topic 11 policy process studies: policy evaluation studies

Topic 11Policy Process Studies:

Policy Evaluation Studies

PEDU 6209

Policy Studies in Education

Conceptualization of evaluation Fitzpatrick, Sanders and Worthen define “evaluation

as the identification, clarification, and application of defensible criteria to determine an evaluation object’s value (worth or merit) in relation to those criteria.” (2004, p.5)

Conceptualization of Policy Evaluation

Conceptualization of policy evaluation: Accordingly, the constituents of evaluation consist of

The evaluation object: It is of course public policy or more specifically education policy.

The evaluation criteria: Define the criteria upon which the evaluations are based. They may include • Policy objectives: To assess to what extent the identified policy

objectives have been fulfilled.

• Policy measures and programs: To investigate to what extent the designed policy measures and programs have been implemented

• Policy outcomes: To measure to what extent the targeted outcomes have been realized

• Cost and benefit of the policy: To assess the cost of the implementation of policy means against the benefits entailed by the policy outcome


Conceptualization of policy evaluation: the constituents of policy evaluation consist of …

The judgment: The evaluation can be studies and judge by means of

• Analytical-technical study

• Interpretive-political study

• Discursive-critical study


Typology of policy evaluation In regards to the purpose of policy evaluation, policy

evaluation can be categorized into Formative evaluations aim to provide information for

personnel implementing the policy or carrying out the program. Hence, their primary purposes are for the development and improvement of the policy and/or program

Summative evaluations aim to pass judgment on the performance of the policy and/or program. They are primarily carried out as accountability mechanism or auditing measures.


Typology of policy evaluation In relation to the policy stages, policy evaluation can

be categorized into Need assessments: They the studies conducted at the

formative stages of the policy process. They are conducted either to evaluate the urgencies of the policy problems or the needs that are required if the identified desirable states of affairs are to be realized.

Process-monitoring studies: They are studies carried out to monitor to what extent are the designed policy measures .and programs are implemented in real world situations. They also aim to provide information for the improvement of the effectiveness of the policy instruments in use.


Typology of policy evaluation In relation to the policy stages, policy evaluation can

be categorized into Outcome studies: They are carried out to assess to what

extent have the preconceived policy outcomes been attained. They can also provide information to the revelations of unanticipated consequences (desirable, undesirable or both) of the policy


Typology of policy evaluation In terms of the policy context, policy evaluation can

be classified intoEndogenous policy evaluation: They are studies carried out

to assess the internal effectiveness and coherence among various parts of the policy constituents. The most common types of the endogenous evaluation studies are those to assess whether the policy outcomes are in congruence with the policy objectives.

Exogenous policy evaluation: They are studies assessing whether the policy substance are in congruence with the policy environment. These type of evaluation studies are especially informative in ever changing policy environment.


Frank Fischer’s Conception of Four Levels of Policy Evaluation

The framework of practical logical of policy evaluation: Post-positivist methodological approach to policy evaluation:

By post-positivism, it refers to "a contemporary school of social science that attempts to combine the discourse of social and political theory with the rigor of modern science. It calls for a marriage of scientific knowledge with interpretive and philosophical knowledge about norms and values." (Fischer, 1995, p. 243) Accordingly, Fischer advocates that policy evaluation research should extend beyond the dominance of empirical-positivism and incorporate practical discourse about rightness of normative claims into policy

evaluation research..


The framework of practical logical of policy evaluation: Fischer names such a post-positivist approach in policy

evaluation the framework of the "Practical Logic of Policy Evaluation".

"It is design to illuminate the basic discursive components of a full or complete evaluation, one which incorporates the full range of both the empirical and normative concerns that can be brought to bear on an evaluation. Structured around four interrelated discourses, the approaches extends from concrete empirical questions pertinent to a particular situation up to the abstract normative issues concerning a way of life." (Fischer, 1995, p. 18)


The framework of practical logical of policy evaluation: Accordingly, the framework of practical logic of policy

evaluation is made up of First-order evaluation level:

• Technical-analytical discourse

• Contextual discourse

Second-order evaluation level• Systems discourse

• Ideological discourse


Technical-analytical discourse: Program verification By program verification, it refers to concerns "with

measurement of the efficiency of program outcome. …The basic questions of verification are Does the program empirically fulfill its stated

objective(s)? Does the empirical analysis uncover secondary or

unanticipated effects that offset the program objectives?

Does the program fulfill the objectives more efficiently than alternative means available?" (p. 20)


Technical-analytical discourse: Program verification "Program verification employs such methodologies as

experimental research and cost-benefit analysis. The goal is to produce a quantitative assessment of the degree to which a program fulfills a particular objective (standard or rule) and a determination (in terms of a comparison of input and output) of how efficiently the objective is fulfill (typically measured as a ratio of costs to benefits) compared to other possible means." (p. 20)


Contextual discourse: Situational validation Validation focuses on whether or not the particular

program objectives are relevant to the situation. …Instead of measuring program objectives per se, validation examines the conceptualizations and assumptions underlying the problem situation which the program is designed to influence. Validation centers around the following questions: Is the program objective(s) relevant to the problem

situation? Are there circumstances in the situation that require an

exception to be made to the objective(s)? Are two or more criteria equally relevant to the problem

situation?" (Pp. 20-21)


Contextual discourse: Situational validation "Validation is an interpretive process of reasoning that

takes place within the framework of the normative belief systems brought to bear on the problem situation. Validation draw in particular on qualitative methods, such as those developed for sociological anthropological research." (p.21)


Systems discourse: Societal vindication "In vindication… the basic task is to show that a policy

goal (from which specific program objectives were drawn) addresses a valuable function for the existing societal arrangement. Vindication is organized around the following questions: Does the policy goal have instrumental or contributive

value for the society as a whole? Does the policy goal result in unanticipated problems

with important societal consequences? Does a commitment to the policy goal lead to

consequence (e.g. benefits and costs) that are judged to be equitably distributed?" (p. 21)


Systems discourse: Societal vindication As second-order vindication, this type of policy

evaluation "steps outside of the situational action context in which program criteria are applied and implemented in order to assess empirically the instrumental consequences of a policy goal in terms of the system as a whole." (p. 21) Hence, the methodological approach adopted by societal vindication is macroscopic-institutional analysis which usually takes the forms of comparative and/or historical-sociological methods.


Ideological discourse: Social choice "Social choice seeks to establish and examine the

selection of a critical basis for marking rationally informed choices about societal systems and their respective ways of life. …Social choice raises the following types of questions: Does the fundamental ideal (or ideology) that organize the

accepted social order provide a basis for a legitimate resolution of conflicting judgments?

If the social order is unable to resolve basic values conflicts, do other social orders equitably accommodate the relevant interests and needs that the conflicts reflect?”

Do normative reflection and empirical support the justification and adoption of an alternative ideology and the social order it prescribes?” (p. 22)


Ideological discourse: Social choice "Social choice involves the interpretive tasks of social

and political critique, particularly as practiced in political theory and philosophy. Most fundamental are the concepts of a 'rational way of life' and 'good society'. Based on the identification and organization of a specific configuration or values ― such as equality, freedom, or community ― models of the good society serve as a basis for the adoption of higher level evaluative criteria." (p. 22) The typical methodological approach adopted by this type of evaluative studies is critical approach to political, social and philosophical inquiry.


Ideological Choice

Because of

SystemsVindicationBecause of

SituationalValidation

Because of

WarrantSince

Technical VerificationData So, (Qualifier), Conclusion

Critical Discursive

Perspective

Interpretive Political

Perspective

AnalyticTechnical

Perspective

Evaluation Study of MOI Policy for Secondary Schools in HKSAR

Topic 11Policy Process Studies: Policy Evaluation Studies

A policy measure in search of an objective: Summative or even judgmental evaluation of the

efficiency of CMI in comparison with EMI Informative evaluation of the efficiency of preparing

secondary-school leavers to become trilingual and bilateral

Upholding mother-tongue instruction Summative evaluation of the effectiveness of

eliminating mixed-coded teaching in secondary schools in HKSAR

Technical-analytical Discourse: Program verification

“The Objectives of the Longitudinal Study (1999-2002) are

to trace the academic & personal development of students in schools adopting either Chinese or English as the MOI;

to compare the degree of improvement of students’ academic and personal development in schools adopting either Chinese or English as the MOI;

to compare the language ability (in both Chinese & English) of students in schools adopting either Chinese or English as the MOI; and

to identify facilitating & hindering factors affecting students learning in school adopting Chinese as the MOI.”

(p.2 of Tender ref. ED/PR/EMICM/99)

The Objectives of the Longitudinal Study (2002-2004)

Study are to find out The effects of different MOI arrangements at senior levels on

students’ learning, e.g. their academic performance, personal development, language ability and high-order thinking skills;

the major factors that enhance/hinder students’ learning in Chinese or English MOI at senior secondary levels; and

the major factors that enhance/hinder the introduction of English as MOI or in part only at senior secondary levels.

based on the findings, to design/recommend measures that support students’ learning under different MOI arrangement for their whole secondary schooling.

(Tender ref. ED/P&R/EMICMI/02)

To compare the academic and personal development outcomes of students in EMI and CMI schools: Summative, outcome and endogenous evaluation research

Instructional paradox in MOI policy outcomes Socio-psychological paradox in MOI policy outcomes School-organizational paradox in MOI policy outcomes


SubjectsSubjects

Cohorts of Students under Study

1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

98-Cohort S.2 S.3 S.4 S.5 S.6 S.7

99-Cohort S.1 S.2 S.3 S.4 S.5 S.6 S.7

98 Cohort

99-00

98AAI

F. 2Tests

HKCEE

99AAI

F. 3Tests

F. 4Tests

F. 1Tests

F. 2Tests

F. 3Tests

F. 4Tests

HKCEE

00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04

99 Cohort

HKALE

HKALE

04-05 05-06

Implementation of the MOI Guidance

Conceptual Framework of the Project

Students’ Academic & Socio-economic Background

CHIG

CMID

CLOW

EMI

Students’ Performance & Perception of Learning Environment

A. Academic Development a. Language Subject - Chinese Language - English Language b. Content Subject - Mathematics - Science - Social Subjects

B. Personal Development a. Self-esteem b. Citizenship Development c. Social Efficacy d. Language & learning attitudes

C. Perception of Learning Environment

a. Learning process & motivation b. Teacher’s efficacy c. Classroom climate d. Quality of school life

Teachers’ Perception of Learning Environment A. Sense of efficacy B. Sense of administrative and collegial support C. Sense of reward & recognition from work D. Sense of autonomy & empowerment E. Feeling of stress in work

School Administration & Learning Environment A. Principal’s Leadership B. Organizations of Academic & Disciplinary Orders C. Organizational Climate & Collaborative Culture.

EMI

CMI

EMI

EMI

CMI

CMI

HKCEEResults

Instructional paradox in MOI policy outcomes

(Junior Forms)


Summary of HLMs of Effects of Pre-entry Achievement, Socioeconomic Background, Gender &

Sampling Strata on F.3 Achievement Score of English Language in 2000-2001, 98-Cohort

Baseline

Model

Strata

Model 1

Strata

Model 2

Fixed Effects on Intercept

Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.196*** 0.237*** 0.164

Individual AAI 0.497*** 0.499*** 0.499***

Individual SES 0.085*** 0.085*** 0.085***

Being Female 0.334*** 0.335*** 0.336***

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 0.361*** 0.184*** 0.257**

School Means-SES 0.181* 0.042 0.032

CMI -- -0.564*** --

CHIG -- -- -0.511***

CMID -- -- -0.522***

CLOW -- -- -0.374*

Random Effects

% of within-school variance explained 24.207% 24.151% 24.157%

% of between-school variance explained 85.873% 92.443% 92.400%

% of total variance explained 65.360% 69.727% 69.699%

* Significant at 0.05 level; ** Significant at 0.01 level; *** Significant at 0.001 level


Sampling Strata on F.3 Achievement Score of English Language in 2001-2002, 99-Cohort

Baseline

Model

Strata

Model 1

Strata

Model 2


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.200*** 0.311*** 0.295**

Individual AAI 0.483*** 0.484*** 0.484***

Individual SES 0.089*** 0.089*** 0.089***

Being Female 0.362*** 0.364*** 0.364***

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 0.210*** 0.080 0.096

School Means-SES 0.234* 0.023 0.024

CMI -- -0.662*** --

CHIG -- -- -0.657***

CMID -- -- -0.644***

CLOW -- -- -0.625**

Random Effects






Sampling Strata on F.3 Achievement Score of Science (English Version) in 2000-2001, 98-Cohort


Baseline

Model

Strata

Model 1

Strata

Model 2


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.128** -0.699*** -0.785***

Individual AAI 0.510*** 0.525*** 0.526***

Individual SES -0.002 -0.004 -0.004

Being Female -0.011 -0.025 -0.026

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI -0.165** -0.053 0.022

School Means-SES -0.052 0.110 0.123

CMI -- 0.729*** --

CHIG -- -- 0.820***

CMID -- -- 0.748***

CLOW -- -- 0.955**

Random Effects





Sampling Strata on F.3 Achievement Score of Science (English Version) in 2001-2002, 99-Cohort

Baseline

Model

Strata

Model 1

Strata

Model 2


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.062 -0.510*** -0.760***

Individual AAI 0.498*** 0.512*** 0.511***

Individual SES 0.001 -0.001 -0.001

Being Female 0.010 0.011 0.011

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI -0.119* -0.018 0.224*

School Means-SES -0.002 0.086 0.078

CMI -- 0.553*** --

CHIG -- -- 0.684***

CMID -- -- 0.772***

CLOW -- -- 1.160***

Random Effects






Sampling Strata on F.3 Achievement Score of Social Study (English Version) in 2000-2001, 98-Cohort

Baseline

Model

Strata

Model 1

Strata

Model 2


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.127** -0.538*** -0.650**

Individual AAI 0.477*** 0.473*** 0.472***

Individual SES -0.005 -0.005 -0.005

Being Female 0.092*** 0.091*** 0.090***

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI -0.332*** -0.168* -0.057

School Means-SES 0.172 0.253* 0.258*

CMI -- 0.534*** --

CHIG -- -- 0.603***

CMID -- -- 0.614**

CLOW -- -- 0.827*

Random Effects






Sampling Strata on F.3 Achievement Score of Social Study (English Version) in 2001-2002,

99-Cohort

Baseline

Model

Strata

Model 1

Strata

Model 2


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.092 -0.547*** -0.640***

Individual AAI 0.428*** 0.421*** 0.420***

Individual SES -0.038** -0.032** -0.032**

Being Female 0.141*** 0.139*** 0.139***

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI -0.252*** -0.043 0.052

School Means-SES 0.028 0.109 0.098

CMI -- 0.571*** --

CHIG -- -- 0.600***

CMID -- -- 0.684***

CLOW -- -- 0.786**

Random Effects






(Senior Forms; HKCEE)


Summary of HLMs of Effects of Pre-entry Achievement, F.3 Corresponding Achievement, Socioeconomic Background,

Gender & Sampling Strata on HKCEE-English Language (Syllabus B) (by score) in 2002-2003, 98-Cohort

Five-Year

Baseline

Model

Five-Year

Strata

Model

Senior-Form

Baseline

Model

Senior-Form

Strata

Model


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.294*** 0.047 -0.083*** -0.068*

Individual AAI 0.626*** 0.629*** 0.821*** 0.822***

Individual SES 0.123*** 0.124*** 0.068*** 0.068***

Being Female 0.409*** 0.414*** 0.179*** 0.179***

F.3 English Achievement -- -- 0.444*** 0.444***

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 0.298*** 0.145** 0.113*** 0.106**

School Means-SES 0.189* 0.091 0.014 0.010

CMI -- -0.432*** -- -0.018

Random Effects

% of within-school variance explained 28.219% 28.247% 52.918% 52.924%

% of between-school variance explained 91.304% 94.233% 97.107% 97.098%

% of total variance explained 66.486% 68.274% 79.723% 79.720%


Summary of HLMs of Effects of Pre-entry Achievement, F.3 Corresponding Achievement, Socioeconomic Background,

Gender & Sampling Strata on HKCEE-English Language (Syllabus B) (by score) in 2003-2004, 99-Cohort

Five-Year

Baseline

Model

Five-Year

Strata

Model

Senior-Form

Baseline

Model

Senior-Form

Strata

Model


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.307*** -0.003 -0.110*** -0.073

Individual AAI 0.632*** 0.638*** 0.808*** 0.809***

Individual SES 0.132*** 0.130*** 0.068*** 0.068***

Being Female 0.395*** 0.403*** 0.186*** 0.186***

F.3 English Achievement -- -- 0.461*** 0.461***

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 0.266*** 0.092 0.110** 0.087*

School Means-SES 0.184* 0.150** 0.037 0.034

CMI -- -0.360*** -- -0.042

Random Effects





Summary of HLMs of Effects of Pre-entry Achievement, F.3 Corresponding Achievement, Socioeconomic

Background, Gender & Sampling Strata on HKCEE-Physics (by score) in 2002-2003, 98-Cohort

Five-Year

Baseline

Model

Five-Year

Strata

Model

Senior-Form

Baseline

Model

Senior-Form

Strata

Model


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.073* 0.178* -0.066* 0.290***

Individual AAI 0.486*** 0.484*** 0.491*** 0.492***

Individual SES 0.022 0.023 0.026* 0.027*

Being Female -0.128*** -0.132*** -0.112*** -0.115***

F.3 Science Achievement -- -- 0.258*** 0.260***

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 0.379*** 0.221** 0.346*** 0.171**

School Means-SES 0.069 0.083 0.102 0.084

CMIE -- -0.224** -- -0.381***

CMIC -- -0.341** -- -0.441***

Random Effects






Background, Gender & Sampling Strata on HKCEE-Physics (by score) in 2003-2004, 99-Cohort

Five-Year

Baseline

Model

Five-Year

Strata

Model

Senior-Form

Baseline

Model

Senior-Form

Strata

Model


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.078* 0.228** -0.094** 0.263***

Individual AAI 0.453*** 0.458*** 0.469*** 0.475***

Individual SES 0.022* 0.022* 0.021* 0.020

Being Female -0.101*** -0.099*** -0.090*** -0.091***


School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 0.236*** 0.173** 0.256*** 0.181**

School Means-SES 0.194** 0.135* 0.171* 0.098

CMIE -- -0.331*** -- -0.433***

CMIC -- -0.361** -- -0.388***

Random Effects






Background, Gender & Sampling Strata on HKCEE-Chemistry (by score) in 2002-2003, 98-Cohort

Five-Year

Baseline

Model

Five-Year

Strata

Model

Senior-Form

Baseline

Model

Senior-Form

Strata

Model


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.112** 0.115 -0.112** 0.257***

Individual AAI 0.493*** 0.494*** 0.496*** 0.502***

Individual SES 0.011 0.011 0.016 0.017

Being Female -0.003 -0.002 0.017 0.021


School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 0.237*** 0.153* 0.210*** 0.099

School Means-SES 0.132 0.084 0.173* 0.094

CMIE -- -0.313** -- -0.501***

CMIC -- -0.231* -- -0.389***

Random Effects






Background, Gender & Sampling Strata on HKCEE-Chemistry (by score) in 2003-2004, 99-Cohort

Five-Year

Baseline

Model

Five-Year

Strata

Model

Senior-Form

Baseline

Model

Senior-Form

Strata

Model


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.108** 0.112 -0.131** 0.176*

Individual AAI 0.444*** 0.446*** 0.464*** 0.471***

Individual SES 0.003 0.005 0.000 0.003

Being Female 0.034 0.033 0.044 0.044


School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 0.103 0.062 0.107* 0.074

School Means-SES 0.259* 0.222* 0.296** 0.225*

CMIE -- -0.247* -- -0.394***

CMIC -- -0.259* -- -0.322*

Random Effects






Background, Gender & Sampling Strata on HKCEE-Geography (by score) in 2002-2003, 98-Cohort

Five-Year

Baseline

Model

Five-Year

Strata

Model

Senior-Form

Baseline

Model

Senior-Form

Strata

Model


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.150** -0.239** -0.142** -0.201*

Individual AAI 0.500*** 0.514*** 0.517*** 0.530***

Individual SES 0.011 0.012 0.019 0.018

Being Female 0.155*** 0.160*** 0.137*** 0.145***

F.3 Social Study Achievement -- -- 0.219*** 0.220***

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI -0.038 0.147* -0.030 0.143*

School Means-SES 0.198 0.053 0.190 0.042

CMIE -- -0.514*** -- -0.563***

CMIC -- 0.313** -- 0.279**

Random Effects






Background, Gender & Sampling Strata on HKCEE-Geography (by score) in 2003-2004, 99-Cohort

Five-Year

Baseline

Model

Five-Year

Strata

Model

Senior-Form

Baseline

Model

Senior-Form

Strata

Model


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.072 -0.260** -0.081 -0.223*

Individual AAI 0.557*** 0.561*** 0.581*** 0.585***

Individual SES 0.029* 0.028* 0.033* 0.032*

Being Female 0.169*** 0.175*** 0.135** 0.140**


School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI -0.066 0.053 -0.064 0.042

School Means-SES 0.156 0.110 0.205* 0.124

CMIE -- -0.128 -- -0.222

CMIC -- 0.321** -- 0.270**

Random Effects






Background, Gender & Sampling Strata on HKCEE-History (by score) in 2002-2003, 98-Cohort

Five-Year

Baseline

Model

Five-Year

Strata

Model

Senior-Form

Baseline

Model

Senior-Form

Strata

Model


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.014 -0.394*** -0.019 -0.335**

Individual AAI 0.525*** 0.539*** 0.541*** 0.556***

Individual SES 0.016 0.018 0.022 0.025

Being Female 0.034 0.045 0.020 0.029


School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI -0.002 0.167* 0.027 0.188*

School Means-SES -0.070 -0.081 0.003 -0.050

CMIE -- -0.119 -- -0.202

CMIC -- 0.582*** -- 0.499***

Random Effects






Background, Gender & Sampling Strata on HKCEE-History (by score) in 2003-2004, 99-Cohort

Five-Year

Baseline

Model

Five-Year

Strata

Model

Senior-Form

Baseline

Model

Senior-Form

Strata

Model


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept 0.081 -0.209* 0.081 -0.181

Individual AAI 0.551*** 0.556*** 0.567*** 0.570***

Individual SES 0.027 0.027 0.041* 0.041*

Being Female 0.063 0.069 0.017 0.022


School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI -0.045 0.102 -0.029 0.116

School Means-SES -0.048 -0.026 -0.022 -0.028

CMIE -- -0.067 -- -0.107

CMIC -- 0.408*** -- 0.369**

Random Effects






(Access to University Education & HKALE)


Educational Attainment Measure: JUPAS Minimum entry requirement:1. Grade E or above in either 2 AL subjects or 1 AL subject + 2 AS subjects (other than UE and Chi Lang & Culture)2. Grade E or above in AS UE3. Grade E or above in AS Chi Lang & Culture

Summary of HLMs of Effects of Pre-entry Achievement, Socioeconomic Background, Gender & Sampling Strata on Meeting the Minimum

Entrance Requirement of the 8 JUPAS Participating Institutions in 2004-2005, 98-Cohort

Baseline Model 1 Strata Model 1 Baseline Model 2 Strata Model 2

B Odds Ratio B Odds Ratio B Odds Ratio B Odds Ratio


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -2.391*** 0.092 -2.196*** 0.111 -1.984*** 0.138 -1.645*** 0.193

Individual AAI 1.353*** 3.870 1.364*** 3.912 1.038*** 2.824 1.180*** 3.254

Individual SES -0.075** 0.928 -0.072** 0.931 -0.055* 0.946 -0.039 0.962

Being Female 0.366*** 1.442 0.372*** 1.450 0.246*** 1.279 0.289*** 1.335

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 0.576*** 1.779 0.450*** 1.568 0.709*** 2.032 0.328** 1.388

School Means-SES 0.124 1.132 0.090 1.094 0.200 1.222 0.275* 1.316

CMI -- -- -0.227* 0.797 -- -- -- --

CMIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -0.150 0.861

CMIC -- -- -- -- -- -- -0.694*** 0.500


Summary of HLMs of Effects of Pre-entry Achievement, Socioeconomic Background, Gender & Sampling Strata on Meeting the Minimum





Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -2.607*** 0.074 -2.394*** 0.091 -2.013*** 0.134 -1.687*** 0.185

Individual AAI 1.511*** 4.531 1.518*** 4.564 1.094*** 2.985 1.181*** 3.258

Individual SES -0.086** 0.918 -0.084** 0.919 -0.059* 0.942 -0.048 0.953

Being Female 0.512*** 1.669 0.510*** 1.665 0.330*** 1.391 0.382*** 1.465

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 0.674*** 1.962 0.536*** 1.708 0.784*** 2.191 0.484*** 1.622

School Means-SES 0.022 1.023 0.015 1.015 0.148 1.159 0.196* 1.217

CMI -- -- -0.239* 0.787 -- -- -- --

CMIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -0.171 0.843

CMIC -- -- -- -- -- -- -0.690*** 0.501


Educational Attainment Measure: JUPAS Maximum entry requirement:1. Grade E or above in either 2 AL subjects or 1 AL subject + 2 AS subjects (other than UE and Chi Lang & Culture)2. Grade D or above in AS UE3. Grade E or above in AS Chi Lang & Culture

Summary of HLMs of Effects of Pre-entry Achievement, Socioeconomic Background, Gender & Sampling Strata on Meeting the Maximum





Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -3.118*** 0.044 -2.499*** 0.082 -2.839*** 0.058 -1.948*** 0.143

Individual AAI 0.977*** 2.657 1.089*** 2.973 0.837*** 2.309 1.117*** 3.056

Individual SES -0.099** 0.906 -0.082* 0.921 -0.041 0.960 -0.017 0.983

Being Female 0.443*** 1.557 0.476*** 1.609 0.417*** 1.518 0.512*** 1.669

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 1.011*** 2.748 0.494*** 1.640 1.009*** 2.742 0.096 1.101

School Means-SES 0.271 1.311 0.183 1.201 0.349* 1.418 0.405** 1.499

CMI -- -- -0.783*** 0.457 -- -- -- --

CMIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -0.708*** 0.493

CMIC -- -- -- -- -- -- -1.527*** 0.217


Summary of HLMs of Effects of Pre-entry Achievement, Socioeconomic Background, Gender & Sampling Strata on Meeting the Maximum





Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -4.001*** 0.018 -3.367*** 0.034 -3.042*** 0.048 -2.678*** 0.069

Individual AAI 1.710*** 5.531 1.736*** 5.674 1.193*** 3.297 1.433*** 4.190

Individual SES 0.018 1.018 0.020 1.020 0.042 1.043 0.059 1.061

Being Female 0.605*** 1.832 0.616*** 1.852 0.394*** 1.483 0.520*** 1.682

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 1.092*** 2.979 0.599*** 1.820 0.899*** 2.458 0.498*** 1.646

School Means-SES 0.212 1.236 0.157* 1.170 0.324* 1.382 0.325*** 1.385

CMI -- -- -0.609*** 0.544 -- -- -- --

CMIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -0.357** 0.700

CMIC -- -- -- -- -- -- -1.185*** 0.306


Summary of HLMs of Effects of Pre-entry Achievement, F.3 Corresponding Achievement, Socioeconomic Background, Gender & Sampling

Strata on HKAS-Use of English (by score) in 2004-2005, 98-Cohort

Seven-Year

Baseline

Model

Seven-Year

Strata

Model 1

Seven-Year

Strata

Model 2

Senior-Form

Baseline

Model

Senior-Form

Strata

Model 1

Senior-Form

Strata

Model 2


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.304*** 0.128 0.448*** -0.003 0.101 0.240**

Individual AAI 0.535*** 0.535*** 0.515*** 0.761*** 0.759*** 0.744***

Individual SES 0.109*** 0.108*** 0.107*** 0.061*** 0.061*** 0.063***

Being Female 0.240*** 0.238*** 0.241*** 0.058* 0.056* 0.060*

F.3 English Achievement -- -- -- 0.460*** 0.456*** 0.441***

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 0.326*** 0.136* -0.112 0.160** 0.102 -0.005

School Means-SES 0.190 0.111 0.076 0.085 0.072 0.071

CMI -- -0.486*** -- -- -0.117 --

CMIA -- -- -1.440*** -- -- -0.586***

CMIB -- -- -0.613*** -- -- -0.170**

Random Effects

% of within-school variance explained 11.134% 11.228% 11.913% 30.783% 30.843% 30.933%

% of between-school variance explained 89.330% 90.730% 93.120% 94.634% 93.998% 94.522%

% of total variance explained 52.601% 53.388% 54.977% 64.643% 64.334% 64.654%


Summary of HLMs of Effects of Pre-entry Achievement, F.3 Corresponding Achievement, Socioeconomic Background, Gender & Sampling

Strata on HKAS-Use of English (by score) in 2005-2006, 99-Cohort

Seven-Year

Baseline

Model

Seven-Year

Strata

Model 1

Seven-Year

Strata

Model 2

Senior-Form

Baseline

Model

Senior-Form

Strata

Model 1

Senior-Form

Strata

Model 2


Pupil Level (L1)

Intercept -0.446*** 0.024 0.308*** -0.164*** 0.009 0.182**

Individual AAI 0.495*** 0.518*** 0.499*** 0.748*** 0.748*** 0.724***

Individual SES 0.108*** 0.105*** 0.098*** 0.055*** 0.055*** 0.055***

Being Female 0.174*** 0.195*** 0.185*** 0.029 0.036 0.027

F.3 English Achievement -- -- -- 0.489*** 0.484*** 0.462***

School Level (L2)

School Means-AAI 0.310*** 0.121 -0.094 0.189*** 0.085 -0.048

School Means-SES 0.319** 0.234*** 0.161** 0.066 0.056 0.037

CMI -- -0.526*** -- -- -0.195** --

CMIA -- -- -1.391*** -- -- -0.752***

CMIB -- -- -0.560*** -- -- -0.226***

Random Effects

% of within-school variance explained 10.321% 10.037% 10.369% 29.549% 29.632% 29.732%

% of between-school variance explained 78.098% 85.385% 93.157% 91.664% 91.645% 94.428%




Instructional paradox in MOI policy outcomes Paradox in socio-psychological outcomes School-organizational paradox in MOI policy outcomes


Paradox in Socio-psychological Outcomes

Academic Self-concept Attitudes towards English & Motives & Strategies

in English Learning Quality of School Life School Identity and Education Aspiration

Summary of HLMs of Effects of Sampling Strata on Academic Self-Concept in English throughout

Secondary School years, 99-Cohort

F1-English F2-English F3-English F4-English F5-English


Individual Level

Intercept-grand means 0.123* 0.152* 0.184* 0.139 0.260***

Individual AAI 0.137*** 0.114*** 0.115*** 0.193*** 0.162***

Being Female 0.076** 0.061** 0.041 0.082** 0.037

School Level

School-Means AAI -0.033 -0.017 -0.025 -0.024 -0.088

Sampling Strata

CHIG effect -0.198*** -0.177* -0.249*** -0.264*** -0.339***

CMID effect -0.231*** -0.221** -0.274** -0.181* -0.358***

CLOW effect -0.242* -0.323* -0.335* -0.192 -0.390**

Random Effects

% of within- school variance Explained

1.03% 0.87% 1.02% 1.538% 1.067%

% of between- school variance Explained

42.88% 54.12% 48.97% 64.645% 63.814%


Summary of HLMs of Effects of Sampling Strata on Academic Self-Concept in English

throughout Secondary School years, 98-Cohort

F2-English F3-English F4-English F5-English


Individual Level

Intercept-grand means 0.216** 0.163** 0.256** 0.172**

Individual AAI 0.174*** 0.214*** 0.220*** 0.208***

Being Female 0.047* 0.070** 0.058** 0.082***

School Level

School-Means AAI -0.067 -0.059 -0.138* -0.038

Sampling Strata

CHIG effect -0.318*** -0.280*** -0.355*** -0.297***

CMID effect -0.289*** -0.199** -0.297** -0.232**

CLOW effect -0.324* -0.247* -0.428** -0.268*

Random Effects

% of within-school variance Explained

0.98% 1.36% 1.328% 1.375%

% of between-school variance Explained

68.94% 69.94% 70.284% 82.180%




in English Learning Quality of School Life School Identity and Education Aspiration

Table 5.16 Summary 1 of HLMs of Effects of Sampling Strata on Language Attitude of learning English in 2001-02, 98-Cohort (F.4)

Attitude towards Learning English Orientation of Learning English Motivational Intensity of Learning English Attitude

Towards

Bilingualism

Interest Importance Instrumental

Orientation Communicative

Orientation

In-school

Motivational

Intensity

Outside

Motivational

Intensity

Eng-Lesson

Motivational

Intensity


Intercept-grand means -0.091 -0.008 -0.159 -0.155 0.001 -0.051 0.150* 0.186*

Individual AAI 0.109*** 0.197*** 0.167*** 0.122*** 0.074** 0.147*** 0.033 0.194***

Being Female 0.287*** 0.372*** 0.382*** 0.354*** 0.274*** 0.313*** 0.096*** 0.163***

School-Means AAI -0.027 -0.074 0.012 0.009 -0.072 -0.021 -0.036 -0.049

Sampling Strata

CHIG effect -0.003 -0.215** -0.040 -0.015 -0.133* -0.084 -0.230*** -0.336***

CMID effect -0.122 -0.224* -0.085 -0.086 -0.212* -0.144 -0.239** -0.351***

CLOW effect -0.111 -0.212 0.011 -0.018 -0.217 -0.160 -0.301* -0.377*

Random Effects

% of within-school

variance Explained

1.98% 3.72% 3.56% 2.98% 1.60% 2.48% 0.29% 1.43%

% of between-school

variance Explained

25.55% 52.65% 31.86% 18.68% 15.97% 56.42% 44.22% 78.02%

Note 1: Summarized from Sampling Strata Models


Table 5.8a Summary 1 of HLMs of Effects of Sampling Strata on Language Attitude of Learning English in 2002-2003, 98-Cohort F5

Attitude towards Learning English

Attitude towards

Bilingualism Model 4

Attitude towards


Interest Model 4

Interest Model 5

Essentiality Model 4


Difficulties Model 4



Individual Level (L1)

Intercept-grand means -0.163*** -0.183* -0.158*** 0.012 -0.205*** -0.181* -0.065** 0.189**

Individual AAI 0.112*** 0.111*** 0.136*** 0.136*** 0.123*** 0.122*** 0.055* 0.056*

Being Female 0.313*** 0.313*** 0.319*** 0.318*** 0.403*** 0.402*** 0.122*** 0.123***

School Level (L2)

School-Means AAI 0.032 0.049 0.041 -0.027 0.050 0.062 0.071* -0.048

Sampling Strata

CHIG effect -- 0.061 -- -0.227*** -- -0.032 -- -0.356***

CMID effect -- -0.072 -- -0.249** -- -0.123 -- -0.300***

CLOW effect -- 0.091 -- -0.182 -- 0.067 -- -0.353**

Random Effects

% of within-school variance explained

2.457% 2.445% 2.664% 2.686% 3.938% 3.931% 0.394% 0.397%

% of between-school variance explained

29.206% 36.023% 32.511% 55.067% 38.851% 48.550% 24.944% 71.586%

% of total variance explained

3.734% 4.048% 4.007% 5.043% 5.786% 6.293% 1.264% 2.921%

Note 1: Summarized from ??? * Significant at 0.05 level; ** Significant at 0.01 level; *** Significant at 0.001 level

Table 5.15 Summary 1 of HLMs of Effects of Sampling Strata on Language Attitude of learning English in 2001-02, 99-Cohort (F.3)

Attitude towards Learning English Orientation of Learning English Motivational Intensity of Learning English Attitude

Towards

Bilingualism

Interest Importance Instrumental

Orientation Communicative

Orientation

In-school

Motivational

Intensity

Outside

Motivational

Intensity

Eng-Lesson

Motivational

Intensity


Intercept-grand means 0.003 0.090 -0.058 -0.051 0.015 0.053 0.174* 0.150*

Individual AAI 0.106*** 0.111*** 0.131*** 0.107*** 0.079*** 0.083*** -0.027 0.099***

Being Female 0.165*** 0.251*** 0.263*** 0.236*** 0.185*** 0.199*** 0.007 0.143***

School-Means AAI -0.020 -0.052 -0.001 -0.000 -0.040 0.005 0.036 0.035

Sampling Strata

CHIG effect -0.103 -0.234** -0.073 -0.062 -0.093 -0.152* -0.222** -0.307***

CMID effect -0.126 -0.297** -0.136 -0.121 -0.166* -0.218* -0.206* -0.321**

CLOW effect -0.171 -0.379* -0.136 -0.141 -0.196 -0.295* -0.284 -0.320*

Random Effects

% of within-school

variance Explained

1.21% 2.58% 2.58% 1.94% 1.17% 1.76% 0.38% 1.29%

% of between-school

variance Explained

35.54% 44.89% 38.36% 35.71% 26.38% 38.55% 0.97% 73.79%



Table 5.8b Summary 1 of HLMs of Effects of Sampling Strata on Language Attitude of Learning English in 2002-2003, 99-Cohort F4


Attitude towards


Attitude towards


Interest Model 4

Interest Model 5







Intercept-grand means -0.194*** -0.259** -0.182*** -0.029 -0.236*** -0.207* -0.067** 0.160*

Individual AAI 0.148*** 0.149*** 0.136*** 0.134*** 0.155*** 0.155*** 0.059** 0.057**

Being Female 0.343*** 0.344*** 0.340*** 0.335*** 0.441*** 0.441*** 0.130*** 0.128***

School Level (L2)

School-Means AAI -0.001 0.023 -0.009 -0.040 -0.002 -0.009 0.040 -0.020

Sampling Strata

CHIG effect -- 0.101 -- -0.222** -- -0.028 -- -0.309***

CMID effect -- 0.071 -- -0.212* -- -0.089 -- -0.298***

CLOW effect -- 0.065 -- -0.103 -- 0.023 -- -0.248

Random Effects


3.265% 3.275% 3.070% 3.144% 4.647% 4.652% 0.566% 0.575%


-0.874% -2.829% -4.980% 15.582% 19.799% 21.674% -7.313% 32.474%


3.006% 2.893% 2.770% 3.608% 5.518% 5.629% 0.322% 1.565%


Table 5.8c Summary 1 of HLMs of Effects of Sampling Strata on Language Attitude of Learning English in 2003-2004, 99-Cohort F5


Attitude towards


Attitude towards


Interest Model 4

Interest Model 5







Intercept-grand means -0.212*** -0.284** -0.189*** -0.016 -0.193*** -0.205** -0.087*** 0.212**

Individual AAI 0.104*** 0.104*** 0.112*** 0.112*** 0.110*** 0.109*** 0.025 0.024

Being Female 0.342*** 0.342*** 0.317*** 0.315*** 0.372*** 0.372*** 0.134*** 0.133***

School Level (L2)

School-Means AAI 0.109** 0.169* 0.092* 0.039 0.071* 0.124 0.109** -0.009

Sampling Strata

CHIG effect -- 0.068 -- -0.257*** -- -0.041 -- -0.398***

CMID effect -- 0.066 -- -0.244** -- -0.038 -- -0.368***

CLOW effect -- 0.159 -- -0.169 -- 0.136 -- -0.397*

Random Effects


2.907% 2.904% 2.888% 2.922% 3.108% 3.107% 0.518% 0.518%


27.018% 26.129% 29.194% 44.712% 34.244% 38.227% 38.560% 72.174%


4.693% 4.624% 4.482% 5.454% 4.771% 4.982% 2.329% 3.929%


Table 5.9 Summary 1 of HLMs of Effects of Sampling Strata on Use of English in 2003-2004, 99-Cohort F5

Use of English with Foreigners

Model 4

Use of English with Foreigners

Model 5

Use of English in Mass Media

Model 4

Use of English in Mass Media

Model 5

Use of English in Class Model 4

Use of English in Class Model 5



Intercept-grand means -0.069** 0.095 -0.019 0.111 0.007 0.079

Individual AAI 0.030 0.029 -0.024 -0.025 0.032 0.030

Being Female 0.101*** 0.103*** -0.010 -0.007 -0.023 -0.022

School Level (L2)

School-Means AAI 0.190*** 0.148** 0.180*** 0.149* 0.085** 0.085

Sampling Strata

CHIG effect -- -0.237*** -- -0.217*** -- -0.133*

CMID effect -- -0.254*** -- -0.154 -- -0.113

CLOW effect -- -0.148 -- -0.129 -- -0.026

Random Effects


0.392% 0.395% 0.292% 0.318% 0.298% 0.350%


49.925% 68.321% 40.763% 52.952% 7.747% 19.823%





in English Learning Quality of School Life

Linguistic efficacy Learning Opportunities

School Identity and Education Aspiration

Table 5.18 Summary 1 of HLMs of Effects of Sampling Strata on Quality of School Life in 2000-01, 98-Cohort

General

Satisfaction Teacher-Students

Relations Social

Integration Achievement Adventure

Opportunity

Opportunity

Relating to MOI

Linguistic

Efficacy


Intercept-grand means -0.065 -0.140 -0.009 -0.052 -0.004 0.160 0.417*** -0.666***

Individual AAI 0.087* 0.163*** 0.205*** 0.174*** 0.142*** 0.133*** -0.004 0.194***

Being Female 0.087* 0.050 0.213*** -0.065* 0.102** 0.017 -0.105*** 0.130***

School-Means AAI 0.067 -0.035 -0.117 -0.116 -0.073 -0.128 -0.016 -0.013

Sampling Strata

CHIG effect -0.027 0.165* -0.088 0.116 -0.051 -0.180* -0.564*** 0.709***

CMID effect -0.001 0.095 -0.155 0.156 -0.058 -0.237* -0.546*** 0.846***

CLOW effect 0.112 0.273 -0.081 0.152 -0.025 -0.224 -0.398* 0.969***

Random Effects

% of within-school

variance Explained

0.47% 1.31% 1.78% 0.85% 0.62% 0.40% 0.51% 1.43%

% of between-school

variance Explained

53.69% -- 14.25% 35.41% 12.72% 35.35% 73.75% 49.76%



Table 5.17 Summary 1 of HLMs of Effects of Sampling Strata on Quality of School Life in 2000-01, 99-Cohort

General

Satisfaction Teacher-Students

Relations Social

Integration Achievement Adventure

Opportunity

Opportunity

Relating to MOI

Linguistic

Efficacy


Intercept-grand means -0.032 -0.030 0.035 -0.098 -0.086 0.143 0.418*** -0.610***

Individual AAI 0.014* 0.014* 0.035*** 0.033*** 0.022** 0.053*** 0.011 0.095***

Being Female 0.037*** 0.017* 0.052*** 0.006 0.031*** 0.031** -0.010 0.080***

School-Means AAI 0.178** 0.056 0.119 0.039 0.167* -0.040 -0.055 0.012

Sampling Strata

CHIG effect -0.047 0.048 -0.056 0.086 0.061 -0.168** -0.560*** 0.813***

CMID effect 0.006 -0.017 -0.123 0.122 0.064 -0.256** -0.611*** 0.740***

CLOW effect 0.020 0.038 -0.149 0.165 0.153 -0.290 -0.587*** 0.792***

Random Effects

% of within-school

variance Explained

0.17% 0.11% 0.30% 0.16% 0.14% 0.14% 0.16% 0.90%

% of between-school

variance Explained

38.10% -- 37.77% -- 14.51% 29.78% 49.40% 68.34%





in English Learning Quality of School Life

Linguistic efficacy Learning Opportunities

School Identity and Education Aspiration

99-cohort 2001/2002 (F.3)

Table 4.38 99-Cohort 01F3 Students’ Responses to the statement “If I could choose freely once again, I would choose CMI school.” (%)

Strongly Disagree & Disagree

Either or Strongly Agree & Agree

EMI Students 71.9 18.2 9.9

CHIG Students 39.7 36.5 23.8

CMID Students 32.9 36.8 30.3

CLOW Students 23.9 36.7 39.4

Table 4.39 99-Cohort 01F3 Students’ Responses to the statement “If I could choose freely once again, I

would choose EMI school.” (%)

Strongly Disagree & Disagree

Either or Strongly Agree & Agree





98-cohort 2001/2002 (F.4)

Table 4.40 98-Cohort 01F4 Students’ Responses to the statement “If I could choose freely once again, I would choose

CMI school.” (%)

Strongly Disagree & Disagree Either or Strongly Agree & Agree





Table 4.41 98-Cohort 01F4 Students’ Responses to the statement “If I could choose freely once again, I would choose

EMI school.” (%)

Strongly Disagree & Disagree Either or Strongly Agree & Agree





99-cohort students’ responses to long-term educational aspiration at Form 5 (%)

EMI CHIG CMID CLOW

Graduate from degree program 62.9 41.9 28.3 13.1

Finish Associate-degree

program 8.4 9.4 10.3 7.0

Finish Form-7 program 21.1 30.1 31.9 29.4

Finish Springboard or

equivalent program

2.8 5.5 8.2 15.0


Educational Aspiration

98-cohort students’ responses to long-term educational aspiration at Form 5 (%)

EMI CHIG CMID CLOW

Graduate from degree program 62.6 37.6 25.8 14.6

Finish Associate-degree

program 9.2 9.8 10.1 8.2


Finish Springboard or

equivalent program

2.3 5.8 9.3 14.3




99-cohort students’ responses to next-year’s educational expectation (%)

EMI CHIG CMID CLOW

Continuing to F.6 88.5 74.7 59.3 38.4

Studying in Springboard or

equivalent programs 6.1 11.3 19.4 29.0

Repeating F5 2.0 6.3 8.1 8.9

Seeking employment 3.4 7.7 13.1 23.7


98-cohort students’ responses to next-year’s educational expectation (%)

EMI CHIG CMID CLOW

Continuing to F.6 87.2 68.6 50.7 35.3

Studying in Springboard or

equivalent programs 3.8 6.4 10.1 9.7

Repeating F5 6.0 16.3 24.4 28.8

Seeking employment 2.9 9.0 14.8 26.2


Instructional paradox in MOI policy outcomes Paradox in socio-psychological outcomes School-organizational paradox in MOI policy outcomes

• Paradox between instructional effectiveness and educational advancement

• Paradox between intake-process-output in different phases of secondary-school education


Junior-SecondaryInstructional Process

Senior-SecondaryInstructional Process

Six-FormInstructional Process

Form-1 Intakes

HKCEE Results

HKALE Results

To prepare of secondary-school leavers to be trilingual & bilateral Typology of bilingual

Balance bilingual Chinese dominant bilingual English dominant bilingual

Dimensions of bilingual proficiency Cognitive demanding or undemanding Context reduced or embedded

Levels of bilingual proficiency Conversational proficiency Context-reduced and cognitive undemanding proficiency Context-embedded and cognitive demanding proficiency Academic language proficiency

Technical-analytical Discourse: Program Verification

Cognitively Undemanding

Cognitively Demanding

Context Embedded

Context Reduced

A C

B D

Jim Cummins’ Conceptualization of language proficiency

Upholding mother-tongue instruction Elimination of mixed-coded teaching in secondary

schools in HKSAR

at the expenses of Opportunity to learn Opportunity for educational advancement

Technical-analytical Discourse: Program Verification

To identify the stakeholders (e.g. students, parents, teachers and/or administrators in secondary schools, employers, higher-education institutions, etc.) and their “definition of the situations” and “systems of relevance” in regards to the MOI policy

Contextual Discourse: Situational Validation of the Relevance of the MOI Policy

Situational paradoxes facing stakeholders Students and Parents: Situational paradox between immediate

learning efficacy and long-term prospects in educational or even socioeconomic advancement

School teachers and administrators: Situational paradox between instructional efficacy and

graduates' prospects in educational advancements Situation paradox between current instructional efficacy and

future efficacy of attracting "high-quality" primary-school leavers or even future prospect of survival of the schools.

Employers: The situational paradox is between the prospects of local and global markets.

Higher-education institution: The situation paradox is between short-term instructional efficacy and long-term development of universally applicable scholarship and/or professional competence


To validate whether or to what extent each of the stakeholders’ “systems of relevance” have been fulfilled by the MOI policy measure.


Systemic vindication of value orientation of the MOI policy To define the institutional features of the social, political

and economic systems of HKSAR: Biglossic or even triglossic structures of a post-colonial society, one-country-two-system polity, and open and small economy in global-informational capitalism.

To evaluate whether or to what extent that MOI policy have instrumental or contributive value for these systemic features of HKSAR

System Discourse: Societal Vindication of the MOI Policy

Localcommunityof Mother Tongue

Global professional-intellectual community

Global- informationaleconomy

Global- politicalarena

Localtertiary educationinstitution

Intra-nationaltertiary educationinstitution

PrimarySchoolSystem

Internationaltertiary educationinstitution

Intra-nationalpolitical &economicsystems

Localpolitical &economicsystems

SecondarySchoolSystem

Institutional features of the MOI policy environment (socio-cultural, political and economic systems) of HKSAR

Localcommunityof Mother Tongue

Global professional-intellectual community

Global- informationaleconomy

Global- politicalarena

Localtertiary educationinstitution

Intra-nationaltertiary educationinstitution

PrimarySchoolSystem

Internationaltertiary educationinstitution

Intra-nationalpolitical &economicsystems

Localpolitical &economicsystems

SecondarySchoolSystem

MonolingualLocalcommunityof Cantonese

Trilingual systemwithCantoneseDominance

BilingualSystemwithEnglishDominance

Trilingual systemwithEnglish/PutonghuaDominance

To vindicate the intensification effect of MOI policy on the contradictory structure of HKSAR Biglossic or even triglossic structures of the open and small

economy of HK within the global-informational capitalism. Biglossic structure of the political system of HKSAR within the

context of One Country Two System Biglossic or even troglossic structure of the cultural system of

a post-colonial society

To vindicate the unequalizing effect of MOI policy on the structural disparity among the 18 school districts in the SSPA system in terms of distribution of EMI school places


香港中學學位分配辦法中十八個學校網之間的總學額及英文學額分佈情況(1998) 升讀英中機會率

本網學生可享用的

總學額


總英文學額

本網小學生升讀

英中的機會率

本網的英中學額

(0.27)差距比率

本網的英中學生

(0.4)差距比率

香港

中西區 2957 1460 0.4937 +0.8341 +0.2344

灣仔區 2535 1210 0.4773 +0.7731 +0.1933

東區 5460 1317 0.2412 -0.1040 -0.3970

南區 2142 436 0.2035 -0.2439 -0.4911

九龍

油尖旺區 3604 1307 0.3627 +0.3471 -0.0934

深水區 3683 1266 0.3437 +0.2769 -0.1406

九龍城區 6117 2491 0.4072 +0.5127 +0.0181

黃大仙區 4038 1262 0.3125 +0.1610 -0.2187

觀塘區 5187 1255 0.242 -0.1012 -0.3951

新界

葵青區 5182 942 0.1818 -0.3247 -0.5455

荃灣區 2841 665 0.2341 -0.1305 -0.4148

屯門區 6045 1212 0.2005 -0.2552 -0.4988

元朗區 5068 876 0.1728 -0.3579 -0.5679

北區 3786 576 0.1521 -0.4348 -0.6197

大埔區 4475 1159 0.2590 -0.0379 -0.3525

沙田區 6885 2164 0.3143 +0.1676 -0.2142

西貢區 2642 232 0.0878 -0.6738 -0.7805

離島區 1068 12 0.0112 -0.9583 -0.9719

香港中學學位分配辦法中十八個學校網之間的總學額及英文學額分佈情況(2005) 升讀英中機會率


總學額


總英文學額


英中的機會率

本網的英中學額

(0.26)差距比率


(0.4)差距比率

香港

中西區 2370 1196 0.5046 +0.9178 +0.2616

灣仔區 2077 1052 0.5065 +0.9248 +0.2662

東區 3988 921 0.2309 -0.1224 -0.4226

南區 1463 301 0.2057 -0.2181 -0.4856

九龍

油尖旺區 3012 1155 0.3835 +0.4573 -0.0413

深水區 3317 1295 0.3904 +0.4837 -0.0240

九龍城區 5477 2142 0.3911 +0.4862 -0.0223

黃大仙區 3639 854 0.2347 -0.1082 -0.4133

觀塘區 4892 1060 0.2167 -0.1766 -0.4583

新界

葵青區 4444 884 0.1989 -0.2441 -0.5027

荃灣區 2361 483 0.2046 -0.2226 -0.4886

屯門區 5456 1057 0.1937 -0.2638 -0.5157

元朗區 6200 936 0.1510 -0.4263 -0.6226

北區 3341 560 0.1676 -0.3630 -0.5810

大埔區 2756 896 0.3251 +0.2355 -0.1872

沙田區 5098 1602 0.3142 +0.1942 -0.2144

西貢區 2732 277 0.1014 -0.6147 -0.7465

離島區 849 31 0.0365 -0.8612 -0.9087

香港中學學位分配辦法中十八學校網之間總學額及英文學額分佈情況(2007)

升讀英中機會率


總學額


總英文學額


英中的機會率


(.28) 差距比率


(0.4)差距比率

香港

中西區 1918 1012 0.5276 +0.9012 +0.3191

灣仔區 1564 901 0.5761 +1.0758 +0.4402

東區 2899 746 0.2573 -0.0728 -0.3567

南區 1051 239 0.2274 -0.1806 -0.4315

九龍

油尖旺區 2270 890 0.3921 +0.4128 -0.0198

深水埗區 2626 932 0.3549 +0.2789 -0.1127

九龍城區 4142 1727 0.4169 +0.5024 +0.0424

黃大仙區 2651 674 0.2542 -0.0839 -0.3644

觀塘區 3750 774 0.2064 -0.2563 -0.4840

新界

葵青區 3318 646 0.1947 -0.2984 -0.5133

荃灣區 1850 384 0.2076 -0.2521 -0.4811

屯門區 3809 741 0.1945 -0.2990 -0.5137

元朗區 4555 797 0.1750 -0.3695 -0.5626

北區 2438 470 0.1928 -0.3053 -0.5180

大埔區 2196 801 0.3648 +0.3143 -0.0881

沙田區 3794 1288 0.3395 +0.2233 -0.1513

西貢區 2068 140 0.0677 -0.7561 -0.8308

離島區 629 28 0.0445 -0.8396 -0.8887

To vindicate the institutionalized effect of MOI policy on the inequality of mobility chances between CMI and EMI students in competing access to higher education.


Figure 1: Summary of Odd Ratio of CMI (with reference to EMI) in Models accounting for Educational Attainment Levels in Table 2 to 6

2AL+Chi(E)+UE(D)

2AL+Chi(E)+UE(E)

98 cohort

CMI .424

99 cohort

CMI .560

14-pts+Chi+Eng

98 cohort

CMI .774

99 cohort

CMI .774

8-pts+Chi+Eng

98 cohort

CMI .647

99 cohort

CMI .779

5-pts+Chi+Eng

98 cohort

CMI .331

99 cohort

CMI .488

Sit for

HKCEE

98 cohort

CMI .298

99 cohort

CMI .439

All odd ratios are statistically significant except those are in italic

Figure2: Summary of Odd Ratio of CMIC and CMIE (with reference to EMI) in Models accounting for Educational Attainment Levels in Table 2 to 6

2AL+Chi(E)+UE(D)

2AL+Chi(E)+UE(E)

98cohort

CMIE .494

CMIC .218

99 cohort

CMIE .697

CMIC .304

14-pts+Chi+Eng

98cohort

CMIE .863

CMIC .500

99 cohort

CMIE .845

CMIC .508

8-pts+Chi+Eng

98cohort

CMIE .647

CMIC .516

99 cohort

CMIE .806

CMIC .574

5-pts+Chi+Eng

98 cohort

CMIE .374

CMIC .237

99 cohort

CMIE .602

CMIC .328

Sit for

HKCEE

98 cohort

CMIE .353

CMIC .323

99 cohort

CMIE .564

CMIE .280

All odd ratios are statistically significant except those are in italic

To identify the ideological stance underlying the MOI policy discourse Orientations to bilingualism

Bilingualism as problem• Linguistic imperialism• Linguistic nationalism

Bilingualism as rights Bilingualism as resource

Power implications of bilingualism Bilingualism as coercive power Bilingualism as collaborative power

Structure-agent stance in bilingualism Structural imposition stance Agent resistance stance Agent appropriation stance

Ideological Discourse: Social Choice underlying the MOI policy

To identify the ideological stance underlying the MOI policy discourse The myth of mother tongue


Definitions of Mother Tongue Criteria Definition

Origin the language one learned first (The language one has

established the first long-lasting verbal contacts in)

Identification

a. Internal

b. External

a. the language one identifies with/ as a native speaker of

b. the language one is identified with/as a native speaker of

by others

Competence The language one knows best

Function The language one uses most

Source: Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (2000) Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. P. 106

To reflect and choose the ideological stances toward Cantonese, Poutonghau and English, which have been embedded in the MOI policy discourse in post-1997 HK.


Evaluation Study of MOI Policy for Secondary Schools in HKSAR

Mother Tongue or

Other Tongue

END

Topic 11Policy Process Studies:

Policy Evaluation Studies

topic 11 policy process studies: policy evaluation studies

Documents

policy studies

policy stages

policy context

policy instruments

public policy

education policy

policy problems

implementation of policy