being gifted in hong kong: an examination of the region’s policy for gifted education

http://gcq.sagepub.com/Gifted Child Quarterly

http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/235The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0016986211421959

2011 55: 235Gifted Child QuarterlyShane N. Phillipson, Sivanes Phillipson and Deborah M. Eyre

Being Gifted in Hong Kong : An Examination of the Region's Policy for Gifted Education

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

National Association for Gifted Children

can be found at:Gifted Child QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://gcq.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/235.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 27, 2011Version of Record >>

at Hong Kong Baptist University on November 9, 2011gcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://gcq.sagepub.com/

http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/235

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.nagc.org

http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://gcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/235.refs.html

http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/235.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


Gifted Child Quarterly55(4) 235 –249© 2011 National Association for Gifted ChildrenReprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0016986211421959http://gcq.sagepub.com

Articles

421959 GCQXXX10.1177/0016986211421959Phillipson et al.Gifted Child Quarterly

1Monash University, Frankston South, Victoria, Australia2Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR3University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Corresponding Author:Shane N. Phillipson, Faculty of Education, Peninsula Campus, Monash University, Frankston South, Victoria 3199, Australia Email: [email protected]

Being Gifted in Hong Kong: An Examination of the Region’s Policy for Gifted Education

Shane N. Phillipson1, Sivanes Phillipson2, and Deborah M. Eyre3

Abstract

In Hong Kong, a policy for the education of its gifted students has existed in its current form since 2000. However, the gifted education policy is yet to be evaluated, despite growing calls internationally and locally for increased accountability of public policy, including policies relating to gifted education. Using VanTassel-Baska’s five-component model of a high-quality gifted education policy as their conceptual framework, the authors analyze and evaluate the gifted education policy in Hong Kong by first collecting source materials related to the gifted education policy and conducting interviews with three key policy makers. A total of 75 documents and the interview data were subjected to content analysis and the findings indicate that the gifted education policy in Hong Kong has an additional component, which the authors term aims and objectives. Although the aims and objectives differ across the eight groups of beneficiaries, they are not explicitly stated. In addition, the policy neither reflects current research in giftedness nor is it mandated, highlighting possible areas that limit its effectiveness. It is concluded that a thorough update of the policy is warranted if it is to meet its stated aims and objectives.

Keywords

analysis, gifted education, Hong Kong, policy

Introduction

Talent shortages currently exist in nearly all sectors of the Hong Kong labor market (Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, 2007) and are predicted to become more critical over the next 10 years, thereby threatening the economic prosperity of Hong Kong (Manpower, 2007). A crucial fac-tor in increasing the pool of talent lies in the development of outstanding students within the school-aged population. Chan (2000) argued that gifted education should play an important role in the wider educational reform processes taking place in Hong Kong, allowing it to support the talent development of all students rather than the needs of one group. In arguing that gifted education can help all students, Chan emphasized the importance of an effective gifted edu-cation policy (GEP).

The beginnings of the GEP in Hong Kong can be traced back to the 1990s with the publication of the Education Commission Report No. 4 (1990), and the visit to the then colony by John F. Feldhusen and the publication of his arti-cle in the Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psychological Society (Feldhusen, 1991). The GEP in its current form is now an integral part of a number of government initiatives designed to enhance the education of all students, not just those who are gifted (Phillipson et al., 2009). Despite initial warnings that ongoing evaluations of the policy are important aspects

of both its planning and implementation (Chan, 1996), the policy is yet to be objectively evaluated.

Gifted education has traditionally focused on developing “higher order” educational skills and, hence, gifted educa-tion has the potential not only to provide the curriculum challenge that will enable exceptional performance but also to set benchmarks for schools and other educational con-texts. It is possible that the principles that helped frame the GEP do not match a more ambitious framework where the development of exceptional talent is one aspect of a broader agenda of talent development.

An evaluation of the GEP in Hong Kong will reflect increasing international calls for accountability in public policy in general (Bell & Stevenson, 2006) and gifted educa-tion policy in particular (Gallagher, 2006; VanTassel-Baska, 2009). In broad terms, these evaluations are based on the “common sense idea” that policies should have demonstra-ble benefits (Berk & Rossi, 1999, p. 1), where the benefits of



236 Gifted Child Quarterly 55(4)

policies can be determined by matching the stated goals against outcomes. Furthermore, Morris and Scott (2003) observed that in Hong Kong, as elsewhere, there is some-times a gap between the intentions of policy and how they are implemented.

Past Efforts to Evaluate Gifted Education PolicyIn gifted education, program evaluation is recognized as an important but as yet largely neglected area of research (VanTassel-Baska, 2009). Gallagher (2006) has argued that to date, evaluations of gifted education programs generally lack academic rigor. Callahan (2004) concluded that the basic problems in program evaluation lie in conflicts around goals and in the invalid nature of the instruments that mea-sure success. She found that the evaluation of programs was often characterized by unrealistic stakeholder demands for statistics demonstrating immediate and dramatic changes in the individuals concerned and that, in contrast, most pro-grams had objectives and goals that were more long term and comprehensive (Renzulli, 1984).

Silky and Reading (1992) developed the REDSIL model for evaluating gifted education in the United States. This three-phase model has a “constructivist basis” (p. 67) that recognizes policy as a socially constructed belief system among key personnel, and that it is important to uncover this shared construction. The authors described the model as “highly labor-intensive,” which might explain its lack of adoption as a key methodology in the United States or elsewhere.

Tomlinson and Callahan (1994) created a planning matrix for conducting effective evaluation of programs for the gifted. Although this provides a potentially useful frame-work, it remains focused on the qualitative examination of very specific, time-limited programs rather than on ongoing system reform. Swanson’s (2007) evaluation of policy development and implementation in South Carolina most closely mirrors the research described in this article. His evaluation viewed gifted education as part of system reform considered from a variety of perspectives, inquiring directly into the perceptions, recollections, and personal views of the people involved in the creation and implementation of the policy. Swanson recommended that the way forward must be focused on general education and tease out its implica-tions for gifted education. This study restricted its focus to perceptions of success rather than attempting to link the policy directly with objective assessments of its impact on students.

Brown, Avery, VanTassel-Baska, and Stambaugh (2006) analysis of the policies in five U.S. states provided the basis for VanTassel-Baska’s (2009) recommendation of five nec-essary components and five attributes for a “comprehensive” (p. 1306) and “high quality” (p. 1308) GEP. The five compo-nents include specific references to identification, program

and service provisions, a link with supplemental policies, preparation of personnel involved in the education of gifted students such as teachers, school counselors, and administra-tors, and program management (Table 1).

The attributes for judging the quality of a gifted education policy include clarity, comprehensiveness, connectedness, feasibility, and a basis in research (Table 2). In terms of basis of research, VanTassel-Baska (2009) recommended that the policy be grounded in research-based best practice and current research relating to academic performance, including contextual (Aronson & Steele, 2005; Deaux et al., 2007), cognitive (Gutchess et al., 2006; Masuda & Nisbett, 2006; Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda, 2006), and motiva-tional factors (Dweck & Master, 2008; Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008). VanTassel-Baska also recommended that there should be a clearly articulated linkage between the GEP and the broader policies that may affect gifted students in some way. Finally, she recommended a time frame of no more than 3 years from its inception.

Although high internal quality GEP is desirable, it does not, of course, guarantee that the policy will be successful. It is, nevertheless, important to demonstrate the internal qual-ity of the policy before evaluating its success.

Hence, the purpose of the current research is to identify the main components of the GEP in Hong Kong, including its stated goals and objectives, delivery platforms, and intended beneficiaries and to judge the internal quality of the GEP against VanTassel-Baska’s (2009) five criteria. To help us achieve this aim, we first define policy and describe the development of the GEP in Hong Kong.

Policy and MandateIn recognizing the difficulty in defining the term policy (Yang, 2007), we view it as socially constructed, consisting of a collection of documents, related texts, and interpreta-tions of these documents and texts by policy makers and the key officials whose job it is to explain the policy. As such, policy documents reflect the intentions and practices of policy as they are perceived by the policy makers (Bell & Stevenson, 2006; Berk & Rossi, 1999; Trowler, 2003). Descriptions of policy reflect the “policy space” as it exists currently since policies change over “time and space” and that interpretations of policy depend on the current “agen-das” of policy makers (Berk & Rossi, 1999, pp. 10-11). Thus, an evaluation of GEP must take into account the cur-rent interpretations of policy makers and the documents that relate to the policy.

In Hong Kong, the GEP spans the decade immediately prior to and immediately after the “handover” of the former British colony to the authority of the Chinese mainland. Currently, the Basic Law Article 136 of Hong Kong SAR allows the government of Hong Kong to “formulate policies on the development and improvement of education” on the basis of its previous colonial system. Clearly, the forces and



Phillipson et al. 237

Table 1. Five Components of a Gifted Education Policy

Component Details

Identification • Operational definitions of giftedness that acknowledge both general and specific abilities• Multiple (at least three) criteria used to identify each category of giftedness• Instruments that are sensitive to underrepresented groups of students• Equally stringent standards applied to all instruments used to identify students• Clear specifications that identification may occur in all categories of giftedness should be cited• A systematic process for linking identification procedures to programs and servicesa

• A clearly delineated process for equitable decision making at screening, identification, selection, and placement (including appeals process)

Program and service provisions

• A match between the mechanisms used to identify students and the educational programs and services that are provideda

• At least one option for the grouping of gifted learners• Contact time for gifted programs should be no less than 150 minutes per week• Curriculum for each subject should be modified beyond the standard curriculum to include acceleration, complexity, depth,

challenge, and creativity, and should be based on appropriately designed curriculum for gifted students• Instruction should be appropriately diverse in technique and include an emphasis on problem solving, critical thinking, creative

thinking, and research skills• Assessment practices should be matched to the curriculum objectives, with off-level standardized tests, performance-based tasks,

and portfolio approaches encouraged• Programs should be modified and extended to cater for at-risk and highly gifted students populationsa

• Options that allow for the accelerated rate of student learning, including early entry to kindergarten, grade skipping, subject skipping, early entry to middle school, high school, or college using determinants of overall performance, demonstrated readiness, and relevant exit examination testing

• Provision for the support of the social–emotional development of students• Provision for academic guidance and career counseling• A council to oversee the policy’s delivery

Supplemental policies

• A clear linkage between the differentiation of the curriculum, instructional practices and assessment for gifted students, and the standards of the broader educational reformsa

• Annual monitoring of student data to ensure that gifted students are reaching desired proficiency levels in areas related to their identification

• Monitoring of gifted student participation in “hallmark” secondary programs, such as International Baccalaureate• Promotion of such “hallmark” secondary programs

Personnel preparation

• A minimum of 12 hours of coursework in gifted educationb

• Linkage of coursework to a university-based program and university network• Frequent staff development opportunities regarding the needs of gifted persons engaged in gifted programs, and all classroom

teachers, counselors, and administrators• Program coordinators provided with 15 hours of courses in educational administration

Program managementc

• The Education Bureau requires an annual plan from schools specifying how they plan to identify and serve gifted students• The Education Bureau should undertake annual reviews of school plans• The components of the plan should be specified by regulationd

• Compliance of schools to the plan should be enforced by visits to schools every 5 years• Funding to schools should be tied to the submission of their plans

Source. Adapted from VanTassel-Baska (2009, pp. 1306-1308).a. Areas that require clear articulation.b. VanTassel-Baska (2009) recommends that the course be based on the U.S. standards for teacher accreditation in gifted education (p. 1307).c. This component refers to the role played by U.S. state authorities in ensuring the quality of programs at the “local” level. The reference to Local Education Agencies (LEAs; p. 1308) is the link between U.S. state authorities and schools. In Hong Kong, however, the Education Bureau (EDB) of Hong Kong is the government’s authority in implementing and monitoring the education policies, and it deals directly with schools. Accordingly, any reference to LEAs is replaced by schools to reflect the local context.d. The EDB components should include screening, identification, and referral processes; program provisions at all levels of schooling; goals, student outcomes, and student assess-ment processes for all program models; details of student contact time for each model; student–teacher ratios for each model; a plan for professional development; plans for student guidance and counseling; and a design for program evaluation.

persons that helped shape the creation of the gifted education policy in the mid 1990s are different to those in the second decade of the 21st century, leading to the possibility that the GEP reflects neither the forces nor the group members that are now interpreting and implementing the policy.

According to Datnow and Park (2009), policy is imple-mented through the use of “policy instruments” (p. 352). One such instrument, mandates and associated funding, relies on prescribed rules and regulations to achieve the aims and objectives of the policy. If the GEP is not mandated, its implementation is less likely to include “heavy-handed”

rhetoric (VanTassel-Baska, 2009, p. 1297). Moreover, an unmandated policy is more likely to devolve the decision-making processes and authority to new organizations.

One analysis of policy in Hong Kong using critical dis-course analysis showed, however, that a mandated policy could still be framed in “softer” rhetoric. Cheng’s (2009) analysis of the preprimary school policy showed that it is framed in a language that is intended to be attractive and engender broad public appeal. The relevant policy document makes it very clear that its intention is to support families, particularly those in most need and the rhetoric has a focus




Table 2. Five Attributes of a High-Quality Gifted Education Policy

Clarity •Is the policy written in clear and unambiguous terms? •Does the policy encourage a common understanding and interpretation? Can all stakeholders readily

interpret each policy to determine (1) the extent that all schools are able to comply with the policy and/or (2) how their practices can be strengthened in order to comply?

Comprehensiveness •Does the policy cover all major components as outlined in Table 1? Is each component sufficiently explained in order to be implemented?

Connectedness •Does the policy flow logically from one component to another? Are the components internally consistent? •Are the policies linked, aligned, or compatible with one another? Does the gifted education policy connect

to and is consistent with general education policies?Feasibility for

implementation•Does the policy constitute a set of regulations that schools can implement? Is there evidence that the policy

has been implemented elsewhere successfully?Research based •Is the policy grounded in research-based best practice? Is the policy consistent with new research in the

field?

Source. Adapted from VanTassel-Baska (2009, pp. 1308-1309).Note. It should be noted that VanTassel-Baska’s original discussion is based on the U.S. context, hence her reference to State policies and “school districts.” In adapting the attributes for the Hong Kong context, any reference to “district” and “school district” is changed to “schools.”

on marketization, social justice, and in providing greater freedom of choice to “consumers” of education.

The Development of the Gifted Education Policy in Hong KongA brief outline of the development the GEP will show that a limited number of government and semigovernment agen-cies are involved, including a number of government com-missions, the various incarnations of the Education Department, the Curriculum Development Institute and its two subsections, the Special Needs Section, and the Gifted Education Section. The memberships of the various educa-tion commissions are appointed by the government and include academics, business persons, school teachers and principals, and senior government representatives. However, the outline will also show that the external influences behind the GEP are likely to be different to those that have framed the other educational reforms currently being implemented in Hong Kong.

The publication of the Education Commission Report No. 4 (1990) marked the beginning of government determination to meet the needs of academically gifted students. To facilitate the recommendations of the Commission, the Fung Hon Chu Gifted Education Centre (FHCGEC) was established in 1994 as part of the Special Needs Section of the Curriculum Development Institute and given the responsibility to implement a 3-year pilot school-based program in 19 primary schools.

The project was completed in 1997 together with an adap-tation and standardization of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and the development of checklists that could be used by parents and teachers to identify academically gifted stu-dents. The Education Department (2000) concluded that the project had brought about positive changes in student thinking and personal–social competency in all students not just the academically gifted. The Education Commission (2000a)

recommended that “elements of gifted education (including higher order thinking skills, creativity, and social skills) should be incorporated into the school curriculum, thereby enriching and extending it” (p. 10) for the benefit of all students. Furthermore, the needs of students with relatively higher abili-ties should be met through specialized course, access to addi-tional resources such as specialist courses, personalized training programs, and early advancement. The Commission also recommended that services for gifted students be extended to include sport, leadership, and art.

In a separate document, the Education Commission (2000b) recommended that teacher education be strength-ened through the provision of preservice and in-service train-ing in gifted education (p. V-7) and greater flexibility in the admission and promotion of gifted students (p. V-7). The (then) Education Department (2000) outlined its blueprint for gifted education in a document titled “The Development of Gifted Education in Hong Kong” that has since become the cornerstone of the GEP in Hong Kong. The document provides a brief rationale for gifted education, outlines the principles of gifted education, the basic conditions that would ensure the success of gifted education, and the approaches that should take place.

In October 2006, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong announced the formation of the Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education (Academy), an organization that is funded equally by a private benefactor and the government of Hong Kong. The Academy’s remit is broadly in line with the implementation plan (Education Commission, 2000b) in that it caters to the academic needs of students within the third tier and the professional development of teachers. The Academy’s portfolio of responsibilities also includes parent support, research, and policy development.

The current research will analyze and describe the GEP in Hong Kong. Our approach to this analysis and description is based on the idea that policy is socially constructed. Hence,




the source materials for this description are the documents relating to the GEP and interview data from key policy mak-ers in Hong Kong. Using VanTassel-Baska’s (2009) guide-lines as the conceptual framework, we aim to judge the internal quality of the GEP.

MethodIdentification and Collection of Source Material

Source materials related to the gifted education policy were found after searching the Education Bureau (EDB) and Legislative Council of Hong Kong’s (LegCo) websites for documents related to gifted education using the search terms gifted* or gifted education and policy. Search results were restricted to documents dated from the year 2000 onward and published in English.

A search of the EDB and LegCo websites yielded 75 doc-uments. These documents can be grouped into eight catego-ries, including Education (ED) documents (n = 9), Finance Committee (FC) documents (n = 5), LegCo Council Panel (LCP) documents (n = 10), Minutes of Special Meetings (MS; n = 10), Official Records of Proceedings (OR; n = 9), Policy Address and Agenda (PA; n = 5), Examination of Draft Estimates of Expenditure (EE; n = 23), and LegCo Questions and Replies (LCQ; n = 4). A full list of these docu-ments is available from the authors on request.

In addition to the search of documents, separate inter-views were conducted with three persons currently holding senior positions in the context of the GEP in Hong Kong. The three interviewees were informed that the purpose of the interview was to more fully understand the GEP. Accordingly, the interview followed a semistructured format consisting of a list of questions that focused on obtaining a detailed description of the policy (Table 3), allowing the interviewees to speak freely about their interpretation of the GEP.

All interviews were conducted separately and in English, recorded, and later transcribed. The transcriptions were checked for accuracy by at least two independent judges.

Data Analysis

The text from the documents and interview verbatim were subjected to content analysis using NVivo 8 (QSR International, Cambridge, MA). Following the five criteria of VanTassel-Baska (2009; clarity, comprehensiveness, connectedness, feasibility, and a basis in research), we sorted the data using a three-level thematic approach in con-tent analysis. The three levels were

1. Coding of broadly relevant data to the five criteria. Any data that did not fall within those five criteria were allocated to an undefined theme.

2. The coded data then were further sorted to define their suitability within the five criteria. Data that overlapped between criteria were reanalyzed and reallocated to criteria that best suited them. The data in the undefined theme were sorted through to discern a recurring theme that would complement the five criteria.

3. The coded data were again sorted through the themes and the results were tabulated for a clear view of the findings.

This three-level content analysis allowed us to identify both gaps in the GEP and deficiencies in quality.

To address issues of reliability and validity, the themes and codes were created by the first author and agreed on by the other two authors. The coding of the data was initially conducted by a research assistant and then independently verified by the three authors. Any discrepancy was resolved during discussions between the authors and the research assistant.

ResultsThe analysis revealed six themes instead of five as expected with the VanTassel-Baska criteria (2009). The sixth theme obtained from the data were the “Aims and Objectives of the GEP”; a condition that VanTassel-Baska did not list in her

Table 3. Semistructured Questions Used During the Interview Process

1. What is your understanding of the term “policy?” Is there a “gifted” education policy? 2. What is the gifted education policy? How is giftedness defined? What are the aims of the policy? 3. Who are the intended beneficiaries? How do the beneficiaries (benefit)? 4. Where did the three-tier model come from? 5. What are the important documents related to the gifted education policy? Where are they? 6. How is the policy being implemented? 7. How is the policy updated and refined? 8. What are the indicators of success? How will you know if the policy meets its aims? 9. What are the future directions of the policy?10. What are the priorities of the gifted policy?11. How does a gifted policy support the aims of other educational policies in Hong Kong?




criteria for a “good” GEP. The aims and objectives of the GEP came out as the overarching theme over the five themes to form a GEP. We discuss the results under the heading of each of the six themes. For Theme 6, which we discuss first, we present the findings with examples of supporting evi-dence and their associated data source in a tabulated form for easy reference. Because of word limitations, we discuss the results of the other themes without such examples of supporting evidence and their associated data. However, the data are available from the authors on request.

Aims and Objectives of the Gifted Education PolicyThe aims and objectives of the GEP differ according to eight main groups of beneficiaries, including students, parents, teachers, schools, the Academy, universities, the general pub-lic, and the broader educational reform (Table 4). The aims and objectives are broadly stated (i.e., explore and develop students’ multiple abilities, promote parent understanding of multiple abilities, and mobilize the general public’s support for and participation in gifted education). However, these aims are open to different interpretations and, hence, not eas-ily qualified and quantified. Interviewee 1 (I1, Table 4), for example, saw the benefit of the GEP to the general public as “. . . that the gifted education policy in HK is really about the cultural change of the mindset” whereas Interviewee 3 (I3, Table 4) saw the GEP as “complementing the general educa-tion policy in HK.”

IdentificationThe GEP is operationalized as the three-tier model, with each tier referring to student coverage, identification proce-dures, together with implications for identification, teacher training, and curriculum. Tiers 1 and 2 are both school-based approaches but differ in terms of student and curriculum foci with reference to the top 10% and top 2% to 4% of students, respectively. Tier 3 is implemented by the Academy and focuses on the top 0.1% of the school population (Table 5). The reference to schools and students does not differentiate between primary and secondary schools.

Multiple definitions are recognized as part of the identifica-tion process in the GEP whereby the GEP frequently refers to “broad” definitions of giftedness: “A broad definition using multiple intelligences (MI) instead of a restrictive one, confin-ing only to the academically gifted, should be adopted” (MS1).

VanTassel-Baska (2009) suggests that at least three crite-ria be used to identify each category of giftedness. Taking the Marland model as the basis of the policy, the GEP refers to the use of “multiple criteria” to identify the top 10% (Tier 1), the top 2% to 4% (Tier 2), and the top 0.1% (Tier 3). In particular, Tier 2 refers to “students with superior intelli-gence” or students with “excellent performance.” The pro-posed instruments to identify “excellent performance” vary

from (unstandardized) school tests and examinations and (standardized) attainment tests, together with teacher and/or parent observation checklists, internal and external awards for outstanding performance, student products, and off-ceil-ing tests (ED1 and ED8).

In the provision of school-based approaches for Tiers 1 and 2, the role played by teachers is to “identify and select students” using “multiple criteria based on guidelines and instruments developed to be suggested and developed . . .” by EDB for the purpose (ED1, Table 4). The instruments include school results, Target Oriented Assessments, Hong Kong Attainment Tests, observation checklist, and student portfolios. Likewise, teachers can nominate students to par-ticipate in Tier 3 activities in accordance with “criteria” devised by EDB, or selected by a “panel of specialists . . . using criteria such as aptitude tests, intelligence tests, social emotional assessments, creativity, and other checklists . . .” (ED1).

Program and Service ProvisionsIn broad terms, VanTassel-Baska (2009) recommended that educational programs and services must “optimally” match (p. 1306) the mechanisms used to identify the students. We interpret this to mean that, first, the identification processes are not an end in themselves, and second, the policy must specifically refer to programs and services for each category of giftedness. Although the GEP refers to a number of dif-ferent conceptualizations of giftedness, our analysis strongly suggest that the students most likely to be identified are those that demonstrate high academic achievement. Our examination of the GEP shows, however, that there is no explicit link between the identification mechanisms and the educational program and moreover, there is a distinct lack of detail in regard to the programs and services provided. The next paragraphs will discuss each of the VanTassel-Baska’s recommendation criteria under program and services.

Grouping options. The three-tier model includes a number of broad guidelines for student focus, grouping options, and curriculum focus for each of the three tiers. The guidelines for Tiers 1 and 2 refer to the development of higher order thinking, enrichment and extension, creativity and personal competence in all subject areas, as well as “general enrich-ment.” Furthermore, there is reference to “specialized train-ing in specific subjects” for students in Tier 2.

For Tier 3, the GEP recommends individualized educa-tional arrangements, including counseling, mentorships, and early entry to advanced studies, study camps, and research projects. In particular, Tier 3 allows for students to study credit-bearing university courses. Although the GEP uses terms that are common to gifted education, no details are pro-vided in the GEP for any of these programs or services and no distinction is made between “programs” such as enrichment and “services” such as counseling, leading to the possibility of confusion amongst schools and teachers (LCP6).




Table 4. Beneficiaries, Aims and Objectives, and Evaluation Potential of the Gifted Education Policy

Beneficiary Aims and objectives Data exemplar Data sources

Students • Explore and develop multiple abilities

We should help students explore their multiple abilities as early as possible so that these abilities can be developed to the full. (ED2)

ED2, EE20, I2

• Turn potential into high achievement

A key objective of the education system of the 21st century has been to turn potentials of gifted students into high achievements. (LCP4)

LCP4, LCP5, LCQ1, ED8

• Influence career opportunities and enhance motivation

Career aspiration I think, well that’s an important aspect and attitude, the motivation to learn, the motivation to excel, to go beyond. (I2)

EE20, I2, I3

• Fully develop their potential For students to develop their potentials to the full, we need to increase the flexibility in admission and promotion. This is to provide gifted students with a way to enter school or promote to the higher classes earlier so that they can adjust their pace of learning according to their ability. (ED2)

ED2, EE2, PA1, LCP7, MS8, I2

• Nurture and develop critical thinking, creativity, higher order thinking, and personal competencies

To nurture and develop their critical thinking skills and creativity which are important elements of giftedness to be developed across all the Key Learning Areas. (EE10)

EE10, ED4, MS6, I1, I2

• Achieve success in life and contribute to development of Hong Kong

In the long run, we would also like to see the . . . gifted students who have left the programs, become successful people in society and could contribute to maintaining the well being of Hong Kong. (LCP5)

LCP5, I1, ED6

Parents • Promote understanding of multiple abilities

More will need to be done to promote the understanding of teachers, parents and the community at large about students’ multiple abilities. (ED2)

ED2, ED8, OR6

Schools • Encourage schools to cater for the needs of gifted students

Using a school-based approach, schools could then explore and develop students’ potentials in different aspects while catering for students’ different learning needs. (ED2)

ED2, ED8, EE2, OR6, LCQ3, I1, I3

• Formulate school policies for gifted education

At the school level, it is necessary to formulate clear policies and adopt appropriate measures to develop students’ multiple abilities and meet their diverse needs. (ED2)

ED2, ED8, I2, I3

• Mobilize support for gifted education

To achieve this, it aims to catalyze and galvanize the efforts of teachers, parents and different sectors of the community to create a supportive, sustainable and enriching learning community for students. (LCP4)

ED1, ED2, MS6, LCP4

• Establish partnerships with parents To keep in close contact with parents and help them understand the importance of teaching according to students’ abilities, and to establish partnership with them. (ED2)

ED2, LCP4, OR6, OR8, I3

• Establish Professional Development Schools

We are to establish Professional Development Schools in the districts when the capacity of potential schools becomes available. (FC2)

FC2, EE8, EE10, EE18, EE20, OR9, LCQ4

Teachers and principals

• Promote understanding of multiple abilities

To promote the understanding of teachers, parents and the community at large about students’ multiple abilities. (ED2)

ED2, ED8, I2, I3

General public • Mobilize broad support for and participation in gifted education programs

To mobilize all members of a school (including teachers, students, parents, etc,) to support the implementation of integrated education. (ED2)

ED1, ED2, MS6

• Change public “mind-set” regarding gifted education, particularly in relation to IQ-based definitions of giftedness

I must say that the gifted education policy in HK is really about the cultural change of the mindset. (I1)In Hong Kong, a broad definition using multiple intelligences instead of a restrictive one focusing merely on the academically gifted is adopted. (LCP7)

ED1, EE4, LCP5, LCP6, LCP7, FC4, I1, I2

Academy • Establish regional and international platform for research and development in gifted education

In the long run, we hope that the Academy can develop into a hub for gifted education providing services to students in Hong Kong, the Mainland as well as the Asian Pacific Region. (OR4)

OR3, OR4, PA2, OR9, LCQ4, I2

Hong Kong’s universities

• Generate broad support for gifted education

Develop close partnership with local and overseas universities to provide enrichment and acceleration programs relevant to the diverse potential and needs of gifted students. (MS8)

ED2, MS6, MS8, I2

• Develop and implement preservice courses to prepare teachers and principals for gifted education

Teacher training institutions should enrich the contents of teachers’ preservice training courses to help teachers develop the proper attitude and the necessary skills . . . (ED2)

ED2, ED4, OR9, LCQ4

Hong Kong educational reforms

• Complement general educational policies

I would say complementing . . . complementing the general education policy in HK because I think we have to take the big picture . . . (I3)

ED1, EE1, OR2, ED4, OR4, I1, I2, I3

Note. ED = Education Documents (1-9); FC = Finance Committee Documents (1-5); I1, I2, and I3 = Interviewees 1, 2, and 3, respectively; LCP = Legislative Council Panel (1-10); MS = Minutes of Special Meetings (1-10); OR = Official Record of Proceedings (Hansard) (1-9); PA = Policy Address & Agenda (1-5); EE = Examination of draft Estimates of Expenditure (1-23); LCQ = LegCo Questions and Replies (1-4). A full list of documents, dates, titles, and/or speakers are available on request.




Table 5. The Three-Tier Model of Gifted Education in Hong Kong

Tier Nature Responsibility Student focus Grouping option Curriculum focus Identification

1 Generic School All students Whole class High-order thinking, creativity, and personal competence incorporated into all key learning areas

None required

Specialized School Top 10% “Appropriate” grouping within whole class

Enrichment and extension of curriculum in all subjects

School results, test and/or examination papers, TOA, HKAT, teacher and/or parent checklists

2 Generic School Top 2% to 4% of students with superior intelligence, or excellent performance

Pullout programs outside of regular classrooms with homogenous groups of students

General enrichment Multiple criteria (based on guidelines and instruments to be developed by EDB, school results, TOA, HKAT, teacher, and/or parent checklists, internal and external awards, student products, off-ceiling testing

Specialized School As above As above Specialized training in specific subjects

As above

3 Individualized EDB/Academy Top 0.1% (“exceptionally gifted”)

Off-site support Individualized educational arrangement, including counseling, mentorship, early entry to advanced classes, and so on

Alternative mechanisms to be considered such as• Mechanisms devised by a panel

consisting of subject specialists, educational psychologists and other experts in gifted education

• Nominated by teacher according to criteria set up by EDB and selected by a panel of specialists, using criteria such as aptitude tests, intelligence tests, socioemotional assessments, creativity, and other checklists for assessment

Note. TOA = Target Oriented Assessment; HKAT = Hong Kong Attainment Tests; EDB = Education Bureau; Academy = The Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education. Note that the Gifted Education Policy states that the students in Tiers 1 and 2 should not be labeled as “gifted.”

Parallel with VanTassel-Baska’s recommendations, the GEP makes specific reference to a number of grouping options for both Tiers 1 and 2, including provision for “appropriate” grouping and “pullout” programs, respec-tively. Again, no details are provided except that the pullout programs should occur “outside” of regular classrooms. As a consequence, pullout classes are likely to be implemented as extra classes rather than as replacements to the regular schedule (ED1).

Contact time, modification of curriculum, and appropriate instruction. There is no mention of the time required to par-ticipate in specialized programs and services. Nor are there any details such as regarding how the curriculum should be modified, except for a recent reference to Tomlinson’s (1999) “continua of instructional elements.” In using Tom-linson’s example, the focus is on adapting the regular cur-riculum rather than focusing on homogenous groups of students. Perhaps significantly, Tomlinson’s example is shown within a guide to the new senior secondary curriculum, dated 2008, rather than in documents specifically related to the policy on gifted education.

The GEP specifically refers to the development of cur-riculum that includes creative thinking, problem solving, and curriculum thinking, particularly in relation to Tiers 1 and 2.

However, only Tier 2 specifically focuses on gifted students and there is no reference to teachers similarly changing their instructional strategies in line with the VanTassel-Baska’s recommendations. The link between MI as a conception of giftedness and its use in curriculum design was reported in the answer to a written question in LegCo regarding the implementation of the GEP, specifically that

teachers have become more open to . . . multiple intel-ligences as manifested in the design and implementa-tion of school-based gifted education programs and the adoption of different modes of assessment to cater for individual needs (EE10).

Assessment practices. The effectiveness of programs for students at Tier 3 is mainly assessed using postprogram sur-veys of student satisfaction (LCP7), rather than matching learning objectives with student outcomes as recommended by VanTassel-Baska (2009). In addition, the tertiary institu-tions that provide credit-bearing courses and other course providers conduct their own assessment practices to ensure that students have reached the required standards. Across all three tiers, however, the GEP does not make specific reference to assessment practices, preferring to allow




participating schools to develop their own assessment poli-cies based on student feedback.

Meeting the needs of at-risk and highly gifted students. A glossary of terms within the GEP mentions that gifted stu-dents do not always achieve to their potential. These under-achieving gifted students are defined in terms of the discrepancy between their “superior intelligence” and their performance, and the policy mentions some possible reasons for their underachievement, including social, personal, or environmental factors such as overly competitive school environment, a focus on external evaluation, and unchal-lenging curriculum. The GEP also recognizes that some gifted students have emotional problems, behavioral prob-lems, and/or learning difficulties and expect schools to meet their needs (ED8 and ED2).

Acceleration options. Although acceleration is mentioned in the GEP, it was only recently that guidelines for primary and secondary schools were available for schools to use. Pre-viously, acceleration was restricted to students in Tier 3 and only in terms of early entry to university. With the publica-tion of the guide (Curriculum Development Council–Gifted Education, 2008), Hong Kong schools have access to infor-mation regarding a acceleration at the primary and secondary school levels. A number of options for acceleration are explained and the discussion centers on “grade skipping” because this appears to be the most common form of accel-eration in Hong Kong, although no basis for this statement is provided (ED7). Furthermore, the examples focus on stu-dents in the early stages of their primary education.

Included in the guide is a checklist for assessing the suit-ability of students for possible grade skipping, with items arranged under seven criteria, including Cognitive Ability & Performance, Attitude & Motivation, Affective Characteristics, Participation in Cocurricular Activities, Growth & Physical Ability, School Policy & Support, and Family Support (Curriculum Development Council–Gifted Education, 2008). Although the manual states that the checklist was “piloted” in schools (p. 2), no details of the validation process are pro-vided. In implementing the checklist, students able to meet “more criteria” (p. 50) than not should be considered for dis-cussion regarding the possibility for grade skipping. The checklist is to be used to guide discussions among teachers, parents, and students, and a group consensus should be the basis for recommending a student for acceleration.

One item in the checklist refers to a “level of mental devel-opment two or more standard deviations above the mean” (p. 51), corresponding to an IQ score 130 or higher. However, the checklist advises against making an IQ test score a “com-pulsory criteria for assessing a student’s suitability” (p. 52). In stating a minimum IQ score, the checklist seems to be referring to students within Tier 2 (i.e., top 2% to 4% of stu-dents) as possible candidates for grade skipping.

Providing for the social–emotional development of gifted stu-dents. The GEP makes specific reference to the support of the social–emotional development of gifted students, preferring

to use the term personal–social competence (ED2). Although the GEP recognizes the social–emotional needs of gifted stu-dents, this recognition is within the context of the educational reforms that seek to support these needs in all students.

The responsibility for the development of personal–social competence includes schools as part of an appropriate cur-riculum for gifted students within Tiers 1 and 2. For students in Tier 3, the responsibility for the development of personal–social competency lies with the Academy (LCP5). In addi-tion, the Academy supports parents in helping them meet the emotional needs of their gifted children.

Providing for academic and career counseling. Academic and career counseling is not mentioned in the GEP, except in relationship to mentorship programs (ED4). On the other hand, career counseling is one of a number of initiatives in the current educational reforms as part of the development of Career Oriented Studies for students who have a more “prac-tical” orientation to their studies.

Overseeing the policy’s delivery. The GEP is implemented by the FHCGEC and the Academy. In particular, the FHC-GEC supports Hong Kong’s schools in developing school-based gifted education programs for students in Tiers 1 and 2, whereas the Academy is charged with the supporting the needs of students in Tier 3 (ED2 and LCP5). Oversight of the work of both the FHCGEC and Academy is the responsibil-ity of the EDB. However, a council working independently of all three organizations to oversee the implementation of the GEP is not a feature of the policy.

Supplemental PoliciesThis component refers to the link between the GEP and the broader educational processes and reforms in Hong Kong, as well as administrative issues.

Clear linkage between GEP and standards of broader educa-tional reforms. Although the GEP refers to the broad aims of the educational reforms, the link between the GEP and these reforms is not clearly articulated. These educational reforms emphasize the development of knowledge creation, critical thinking, and creativity. Since the GEP also emphasizes these skills, the impression gained in our analysis of the GEP is that gifted education is not viewed as being restricted to gifted stu-dents but can underpin the curriculum for all students (ED4).

Annual monitoring of student data. The systematic monitor-ing of students participating in the Support Measures for Exceptionally Gifted Students, corresponding to students in Tier 3, is currently one of the functions of the Academy. The purpose of this database is to facilitate longitudinal studies, to establish the effectiveness of the scheme, and to help in the development of an alumni association. To further support this database, surveys of previous participants are conducted regularly to ensure that records are updated with information regarding their engagement in further studies (EE7).

In contrast, data are not kept on either the number of schools in Hong Kong implementing gifted education programs and




services or the number of students receiving them (OR6). It is highly likely, however, that where schools are providing for these students, records are being kept. Some of the schools implementing gifted education serve as “seed” schools, pro-viding resources and expertise for other schools.

Monitoring gifted student participation in “hallmark” pro-grams. VanTassel-Baska (2009) believed that the participa-tion of gifted students in “hallmark” programs such as the International Baccalaureate (IB) is an important aspect of their development. In Hong Kong, exceptionally gifted stu-dents are encouraged to enter competitions such as the Inter-national Mathematical Olympiad and the International Physics Olympiad (EE10). However, opportunities to study in programs such as IB are generally only available to stu-dents outside the jurisdiction of EDB. The prevalence of gifted students transferring from government to nongovern-ment schools to study the IB is unknown.

Personnel PreparationVanTassel-Baska (2009) suggested that certification in gifted education is a necessary prerequisite for teaching gifted students.

Minimum of 12 hours coursework and linkage of coursework to university-based programs. The preparation of teachers in gifted education occurs at two levels. At the first level, sev-eral of the universities in Hong Kong offer elective courses in gifted education for preservice teachers (LCP7). In addi-tion, the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd) offers an MEd with a specialization in gifted education. Although the target audience are in-service teachers, the course has attracted parents and other interested participants. At the sec-ond level, the Academy offers in-service courses for teachers in specialist topics such as curriculum and instruction, affec-tive education, and generic topics on gifted education such as identification of gifted children and talent development. In addition, the Academy runs a number of parent seminars and workshops (LCQ4).

In accordance with the GEP, the in-service courses offered by the Academy vary in duration, ranging from 12-hour lec-tures to courses running over 40 hours (FC4). Most courses exceed the minimum of 12 hours as suggested by VanTassel-Baska (2009). Although the GEP refers to efforts to forge “partnerships” with universities to train teachers in gifted education (MS8), there is some evidence to suggest that this has been successful. For example, the HKIEd’s MEd in gifted education benefited from the advice from the EDB in the design of the course, and offers opportunities for its stu-dents to visit the Centre. In addition, teachers participating in Academy sponsored in-service courses can apply for course credit at the HKIEd.

Frequent staff development programs. The GEP does not require teachers of gifted students to undertake regular staff development (ED1). Schools are free to nominate teachers for participation in courses in gifted education, with

nominations for advanced courses limited to teachers who have completed foundation courses. Although school coun-selors and administrators are encouraged to attend courses in gifted education, it is not a requirement.

Program coordinators provided with 15-hour courses in edu-cational administration. Although the Academy conducts courses in a wide range of topics related to gifted education, these courses do not include educational administration. This absence is not surprising given that the GEP does not require schools to offer educational programs, thereby limiting the need for coordinators of gifted programs and services.

Program ManagementGifted education in Hong Kong is led by the EDB through the Gifted Education Section. The implementation of the GEP is the responsibility of the Academy and FHCGEC, with each organization responsible for different aspects of gifted education.

Requirement for annual plan from schools. No evidence was found in the GEP that all schools are required to provide annual plans for the identification of and provision for gifted students.

Annual reviews of schools’ plans. The Academy, instead of the FHCGEC, is required to report annually to EDB its plans for programs and services within its remit for meeting the needs of exceptionally gifted students, including compo-nents such as plans for identification, programs and services, student numbers, and outcomes. The distinction between the Centre and the Academy in terms of these requirements may lead to perceptions as to the differences in the relative impor-tance of gifted students in the top 0.1% (Tier 3) compared with students in Tiers 1 and 2 (LCP6).

DiscussionIf the ultimate test of a policy is to improve the educational outcomes of its beneficiaries (Hannaway & Woodroffe, 2003, as cited in VanTassel-Baska, 2009) then it is impor-tant, first, to identify the intended beneficiaries and then, secondly, to determine how they should benefit. Our analy-sis of the GEP in Hong Kong has identified eight specific groups of beneficiaries, together with the aims and objec-tives of the GEP for each of the groups. In addition, the GEP also benefits the broad aims of a number of general educa-tional policies.

On the premise that the implementation of a successful gifted education depends on the interactions between gov-ernment, advocacy groups, the universities, and schools (Phillipson, Kaur, & Phillipson, 2003), the GEP addresses all four areas. However, the inability to quantify some of the variables (i.e., promote parental understanding of multiple abilities, nurture and develop student critical thinking, cre-ativity and higher order thinking, and their personal compe-tency) renders the aims and objectives subject to different




Aims and Objectives of the GEPId

enti

fica

tion

Pro

gram

&se

rvic

e de

live

ry

Pro

gram

sm

anag

emen

t

Per

sonn

elpr

epar

atio

n

Sup

plem

enta

lpo

lici

esFigure 1. VanTassel-Baska’s five components of a high-quality gifted education policy (GEP), together with a sixth overarching component aims and objectivesSource. Adapted from VanTassel-Baska (2009).

standards of interpretations. In turn, this increases the diffi-culty in determining whether or not the policy is successful.

In identifying the aims and objectives of the GEP, we suggest that VanTassel-Baska’s (2009) five component model could be extended to include an overarching compo-nent that reflects explicitly these aspects of the policy. Consequently, the connectedness of the five other compo-nents with this component would be an important criterion to judge the quality of the policy (Figure 1).

Based on the first of VanTassel-Baska’s (2009) five attri-butes, the operational definitions of giftedness are ambigu-ous, particularly in the relationships between multiple intelligences and IQ, and in the relationship between poten-tial and high achievement. This ambiguity may be because the GEP is outdated in terms of current research trends in gifted education or in its aims to be inclusive. In particular, modern definitions of giftedness, such as Sternberg’s (2003) Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized model, Gagné’s (2005) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent, and Ziegler’s (2005) Actiotope Model of Giftedness, have sought to identify the developmental processes that lead to exceptional achievement as well as recognize the dis-tinction between potential and achievement. Moreover, there is an increasing appreciation of the important role played by culture in understanding giftedness (Phillipson & McCann, 2007; Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). Any reference to these developmental models is absent in the GEP.

The importance of “exceptional achievement” is under-standable, given the highly pragmatic nature of the Hong Kong community and the need to demonstrate academic achievement (Kennedy, Fok, & Chan, 2006; Phillipson et al., 2009). Although the “potential” for academic achievement is specifically referred to, the theoretical basis for potential is not fully described, perhaps because the concept itself may be at odd with a community that values achievement rather than potential. Moreover, the likelihood of students with the potential for high academic achievement being identified and offered programming and services is low. Clearly, the GEP then must succinctly specify both conceptual basis for

the underachievement of potentially gifted students and the means to identify them.

Furthermore, the GEP refers to “following international trends” so as to “allow teachers greater flexibility in support-ing gifted students.” Hence the GEP “adopts” a “broad defi-nition” of giftedness, including a focus on the “concept of multiple intelligences.” Clearly, this use of the term broad reflects, in part, the definition of “gifted and talented stu-dents” adopted by the U.S. Office of Education after the Marland (1972) report, although the source of the definition is not cited in the sourced documents.

The inclusion of MI alongside IQ-based definitions pres-ents a number of related problems. Despite the popularity of MI among education practitioners, there is no research evi-dence that supports the contention that it is possible to iden-tify the top 2% to 4% of students (Schaler, 2006). Moreover, there seems to be some confusion in the policy over “supe-rior performance in specific areas” and the nature of intelli-gence as defined by Gardner (1993; see also Gardner & Moran, 2006). It follows, then, that any instrument that pur-ports to measure multiple intelligences would not obtain uni-versal credibility among psychologists (Brody, 2006).

Furthermore, the articulation between the three tiers is not clear, with students belonging to three seemingly distinct groups. The implication is that students will be allocated into one of these three groups, rather than progress through each tier. The end result could be that exceptionally gifted stu-dents (Tier 3) may not have received programs and services reflecting their inherent membership of Tiers 1 and 2.

In terms of standards of identification, it is unclear whether the same rigor is applied for the identification of students at all three tiers, given that a number of tests are suggested. For example, students nominated by schools to receive programs and service at Tier 3 are not required to substantiate their nominations with scores from psychomet-ric tests of intellectual ability. Given the wide choice of methods, however, it is possible that schools would take a pragmatic approach to the identification of students. In choosing which method to use, teachers may base their choice on convenience and simplicity, particularly as the for-mat of the list implies that all methods share the same stan-dards of validity and reliability (VanTassel-Baska, 2009). Furthermore, the lack of detail regarding the instruments makes it difficult to assess whether or not they are sensitive to minority groups. Clearly, using school results as the sole basis for the identification of gifted students would neither adhere to these standards nor be sensitive to minority groups.

In accordance with the VanTassel-Baska’s (2009) requirement, the GEP includes a close match between the identification processes and programs and services. In prac-tice, however, the emphasis on high achievement as the iden-tification tool means that it is likely that schools will focus on the development of this group of students rather than those students identified on the basis of a potential for high achievement. Since schools are not required to report how




they nominate students for programs and services, it is unclear whether the same standards are applied.

The GEP allows schools to implement acceleration, group-ing options, and programs and services according to their needs. The policy clearly outlines the importance of higher order thinking, creativity training, critical thinking skills, and social and emotional development of their students. On the other hand, the policy does not include suggestions for the evaluation of their programs and services. Furthermore, the policy does not specify the amount of time that schools imple-ment their programs and services, leaving open the possibility that some schools do not, in fact, implement gifted education in any form. Given that secondary schools in Hong Kong are banded into three levels according to the academic perfor-mance of its students (Phillipson et al., 2009), it is possible that only the schools with high-performing students (Band 1) will think it necessary to implement gifted education. The net effect would be to reduce the likelihood of the needs of under-achieving gifted students being met.

The GEP advises against schools using the term gifted to refer to students receiving programs and services within Tiers 1 and 2. This advice is based on the perception that the Chinese translations of the term may have connotations that have a negative impact on the students and, ultimately, the aims of the policy. This perception, however, is yet to have a basis in research. Rather than mitigating any problems asso-ciated with the term, such advice may in fact add to the dif-ficulties in implementing the policy because of uncertainties regarding the intended beneficiaries.

According to VanTassel-Baska (2009), the purpose of annual monitoring of student data is to ensure that students reach “desired proficiency levels” (p. 1307) in the academic areas related to their identification. To measure changes in proficiency level and to judge whether or not the levels have been reached requires two separate pieces of information. First, baseline data are required to observe changes in profi-ciency. Second, the GEP needs to clearly articulate the desired changes in proficiency. Although individual programs and services may set the required standards and measure the changes in proficiency from baseline levels, the GEP does not specify what these standards might be.

At a broader level, the aims of the GEP in effecting changes in higher order thinking skills, creativity, and personal–social competence (aspirations, self-belief, moral develop-ment, and citizenship) need to be evaluated. These changes are in line with the general aims of the educational reform in Hong Kong. Again, this requires an understanding of base-line data in these areas in students defined as gifted accord-ing to the policy.

In Hong Kong, teachers are not required to have training in gifted education, including those who teach exceptionally gifted students. In the United States, national standards have been established to ensure that teacher preparation for gifted education reaches uniform standards. These standards have been developed by the National Association for Gifted

Children (NAGC), a nongovernment organization. In Hong Kong, neither an equivalent to the NAGC nor minimum standards for teacher preparation in gifted education exists.

Furthermore, schools are not required to have program coordinators although there is no doubt that they exist. For teachers of gifted students corresponding to Tiers 1 and 2, corresponding to the largest potential group of gifted stu-dents, training opportunities exist within several of the teacher education universities but only as elective courses. As a consequence, the proportion of teachers at schools in Hong Kong who are adequately prepared in gifted education is likely to vary considerably. Of those teachers who are pre-pared, the standards are also likely to vary.

In terms of programs management, schools are not required to submit annual plans to EDB for the implementa-tions of gifted education at Tiers 1 and 2. On the other hand, the Academy is required to submit detailed reports to EDB on all aspects of its core business, including student services, teacher preparation, and parent services. This distinction between Tier 3 and Tiers 1 and 2 may lead to the perception in the community and schools that only the needs of excep-tionally gifted students are important.

In proposing a framework from which to evaluate GEP, VanTassel-Baska (2009) relied on the U.S. context. She con-cluded that any GEP can only be successful if it is mandated and when funding is linked to its implementation. In Hong Kong, the GEP is neither mandated nor is funding linked to its implementation, except for exceptionally gifted students. Because the GEP is not mandated, its impact in the schools may not be broadly felt. For example, it is possible that the same students would continue to be nominated for Tier 3 services, limiting the penetration of the GEP to other schools and students. This would have the effect of narrowing the academic, social, and emotional profiles of students attend-ing the Academy.

The aims of the broader educational policies are to recog-nize student diversity, change the emphasis from teaching to learning, and to equip teachers and principals with an under-standing of the rationale behind the reforms. In contrast to these educational reforms, the GEP is not required to be implemented by schools in Hong Kong. Thus, the perceived importance of gifted education may not be as high as the other educational reforms, leading to variability in the num-ber of schools implementing the GEP. Furthermore, the stan-dards and reporting requirements of schools implementing the GEP may not match those required by the mandated policies.

The reasons that the GEP has not been mandated lie in a number of interpretations of the GEP by policy makers. The first reason reflects the impression that aspects of gifted edu-cation are embedded within the broader educational reforms, particularly the reforms concerned with the development of higher order thinking, creativity, and personal competency. Second, the number of educational reforms is placing teach-ers and schools under a great deal of pressure and it is




inadvisable to add to this pressure. Last, the use of the term gifted to refer to students within Tiers 1 and 2 should be avoided since the Chinese (Cantonese) translations of the term can carry negative connotations. Instead, policy makers recommend the use of euphemisms to avoid the negative effects of “labeling” (I1, I2).

Since 2000, a number of researchers have conducted stud-ies and published on a number of themes of gifted education (Chan, Chan, & Zhao, 2009; Phillipson, 2008). Of the themes, little research has focused on curriculum develop-ment for gifted students in Hong Kong, whereas research in themes such as the social and emotional development of gifted students, creativity, and identification of gifted stu-dents has received proportionally greater attention. However, there is little evidence that this research has impacted the GEP. In the future, the Academy’s plans to implement a research division may enable it to coordinate both basic and applied research.

As mentioned previously, the GEP in Hong Kong has never been evaluated for its effectiveness, clearly violating VanTassel-Baska’s (2009) contention that policies should include provision for its evaluation at least every 3 years. As a result, the GEP has not changed since it was first intro-duced in 2000. Since this time, however, there have been a number of notable addendums to the policy, including the formation of the Academy, as well as expansions in the num-ber of guidelines and explanations that are currently avail-able. Although we can assume that due care has guided these developments, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the GEP should also include all related documents and implementa-tion strategies.

ConclusionDespite the high level of public interest in gifted education in Hong Kong and a number of recent developments, the GEP policy on which gifted education is based is yet to be evaluated. Using VanTassel-Baska’s (2009) five-component model as the basis of our analysis and evaluation of the GEP, together with our suggested addition of a sixth component, we have identified a number of shortcomings in the policy. These shortcomings are found in the components of Identification and Programs and Services mainly because the GEP has not kept pace with modern developments in research in these areas. Shortcomings in the other compo-nents, Supplemental Policies, Personnel Preparation, and Program Management, reflect the fact that neither is the GEP mandated by the EDB nor is there funding attached to its implementation.

As Datnow and Park (2009) pointed out, mandates and funding are the instruments by which a policy is usually implemented. With respect to policies for gifted education, VanTassel-Baska (2009) concluded that both mandates and funding are essential for successful gifted education policies in the United States. Although policy makers in Hong Kong

are reluctant to mandate gifted education, perhaps it is time to reconsider this position, particularly as it is possible to frame a mandated policy using a rhetoric that is appropriate for the Hong Kong community (Cheng, 2009).

In mandating the GEP, we suggest the formation of an independent organization with the remit of overseeing the management of the policy and the introduction of minimum standards for teacher preparation in gifted education.

The next stage of any evaluation is to establish the impact of the policy of the educational outcomes of gifted students in Hong Kong. Using the findings from our research, partic-ularly in the Progammes and Services component, we sug-gest that future research establish baseline levels of gifted student achievement in areas such academic achievement, critical and creative thinking, and in affective outcomes such as levels and types of aspirations, motivation, self-belief, and citizenship.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Education Bureau, the Hong Kong Academy for Gifted Education and the Fung Hon Chu Gifted Education Centre for their kind cooperation. We also thank Mr. Jan Gube for his assis-tance in transcribing and coding the responses, and Ms. Brenda Peters for her advice in using NVivo. Finally, we thank Professor Christine Halse of Deakin University for a number of helpful discus-sions at various stages of the project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:

The research was supported by an Internal Research Grant from The Hong Kong Institute of Education.

References

Aronson, J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of academic competence, motivation, and self-concept. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 436-456). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy: Process, themes and impact. New York, NY: Routledge.

Berk, R. A., & Rossi, P. H. (1999). Thinking about program evalu-ation (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brody, N. (2006). Geocentric theory: A valid alternative to Gard-ner’s theory of intelligence. In J. A. Schaler (Ed.), Howard Gardner under fire: The rebel psychologist faces his critics (pp. 73-94). Chicago, IL: Open Court.

Brown, E., Avery, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., Worley, B. B., II, & Stambaugh, T. (2006). A five-state analysis of gifted education policies. Roeper Review, 29(1), 11-23.

Callahan, C. M. (Ed.). (2004). Program evaluation in gifted educa-tion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.




Chan, D. W. (1996). Program evaluation: Evaluating gifted programs in Hong Kong. Educational Research Journal, 11, 101-105.

Chan, D. W. (2000). ‘Education for the gifted’ and ‘Talent devel-opment’: What gifted education can offer education reform in Hong Kong. Education Journal, 28(2), 1-13.

Chan, D. W., Chan, L.-K., & Zhao, Y. (2009). Twenty-five years of gifted education research in Hong Kong 1984-2008: What lessons have we learned? Educational Research Journal, 24, 135-164.

Cheng, A. Y. N. (2009). Analysing complex policy change in Hong Kong: What role for critical discourse analysis? International Journal of Educational Management, 23, 360-366.

Curriculum Development Council–Gifted Education. (2008). Reference manual for implementing GE in school: Accelera-tion programmes. Retrieved from http://resources.edb.gov.hk/gifted/Acceleration/Acceleration_Manual.pdf

Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implemen-tation: Large scale reform in an era of complexity. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348-361). New York, NY: Routledge.

Deaux, K., Bikmen, N., Gilkes, A., Ventuneac, A., Joseph, Y., Payne, Y. A., & Steele, C. M. Becoming American: Stereotype threat effects in Afro-Caribbean immigrant groups. Social Psy-chology Quarterly, 70, 384-404.

Dweck, C. S., & Master, A. (2008). Self-theories motivate self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 31-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Education Commission. (1990, November). The curriculum and behavioural problems in schools (Report No.4). Hong Kong, China: Government Printer. Retrieved from http://www.edb .gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_689/ecr4_e.pdf

Education Commission. (2000a). Learning for life, learning through life: Reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://www.e-c.edu.hk/eng/reform/annex/ Edu-reform-eng.pdf

Education Commission. (2000b). Review of education system reform proposals consultation document. Retrieved from http://www.info.gov.hk/archive/consult/2000/Full-Eng.pdf

Education Department. (2000, May). Development of gifted edu-cation in Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_3201/policy_paper.pdf

Feldhusen, J. F. (1991). Basic issues and approaches in identifying and educating gifted youth. Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psycho-logical Society, 26-27, 28-46.

Gagné, F. (2005). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119-147.

Gallagher, J. J. (2006). Driving change in special education. London, England: Paul H. Brookes.

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, H., & Moran, S. (2006). The science of multiple intel-ligences theory: A response to Lynn Waterhouse. Educational Psychologist, 41, 227-332.

Gutchess, A. H., Yoon, C., Luo, T., Feinberg, F., Hedden, T., Jing, Q., . . . Park, D. C. (2006). Categorical organization in free recall across culture and age. Gerontology, 52, 314-323.

Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce. (2007). Talent short-age undermining Hong Kong’s competitiveness. Retrieved from http://www.chamber.org.hk/en/media/press-releases_detail .aspx?ID=3131

Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., & Chan, K. S. J. (2006). Reforming the curriculum in a post-colonial society: The case of Hong Kong. Planning and Changing, 37, 111-130.

Manpower. (2007). Confronting the talent crunch: 2007. Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China: Author.

Marland, S. P. J. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Vol. 1. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Com-missioner of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2006). Culture and change blindness. Cognitive Science, 30, 381-399.

Miyamoto, Y., Nisbett, R. E., & Masuda, T. (2006). Culture and the physical environment: Holistic versus analytic perceptual affordances. Psychological Science, 17, 113-119.

Morris, P., & Scott, I. (2003). Educational reform and policy imple-mentation in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Policy, 18, 71-84.

Nussbaum, A. D., & Dweck, C. S. (2008). Defensiveness versus remediation: Self-theories and modes of self-esteem mainte-nance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 599-612.

Phillipson, S. N. (2008). Being gifted in Hong Kong: What does the research say? Paper presented at the 1st HK-UK Gifted Educa-tion Conference—From gifted to great, Hong Kong SAR.

Phillipson, S. N., Kaur, I., & Phillipson, S. (2003). A late developer-gifted education in Malaysia within a global context. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 12, 135-175.

Phillipson, S. N., & McCann, M. (Eds.). (2007). Conceptions of giftedness: Sociocultural perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Phillipson, S. N., Shi, J., Zhang, G., Tsai, D.-M., Quek, C. K., Matsumura, N., & Cho, S. (2009). Recent developments in gifted education in East Asia. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The interna-tional handbook on giftedness (pp. 1427-1461). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media.

Renzulli, J. S. (1984). Evaluating programs for the gifted: Four questions about the larger issues. Gifted Education Interna-tional, 2(2), 83-87.

Schaler, J. A. (Ed.). (2006). Howard Gardner under fire: The rebel psychologist faces his critics. Chicago, IL: Open Court.

Silky, W., & Reading, J. (1992). REDSIL: A fourth genera-tion evaluation model for gifted education programs. Roeper Review, 15(2), 67-69.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthe-sized. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.




Swanson, J. D. (2007). Policy and practice: A case study of gifted education policy implementation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 131-164.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Respond-ing to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A., & Callahan, C. M. (1994). Planning effective evaluations for programs for the gifted. Roeper Review, 17(1), 46-51.

Trowler, P. (2003). Education policy (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2009). United States policy development in gifted education: A patchwork quilt. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1295-1312). Dor-drecht, Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media.

Yang, R. (2007). Comparing policies. In M. M. Bray, B. Adam-son & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (pp. 241-262). Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China: Springer.

Ziegler, A. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411-436). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bios

Shane N. Phillipson is currently an associate professor and Associate Dean (Peninsula) in the Faculty of Education at Monash University and was previously at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. After working for many years as a mathematics and science teacher he obtained a PhD from Flinders University (Australia) with his thesis being awarded the International Award (1999-2000) for best PhD thesis by the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) in the United Kingdom. He has been awarded a number of research grants, resulting in research publica-tions in many international peer-reviewed journals, including High

Ability Studies and Educational Psychology, and he is also a reviewer of research articles for these two journals. His edited books include Learning Diversity in the Chinese Classroom: Contexts and Practice for Students With Special Needs (2007), and Conceptions of Giftedness: Socio-cultural Perspectives (with M. McCann, 2007).

Sivanes Phillipson is an assistant professor in the Department of Education Studies at the Hong Kong Baptist University, where she teaches in the broad area of educational psychology and gifted education. She is also Honorary Associate of Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania. Trained as an English teacher, she obtained her PhD from the University of New England (Australia). Her research interests include the synthesis of structural models of academic achievement in relation to parental involvement and expectations. She has been awarded a number of research grants, resulting in research publications in books and many international peer-reviewed journals, including Educational Psychology. She is the coeditor of Talent Talks, the official newsletter of the International Research Association of Talent and Development.

Deborah M. Eyre is the Global Education Director for Nord Anglia Education working with governments and schools in the United Kingdom, Middle East, Far East, and Southeast Asia. An academic specialist in gifted education, she is a visiting senior research fellow at the University of Oxford (U.K.) and an honorary professor at the University of Warwick (U.K.). Formerly Director of the U.K. National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (NAGTY) Vice-President of the World Council for Gifted Children, she is now Education Director for King Abdulaziz and His Companions Foundation for Giftedness and Creativity, Saudi Arabia and a Board Member for CTY Baltimore, and the Africa Gifted Foundation (AGF).

