Donnelly, and Rizvi 2012, 46). From
an international perspective, the curriculum reform in Hong Kong was successful,
and the OECD (2011, 105) noted that
[Hong Kong’s] reform provides schools with a platform, supports them with resources
and modifies the public examination as well as university admissions, but leaves the
process of reform to the schools … . But the reform has pushed schools and teachers to
take a professional stand, exercise professional autonomy and adapt the changes to
best fit their respective student bodies.
To evaluate the success of the policy of curriculum development, Wong and

Cheung (2015) used the schools’ adoption of government initiatives in curricu-
lum reform as an indicator. They identified an ‘upward-sloping movement of
the adoption percentages of initiatives over time’ and found that principals
and teachers agreed that the initiatives were useful, clarifying the reform
items and serving their needs. Another review of the implementation of curricu-
lum reform also showed that senior management teams in schools, particularly
the principals, had a high level of agreement with the curriculum reforms after
their implementation in 2001 (Wong and Cheung 2009).
As part of an international research project involving seven education

systems, Cheng, Ko, and Lee (2016) provided a comprehensive review of
school autonomy, leadership and learning. They found that a lack of conceptual
links between internal autonomy at different levels of a school’s operations and
pedagogical practices made it unclear whether internal autonomy leads to edu-
cational improvement and innovation. The traditional form of decentralisation,
relocating power structures from central offices to school sites, was not necess-
arily accompanied by internal autonomy at the group and individual levels.
School autonomy at the site level is often measured mainly through the percep-
tions of principals, with no attention paid to the perspectives of the other key
stakeholders (for example, in PISA). With these limitations, it is no surprise that
the findings from international studies on the effects of school autonomy or
school-based approaches on curriculum development and school performance
across countries are often inconsistent and unclear (Cheng, Ko, and Lee 2016).
A theoretical perspective
Under the SBM in Hong Kong, schools are provided with high internal autonomy
and are required to act with responsible freedom, responsiveness and account-
ability. To examine the effects of internal autonomy in schools, Cheng, Ko, and
Lee (2016) proposed a new framework1 that reconceptualises the ‘interplay
between school leadership, functional, structural and cultural aspects of school
autonomy, accountability structures and other contextual factors (e.g. school
development stage) in relation to curriculum and learning’ (178). The framework
provides multiple categories of internal autonomy (i.e. functional, structural and
cultural autonomy) and comprehensive mechanisms for redressing the limit-
ations of traditional concepts of school autonomy by strengthening conceptions
of the relevance of leadership to autonomy and performance in a school, as
shown in Figure 1.
In light of this framework, how can a school-based curriculum be properly
developed, managed and implemented through a further internal
6 T. LEE ET AL.
Figure 1. A new framework for reconceptualising research on school autonomy and related
factors and impacts (adapted from Cheng, Ko, and Lee 2016).
decentralisation of school autonomy at various levels of a school (including site,

group and individual levels) to create synergy in facilitating pedagogical change
and enhancing student learning in the Hong Kong context? What are the major
impacts and challenges of functional, structural and cultural autonomy in schools
when implementing school-based curriculum development? How can these
challenges be tackled at both the system and school-site levels? These are impor-
tant issues with worldwide significance for educational reforms, if school-based
curriculum development is to be implemented successfully at both the local and
international levels.
To address the above questions, this article uses Cheng, Ko and Lee’s frame-
work to guide the exploration of different aspects of school autonomy in relation
to school-based curriculum development. In the following sections, with the
experiences in two case schools, the article discusses the major impacts and chal-
lenges of functional, structural and cultural autonomy towards the curriculum
changes in schools. Furthermore, the article also recognises the influence of
school leadership on school-based curriculum change at different levels, in steer-
ing the direction, and in building teachers’ capacity on making changes. It looks
at the interaction of leadership initiatives with various categories of autonomy, as
shown in Figure 1. It is hoped that the analysis can benefit policy discussion and
the formulation and implementation of school-based curriculum development
at the international level.
Case study
To understand the impact of the interplay between leadership initiatives and
school autonomy on school-based curriculum development, two schools were
selected for an in-depth case study. This holistic case study strategy gives
insight into how a school-based curriculum can be developed, managed and
implemented to facilitate pedagogical change and student learning and into
the difficulties and challenges that may emerge in the process (Cheng, Ko,
and Lee 2016).
The two case-study schools are government-aided schools situated in subur-
ban districts that contain a mixture of several social classes; the students mainly
belong to working-class families who live in public housing and middle-class
families who live in private apartments. The schools are good representatives
of government-aided schools in Hong Kong. They were selected because of

their well-known emphasis on school-based development and their reputation
for strong student performance and activities. School A is a secondary school
of around 1,000 students with a religious background. The school is active in
the development of a non-formal curriculum to adapt to the different needs
of diverse students. School B is a primary school with more than 600 students.
With a focus on the whole-person development of students, the school
engages in introducing new ideas and innovations in pedagogy and student
activities to accommodate students with different abilities.
As a form of triangulation, the study interviewed a range of participants at
different levels to capture the various perspectives (Patton 2002; Lambert and
Loiselle 2008). In each school, hour-long semistructured interviews were con-
ducted individually with three or four senior management members, usually
the principal, vice principal and senior teachers, and in two focus groups each
with three or four teachers from different subjects. Different views, concerns,
and insight into the challenges and difficulties involved in the implementation
of school-based curriculum development were obtained.
Use of the framework of Cheng, Ko, and Lee (2016) to examine the various
aspects of autonomy within the case study schools and the influence of leader-
ship on these aspects of autonomy gives insight into the influence of school
autonomy on school-based curriculum development. The challenges from the
effects of school autonomy on school-based curriculum development are dis-
cussed in a later section.
Insights from the illustrative case studies

The impact of functional autonomy
Functional autonomy concerns flexibility and decision-making power over the
use of resources to address issues arising in a particular functional area, such
as resource management and curriculum development. Both schools reported
8 T. LEE ET AL.
high levels of autonomy when using resources (e.g. budgeting and staffing) and
adapting curriculum. In both schools, the management and teachers recognised
the positive effect of budget flexibility. The schools reallocated resources accord-
ing to their own needs. School A utilised resources to build a study corner and a
reading plaza to encourage reading, and several initiatives in teaching and learn-
ing were enabled. For example,
In the integrated learning lessons … we used to use it for teaching only. We now put the
academic subjects to work with different extra-curricular activities. We want the stu-
dents to have more time and opportunities to learn outside the school. (School A,
Senior Management Teacher K).
The schools were able to develop school-based teaching and learning policies
and had control over the adoption of new teaching initiatives and strategies.
School B chose to test most of the internal and external teaching and learning
initiatives with a small group of handpicked students and assessed the results
before appropriately applying them to the rest of the school.
Although the schools and teachers were given more power to develop school-
based policies and initiatives as part of the curriculum, they did not usually
possess adequate knowledge and confidence to direct curriculum changes.
They often worked with external expertise to generate ideas and the substance
of initiatives. It was noted that both schools actively participated in many differ-
ent pilot projects in various organisations and universities to obtain new ideas
and skills. This participation reflected the fact that teachers lacked the skills
and knowledge to develop and construct new curriculum initiatives and had
to spend extra time and effort to do so. From the teachers’ point of view, auton-
omy in curriculum development was a source of stress and overload.
The impact of structural autonomy
Structural autonomy gives the teachers and staff flexibility and authority at
different levels to make change and improvement in functional areas. Having
been granted the power to modify the curriculum at a school-based level, the
schools had flexibility in curriculum planning. For example, a member of
senior management stated, ‘Teachers will identify a few items of concern
every year. We follow up on these items to develop different activities’ (School
B, Senior Management Teacher L). The schools were also encouraged to actively
explore ways to improve teaching and learning. For example, School B made use
of aggregated data for curriculum planning: ‘We collect different data, such as
student performance results and student feedback. The school will use these
data to plan the focus and direction of the next year’ (School B, Senior Manage-
ment Teacher K).
At the group level, subject departments were able to improve and optimise
the curriculum by various means according to their professional judgement.
For example, in a teacher focus group in School B, the teachers said, ‘We have a
school-based Chinese curriculum which is different from the central curriculum’
and ‘We collaborate with different publishers and schools to develop our P4 to
P6 Mathematics curriculum’. Alternative pedagogies were also adopted by
subject departments. For example, ‘Different subjects and groups collaborate
to offer integrated activities on Friday afternoon’ (School B, Senior Management
Teacher K). Although the school welcomes autonomy, the teachers reported
strong influence from the leadership in the curriculum planning process. A
teacher stated in a focus group,
In some cases, although the teachers did not agree with the methods suggested by the
management, they forced us to implement them. I think teachers are professional …
The effect would be better if the methods were implemented after discussion among
teachers. It is a bit difficult in the current atmosphere in society. (School B, teacher

focus group 1)
Because of the high power distance in the schools, teachers felt that it was diffi-
cult to uphold their individual autonomy.
At the teacher level, structural autonomy enabled teachers to vary their
teaching styles. Senior Management Teacher L of School B said, ‘I think it
is the teachers who want to make adaptations [in pedagogies] … We make
adaptations according to the students’ ability, background, performance,
strengths and weaknesses’. Teachers were usually given room to decide
what to do in their areas of responsibility at a practical level; they often
noted that they make decisions mainly about the details and operations of
tasks, for example: ‘ … high autonomy because the leadership of the depart-
ments gives us freedom to try … of course depending on the situation, like
the details of designing a booth’ (School A, teacher focus group 2). Teachers
thought that they lacked the time and space for self-exploration in new ped-
agogical practices. A teacher in another focus group expressed his
discontentment:
If teachers may have more time, say for lesson preparation … in fact that is about
having more freedom for studying and exploration … it is mainly a top-down
working environment. The policies on curriculum and subjects are mainly defined
from top-down, even about choosing partnership organisations. (School B, teacher
focus group 1)
Within this top-down atmosphere, teachers were used to following direction

and instruction from the leadership. Another teacher from the same focus
group was only willing to put much effort into areas decided by the leadership:
‘We will put effort into studying a new method [only] if requested, hoping that
the school will keep using the method’ (School B, teacher focus group 1). These
examples show that structural autonomy was predominant at the higher
level. The teachers usually exercised limited autonomy at the group and
individual level.
10 T. LEE ET AL.
The impact of cultural autonomy – increased commitment of teachers
Influenced by SBM, cultural changes toward new teaching and learning

approaches evolved gradually through the increased involvement of stakeholders
in the case study schools. For example, ‘Feedback collection is not limited to a
particular group of stakeholders. Apart from the school directors and teachers,
the parents, student council and student representatives can also provide
feedback’ (School B, Senior Management Teacher L). The multi-level feedback pro-
vided rich information for school improvement but also created tension among
different groups of stakeholders with conflicting views. The schools and teachers
had to expend great effort to manage the different views and maintain rapport
among stakeholders. A teacher says, ‘Nowadays, feedback from parents has
great influence on school policies. Once, we had to hold a series of meetings to
discuss feedback given by a parent’ (School B, teacher focus group 1).

As the teachers gained more opportunities to be involved in curriculum devel-
opment, they developed a broader perspective, enabling them to understand the
purpose and content of the curriculum changes. For example, a teacher recog-
nised the changes in her understanding of curriculum development and said,
When I play the role of coordinator, my perspective is broadened. In the past, I would
ask why we need to do this and that. After I have worked with different subject groups, I
can understand the needs. This means I am not narrow-minded any more. (School A,
Senior Management Teacher L)
Another teacher believed that they had developed a student-centred culture in

teaching and learning: ‘OLE (Other Learning Experience) has become a part of
teaching and learning … Our goal is to nurture all our students to be good citi-
zens’ (School B, Senior Management Teacher K). The commitment of the teachers
to the changing paradigm could be seen from their feedback on the outcomes of
teaching and learning initiatives in the schools. For example, in Chinese classes,
‘After we have trained the students, teaching becomes easier and student per-
formance increases’, and in English classes,
We will design a task book based on a story book to help develop the students’ reading
ability … We have this kind of training for P4 and P5 students. We find that the students
think deeper and use more high-level thinking [skills]. (School B, teacher focus group 1)
Although the teachers were gradually aware of their capacity for and commit-
ment to improving learning and teaching at the subject and classroom level,
they highlighted that these changes were subject to the influence of school lea-
dership. This influence can be seen in three areas.
The influence of leadership at school, group and individual teacher levels

In the two case study schools, support from the school management and
principals was seen as vital to promoting autonomy and performance at different
levels (i.e. the schools, groups and teachers). In School B, the teachers acknowl-
edged the importance of support from school management for the provision of
resources for new curriculum initiatives. One teacher said, ‘Our school sponsor-
ing organisation and senior management give us a lot of room to experiment’
(School B, teacher focus group 1). Although power decentralisation to teachers
was recognised in some respects, the crucial influence of leadership was still
maintained through control of resources. As one teacher said, ‘Without the
support of the principal, new initiatives will not succeed … The principal is the
head. She controls all the resources, such as human resources, facilities, time
management, etc.’ (School B, teacher focus group 1).
Apart from resource management, the principal had a major influence on the
success of new initiatives in the school, thanks to her ability and capability to
lead. The teacher continued,
I think the principal has great influence. She attends the meetings of all subject groups
from the beginning to the end of year. She will read all the documents and give com-
ments … Because of this, we will be more careful and work efficiently (School B, teacher
focus group 1).
The influence of the leadership was reflected in her intervention in daily oper-
ations. The teachers recognised the influence of the principal in regulating indi-
vidual teachers’ attitudes toward changes: ‘ … whenever the principal is firm, the
teachers will be committed’ (School B, teacher focus group 1). The intervention
of leadership can thus be a source of support and a cohesive power to encourage
the expertise of the school to work in a single direction. From a different
perspective, however, such intervention was a form of pressure on frontline
teachers.
The influence of leadership in steering the direction and practice of school-

based curriculum development
A leader’s vision is crucial when influencing others. When the vision is commu-
nicated well, it nurtures a common goal and sets a clear direction. For example, in
School A, a teacher described how the principal directed curriculum
development:
When the principal took up the duty, he had already put a lot of emphasis on improving
learning. In the first couple of years, he demanded a big improvement in student learn-
ing. Afterward, he shifted the emphasis to student growth and activities so as to provide
students the opportunities to succeed. (School A, teacher focus group 1)
Another English teacher in the school added,

In the first year of his arrival, he had paid a lot of attention to English classes. He invited
external consultants to reform the teaching and learning of English lessons … The
teaching and learning of English lessons has changed. We are now more focused on
[interaction] in the lessons. (School A, teacher focus group 1)
12 T. LEE ET AL.
Although individual subject departments had been given the power to make
decisions regarding teaching, learning and curriculum, the principal was
regarded as leading the curriculum development of the school.
The influence of leadership in building the capacity of teachers to make

changes in professional practice and culture
In nurturing professional culture and practice in the school, the principal has a
major influence on teachers’ professional development and practice. When tea-
chers were appropriately assigned their roles, they could excel. One teacher
mentioned, ‘I have to thank the principal. He did a survey of our professional
interests three years ago when he came here. I really thank the principal for
giving me the opportunity’ (School A, Senior Management Teacher H). Leader-
ship style was one factor encouraging the teachers to commit to their work.
For example, one teacher said, ‘The [previous] principal was very creative and
he always encouraged us to try different approaches. At that time, we started
to think about different teaching methods and strategies’ (School A, Senior Man-
agement Teacher S). However, the encouragement of the principal was the
motivation and also the pressure for change. In a teacher focus group, one
teacher stated, ‘When the principal comes across some good materials, she
will distribute the new content though the Curriculum Director, then to the
subject departments and then to the teachers. She has great influence.’
(School B, teacher focus group 1). However, another teacher in the group
added, ‘ … the teachers seldom reject [the proposal from the principal]’.
Although the teachers had room to give feedback on policies, they did not
often have a strong voice. The leadership was usually powerful in shaping the
direction and dominating the policy-making process.
The preceding discussion illustrates the effects of different types of autonomy
in schools on decentralised curriculum development, with reference to the fra-
mework of autonomy outlined by Cheng, Ko, and Lee (2016). It has shown
that the schools exercised a high level of functional, structural and cultural
autonomy at the school level. The influence of leadership in enhancing the func-
tional conditions and pedagogical performance in both schools was highlighted.
Most teachers interviewed admitted that the schools were run efficiently and
effectively under strong leadership. However, neither school featured a strong
sense of autonomy among frontline teachers. In both schools, there was a ten-
dency for power to concentrate in the leadership, inhibiting the progress of
structural autonomy at different levels, especially regarding frontline teachers.
The teachers questioned the active intervention of the leadership in group-
level and even individual-level autonomy, either by controlling the distribution
of resources (School B) or by dominating the process of identifying school direc-
tion (School A). Although the frontline teachers had more duties because of the
increasing functional autonomy of schools, they did not share much of the
autonomy in their work at the group and individual levels. The challenges posed
by this gap between the management and frontline teachers will be discussed
further below.
The issues and challenges

One objective of school-based curriculum reform in Hong Kong was to develop a
new pedagogical culture to improve approaches to learning and teaching and
the effects on student outcomes at the site level. The new curriculum structure
and content was expected to enable pedagogical change and prepare students
with the attitudes, knowledge and competencies needed to face future chal-
lenges. The students’ perception of their performance under the new curriculum
did not, however, appear to reflect the effect of pedagogical change, as princi-
pals and senior teachers expected (Cheng 2014; Curriculum Development

Council 2013; Ko, Cheng, and Lee 2016). Although Wong and Cheung (2015)
suggested that government policy had a positive effect on the overall curriculum
change process in the education system, they also highlighted challenges and
concerns for future developments in schools, particularly concerning teachers’
individual or group performance on the front line.
As reflected in the case studies, school heads and senior teachers usually
responded positively to curriculum reform in Hong Kong. However, there were
clear gaps between the views of senior management team and frontline teachers
(Cheung and Wong 2011). For example, in the two case study schools, clear differ-
ences in perceptions of teacher workload and autonomy were identified between
the school management and frontline teachers. Frontline teachers were seriously
concerned about the increased workload in the implementation of the school-
based curriculum, but senior management was not fully aware of these concerns.
Large gaps between the experiences and expectations of students and tea-
chers and the perceptions of principals were reported in ‘Progress report on
the new academic structure review: The new senior secondary learning
journey – Moving forward to excel’ (Curriculum Development Council, Hong
Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority and Education Bureau 2013). In
the report, although principals were usually very positive about curriculum
reform progress and students’ performances in achieving key planned learning
goals, teachers and students reported very different views, as shown in Figure 2.
Among the students, 23%–44% disagreed about their performance in achieving
seven of ten learning goals, and 28%–44% of the teachers disagreed on their stu-
dents’ performance by the same metric.
As in the two case study schools, in which the teachers were not as confident
as the leadership about the new reform initiatives, these gaps imply a lack of
confidence in the reform after more than a decade of implementation, especially
among frontline teachers. Furthermore, researchers have argued that disap-
pointment in the reform has developed among frontline teachers (Lee 2014).
14 T. LEE ET AL.
Figure 2. Views of principals, panel heads, teachers and students on student performance in
achieving learning goals (% agreeing).
Successful implementation of curriculum reform does not solely rely on the prin-
cipal and senior management; the participation and feedback of teachers is also
vital (Wong and Cheung 2009; Yuen, Cheung and Wong 2012). Autonomy at
different levels (i.e. the school, groups and individuals) is argued to be positively
associated with school performance (Cheng 2005b). A lack of understanding of
frontline teachers could be devastating to the full and successful implementation
of curriculum reform and school autonomy in enhancing student learning and
outcomes.
Decentralised curriculum development is not without its shortcomings. As
illustrated by the preceding case study, the challenges of the school-based cur-
riculum reforms are worthy of further investigation (Cheng 2014; Lee 2014).
Kennedy (1992) noted the policy issues, conceptual problems and practical pro-
blems of the decentralised curriculum. Cheng (2005b) later developed a frame-
work to illustrate the potential limitations of education reform by focusing on
school autonomy, highlighting the intellectual, structural, social, political and cul-
tural constraints involved. Based on Cheng’s framework (2005b) and the preced-
ing analysis and discussion, this study identifies three key challenges and
difficulties to a curriculum reform using a school-based approach.
Intellectual challenges
School management and teachers were regarded as key agents for implement-
ing school-based curriculum reforms, so one purpose of the decentralised
curriculum reform was to generate rich practical experience and knowledge in a

critical mass of curriculum leaders (i.e. school teachers and principals) at the site
level, who in return would drive the wider curriculum reform at the system level
(Curriculum Development Council 2001). In Hong Kong, the schools, such as the
two case study schools, obtained high-level autonomy in a school-based curricu-
lum, and the function and intervention of the central authority was kept to a
minimum. Attention and resources shifted toward school-based initiatives, to
encourage the generation of school-level experience and knowledge in curricu-
lum changes. However, it is unclear whether the piecemeal knowledge gener-
ated within schools was adequate in extending curriculum reforms from the
individual or group level to the school or system level.
Lack of a rich knowledge base

An education reform knowledge base is essential for broader education

improvement (Darling-Hammond 2006; Tatto 2006). However, few research-
based policies were established to guide the development of curriculum
reforms in Hong Kong (Cheng, Mok, and Tsui 2002). Developing a comprehen-
sive and rigorous academic research and knowledge base to support policy
developments and initiatives was not a tradition at either the school or
system level. The diminishing role of the central bureaucracy meant a lack
of overview or any long-term effort to establish a comprehensive knowledge
base and research for understanding, developing and implementing compli-
cated curriculum reforms at the individual, subject, school and system levels.
The narrow perspective and limited ability of individual practitioners, groups
or schools were not enough to reach the necessary critical mass of research
expertise, capacity and resources to generate the professional knowledge to
support continued innovation in different curriculum areas (Cheng 2005b).
Often, like the teachers in the two case study schools, practitioners did not per-
ceive themselves as well prepared or supported for the new roles and tasks
expected of them. Traditional practices were shifting toward a new model,
emphasising school-based initiatives (Cheng 2005b; Cheng, Mok, and Tsui
2002; Yuen, Cheung, and Wong 2012).
As just one of numerous school units in the education system, an individual
school usually lacks the resources and experiences to holistically coordinate
the initiatives and integration of ‘local wisdom’ in curriculum changes (Hallinger
and Bryant 2013). Without the support of a rich research knowledge base at a
system level as the framework of reform, school-based initiatives were usually
thin and piecemeal, focusing on immediate, specific and ad hoc issues. For
example, School B regarded school-based initiatives as a means to secure
student enrolment. It was difficult to develop locally oriented experiences into
general knowledge of use across the education sector, which would require
deep cognitive change in curriculum and classroom practices. The intellectual
value of the practical experiences gained was greatly limited, if not problematic.
16 T. LEE ET AL.
The schools understood these limitations and often asked for external support. A
teacher in School B said, ‘It is not very realistic to expect the teachers to create
new initiatives. We mainly rely on outside experts from the universities, such as
HKU, CU and HKIEd. We have joined many collaborative projects in these few
years’ (School B, Senior Management Teacher S).
Lack of global perspectives

SBM relocates the leadership of curriculum reform. The decentralised approach
addresses the problem of a lack of internal initiatives and creativity in the old
centralised approach to promote decentralised curriculum decision-making
and accountability and encourage flexibility and inspiration at a school level
(Law 2011b). By focusing on within-school issues, new curriculum initiatives
can be limited by narrow or internal perspectives and will not be aligned with
global educational trends (Cheng 2014). The effects of these local initiatives
are usually short-term and do not necessarily meet the expectations of stake-
holders, because they can contradict global, long-term changes that will
ensure future effectiveness (Cheng 2005a). This focus can, however, drain the
energy of frontline teachers, who may engage in piecemeal experiments and
waste a lot of time ‘re-inventing the wheel’ or ‘starting from scratch’ when devel-
oping a school-based curriculum.
To address current educational challenges, curriculum reform may require a
fundamental paradigm shift in the education system and in wider school inno-
vations over the long term, one that reflects globalisation, localisation and indi-
vidualisation in education (Cheng 2015; Luke et al. 2005). As described earlier,
the background of Hong Kong curriculum reform and the findings from the
case studies indicate that Hong Kong schools were provided with ‘the necessary
conditions such as autonomy and flexibility in making decisions and using
resources and members’ strong commitment and active roles for facilitating [a
paradigm shift] in education in facing up with the challenges from the external
environment’ (Cheng and Mok 2007, 537).
However, flexibility alone is not a sufficient condition for reforming globally
aligned learning and teaching. It is unrealistic to rely on individual school man-
agement and teachers to interpret the directions of global curriculum reform.
Individual schools rather than central bureaucracy now lead curriculum
change, and this reduction in the role and responsibility of central bureaucracy
motivates and encourages school-based initiatives instead of leading the direc-
tion and progress of reform. The central bureaucracy has less control over the
direction and process of curriculum reform under SBM, reducing its previous
function of broadly guiding reforms and taking a global perspective. The plat-
form for integrating and organising successful school-based experiences at a
system level is therefore weakened (Cheng 2005b). Systematically accumulating
the experiences generated by schools and teachers and raising the level of
expertise and technology in the process of furthering and widening
development in the education system is a difficult task. The value of the reform
outcomes in guiding future policy and curriculum development is therefore
limited.
Structural challenges
Change must be implemented by the appropriate participants at different levels.
Changes in school management approach can, however, result in anxiety and
tension. Curriculum reforms that require alterations to the structure and oper-
ation of a school can be very destructive (Marsh 2004). The Hong Kong curricu-
lum reforms were criticised as too ambitious, with too little attention paid to the
structural difficulties of implementation (e.g. Cheung and Wong 2012; Lee 2014).
In the spirit of SBM, teachers are assumed to shift roles from curriculum users to
curriculum developers, but many teachers felt that this was a major burden (Lee
2014). In the case study, for instance, many frontline teachers expressed their
concerns about overloading and high stress levels, because they needed to
spend more time dealing with the development and management of school
initiatives (Cheung and Kan 2009; Woods et al. 1997). One teacher from a case
study school said, ‘Apart from teaching skills, the teachers have to put efforts
into many other initiatives. They spend plenty of their capacity and time’
(School B, teacher focus group 1). They therefore have less time to plan teaching
and learning.
SBM leads to competition among schools, which can cause stress for teachers.
The curriculum reform has been implemented for over a decade, and in that time
the number of school-age children in Hong Kong has decreased. Competition
among schools to attract students has correspondingly skyrocketed. To maintain
competitiveness, school-based initiatives can be used as gimmicks to attract new
students. One teacher in the case study said, ‘When the school puts up banners
to show its participation in new initiatives, the parents will have an impression
that it is a good school’ (School B, teacher focus group 2). Therefore, the
schools were happy to ‘borrow’ successful innovations from other schools to sup-
plement their own school-based initiatives. Already-overloaded teachers then
become anxious about their professional roles, and reform momentum and com-
mitment may then be reduced (Law 2011a).
These issues illustrate a ‘bottle-neck effect’ in the reform process (Cheng
2009). Teachers were anxious about intensifying the learning diversity in
schools, due to the complex curriculum and inadequate professional develop-
ment, when attempting to foster students’ critical thinking skills and manage
student diversity and assessment (Cheung and Wong 2012). Further educational
initiatives can become additional burdens and limitations on teachers and
schools if insufficient attention is paid to potential structural difficulties, such
as teacher workload and the changing roles of teachers. Frontline teachers
risked being caught up in the work involved in various innovations because
18 T. LEE ET AL.
they were required to take on the extra responsibilities of planning, designing,

organising, implementing and coordinating school-based curriculum-related
activities, on top of their daily teaching and pastoral care duties. Cheng (2009,
82) concluded that the ‘Hong Kong bottle-neck effect in educational reforms
in the past ten years can really provide a very painful lesson for those interested
to pursue educational development and improvement through a series of edu-
cational reforms’. Facing structural difficulties in the implementation of new cur-
riculum reforms, teachers were less likely to be fully confident about the new
curriculum.
Cultural challenges
According to Cheng, Ko, and Lee (2016), cultural autonomy, in addition to struc-
tural and functional autonomy, is also important and necessary for the successful
implementation of school-based management in general and curriculum devel-
opment in particular (see Figure 1). Cultural characteristics shape the motivation,
expectations and working performance of school staff who develop and
implement the curriculum (Schein 2010; Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki 2011).
However, when the current Hong Kong curriculum changes and paradigm
shifts are carried out, a shift to a more autonomous culture does not always
occur. The reliance on school management to steer school-based reforms can
create conflicts between senior management and teachers, if leaders are not pre-
pared to change the school culture.
Teacher readiness
Shifting to a decentralised approach to curriculum development and change in a
school is a complicated process that involves functional, structural and cultural
changes for teachers. It is important to enable teachers, as the key actors or
implementers of curriculum reform initiatives, to understand clearly and
accept the changes so they can translate them into practice in the classroom
and other areas of school (Ko, Cheng, and Lee 2016). Only when teachers are
well-prepared, cultivating a sense of ownership and embracing curriculum
changes, will they feel proud of their work and be willing to further develop
their expertise. However, some teachers see themselves as followers in the
reform process. As a teacher in the case study said, ‘Sometimes, we go to
share our experience with other schools … Some teachers are not willing to
share if the principal and the senior management are absent’ (School B,
teacher focus group 1). The hesitation of these teachers shows that they were
not well prepared to embrace the initiatives and develop a sense of ownership
of the school-based curriculum reform.
Although the schools have the power to make decisions in the school-based
curriculum, they do not necessarily develop a decentralised decision-making
culture or teacher participation. Decisions are usually made by the school
management instead of the teachers. A teacher in School B said, with some dis-
content, ‘In some cases, [the school management] forced the teachers to
implement [some initiatives] even though many of us objected … I feel it is
better if we can have a discussion among teachers before making the decision
and carrying out the initiatives’ (School B, teacher focus group 2). Currently,
responsibilities rather than decision-making power and ownership are shared
and distributed among those on the frontline (Leung 2004; Pang 2008). Teachers
must usually share the burden of reform but not often the decision-making
power. They must rely on the principal’s authority to implement initiatives,
and as one teacher pointed out, ‘We need the support of the principal to work
successfully and smoothly because she provides resources’ (School B, teacher
focus group 1). This situation does not encourage teachers to develop a sense
of ownership of school-based initiatives. A gap between the senior management
team and frontline teachers will remain or even grow, making it difficult to align
the understanding and interest of management and teachers (Cheung and
Wong 2011).
Stresses on teachers
Schools are given the power to make decisions under SBM, but this does not
mean that they always make the appropriate decisions. If a sound knowledge
base concerning school-based curriculum changes is lacking, school manage-
ment may not have sufficient knowledge or a reliable framework to construct
effective curriculum initiatives. School-level decisions on the curriculum can
easily be influenced by the perceptions or expectations of senior management
or external stakeholders, instead of teachers. Teachers often deal directly with
the increasingly diverse expectations of different parties in curriculum develop-
ment and implementation, and therefore stress can accumulate and produce
negative emotional responses as reforms continue (Yuen, Cheung and Wong
2012). These responses can cause teachers to perceive changes negatively, hin-
dering their positive participation in the school-based curriculum change
process (Bolstad 2004).
The SBM schools were given financial autonomy and a high level of control
over the school’s budget, which enables school-based policies in the curriculum
or other educational initiatives. These policies can, however, restrict rather than
enhance teachers’ commitment and motivation to engage in reform. For
example, because they were able to spend the government subsidy as a lump
sum, the schools had great freedom in hiring teaching staff. To maximise the
number of teaching staff at lower levels of salary, schools increasingly preferred
to hire short-term contract teachers or teaching assistants, rather than hiring tea-
chers on long-term contracts. Newly hired contract teachers lost their sense of
work stability, resulting in great stress when attempting to retain their position
in each contract term, which was usually 1 to 2 years. The anxiety of contract
renewal led these teachers to focus on initiatives with short-term effects and
20 T. LEE ET AL.
hesitate to experiment with new ideas in teaching and learning that would have
longer-term effects.
Development of a school culture that enhances the motivation, expectations
and working performance of teachers is challenging. Although the teachers
enjoyed some autonomy in SBM, they lacked sufficient knowledge about curri-
culum reform, and the power gap between the school management and the tea-
chers created a stressful teaching environment. In these circumstances, teachers
were less likely to enjoy the reform process and develop a sense of ownership of
initiatives.
Policy implications
The Hong Kong experience of decentralised curriculum reform has demon-
strated some success in recent years, but our study has illustrated potential chal-
lenges to its development. Curriculum and education reforms are often
complicated, and an individual school may not have the necessary professional
knowledge and systemic wisdom to deal with the complex components of
reforms, such as paradigm shifts in theory and practice, new capacity and exper-
tise building, application of new technology and ideas, and socio-cultural con-
flicts among diverse stakeholders (Cheng 2015; Fullan 1993).
School-based curriculum initiatives have their strengths, in terms of flexi-
bility in making decisions, using resources, and meeting local needs. These
initiatives can often be labour-intensive, involving fragmented knowledge
and perspectives in response to diverse needs and short-term issues. The out-
comes of an individual school’s initiatives will be restricted by practitioners’
limited resources and expertise. The lack of a rich knowledge base and a
clear framework for reform means that school-based initiatives, despite
having the advantage of flexibility and creativity, do not usually fulfil the
need for high level knowledge and a broader global perspective, which can
enable the future effectiveness of education systems in this era of globalisation
and transformation (Cheng 2005b).
To provide intellectual resources and support to teachers and to incorporate
practical school experiences that generate high-level knowledge and inform
future development, a cooperative platform integrating central intelligence
and school-based initiatives is needed to coordinate and support schools’ invol-
vement in reform (Cheng 2005a). A comprehensive central framework of curricu-
lum reform at a higher level in the system could support individual schools,
making connections between school-based curriculum changes and global
trends, addressing local needs and providing intensive technological support.
Therefore, the development of a central intelligence platform to contribute
the latest technological support, intensive professional knowledge and expert
intelligence in school curriculum policy-making, innovation and improvement
would be strategically beneficial.
Both the centralised and decentralised approaches to curriculum reform have

advantages and disadvantages. The implication of this article is that the estab-
lishment of a centralised platform to complement school-based curriculum
reform may be useful in raising the intellectual level of reform initiatives and cur-
riculum changes, at the school and system level. The integration of a centralised
intelligence platform with the existing school-based approach to reform can
suggest an important new direction, enhancing future curriculum development
and addressing the intellectual, structural and cultural issues and challenges of
school-based curriculum reform.
Note
1. The study and its framework were part of the outcomes of an international project. The
current paper is another one of the project’s outcomes, with a particular focus on
school-based curriculum development.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Barber, M., K. Donnelly, and S. Rizvi. 2012. Oceans of Innovation: The Atlantic, the Pacific, Global
Leadership and the Future of Education. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
Barber, M., and M. Mourshed. 2007. How the World’s Best-Performing Schools Systems Come Out
on Top. McKinsey & Company. http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/
Education/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf.
Bolstad, R. 2004. School-based Curriculum Development: Principles, Processes, and Practices.
Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research. https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.
nz/content/download/1096/7496/file/SBDCbackgroundpaper.doc.
Caldwell, B. J. 2010. “School Reform and Restructuring: Self Managing School.” In International
Encyclopedia of Education, Vol. 5, edited by P. Peterson, E. Baker, and B. McGaw, 72–77.
Oxford: Elsevier.
Caldwell, B. J., and J. M. Spinks. 2013. The Self-Transforming School. London: Routledge.
Cheng, Y. C. 1992. “A Preliminary Study of School Management Initiative: Induction and
Responses to Management Reform.” Educational Research Journal 7: 21–32.
Cheng, Y. C. 2000. “Educational Change and Development in Hong Kong, Effectiveness,
Quality, and Relevance.” In Educational Change and Development in the Asia-Pacific
Region: Challenges for the Future, edited by T. Townsend, and Y. C. Cheng, 17–56. Lisse,
The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Cheng, Y. C. 2005a. “Globalization and Hong Kong Educational Reforms: Paradigm Shifts.”
In International Handbook on Globalisation, Education and Policy Research, edited by
Z. Joseph, 165–187. Dordrecht: Springer.
Cheng, Y. C. 2005b. New Paradigm for Re-Engineering Education: Globalization, Localization and
Individualization. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Cheng, Y. C. 2009. “Hong Kong Educational Reforms in the Last Decade: Reform Syndrome and
New Developments.” International Journal of Educational Management 23 (1): 65–86.
22 T. LEE ET AL.
Cheng, Y. C. 2014. “Re-development of Educational Reform in Globalization: Trends and

Challenges.” Invited keynote speech presented at the international conference on education
reforms 20 years: retrospective and forward looking, Taiwan, November 14-15.
Cheng, Y. C. 2015. “Globalization and Hong Kong Educational Reforms.” In Second International
Handbook on Globalization, Education and Policy Research, edited by J. Zajda, 219–242.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Cheng, Y. C., and W. M. Cheung. 1999. “Towards School-Based Management: Uncertainty,
Meaning, Opportunity and Development.” International Journal of Educational Reform 8
(1): 25–36.
Cheng, Y. C., J. Ko, and T. Lee. 2016. “School Autonomy, Leadership and Learning: A
Reconceptualization.” International Journal of Educational Management, 30 (2): 177–196.
Cheng, Y. C., and M. M. C. Mok. 2007. “School-based Management and Paradigm Shift in
Education: An Empirical Study.” International Journal of Educational Management 21 (6):
517–542.
Cheng, Y. C., M. M. C. Mok, and K. T. Tsui. 2002. “Education Reforms and Research in Hong Kong:
A Request for Comprehensive Knowledge.” Educational Research for Policy and Practice 1 (1):
7–21.
Cheung, S. M., and F. L. Kan. 2009. “Teachers’ Perceptions of Incorporated Management
Committees as a Form of School-Based Management in Hong Kong.” Asia Pacific
Education Review 10 (2): 139–148.
Cheung, A. C. K., and P. M. Wong. 2011. “Effects of School Heads’ and Teachers’ Agreement
with the Curriculum Reform on Curriculum Development Progress and Student Learning
in Hong Kong.” International Journal of Educational Management 25 (5): 453–473.
Cheung, A. C. K., and P. M. Wong. 2012. “Factors Affecting the Implementation of Curriculum
Reform in Hong Kong.” International Journal of Educational Management 26 (1): 39–54.
Curriculum Development Council. 1999. A Holistic Review of the Hong Kong School Curriculum:
Proposed Reforms Consultative Document. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council.
Curriculum Development Council. 2001. Learning to Learn: Life-Long Learning and Whole-
Person Development. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council.
Curriculum Development Council, Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority and
Education Bureau. 2013. Progress Report on the New Academic Structure Review: The New
Senior Secondary Learning Journey — Moving Forward to Excel. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.
Darling-Hammond, L. 2006. “Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher
Education 57 (3): 300–314.
Fullan, M. 1993. Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. London: Falmer
Press.
Fullan, M. 2001. Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., and N. Watson. 2011. The Slow Road to Higher Order Skills. Report to the Stupski
Foundation. http://teacher.righthere.com.cn/UEditor/net/upload/file/20150409/635641902
1493800007755897.pdf.
Gorard, S. 2009. “What are Academies the Answer to?” Journal of Education Policy 24 (1):
101–113.
Grattan Institute Report. 2013. The Myth of Markets in School Education. Melbourne: Grattan
Institute.
Hallinger, P., and D. A. Bryant. 2013. “Synthesis of Findings From 15 Years of Educational
Reform in Thailand: Lessons on Leading Educational Change in East Asia.” International
Journal of Leadership in Education 16 (4): 399–418. doi:10.1080/13603124.2013.770076.
Hanushek, E. A., S. Link, and L. Woessmann. 2013. “Does School Autonomy Make Sense
Everywhere? Panel Estimates From PISA.” Journal of Development Economics 104: 212–232.
Hargreaves, A., A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, and D. Hopkins. 2005. “International Handbook of

Educational Change – Introduction.” In The Practice and Theory of School Improvement:
International Handbook of Educational Change, edited by D. Hopkins, vii–xi. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer.
Harris, A. 2003. “Teacher Leadership and School Improvement.” In Effective Leadership for
School Improvement, edited by A. Harris, C. Day, D. Hopkins, M. Hadfield, A. Hargreaves,
and C. Chapman, 73–83. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
Hartnell, C. A., A. Y. Ou, and A. Kinicki. 2011. “Organizational Culture and Organizational
Effectiveness: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Competing Values Framework’s
Theoretical Suppositions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 96 (4): 677–694.
Jensen, B., A. Hunter, J. Sonnemann, and T. Burns. 2012. Catching up: Learning From the Best
School Systems in East Asia. Carlton, VIC: Grattan Institute.
Kennedy, K. J. 1992. “School-based Curriculum Development as a Policy Option for the 1990s:
An Australian Perspective.” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 7 (2): 180–195.
Kennedy, K. J. 2010. “School-based Curriculum Development for new Times: A Comparative
Analysis.” In Schools as Curriculum Agencies: Asian and European Perspectives on School-

Based Curriculum Development, edited by E. H. F. Law, and N. Nieveen, 3–20. Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Ko, J., Y. C. Cheng, and T. Lee. 2016. “The Development of School Autonomy and Accountability
in Hong Kong: Multiple Changes in Governance, Work, Curriculum, and Learning.”
International Journal of Educational Management 30 (7): 1207–1230.
Koh, E., L. D. Ponnusamy, L. S. Tan, S. S. Lee, and M. E. Ramos. 2014. “A Singapore Case Study of
Curriculum Innovation in the Twenty-First Century: Demands, Tensions and Deliberations.”
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 23: 851–860.
Lambert, S. D., and C. G. Loiselle. 2008. “Combining Individual Interviews and Focus Groups to
Enhance Data Richness.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 62: 228–237.
Law, E. H. F. 2011a. “School-based Curriculum Innovations: A Case Study in Mainland China.”
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 1 (2): 156–166.
Law, E. H. F. 2011b. “Exploring the Role of Leadership in Facilitating Teacher Learning in Hong
Kong.” School Leadership and Management, 31 (4): 393–410.
Law, E., M. Galton, and S. Wan. 2010. “Distributed Curriculum Leadership in Action: A Hong
Kong Case Study.” Educational Management Administration and Leadership 38 (3): 286–303.
Law, E. H. F., and N. Nieveen, eds. 2010. Schools as Curriculum Agencies: Asian and European
Perspectives on School-Based Curriculum Development. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense
Publishers.
Lee, J. C. K. 2014. “Curriculum and Teaching Reforms: Challenges and Prospects.” In Asia’s High
Performing Education Systems: The Case of Hong Kong, edited by C. Marsh, and J. C. K. Lee,
338–354. London: Routledge.
Leung, F. K. 2004. “Educational Centralization and Decentralization in East Asia.” APEC
Educational Reform Summit 13: 39–58.
Luke, A., P. Freebody, L. Shun, and S. Gopinathan. 2005. “Towards Research-Based Innovation
and Reform: Singapore Schooling in Transition.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 25 (1): 5–
28. doi:10.1080/02188790500032467.
Marsh, C. J. 2004. Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum. 3rd ed. London: Routledge
Falmer.
Mourshed, M., C. Chijioke, and M. Barber. 2010. How the World’s Most Improved School Systems
Keep Getting Better. London: McKinsey.
National Audit Office (UK). 2010. “Department for Education: The Academies Programme.”
https://www.nao.org.uk/report/department-for-education-the-academies-programme/.
24 T. LEE ET AL.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2011. “Shanghai and Hong Kong:
Two Distinct Examples of Reform in China.” In OECD Lessons From PISA for the United States,
Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education, edited by OECD. Paris: OECD.
doi:10.1787/2220363x. http://www.oecd.org/countries/hongkongchina/46581016.pdf
Pang, I. W. 2008. “School-based Management in Hong Kong: Centralizing or Decentralizing.”
Educational Research for Policy and Practice 7 (1): 17–33.
Patton, M. 2002. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Priestley, M., S. Minty, and M. Eager. 2014. “School-based Curriculum Development in Scotland:
Curriculum Policy and Enactment.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society 22 (2): 189–211.
Schein, E. H. 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
bass.
Skilbeck, M. 1984. School-based Curriculum Development. London: Harper & Row.
Skilbeck, M. 2005. “School-based Curriculum Development.” In The Roots of Educational
Change: International Handbook of Educational Change, edited by A. Lieberman, 109–132.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Tatto, M. T. 2006. “Education Reform and the Global Regulation of Teachers’ Education,
Development and Work: A Cross-Cultural Analysis.” International Journal of Educational
Research 45: 231–241.
Vidovich, L., and T. O’Donoghue. 2003. “Global–Local Dynamics of Curriculum Policy
Development: A Case-Study From Singapore.” Curriculum Journal 14 (3): 351–370.
Wang, Y., ed. 2013. Education Policy Reform Trends in G20 Members. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Wong, K. C. 1995. “Education Accountability in Hong Kong: Lessons From the School
Management Initiative.” International Journal of Educational Research 23 (6): 519–529.
Wong, P. M., and A. C. K. Cheung. 2009. “Managing the Process of an Educational Change: A
Study of School Heads’ Support for Hong Kong’s Curriculum Reform.” International
Journal of Educational Management 23 (1): 87–106.
Wong, P. M., and A. Cheung. 2015. “The Adoption Features of Government Initiatives for the
Curriculum Reform in Hong Kong Schools.” Educational Management Administration and
Leadership 43 (5): 828–849.
Woods, P., B. Jeffrey, G. Troman, and M. Boyle. 1997. Restructuring Schools, Reconstructing
Teachers: Responding to Change in the Primary School. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Wößmann, L., E. Lüdemann, G. Schütz, and M. R. West. 2007. School Accountability, Autonomy,
Choice, and the Equity of Student Achievement: International Evidence From PISA 2003. OECD
Education Working Papers, No. 13. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/246402531617. http://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504023.pdf.
Yuen, T. W. W., A. C. K. Cheung, and P. M. Wong. 2012. “A Study of the Impact of the First Phase
of the Curriculum Reform on Student Learning in Hong Kong.” International Journal of
Educational Management 26 (7): 710–728.
Zajda, J. 2015. Second International Handbook on Globalization, Education and Policy Research.
2nd ed. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Lee 2017

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Lee 2017

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

School Leadership & Management

Formerly School Organisation

ISSN: 1363-2434 (Print) 1364-2626 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

Curriculum reform with a school-based approach:

Theodore Lee, Yin Cheong Cheng & James Ko

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1386647

Published online: 08 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [University of Florida] Date: 19 October 2017, At: 01:04

Curriculum reform with a school-based approach:

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Theodore Lee tthlee@eduhk.hk

The background of Hong Kong curriculum reform

Phase 1: top-down approach

Phase 2: school-based management

allocation and staffing arrangements and in developing or adjusting the curricu-

Phase 3: curriculum reform

related academic structures and policies.

. [A shift from] compartmentalised and overcrowded school subjects to Key

A school-based approach was proposed to promote curriculum reform and

To evaluate the success of the policy of curriculum development, Wong and

As part of an international research project involving seven education

decentralisation of school autonomy at various levels of a school (including site,

of government-aided schools in Hong Kong. They were selected because of

Insights from the illustrative case studies

The impact of structural autonomy

teachers. It is a bit difficult in the current atmosphere in society. (School B, teacher

Within this top-down atmosphere, teachers were used to following direction

The impact of cultural autonomy – increased commitment of teachers

Influenced by SBM, cultural changes toward new teaching and learning

discuss feedback given by a parent’ (School B, teacher focus group 1).

Another teacher believed that they had developed a student-centred culture in

The influence of leadership at school, group and individual teacher levels

The influence of leadership in steering the direction and practice of school-

Another English teacher in the school added,

The influence of leadership in building the capacity of teachers to make

The issues and challenges

pals and senior teachers expected (Cheng 2014; Curriculum Development

curriculum reform was to generate rich practical experience and knowledge in a

Lack of a rich knowledge base

An education reform knowledge base is essential for broader education

Lack of global perspectives

they were required to take on the extra responsibilities of planning, designing,

Both the centralised and decentralised approaches to curriculum reform have

Cheng, Y. C. 2014. “Re-development of Educational Reform in Globalization: Trends and

Hargreaves, A., A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, and D. Hopkins. 2005. “International Handbook of

Analysis.” In Schools as Curriculum Agencies: Asian and European Perspectives on School-

Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Вам также может понравиться