Behind the starting line: school capacity building in early childhood education

Abstract

This paper describes the process of school capacity building in Hong Kong's early childhood education at a time when there was a quest for quality education. A local preschool was selected for the study, which took part in a university–school support programme through which consultancy was hired from a university to provide school-based support. An action research approach was chosen in the research design. The process of building capacity was examined in the selected preschool over a year. The findings indicated that the preschool went through a process of capacity building, from the status quo ante, through the exploration stage to the initial implementation stage of change. Restructuring and reculturing were emerging in the change process, with the support of the school consultants.

Keywords:

• capacity building
• early childhood education
• leadership
• quality improvement
• university support

1. Introduction

Reforming Hong Kong's preschools began in 1997 when government policies were introduced for improving the quality of early childhood education (ECE). Efforts were made to upgrade teachers' qualifications, provide a curriculum guide and establish a regulatory framework of performance indicators. Currently, the new reform policy is to encourage preschools to engage teachers in the change process. For example, the Education Bureau, a local education authority, issued the Guide to Pre-primary Curriculum in 2006, outlining the new direction of curriculum development for local preschools. The Guide states that preschools must establish internal mechanisms for curriculum management and improvement. It advocates that teachers should play a greater role in coordinating and leading change. In the same year, to support the implementation of the Guide and speed up the pace of quality improvement, the government set up a Preprimary School-based Support Team to provide on-site support. One major initiative of the team was launching a University–School Support Programme (USP) in 2008. As a part of this programme, consultants were hired from higher education institutes to provide school-based support. This paper attempts to identify the process of school capacity building in ECE in Hong Kong.

2. Key concepts of capacity building

Extensive research has revealed that in the process of improvement, schools learn to adapt themselves to the changing forces in their internal and external environments (Walker and Hallinger 2007; Heck and Hallinger 2005; Cheng 1999). This phenomenon has been termed ‘capacity building’. As defined by Alma Harris (2003, 4), ‘capacity building is concerned with providing opportunities for people to work together in a new way’. The notion of capacity building can also be viewed broadly as, ‘a distinct approach to educational change that aims to enhance student learning outcomes as well as strengthening the school's capacity for managing change’ (Hopkins 2001, 13). Putting this notion in the current context of education, there has been an emphasis on individual learning through improving team effectiveness and developing organisational capacity for sustainable development (Hallinger and Heck 2010).

There have been different perspectives on the concept of capacity building, depending on different contexts. Much of the literature focuses on the role of leaders and leadership in enacting change (Hard and O'Gorman 2007; Ebbeck and Waniganayake 2003; Hayden 1996), which by definition requires the creation of a new system and then helping bring out the potential of others to achieve their goals (e.g. Heck and Hallinger 2010). Capacity building is a type of change process that is described as strengthening the ability of members of an organisation to achieve the set goals (e.g. Fullan 2008; Hargreaves and Shirley 2009). Harsh (2010, 4) has conducted a literature review on the process of capacity building and provided an analysis of the change models.

In her analysis, there are four stages of change emerging as superordinate stages: (1) The exploration stage involves creating a readiness for change. Individuals within the organisation are aware that there are problems existing and determining the desired capacity for change. (2) The emerging implementation stage involves identifying training needs, installing needed resources and initially implementing the new practices. (3) The full implementation stage involves integrating new skills into organisational practices and refining the practices based on the evaluation of the changes. (4) The sustainability stage involves having members of the organisation work collaboratively on the innovation, refocusing efforts to continue the desired practices (Fixsen et al. 2009; Hall and Hord 2005; Collerette, Schneider, and Legris 2003; Prochaska and DiClemente 1992; Kegan and Lahey 1984; Levin 1951). The keys to the process of school capacity building are restructuring and reculturing (Walker and Riordan 2010; Hargreaves 2003; Hoy 2003; Wenger and Snyder 2000). Restructuring can be described as re-establishing and formalising a new system which focuses on networking teachers effectively into the learning community for professional growth and development (Stocklin 2010). Schools provide multiple channels and opportunities for teachers to work interdependently for change and express their views on the school's possible commitment to improvement in decision-making. Research into successful school restructuring has indicated that certain structural changes can strengthen organisational capacity. These structural changes include shared governance for increasing teachers' influence in decision-making, interdependent work structures that allow teachers working collaboratively and deregulation that provides autonomy for teachers to pursue a high quality of work (Newmann and Wehlage 1995). Reculturing can be understood as a shift in the common direction of the school, producing a culture of inquiry which focuses on establishing new norms of interdependence, collaboration and collegiality (Walker 2010; Hannay and Ross 1997; Darling-Hammond 1990). A collegial atmosphere is an essential part of school culture where formal and informal discussions about how effective learning can take place and collaborative work for student learning are encouraged. Little (1990) addresses the complexity of collaboration in her typology of collegial relations among teachers in schools. There are four types: (1) exchanging practical information; (2) providing aid and assistance either informally or formally; (3) sharing of materials, methods and ideas; and (4) engaging in joint work cooperatively. For Little, collegiality as collaboration implies the fourth type (i.e. actual joint work). The two terms restructuring and reculturing are sometimes used interchangeably to refer to schools that are striving for change in the process of school capacity building (Miller 2005). However, Allen and Glickman suggest (2005, 225), ‘Successful school change efforts recognize that simply changing the organization or structure of schools isn't sufficient to bring about meaningful change’. There must also be a school reculturing. In short, the research literature just mentioned focuses on the notions, concepts and processes of restructuring and reculturing as a means to advance the school's capacity building.

3. Current changes in Hong Kong's early childhood education

Over the years, the Hong Kong government has been criticised for giving minimal support to local preschools. The ECE sector has been described as the Cinderella of the education system (Rao and Li 2009; Opper 1992). In recent years, the public view of the function of ECE institutes shifted from child-rearing to developmental nurturing (Ho 2006). The impetus for reforming the ECE sector over the last decade came from public dissatisfaction with the quality of education. A number of reform policies were introduced since 2000, including upgrading teachers' qualifications, introducing a new curriculum framework, implementing quality assurance mechanisms and offering an educational voucher scheme. To a certain extent, these reform policies can be viewed as external drivers to expand the capacity of the preschool system to meet the higher quality standards (Ho 2008). Given the fact that the professional qualifications of the teachers are minimal and basic, it is quite common for local preschools to seek support from outside experts from higher education institutes. A technical approach has been often adopted in the change process that basically focuses only on the practical aspect of the new change but without aligning all aspects of the school into a unified effort for long-term development (Ho 2005). Quite commonly, those approaches used by outside experts from higher education institutes in the 1990s seldom address the complexity of school-based development and school capacity building. As the current educational reform has posed new challenges to preschool principals for quality educare, it creates a great demand for school-based support (Ho 2010a). In view of this, the Education Bureau established the Pre-primary Education Support Team in 2006 to provide such services. As mentioned earlier, one major initiative of the team was launching the USP in 2008. The programme aims to build up capacity for quality improvement at school level. Development grants were given to preschools to hire consultancy services from universities to provide support. As a result, there has been a rapid increase in university involvement in school development in recent years. This involvement has provided an avenue for preschool principals and teachers to focus on in-depth changes in values and beliefs about student learning, teacher professionalism and school leadership.

4. Building capacity with external support

4.1. Research purpose

The present study investigated the phenomenon of school capacity building in ECE in Hong Kong, which is engaged in a current educational reform. The process for building capacity in a local preschool participating in a USP was examined. As discussed in the previous section, capacity building is defined in various ways. Based on the research aims, this study used an operational definition of capacity building that was derived from the literature on school restructuring and reculturing for quality improvement (see Section 2). The research question guiding this endeavour is: What is the process of school capacity building for quality improvement with external support from a university?

4.2. The support programme

Under the USP, preschools receive individual support services from the commissioning institutes for one year. In general, the support service provides professional consultancy for leadership development, school improvement and quality teaching. The preschool in this study was participating in the USP. Two academics at a local higher education institute were hired as school consultants to provide the support service. The overall purpose of the consultancy was to build the capacity of the preschool for change as a response to the new curriculum policy, advocating preschools to establish internal mechanisms for curriculum management and improvement and encouraging teachers to shoulder more responsibility in coordinating and leading curriculum changes.

4.3. The preschool

The school in this study was a non-profit preschool operated by a religious organisation. It was more than 30 years old and was located in a district of public housing estates for low-income families. One-third of the students received fee assistance. The majority of the students’ parents were working and were new migrants from mainland China. For teaching and learning, the school relies heavily on learning packages created by local publishers. These commercial products emphasised academic learning. The uniform set of learning materials left teachers with little space to make professional decisions about children's individual learning needs. Academic writing was a major part of children's daily activity. Standardised tests were used for learning assessment.

At the time of the study, the principal had served in the school for more than 10 years and had received a bachelor degree in ECE. The teaching team consisted of nine teachers. Two of them had obtained their professional qualification at two-year higher diploma level and seven at one-year certificate level. There was no staff turnover in the previous three years, apart from the senior teacher who had retired one year before this study was conducted. Three teachers were selected by the school principal to act as key stage coordinators for the three- to six-year-old classes, and between them, they took up the role and responsibilities of the former senior teacher. The school principal and three key stage coordinators formed a core team for curriculum coordination.

4.4. Research methodology

The research methodology used by the two school consultants in the study was action research, which was developed by Susman and Evered (1978). It can be understood as a consultancy process enacted with an action research framework. Trevitt (2005) offers an account of the experiences of the use of a curriculum consultant working in a ‘coaching’ capacity to support action research in a practice-centred study programme. The process highlighted the synergies and the mutual benefits associated with a range of education initiatives for a combination of internal stakeholders and external consultancy support from universities. Dearn, Fraser, and Ryan (2002) argue that a consultancy process enacted within an action research framework provides the creation and facilitation of linkages and mutual learning between the schools and the universities. Walker (2001) also suggests it offers academics from the universities the possibility of developing an evidence-informed, critical view on their own educational action. It involves researching practice in order to critically review and improve practice. Along the line of these arguments, the consultancy process used in the study aimed to pursue actions and research outcomes at the same time. In this sense, the school consultants were the action researchers, seeking to help build the school's capacity. In the process, all key school stakeholders including the principal, key stage co-coordinators and teachers were involved in actively examining the current problems in order to identify actions for improving practice. The action researchers also helped these school stakeholders to change themselves so that ‘their interactions will create the conditions for inquiry and learning’ (Argyris, Putnam, and Smith 1985, 137). One key characteristic of this process is collaboration, ‘which enables mutual understanding and consensus, democratic decision making and common actions’ (Oja and Smulyan 1989, 12).

In Susman and Evered's model (1978), there are five phases within each research cycle, namely, diagnosing, action planning, taking action, evaluating and specifying action learning. (1) At the start of the cycle of action research, the views of the principal and teachers in the participating school were collected to identify the main problem areas. (2) This was followed by an open discussion on possible solutions. (3) From this discussion, an action plan for addressing the problem emerged and was implemented. (4) The feedback of the principal and teachers on the results of the actions taken was collected for evaluation. (5) Then, for specifying the areas of action learning, the problem was reassessed in the light of how successful the action plan has been. In each research cycle, actions were modified until the problem was resolved.

4.5. Data collection

The consultants played a dual role as school consultant and researcher in the study as mentioned earlier. Alongside the consultative process for school capacity building, an action research approach was adopted to structure the study. The methods of data collection included field notes and interviewing. The rationale for using field notes was to allow the researchers to investigate the process of school capacity building in a non-intrusive manner (Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw 2001). Twenty-four visits were paid to the participating school during the year, once every two to three weeks. In total, 24 records of field notes were taken during the meetings with the school principal, key stage coordinators and class teachers. Focusing on the activities, key events, dialogues and interactions in relation to restructuring and reculturing, these field notes give an account of experiences and observations of the process of school capacity building. After each school visit, one researcher compiled the field notes. Because field notes can be subject to conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the researcher, the field notes were sent to the other researcher to check for validity in order to ensure the plausibility of the observations. One methodological issue around field notes is that it is a representation or a construction of events by the researcher (Denzin 2006). In order to study the process of school capacity building from more than one viewpoint and triangulate the data collected from the field notes (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2000), interviews were conducted with the school principal and key stage coordinators at the end of the school year. The interviews were fully transcribed. The qualitative approach to data analysis used in this study was adapted from Attride-Stirling's (2001) thematic model. Codes relating to the key concepts of restructuring and reculturing (see Section 2) were applied to the text of both field notes and interview transcripts to dissect it into segments. Categories and themes subsequently emerged from the data-sets of field notes and interview transcripts. In addition, the responses given by each interviewee were carefully examined and cross-references made among the responses to see whether there were any internal inconsistencies in the responses.

4.6. Results

In this section, Harsh's four stages of change (2010) are used to structure and report the findings of the study. It was found that the participating school was going through a process of transformation from the status quo ante, through the exploration stage to the emerging implementation stage of school capacity building. Restructuring and reculturing the preschool were happening in the change process. Each of these stages is described below and illustrated with field notes and interview excerpts as appropriate.

4.6.1. Status quo ante

In response to the new Guide to the Pre-primary Curriculum, many preschool principals set up functional groups of teachers to coordinate and manage curriculum change. Like many others, the school in this study set up a core team in 2008, one year before the study was conducted. The core team consisted of four members, namely, the school principal and key stage coordinators of each of the age groups from three- to six- year-olds. During the first school visit, the school principal explained that the reason for setting up the core team was, on one hand, to respond to the government's new curriculum policy and, on the other hand, to take up the duties of the senior teacher who had retired in 2007. As described by the core team and the teachers, the main duty of the former senior teacher was to ‘review and approve’ lesson plans. One teacher explained:

We had to submit the lesson plans to the senior teacher for comments. She pointed out areas for improvement. After receiving the marked lesson plans, we had to make revisions and then resubmit for approval.

Working back and forth on the lesson plans was the method the former senior teacher used for coordinating teaching and learning activities. One key stage coordinator said: ‘The school principal asked me to act as key stage coordinator and to take up part of the duties of the former senior teacher. That is to review and approve the lesson plans. I do it in the same way as the senior teacher did.’

One teacher highlighted the ineffective communication between the key stage coordinators and teachers: ‘We seek advice on lesson planning from the key stage coordinators. It sometimes takes time as they want to ask the school principal for an opinion before getting back to us.’

One key stage coordinator told us that she acted like a ‘microphone’ between the school principal and the teachers. It might be a reflection of the feeling that the coordinator only transmitted messages from the school principal to the teachers and not vice versa. These comments are evidence of the fact that the core team did not function well as a new structure because it should have replaced the old structure and rebuilt the working relationships between teachers and school management. Two-way communication through reflective sharing, peer observation or mentoring was rarely adopted. Teachers were mainly responsible for implementing the curriculum and instructional plan imposed by the school management. In such circumstances, it was doubtful whether the diverse and individual learning needs and interests were addressed. The situation in the participating school was similar to the findings revealed by Cheng (2006) that preschool teachers in Hong Kong have difficulties in making pedagogical shifts from teacher-directedness to child-centredness. That might be one of the reasons why the majority of local preschool principals and teachers were using learning packages rather than developing their own school-based curriculum. The two-way communication among teachers and with the school management was limited. In the first phase of action research, we diagnosed that, despite the fact that the principal set up a core team to provide a new structure for coordinating curriculum change, the key stage coordinators used the same approach to coordination as before, following the footsteps of the former senior teacher. The ways of the school principal, key stage coordinators and teachers remained more or less unchanged. Individual school members were not aware that a problem existed. The term status quo ante can be used to describe the situation of the participating school in the study.

4.6.2. Exploration stage

In general, the method of working with teachers adopted by the core team was the same as that of the former senior teacher. In theory, the role of the core team as part of school restructuring was to provide group synergy by networking the teachers together (Newmann and Wehlage 1995) so that they would work for curriculum change. Hargreaves (1994, 243) posited the need to ensure that, ‘restructuring efforts do seriously try to disestablish the traditional structures of schooling; and do re-define relationships between teachers, students, principals and parents in fundamental ways’. Our initial meetings with the school principal and key stage coordinators were mainly devoted to defining and clarifying roles and expectations in order to establish partnership with a shared purpose. The school principal, however, neither had any ideas about the role and functions of the school consultants, core team and herself nor the training needs and resources for implementing the curriculum changes. She said, ‘It is good to receive support from the school consultants who can tell us what to do’. One key stage coordinator reported that, at the beginning of the USP, ‘My mind was completely blank and I wanted to receive the guidance from the school consultants for curriculum coordination’.

In the second phase of action research, the consultants found that although the school principal, key stage coordinators and teachers did not have any ideas about the action planning for the direction of curriculum development, they were mentally ready for change. The school principal shared her views with us in the second school visit: ‘I hope that you two [the school consultants] can give us a successful formula for school improvement. We will follow your advice closely.’ They were receptive for the school consultants to present the blueprint of change for them. This implied an imbalance of power between the school consultants and the core team. It can be understood that the power of external agents was uncritically accepted by the school stakeholders in local preschool settings,

In view of the above situation, and after consulting with the school principal, key stage coordinators and teachers, it was decided to use staff meetings to prepare lesson plans in order to open up the communication between the core team and the teachers. In the third phase of action research, the use of staff meetings can be regarded as a means to break the pre-existing order. During the staff meetings, teachers were asked to present their lesson plans and the core team gave their views. In the fourth phase of action research, the consultants observed and collected the feedback from the school principal, key stage coordinators and teachers on using staff meetings for two-way communication. The following example indicates the change in the communicative style of the core team with the teachers: ‘Besides giving written comments on the lesson plans, I [key stage coordinator] talk to the teachers about my views on their teaching practices and then they tell me what they think’.

Gradually, the teachers became more willing to share their ideas on teaching with the core team and their colleagues. One teacher described her experience of exchanging ideas with other teachers: ‘We talk to each other about the learning activities after class. If I have found the children show improvement in learning, I will share my experience with my colleagues.’

As defined by Hipp et al. (2008, 176), ‘Culture represents the shared assumptions, beliefs, values, and habits that constitute the norms for the school that shape how professionals think, feel, and act’. The staff meetings between the core team and the teachers were a platform for exchanging beliefs and values which laid the foundation for developing a culture of interdependence, collaboration and collegiality in the participating school (see Peters 1997). At this stage, through open discussion and sharing, individual staff members of the participating school became more aware of the existing problems in the process of change. With the support of the school consultants, the core team was able to lay down the direction for change.

4.6.3. Emerging implementation stage

It took a few months to open up the communication channels between the core team and the teachers. The core team was then transformed from, in Darling-Hammond's (1990, 288) terms, a ‘superficial form’ of organisational change to a ‘structural form’. Meanwhile, a collegial culture began to emerge in the participating school. From our perspective, two-way communication was a necessary but not a sufficient condition for developing a culture of inquiry if the goal of capacity building was to strengthen the professional competencies of the school and contribute to its ability to develop and implement a quality programme for students. The consultants shared these views and identified training needs with all staff members of the school. They agreed that further actions had to be taken to develop mutual understanding of their teaching practices and create a common knowledge base for actions.

In the fifth phase of action research, the next step specified was to promote a culture of inquiry and collaborative conservation between and among teachers, to build expertise and knowledge. As defined by DuFour et al. (2006, 135), collaborative conversation can be understood as a deeper form of open communication, attempting to ‘make conscious that which is unconscious’. It is more than an expression of ideas and opinions and is an exchange and sharing of insights between teachers to enhance mutual understanding and reveal ways of working together for common goals (Spradley 2008). In the middle of the school year, we found that the emerging trend in restructuring and reculturing had set the school on the path for further growth. We then discussed with the core team and the teachers about the priorities for school change. Many of them stated that they relied on the learning packages and that led to a style of didactic teaching. After discussion, it was decided that the priority for change should be placed on enhancing teaching skills for child-centred learning.

Teaching demonstration, video-taped peer observation and reflective sharing were used to facilitate a culture of inquiry and collaborative conversation between the core team and the teachers. After a month, the core team and the teachers felt more comfortable when discussing the problems and issues arising from adopting a child-centred approach in teaching. In view of this, we decided to ask the core team to take charge of the staff meetings and to provide opportunities to build up their capacity in leading. During the process of change, we found that the school principal could work quite independently in leading the school changes with the key stage coordinators. In fact, the school principal told us in the interview conducted at the end of the school year that she had more confidence in laying down the direction for curriculum development. She also tried to encourage the key stage coordinators to lead the change process. She said:

I work closely with the key stage coordinators for curriculum planning. After we have developed the initial proposal, I will encourage them to consult their colleagues and made decisions on their own. If there are any problems arising in the change process, we will work together with the teachers to sort them out.

These sentiments were echoed by the key stage coordinators. For example, one said, ‘We now do not have to act as a microphone any more. Instead, we give advice and work hand in hand with the teachers.’ A teacher described her experience of working with the core team: ‘The communication between the core team and among us [the teachers] is better now. More importantly, we work together closely to prepare the lesson plans and implement a child-centred learning approach.’ In the Emerging Implementation Stage, working closely with the core team and teaching staff, the school consultants identified the training needs for developing a culture of inquiry and collaborative conversation. To facilitate the implementation of the new practices of child-centred teaching, various means such as teaching demonstration, video-taped peer observation and reflective sharing were used in the process of capacity building.

4.7. Summary

The experience of the participating school indicated the complexity of capacity building in ECE in Hong Kong. The preschool in this study went through a process of capacity building, from the status quo ante through the exploration stage to the initial implementation stage of change. In the first place, the school principal established a core team as an internal mechanism for leading curriculum change. However, the core team was a superficial kind of structure and could not function well as it was supposed to. The style of leadership was top-down and the communication between the core team and among the teachers was blocked. With the support of the school consultants, teaching demonstrations, video-taped peer observation and reflective sharing, steps were taken to develop a culture of inquiry and collaborative conversation in the participating school. Later, the school principal and key stage coordinators became more aware of their role and functions in leading. They had more confidence in networking with teachers for curriculum change. Restructuring and reculturing set the school on the path for future development. A potential shift of moving towards interdependence and collaboration among teachers also emerged in the change process.

5. Discussion

This study revealed the complexity of school capacity building through restructuring and reculturing, with the university's support in a policy-driven education context. The establishment of the core team in the participating school can be regarded as a quick response of the school principal to the government's new curriculum policy. The operation of the core team in the first year used the same approach to coordination, following in the footsteps of the former senior teacher. That was reviewing and approving lesson plans submitted by the teachers. The communication among the school principal, key stage coordinators and teachers was ineffective, and they worked in an isolated manner. As Lee and Dimmock (1999) argue, if curriculum leadership and management lack a holistic perspective, it can become fragmented and disjointed. There was seldom display of a culture of interdependence, collaboration and collegiality. This indicated that the function of the core team was superficial, and the school principal was not aware of the importance of capacity building through school restructuring and reculturing. This also reflected that the approach used by the core team in coordinating teaching and learning activities was top-down via hierarchical structures and created an isolated culture. As cited in Section 2, deregulation for autonomy is a key characteristic of successful school restructuring. This study revealed that with the support of the school consultants, the core team used a sharing session approach as a means to break the pre-existing order to prepare lesson plans so as to open up the communication between the core team and the teachers. Indeed, the teachers were invited to express their views and take part in designing the learning activities. Gradually, they were more willing to discuss the problems and issues in teaching and work together for lesson planning. This can be understood as a form of deregulation for teachers' autonomy (Newmann and Wehlage 1995) and subsequently creating a culture of collaboration (Little 1990). Moreover, developing interdependent work structures is another key characteristic of successful school restructuring. In this study, the function of the core team was gradually shifting from a superficial structure that worked as a microphone for transmitting messages for the school principal in staff communication to an interdependent work structure that allowed the teachers working together and encouraged collaboration. New leading roles for key stage coordinators began to emerge as their responsibilities expanded to include additional tasks such as facilitators of lesson plan sharing and curriculum coordinators. The key stage coordinators began to shoulder more responsibilities in leading curriculum changes. There might be a potential shift that they would act as teacher leaders in quality improvement. The Education Bureau suggests that preschools set up internal mechanisms for coordinating school change, and teachers are to assume a greater role and more responsibility in the change process (Ho 2010b). As mentioned in Section 2, Allen and Glickman (2005) argue that school structuring is a necessary part of successful school change, but is insufficient. There must also be a school reculturing. This study raises a question about how these internal mechanisms operate in local preschools and to what extent they function well in leading change. Further research, therefore, will have to be conducted to look into the development of internal mechanisms for leading sustainable changes in Hong Kong's early childhood education, where the main drive for change has come from reform policies.

6. Concluding remarks

Although this study was based on a single preschool, the findings generated from the field notes of school visits and semi-structured interviews with the school principal and key stage coordinators shed some light on the process of school capacity building in ECE. The results of the study indicate that restructuring and reculturing are the keys to school capacity building in ECE in Hong Kong. In the exploration and initial implementation stages of change, external agents from higher educational institutes played a key role in school capacity building in local preschools. More importantly, we add some new dimensions on school restructuring and reculturing reported in the literature by examining how this can be seen in the process of school capacity building in ECE in Hong Kong, where the main drivers of change have been reform policies. First, the role of external agents is critical to transforming the school principal and the key stage coordinators to take leading roles in quality improvement. Second, attention has to be paid to the power of external agents that was uncritically accepted by the school stakeholders in local preschool settings where the professional qualifications of early childhood educators are low. Third, in the reform process, preschool principals must make sense of the complexity of these top-down policy agendas in their journey for quality improvement. We are concerned that there is a trend in many preschools to allocate an increasing amount of time and effort to setting up internal mechanisms for organisational change as a quick response to the advocacy of the Education Bureau. Policy makers and preschools must look carefully at the processes involved in order to assess the effectiveness of these internal mechanisms to produce increased teacher professionalism and student outcomes. Otherwise, capacity building in preschools may become mere rhetoric, and old wine in new bottles.

Notes on contributors

Dora Ho is Associate Professor in Early Childhood Education at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Her research interests include school leadership, education policy, curriculum and pedagogy, and early childhood education. She has written extensively on issues of school leadership, curriculum change, quality improvement and teacher professionalism.

Shu-Chin Susan Chen is Associate Professor in Early Childhood Education at the National Taichung University of Education. She visited the Hong Kong Institute of Education in 2008–2009. Her research interests include early reading and writing, preschool curriculum and teaching and teacher education.

Acknowledgements

The work reported herein was supported by an Internal Research Grant (ref. no. R3388 & RG36/12-13R) from the Faculty of Education and Human Development, Hong Kong Institute of Education to Dora Ho. She appreciates the financial support of the Institute.