hr. J. Educationrrl Development, Vol. 7, No. 4. pp. 243-W 1987 0?3&05¶3~87 f3.tN + .oo

Printed in Great Britain @ 1987 Pergamon Journals Ltd.

POLITICAL EDUCATION AND CIVIC EDUCATION-THE BRITISH PERSPECTIVE AND THE HONG KONG PERSPECTIVE

LEE SIU-MING

Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

Abstract-The de~ionisation of Hong Kong takes the form of reversing the sovereignty to the mother country (China) rather than the creation of an inde~ndent state. This is unique in the history of global decolonisation. At this juncture, there are widespread social demands for strengthening civic education. The government has responded by promulgating Guidelines on Civic Education in Schools. The present paper compares and contrasts the conceptualisation of political education in England, as represented by the Programme for Political Education, with bvic education in Hong Kong.

Civic education has not been discussed in Hong Kong for some 30 years (or ever since the resumption of rule by Britain after the Second World War), In fact, the dormancy has been so deep and so complete that some peopie still hold there has been no civic education in Hong Kong. The fact is that civic education can exist in the informal curriculum as well as the formal curriculum, and the absence of a Civic Education (or Civics) subject does not neces- sarily signify an absence of this type of education.

The recent. upsurge of interest in, and concern for, civic education has no doubt been aroused by political reforms and especially the 1997 issue. The local political reforms intro- duce a greater element of representativeness in government, while the 1997 issue has been resolved by the formula that Hong Kong’s sovereignty will be revert&d to China in that year. Both of these are fundamental political changes and it is commonly thought that a new civic education is urgently needed to help in these changes.

Accordingly, in the short span of two years, society at large has rushed through the conceptualisation and planning stage of civic education, and is now well into the impiemen- tation stage (Lee, 1986). From now on, minor modifications may be expected, but the tone of civic education has been set, and the direction shaped.

One major characteristic of civic education is

its non-academic nature. To a certain degree it is quite instrumental and certainly political, as is already illustrated above. Its chief aim is to foster desirable citizenship. The central ques- tion it addresses is ‘how to promote good citizens’. Because the concept and the content of ‘good citizenship’ varies from one country to another, there are international differences in tone, emphasis and content of civic education.

The present paper examines civic education in 2 places: political education in Britain’ and civic education in Hong Kong. My purpose is to show how civic education in these two settings is conceived differently. My main sources are discussion papers, official docu- ments and media repor&.

CONCEPTUALISATION OF POLITICAL EDUCATION IN BRITAIN

Political education as it is practised in Britain today has its roots in the Programme for Political Education (PPE) project conducted from 1974 to 1977. The project was motivated by a number of factors. First, people in education were dissatisfied with the then current academic and constitutional approach to teaching political or civic education. Second, research findings revealed a general ignorance among school leavers of political affairs.

A working party was formed under the chairmanship of Professor Bernard Crick, a professor of political philosophy at the Univer- sity of London. Professor Ian Lister, of the

243

244 LEE SW-MING

University of York, was appointed the Direc- tor of Research for the project. So in effect two centres were established for the PPE project, the southern centre at London, responsible for the drafting and developing of teaching programmes, and the northern centre at York, to conduct research on the implementation of the programmes3.

One characteristic about the conceptualisa- tion of political education in Britain is its conceptual diversity. Even the main organisers did not define ‘politics’ in the same way. For Ian Lister, politics ‘. . . stresses the (differen- tial) distribution of power and the (differential) access to resources in society. . . . we are concentrating on a dimension of human relationships which we characterize as political’ (Lister, 1974, p. 1). But for Bernard Crick, ‘Surely the simplest perception of politics is that it is about the relationship of rulers to ruled, the few to the many, ‘them to us’, government and its subjects or the state and its citizens’ (Crick, 1974, p. 156). No position paper of the PPE was issued. Instead the members of the working party produced a series of discussion papers, which were later compiled into the book: P~iiticul Education and Political Literacy (Crick and Porter, 1978). However this did not signify dissension among the members, nor a lack of common concerns. They regarded plurality as one of the principles in organizing and promoting political educa- tion. As Alex Porter, another pioneer in this field, said, the diversity was ‘intended’, not merely ‘tolerated’ but actually ‘encouraged and supported’ (Porter, 1981, p. 189).

In spite of this plurality of views, there were certain main features which were repeatedly mentioned by the organizers of the PPE. These were introduced as follows:

(1) Political education is distinct from the teaching of politics and government

There are in Britain subjects such as British Constitution and Political Studies. These are examinable subjects and could be part of political education, particularly the cognitive aspect of it. But political educators in Britain do not regard these subjects as providing sufficient political education, which they think should include attitudes and skills as well as knowledge, This dissatisfaction with the tradi- tional ways of teaching politics prompted the PPE project.

(2) P~~iti~ai education aims to achieve political literacy

Political literacy is the core concept of the PPE in Britain. The Explanatory Paper to ‘A Programme for Political Education’ defines ‘political literacy’ thus: ‘By “political literacy” we mean the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are necessary to make a man or woman both politically literate and able to apply this literacy’ (Crick and Lister, 1974, p. 1). This explanation broadens the concept of political literacy to encompass the three dimensions of knowledge, skills and attitudes, but by itself it does not go very far in clarifying what ‘this literacy’ is. This is supplemented by another paper by Ian Lister (Lister, 1974, pp. 2-3). In this paper, under the three headings of ‘What kind of knowledge would a PLP (politically literate person) possess?’ ‘What attitudes would a PLP possess?’ and ‘what skills would a PLP possess?,’ he spells out what these dimensions denote. Space does not allow a complete reiteration of the points made by Lister, but Alex Porter’s remarks give a general summation of what a ~liticall~ literate person is: ‘. . . the politically literate person would be able to recognize and understand the political dimensions of any human situations,’ and again, ‘In the wider context, a politically literate person would know what the main political disputes in contemporary politics are, what beliefs the main contestants have of them, and how they are likely to affect him’ (Porter, 1981, pp. 189-190).

(3) Political education is non-academic in nature

Political education in Britain is not designed as an academic subject, nor the foundation for one. While it may lay a base for political studies at a higher level, this was not the point of departure for the PPE organizers. This non- academic approach is indicated by the two features described above, namely political education is not conceived as a school subject and a politically literate person is defined as someone who can recognize and understand the political dimension of any human situation.

Political education in Britain is intended to be practical in nature and educational in the widest sense. Robert Stradling’s ‘Political Issue Model’ and Professor Crick’s ‘Political Concepts Model’ (Stradling, 1980, p. 7 and

POLITICAL AND CIVIC EDUCATION-BRITISH AND HONG KONG PERSPECTIVES 245

Crick, 1974, p. 167) could withstand close academic scrutiny, but they are not meant to be instructional materials for pupils. Rather they are provided for teachers who need guidelines or conceptual models when teach- ing and discussing political issues with their pupils. Professor Crick, a political philosopher himself, obviously did not regard his model as particularly academic. He thought it appeared ‘ridiculously simple’ (Crick, 1974, p, 157), but that it was ‘something for the teacher to have in mind and to elaborate and explicate when occasion arises’ (Crick, 1974, p. 154). Professor Lister’s proposition: ‘The Politics of everyday life’, (Lister, 1974, p. 1) on which I shall elaborate shortly, also underlines the non-academic orientation of British politi- cal education.

(4) Political education adopts a broad concep- tion of pufitics

As a criticism and rectification of the traditional ‘institutional, constitutional and legal’ (Lister, 1985, p. 4) perspectives of teaching politics, PPE advocates an extended sense of politics. As Lister remarked, ‘. . . political situations are not limited to the central or even local governments, but can exist in a variety of contexts . . .’ (Lister, 1977, p. 4). Politics can be found ‘in the family; in the locality; in educational institutions; in the work place; in clubs and societies, and various informal groups’ (Lister, 1974, p. 1). This is so because ‘Conflicts of interests and ideals are the very essence of politics’ (Lister, 1985, p. 4) and thus politics can be extended to numerous human relationships. Bernard Crick, whose Political Concepts Model is mainly concerned with state politics and government politics, nevertheless asserted, ‘We do not need to go beyond the language of everyday life to understand and to participate in the politics of everyday life and all those things that affect it’ (Crick, 1974, p. 154). So the politics of everyday life is the central feature of the PPE and this is done through issues which are readily available in everyday life.

(5) Political education emphasises participation and action

One major difference between political education and the teaching of politics, accord- ing to the main organizers of the PPE, is that

the former places a balanced emphasis on knowledge, skills and attitudes while the latter is predominantly cognitive in character and mainly caters for examination requirements. Because of this, the teaching of politics is not considered to be political education. An important feature of British political education is its stress on action. ‘. , . political literacy involves group action’ (Lister, 1974, p_ 3). ‘The ultimate test of political literacy lies in action and not in the realm of theoretical analysis. The politically literate person would be capable of active pa~i~ipation . . .’ (Lister, 1974, p. 3). These are remarks made by Ian Lister in an early paper of the PPE. The Explanatory Paper to PPE stated ‘[A politi- cally literate person] will have a disposition to do something about it [i.e. a political dispute]’ (Crick and Lister, 1974, p. 4.). So mind and action are two concerns of political education in Britain.

In a more recent paper, Alex Porter observed that the approach to political education should ‘. . . encourage people to reflect on how they themselves are involved in political relationships and structures in their daily existence and on how they might extend their political involvement and engage in various forms of political action’ (Porter, 1982). In order to facilitate effective participa- tion and action, political education emphasises the cultivation of attitudes and skills pertaining to political literacy. In Robert Stradling’s Political Literacy Checklist, two action skills are pinpointed: the ability to participate in group decision making and the ability to effectively influence and/or change political situations (Stradling, 1980, p. 3). All this serves to underline the interest in action and direct participation.

Political education as general education rather than subject education, taking a non- academic approach aiming at fostering political literacy in the widest sense of the term, with the emphasis on pa~icipation and action: these dimensions stand out sharply when we investi- gate how political education, as represented by the PPE, is conceptualised in Britain.

However, a qualification has to be added here. The conceptualisation of political edu- cation described above may be taken to represent a more recent school of thought concerning political learning in England. It is close to a liberal-refo~ist stream of thinking

246 LEE SIU-MING

as opposed to a ‘conservative’ model. There are concurrently other thoughts on the aims of school political education in Britain and this is further complicated by party politics (Harber, 1984).

CONCEPTUALISATION OF CIVIC EDUCATION IN HONG KONG

When looking into the conceptualisation of civic education in Hong Kong, one is invariably confronted by the problem of representative- ness. Ever since serious concern for civic education arose three years ago, tens of thousands of words have been written or spoken about its nature, its orientation and direction, the forms it should take, the ways it should be implemented, and the content it should accommodate. Were all this included in the present paper, it would be an encyclo- paedia of civic education! Obviously, a very selective approach has to be adopted here.

This is not so in the British case. While there are some minor differences in the concep- tualisation of political education there, firstly, these differences only represent a pluralistic approach to political education amongst edu- cationalists rather than necessarily conflicting conceptions; secondly, despite these differ- ences, it is not difficult to identify something which represents the movement and the people who are in the centre of it, and are thus its spokesmen. This organizational convenience facilitates any study into the various aspects of political education in Britain since we have no doubt about who and what represent it.

In the initial stage of the discussion and debate about civic education in Hong Kong, scholars, educators, social celebrities and political figures made countless observations and remarks about the concept. The result was that civic education was conceptualised in a variety of directions, and the picture was very chaotic.

This is a real problem for the present task, which is to present the Hong Kong perspective on civic education. Since in Hong Kong the educational system is characterized by its uniform curriculum and official domination through the Education Department (Morris, 1986; Sweeting, 1983), I propose to take the official conceptualisation of civic education as typical here. The adoption of the official line on civic education for descriptive purposes

does not necessarily signify my approval of this conceptualisation of civic education.

Accordingly, I will rely mainly on the official paper ‘Guidelines on Civic Education in Schools’ (referred to as ‘Guidelines’ below) and views close to this line of thought in exploring the conceptualisation of civic educa- tion in Hong Kong. In so doing, I will at the same time compare it with British political education.

(1) Civic education contains an undertone of moral education

Though moral education is not explicitly mentioned as the core of civic education, the following quotation from the Guidelines forcibly illustrates that morality is its chief concern: ‘. . . civic education . . . can be interpreted as the process in which desirable qualities in people are developed to promote better and healthier relationships with govern- ment and other members of society’ (p. 7). To develop ‘desirable qualities in people’ so that members of society could establish and maintain good relationships with one another is undeniably the major task of any moral education. This incorporation of moral educa- tion in the wider context of civic education is commonly found in the oriental cultures (e.g. Mainland China, Taiwan, Japan, Singa- pore, Thailand and the Koreas).

The main organizers of the PPE in Britain, preoccupied with political literacy, do not seem to give much heed to morality although a line of thought, expounded by scholars like Peter Tomlinson and John Wilson, does link up political education with moral education (Porter, 1981, pp. 197-198). In general, how- ever, moral education is quite distinct from political education in Britain.

(2) Civic education is political education It is asserted in the Guidelines ‘. . . there is

no point in trying to distinguish civic education from political education since civic education must essentially be political in nature’ (p. 7). However, in the British case, no such identity is drawn. In the PPE, the term ‘political education’ is always used, and ‘civic education’ seems to be reserved for the past or traditional political education, i.e. before the launching of the project. I think different labels are adopted for different reasons. In Britain, ‘political education’ is to afford a new identity to this

POLITICAL AND CIVIC EDUCATION-BRITISH AND HONG KONG PERSPECTIVES 247

education, while in Hong Kong ‘civic educa- tion’ is preferred to ‘political education’ because the authorities concerned wish to avoid sensitizing the issue in the transitional stage of returning Hong Kong’s sovereignty to China in 1997.

(3) Civic education conceives politics administratively

The Guidelines adopt Dr Sun Yat Sen’s4 definition of politics: the management of public affairs (p. 7). This definition is from the government’s point of view. But for British political education, the ‘[differential] distribu- tion of power and the [differential] access to resources in society’ (Lister, 1974, p. 1) is the theory of politics. The basic difference be- tween these conceptions is that civic education in Hong Kong is as a tool to help in the running of the government, which may not be readily open to public pa~icipation, while political education in Britain covers a more extensive area of political relationships and may not necessarily be concerned with the smooth administration of state affairs.

(4) Civic education aims at political harmony and co~e~~

Because civic education is shaped from the administrative perspective, harmony, concen- sus, stability and the like are keywords found throughout the Guidelines. The foreword states ‘. . . that any plan for promoting civic awareness and responsibility should take into account the way in which harmonious relation- ships between school authorities, staff, pupils and parents might be fostered’ (p i). In another paragraph we find, ‘. . . the emphasis in this guide will be on civic education as a political socializing force for promotion stability and responsibility’ (p. 9). And civic education is ‘ . . . to promote better and healthier relation- ships with government . . .’ (p. 7). British political education does not follow a pure consensus and harmony model. It is stated clearly that ‘Conflicts of interests and ideals are the very essence of politics, which do not begin with an existing or assumed consensus’ (Lister, 1977, p. 7) and the ability to resolve conflicts is a skill to be fostered through political education.

(5) Civic education adopts an institutional or macro approach to politics

This is best reflected in the ‘Teaching Objectives’ section (pp. 11-12) of the Guide- lines. Not many objectives are about politics and government directly. The two that can be related to them are Teaching Objectives (i) and (vi) at the secondary level. These are:

(i) To c;nable pupils to acquire an understanding of the structure and working of the Hong Kong Government and its relationship to other institutions.

(vi) To strengthen pupils’ awareness and understanding of the international situation and the relations and conflicts between nations (p. 12).

Obviously, the politics compatible to civic education in Hong Kong is confined to the institutional, constitutional and national levels. This restriction to macro-politics is in marked contrast to British political education where attention is extended to meso- and micro- politics. ‘The politics of everyday life’ is the catchword of the PPE and an understanding of politics in the family, in. the locality, in educational institutions, in the work place, in clubs and societies, etc. is one of its aims.

(6) Civic education is not change-oriented and does not stress action

Encouragement of, and inclination towards; action is almost non-existent in Hong Kong’s civic education. Again, referring to the teaching objectives in the Guidelines, few action-implying objectives can be spotted. There are two possible candidates, both at the secondary level:

(vii) To develop social competence through partidipa- tion in a variety of formal and informal situations which can nurture social understanding, expression, responsi- bility and commitment.

(x) To provide pupils with the necessary sociaf and political skills and understanding to prepare them for a responsible, decision-making role in Hong Kong’s future (p. 12).

In the first objective, the word, ‘participa- tion’ is found, but on the one hand, it is utilized to serve as a tool ‘to develop social compe- tence,’ and on the other, the ‘participation’ is limited to, inter alia, ‘commitment,’ which denotes the acceptance of the status quo. In the second case, we see the appearance of ‘political skills,’ but then the skills are ‘provided’ for making ‘responsible’ decisions, thus it is not expected to be radical in character.

248 LEE SIU-MING

Regarding this, British political education takes a very different perspective. ‘[A politi- cally literate person would possess] action skills which go beyond skills which are merely analytical and verbal; but which lead on to positive action, and the capacity to participate in, and change political situations’ (Lister, 1977, p. 5). This quotation is self-explanatory enough to show that political education in Britain is action-prone and not inimical to change. Hong Kong’s civic education occupies the opposite pole where it is action shy and change evasive.

(7) Civic education fosters nationaf and ethnic identify

This is a new dimension in Hong Kong’s civic education. It is added to the curriculum in line with the reversion of Hong Kong’s sovereignty to China in 1997. ‘Sense of national identity and belonging,’ ‘Love for the nation and pride in being Chinese,’ ‘Respect for Chinese culture and tradition,’ etc. (pp. 19,30, 36) are attitude objectives for students starting from senior primary level. This was unimaginable in the past. However, no such ethnic and national elements are found in British political educa- tion. This is for the obvious reason that ethnicity and nationalism education might lead to disintegration of the country.

Civic education in Hong Kong, as led and directed by the government, is conceptualised to be moral education, stressing human and social relationships. It is also looked upon as

similar to political education, where politics is confined to government and national levels. Furthermore, politics is to serve the purpose of consolidating the status quo, rather than introduce changes. Guided participation is the rule while political action is belittled. Ethnicity and nationalism elements are also incorporated.

These characteristics are shown in Table 1 along with those of British political education to sum-up the contrasts and comparisons made above.

As Table 1 depicts, big differences exist between Hong Kong’s civic education and British political education. The two concep- tualisations sometimes differ from each other in aims, e.g. political literacy in Britain and moral teaching in Hong Kong, and at other times, they are direct opposites, e.g. about the tolerance of political action. In the following I attempt to explain these differential concep- tualisations.

(I) A major source of difference lies in the political culture of the two countries. Britain is a sovereign country which is recognized as politically advanced. Representative govern- ment and regular political elections at different levels are features of its political system. Debates, conflicts and dissension are common, taken as ways of life, and regarded as something that requires acceptance rather than avoidance. The PPE project which stressed political literacy that started in 1974 should therefore be regarded as the reaction of a politically advanced country to the unsatisfac-

Table 1.

British political education Hong Kong civic education

Non-academic in nature

Political literacy

Wide conception of politics

Everyday politics

Meso-, micro- as well as macro-politics

About distribution of power and resources

No stress on harmony

Allowing change

Action-prone

Stressing attitudes and skills teaching

No ethnic and national teaching

Also non-academic in nature

Moral exhortations

Constitutional and institutional conception of politics

Macro-politics

About management of public affairs

Consensus and harmony model

Maintaining status quo

Action-shy

Stressing knowledge acquiring

Ethnic and national elements present

POLITICAL AND CIVIC EDUCATION-BRITISH AND HONG KONG PERSPECTIVES 249

tory state of mass political ignorance among the school population.

However, in Hong Kong, a long-time British colony, the government is not democratically generated and the educational system does not disseminate ideas of political participation. Consensus politics is what the government preaches and practises. Hong Kong society has been very apolitical and mass politics has been practically non-existent until very recently. A watchful China is ever-present on the border. In this socio-political context, civic teaching, through a subject called Economic and Public Affairs, is confined mainly to an understanding of government structure and social problems and pupils are educated to be ‘responsible,’ ‘rational’ and ‘sensitive’ citizens who should, amongst other things, appreciate government’s efforts in solving social problems and bringing along economic progress. The ‘new’ civic education, as is proposed by the Guidelines, follows in principle what the past ‘civic education’ had been doing. Small steps are taken towards politics teaching, but this consists of the rudiments of civic rights and obligations only.

(2) The Guidelines in its Foreword refers to the 1984 White Paper of ‘The Further Development of Representative Government in Hong Kong’ and ‘developing the local system of government’ as its guiding principles for promoting civic education (p. i). No mention is made of the 1997 question. However judging from the time the Guidelines were released to the public5, and the attitude objectives of ‘Sense of national identity and belonging,’ ‘Love for the nation and pride in being Chinese ,’ etc. which appear time and again at different levels of the proposed syllabuses, the China factor was certainly present in the drafting of the Guidelines. At a time when China was beginning to take a keener interest in Hong Kong, and yet there was still widespread uncertainty about what China expected of Hong Kong’s political atmosphere, it was natural for the Hong Kong authorities to pursue a low-key approach towards civic education, which, as claimed by the Guidelines itself, ‘must essentially be political in nature’ (p. 7).

This constraint of a foreign political force is insignificant in the British case. The PPE planners had a free hand in the development, implementation and evaluation of the whole

project, which aimed at prescribing remedies for the politically ignorant school population. And they conceptualised it accordingly. There were certainly constraints, but these were related to time, teachers and money, rather than an alien political force.

(3) The difference between the two educa- tional systems in respect of curriculum development and innovation is also a factor contributing to the different conceptualisation. Generally speaking, curriculum decisions and change follow a decentralized model in Britain while in Hong Kong it is highly centralized in an official agency. In Britain it is quite common for individual educational institutions and bodies to develop and pioneer new curricula, at times on a national or semi- national scales and funded by interested foun- dations. For example, the PPE was financially supported by the Nuffield Foundation. These non-governmental curriculum projects need not entertain government wishes and can address educational issues or problems more freely and independently.

However in Hong Kong, all curriculum innovations at school levels are initiated, conducted and led by the government Educa- tion Department, sometimes in collaboration with the Hong Kong Examinations Authority, which is another government body. There are no hard and fast rules stipulating the proce- dures which official curriculum development should follow, and so the authorities concerned sometimes co-opt scholars, educators, teach- ers, etc. into the drafting committees, and sometimes don’t. In the case of the Guidelines, the Education Department drafted them single-handedly. But whatever route it pur- sues, whether ‘solo’ or ‘choir’, it is always the Department steering the course and manning the helm. Consequently, official thinking reigns.

In the present critical and sensitive period of historical and political developments in Hong Kong, the government has to some extent been reduced to ‘caretaker’ status. Its wish is for a stable society leading to a peaceful transition which ends in the year 1997. Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that the political administrators ‘play it safe’ and do not include strong political elements in the school curricu- lum. Today, the Education Ordinance of Hong Kong still forbids political instruction in schools and government officials have per-

250 LEE SIU-MING

sistently rejected pressure for its revision. This explains the present Guidelines, which are simply and essentially an amalgamation of two current school subjects (Economics and Public Affairs and Social Studies).

CONCLUSION

Differences in socio-political backgrounds, the styles of the two educational systems in undertaking curriculum innovations, and the degree of immunity from foreign political considerations are major factors contributing to the polarized conceptualisations of British political education and Hong Kong’s civic education. A recent survey on the implementa- tion of the Guidelines by the Hong Kong Education Department revealed an absolute majority6 of schools found the Guidelines useful. However, no further information was provided as to how and in what aspects were the Guidelines useful. It is my view that we need much more than a set of Guidelines to make civic education effective, which in the specific socio-historical context of Hong Kong today means to prepare the pupils for a Special Administrative Region in China enjoying ‘a high degree of autonomy’ in the future.

Acknowledgements-l wish to register special thanks to Dr P. Morris. Dr H. 0. Brown (both of Universitv of Hong Kong) and Professor I. List& (University of York) for their helpful comments on the earlier draft of this article. Needless to say, the sole responsibility of the paper rests with me.

NOTES

1. More specifically, in England, as the data gathered by the present writer are related to England more than anywhere else in Britain.

2. 1 am indebted to the British Council for its CICHE Visitorship (Summer, 1986) which enabled me to visit the major centres of political education in Britain and meet with some of its leaders.

3. This original division of labour failed to materialise as the drafted programmes were not developed in time for use and the northern centre had to start its research on teacher-initiated courses.

4. Dr Sun Yat Sen was a highly esteemed revolutionary in contemporary China who led movements to overthrow the Ching Dynasty in 1911.

5. It was released in August, 1985, well past the date of the formal ratification of the Sino-British Joint Declaration regarding the future of Hong Kong in December, 1984.

6. 85% of secondary schools, 91% of primary schools and 86% of kindergartens.

REFERENCES

Crick, B. (1974) Basic political concepts and curriculum development. Teaching Politics 3, 13-23.

Crick, B: and Lister, I. (1974) A Programme for Political Education: An Exolanatorv Pauer. PERU Document. University of York: England. ’

Crick, B. and Porter, A. (eds) (1978) Political Education and Political Literacy. Longman, London.

Harber, C. (1984) Politics and political education in 1984. Education Review 2, 113-120.

Lee, S. M. (1986) Development of Civic Education in Hong Kong after the Signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. (Unpublished Chinese article).

Lister, I. (1974) Some Aspects of Political Literacy. PERU Document, University of York, England.

Lister, I. (1977) The- aims and methods of political education in schools. Teaching Politics 6. 1-18.

Lister, I. (1985) Political Education in England, 1974-84: A Briefing Paper presented to the Global Education Centre of the University of Minnesota. PERU Document, University of York, England.

Morris, P. (1986) Identifying the Strategies of Curriculum Development within a Highlv Centralized Educational System: (Author’s photocopy.)

Porter. A. (1981) Political literacv. In Political Education in Flux (edited by Heater, d.), pp. 181-212. Gage, London.

Porter, A. (1982) Political Education: Aims and Implica- tions. (Author’s photocopy).

Stradling, R. (1980) Political Literacy in Further Educa- tion. The Hansard Societv. London.

Sweeting, A. (1983) Hong Kong. In Schooling in East Asia (edited by Thomas, R. M. and Postlethwaite, T. W.) pp. 272-296. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Hong Kong Government Publications 1971 Education Ordinance. Hong Kong. I984 Syllabus for Economic and Public Affairs (FI-3).

Curriculum Development Committee, Education Department, Hong Kong.

1984 Sine-British Joint Declaration on rhe Question of Hong Kong. Government Printer.

1985 Guidelines on Civic Education in Schools. Curriculum Development Committee, Education Department, Hong Kong.

1986 Report on the Evaluation of the Implementation of the ‘Guidelines on Civic Education in Schools’ Advisory Inspectorate, Education Department.