Asia Pacific Education Review

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 627–636 | Cite as

Educational choice and marketization in Hong Kong: the case of direct subsidy scheme schools

Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

Direct subsidy scheme (DSS) schools are a product of Hong Kong’s market-oriented educational reform, mirroring global reform that champions parental choice and school marketization. Such schools have greater autonomy in matters of curricula, staffing, and student admission. Although advocates of the DSS credit it with increasing educational diversity and competition, little empirical is available to back up such claim. In this study, we use data from the Program for International Student Assessment to compare student achievements in DSS schools with those in traditional public schools. We find that while DSS students’ test scores in math, reading, and science have improved significantly over time, though the variation is much greater. Changes in mean performance have been anchored by a substantial change in student composition. DSS schools have a higher proportion of students with high socioeconomic status than with medium and low socioeconomic status. DSS schools also amplify the effects that family background have on student achievement. These findings raise concerns that the DSS approach favors a small minority of students.

Keywords

Marketization Privatization Hong Kong Secondary schools PISA 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Supplementary material

12564_2015_9402_MOESM1_ESM.docx (40 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 39 kb)

References

  1. Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. F. (2006).The impacts of charter schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy, 1(1), 50–90. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/edfp.2006.1.1.50
  2. Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. F. (2007). School choice, racial segregation, and test-score gaps: Evidence from North Carolina’s charter school program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(1), 31–56. doi: 10.1002/pam.20226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bray, M. (1995). The quality of education in private schools: Historical patterns and the impact of recent policies. In P.-K. Siu & P. T.-K. Tam (Eds.), Quality in education: Insights from different perspectives (pp. 183–198). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  4. Bureau, Education. (2011). Report of the working group on direct subsidy scheme. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.Google Scholar
  5. Census and Statistics Department. (2014). Quarterly report on general household survey (third quarter). Hong Kong: Government of the Hong Kong SAR. Retrieved from http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp200.jsp?productCode=B1050001
  6. Chan, D., & Tan, J. (2008). Privatization and the rise of direct subsidy scheme schools and independent schools in Hong Kong and Singapore. International Journal of Educational Management, 22(6), 464–487. doi: 10.1108/09513540810895417.Google Scholar
  7. Cullen, J. B., Jacob, B. A., & Levitt, S. D. (2005). The impact of school choice on student outcomes: An analysis of the Chicago public schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5–6), 729–760. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daun, H. (2003). Market forces and decentralization in Sweden: Impetus for school development or threat to comprehensiveness and equity? In D. N. Plank & G. Sykes (Eds.), Choosing choice: School choice in international perspective (pp. 92–111). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fiske, E. B., & Ladd, H. F. (2003). School choice in New Zealand: A cautionary tale. In D. N. Plank & G. Sykes (Eds.), Choosing choice: School choice in international perspective (pp. 68–91). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hoxby, C. M. (2003). School choice and school competition: Evidence from the United States. Swedish Economic Policy Review, 10(2), 9–65.Google Scholar
  11. Hsieh, C.-T., & Urquiola, M. (2006). The effects of generalized school choice on achievement and stratification: Evidence from Chile’s voucher program. Journal of Public Economics, 90(8–9), 1477–1503. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krueger, A. B., & Zhu, P. (2004). Another look at the New York City school voucher experiment. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 658–698. doi: 10.1177/0002764203260152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ladd, H. F. (2003). Introduction. In D. N. Plank & G. Sykes (Eds.), Choosing choice: School choice in international perspective (pp. 1–23). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Legislative Council Panel on Education. (2000, November). Modifications to direct subsidy scheme (No. Paper No. CB(2)264/00-01(02)). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Retrieved from http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr00-01/english/panels/ed/papers/264e02.pdf
  15. Luk, B. H.-K. (1990). Privatization and meritocracy: The real issue of the direct subsidy scheme. In A. Sweeting (Ed.), Differences and identities: Educational argument in late twentieth century Hong Kong (pp. 47–55). Pok Fu Lam: Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  16. McEwan, P. J. (2001). The effectiveness of public, Catholic, and non-religious private schools in Chile’s voucher system. Education Economics, 9(2), 103–128. doi: 10.1080/09645290110056958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McEwan, P. J., & Carnoy, M. (2000). The effectiveness and efficiency of private schools in Chile’s voucher system. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(3), 213–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mok, K.-H., & Tan, J. (2004). Globalization and marketization in education: A comparative analysis of Hong Kong and Singapore. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  19. Mok, K. H., & Welch, A. (2002). Globalization, managerialism and structural reform in education. In K. H. Mok & D. Chan (Eds.), Globalization and education: The question for quality education in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ni, Y. (2009). The impact of charter schools on the efficiency of traditional public schools: Evidence from Michigan. Economics of Education Review, 28(5), 571–584. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ni, Y. (2012). The sorting effect of charter schools on student composition in traditional public schools. Educational Policy, 26(2), 215–242. doi: 10.1177/0895904810386598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. OECD. (2009). PISA data analysis manual: SPSS (2nd ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. OECD. (2012). PISA 2009 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264167872-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: Excellence through equity: Giving every student the chance to succeed (Vol. 2). Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do—student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Revised ed., Vol. 1). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264201118-en.
  26. Rouse, C. E., & Barrow, L. (2009). School vouchers and student achievement: Recent evidence and remaining questions. Annual Review of Economics, 1(1), 17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Secretary of Education. (2009). Replies to initial written questions raised by finance committee members in examining the estimates of expenditure 2009–10. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.Google Scholar
  28. Secretary of Education. (2014). Replies to initial written questions raised by finance committee members in examining the estimates of expenditure 2014–15. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.Google Scholar
  29. Secretary of Education and Manpower. (2007). Replies to initial written questions raised by finance committee members in examining the estimates of expenditure 2007–08 (Tech. Rep.). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.Google Scholar
  30. Somers, M., McEwan, P. J., & Williams, J. D. (2004). How effective are private schools in Latin America? Comparative Education Review, 48(1), 48–69. doi: 10.1086/379841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tse, T. K.-C. (2008). Choices for whom? The rhetoric and reality of the Direct Subsidy Scheme in Hong Kong (1988–2006). Education and Urban Society, 40(5), 628–652. doi: 10.1177/0013124508316309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yung, A. M.-S. (2006). The policy of direct subsidy scheme schools in Hong Kong: finance and administration. Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal, 5, 94–111. http://edb.org.hk/HKTC/download/journal/j5/P094_111.pdf
  33. Zimmer, R. W., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., Sass, T. R., & Witte, J. (2009). Charter Schools in Eight States: Effects on Achievement, Attainment, Integration, and Competition. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG869

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of MacauTaipaMacau
  2. 2.Department of Educational Administration and Policy, Faculty of EducationChinese University of Hong KongShatinHong Kong
  3. 3.Department of Educational, School & Counseling Psychology, College of EducationUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations