Social Segregation in Hong Kong’s Schools: 2000–2012

References

• Adnett, N., and P. Davies. 2002. Markets for Schooling: An Economic Analysis. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Altonji, J. G., and R. K. Mansfield. 2011. “The Role of Family, School, and Community Characteristics in Inequality in Education and Labor Market Outcomes.” Chapter 16, pp. 339–358 in Whither Opportunity?: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances, edited by G. J. Duncan and R. J. Murnane. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Anyon, J. 1980. “Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work.” The Journal of Education 162(1): 67–92. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/42741976
   Google Scholar
• Archbald, D. A. 2000. “School Choice and School Stratification: Shortcomings of the Stratification Critique and Recommendations for Theory and Research.” Educational Policy 14(2): 214–40. doi:10.1177/0895904800014002002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• –––. 2004. “School Choice, Magnet Schools, and the Liberation Model: An Empirical Study.” Sociology of Education 77(4): 283–310. doi:10.1177/003804070407700402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J. 1993. “Education Markets, Choice and Social Class: the market as a class strategy in the UK and the USA.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 14(1): 3–19. doi:10.1080/0142569930140101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J., R. Bowe, and S. Gewirtz. 1996. “School Choice, Social Class and Distinction: The Realization of Social Advantage in Education.” Journal of Education Policy 11(1): 89–112. doi:10.1080/0268093960110105
   Google Scholar
• Bell, C. A. 2009. “All Choices Created Equal? The Role of Choice Sets in the Selection of Schools.” Peabody Journal of Education 84(2): 191–208. doi:10.1080/01619560902810146
   Google Scholar
• Bosetti, L. 2004. “Determinants of School Choice: Understanding How Parents Choose Elementary Schools in Alberta.” Journal of Education Policy 19(4): 387–405. doi:10.1080/0268093042000227465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Census and Statistics Department. 2014. Hong Kong Annual Digest of Statistics 2014. Hong Kong: Government of the Hong Kong SAR.
   Google Scholar
• Chan, D., and J. Tan. 2008. “Privatization and the Rise of Direct Subsidy Scheme Schools and Independent Schools in Hong Kong and Singapore.” International Journal of Educational Management 22(6): 464–87. doi:10.1108/09513540810895417
   Google Scholar
• Chiu, S., and T. L. Lui. 2009. Hong Kong: Becoming a Chinese Global City. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chubb, J. E., and T. M. Moe. 1990. Politics, Markets and America’s Schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Chudgar, A., T. F. Luschei, and Y. Zhou. 2013. “Science and Mathematics Achievement and the Importance of Classroom Composition: Multicountry Analysis Using TIMSS 2007.” American Journal of Education 119(2): 295–316. doi:10.1086/668764
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobb, C. D., and G. V. Glass. 2009. “School Choice in a Post-Desegregation World.” Peabody Journal of Education 84(2): 262–78. doi:10.1080/01619560902810187
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, J. S. 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Coons, J. E., and S. D. Sugarman. 1978. Education by Choice: The Case for Family Control. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, O. D., and B. Duncan. 1955. “A Methodological Analysis of Segregation Indexes.” American Sociological Review 20(2): 210–17. doi:10.2307/2088328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Education and Youth Affairs Bureau. 2014. “Overview of Educational Statistics 2014–2015.” Retrieved from www.dsej.gov.mo/~webdsej/www/statisti/2014/index.html?timeis=Wed%20Dec%2030%2015:10:01%20GMT+08:00%202015&&
   Google Scholar
• Education Bureau. 2015. General Information on DSS. Education Bureau. Retrieved from www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-primary-secondary/direct-subsidy-scheme/index/info-sch.html
   Google Scholar
• Education Department. 2001. Circular Memorandum no. 210/2001: Direct Subsidy Scheme (Tech. Rep.). Education Department. Retrieved from www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-primary-secondary/direct-subsidy-scheme/index/adm%20cir210-2001-e.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Escardíbul, J., and A. Villarroya. 2009. “The Inequalities in School Choice in Spain in Accordance to PISA Data.” Journal of Education Policy 24(6): 673–96. doi:10.1080/02680930903131259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Exley, S. 2013. “Making Working-Class Parents Think More Like Middle-Class Parents: Choice Advisers in English Education.” Journal of Education Policy 28(1): 77–94. doi:10.1080/02680939.2012.689012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Financial Secretary’s Office. 2010. Indicators of Poverty: An Update of 2009. Government of the Hong Kong SAR. Retrieved from www.lwb.gov.hk/eng/other_info/2009%20Poverty%20Indicators_eng.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fiske, E. B., and H. F. Ladd. 2000. When Schools Compete: A Cautionary Tale. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frankel, D. M., and O. Volij. 2011. “Measuring School Segregation.” Journal of Economic Theory 146(1): 1–38. doi:10.1016/j.jet.2010.10.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabay-Egozi, L. 2015. “School Choice in a Stratified Geography: Class, Geography, Otherness, and Moral Boundaries.” Journal of Education Policy 31(1): 1–27. doi:10.1080/02680939.2015.1047410
   Google Scholar
• Goldring, E. B., and C. S. Hausman. 1999. “Reasons for Parental Choice of Urban Schools.” Journal of Education Policy 14(5): 469–90. doi:10.1080/026809399286161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, H., and P. Noden. 2003. “Modelling Social Segregation.” Oxford Review of Education 29(2): 225–37. doi:10.1080/0305498032000080693. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1050612
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorard, S. 1999. “‘Well. That About Wraps It Up for School Choice Research’: A State of the Art Review.” School Leadership & Management 19(1): 25–47. doi:10.1080/13632439969320
   Google Scholar
• Gorard, S., and J. Fitz. 1998a. “The More Things Change ... The Missing Impact of Marketisation?” British Journal of Sociology of Education 19(3): 365–76. doi:10.1080/0142569980190306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• –––. 1998b. “Under Starters Orders: The Established Market, the Cardiff Study and the Smithfield Project.” International Studies in Sociology of Education 8(3): 299–316. doi:10.1080/0962021980020030
   Google Scholar
• Gorard, S., J. Fitz, and C. Taylor. 2001. “School Choice Impacts: What Do We Know?” Educational Researcher 30(7): 18–23. doi:10.3102/0013189x030007018
   Google Scholar
• Government of the Hong Kong SAR. 2012. Half-Yearly Economic Report 2012. Government of the Hong Kong SAR. Retrieved from www.hkeconomy.gov.hk/en/pdf/box-12q2-5-2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Grant, G. 2009. Hope and Despair in the American City: Why There Are No Bad Schools in Raleigh. Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hanushek, E. A., J. F. Kain, J. M. Markman, and S. G. Rivkin. 2003. “Does Peer Ability Affect Student Achievement.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 18: 527–44. doi:10.1002/jae.741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoxby, C. M. 2003. “School Choice and School Competition: Evidence from the United States.” Swedish Economic Policy Review 10(2): 9–65.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, S. P., J. Micklewright, and S. V. Schnepf. 2008. “Social Segregation in Secondary Schools: How Does England Compare with Other Countries?” Oxford Review of Education 34(1): 21–37. doi:10.1080/03054980701542039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koedel, C., J. R. Betts, L. A. Rice, and A. C. Zau. 2009. “The Integrating and Segregating Effects of School Choice.” Peabody Journal of Education 84(2): 110–29. doi:10.1080/01619560902810096
   Google Scholar
• Lall, M. 2012. Policy, Discourse and Rhetoric: How New Labour Challenged Social Justice and Democracy, vol. 52. Rotterdam and Boston: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Lauen, D. 2007. “False Promises: The School Choice Provisions in No Child Left Behind.” Chapter 25, pp. 461–486 in Sociology of Education: A Critical Reader, edited by A. R. Sadovnik 2nd ed. New York and London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leathwood, C. 2004. “A Critique of Institutional Inequalities in Higher Education: (Or an Alternative to Hypocrisy for Higher Educational Policy).” Theory and Research in Education 2(1): 31–48. doi:10.1177/1477878504040576
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C. -L. 2011. “A Comparative Study on the Private Management of Public Schools for Compulsory Education among Taiwan and Spain.” Master thesis, National Chi Nan University, Taiwan.
   Google Scholar
• Luk, B. H. 1990. “Privatization and Meritocracy: The Real Issue of the Direct Subsidy Scheme.” Pp. 47–55 in Differences and Identities: Educational Argument in Late Twentieth Century Hong Kong, edited by A. Sweeting. Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong.
   Google Scholar
• Massey, D. S., J. Rothwell, and T. Domina. 2009. “The Changing Bases of Segregation in the United States.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 626(1): 74–90. doi:10.1177/0002716209343558
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mora, R., and J. Ruiz-Castillo. 2011. “Entropy-Based Segregation Indices.” Sociological Methodology 41(1): 159–94. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9531.2011.01237.x
   Google Scholar
• Noden, P. 2000. “Rediscovering the Impact of Marketisation: Dimensions of Social Segregation in England’s Secondary Schools, 1994–1999.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 21(3): 371–90. doi:10.1080/713655353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. 1994. School, a Matter of Choice. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2009. PISA 2006 Technical Report. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264048096-en
   Google Scholar
• –––. 2014a. PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science, vol. 1, revised edition. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264201118-en
   Google Scholar
• –––. 2014b. PISA 2012 Technical Report. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2012technicalreport.htm
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. W. 2007. “The Study of Colleges and Universities as Organizations.” Pp. 147–84 in Sociology of Higher Education: Contributions and Their Contexts, edited by P. J. Gumport. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reardon, S. F., and K. Bischoff. 2011. “Income Inequality and Income Segregation.” American Journal of Sociology 116(4): 1092–153. doi:10.1086/657114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reardon, S. F., and G. Firebaugh. 2002. “Measures of Multigroup Segregation.” Sociological Methodology 32(1): 33–67. doi:10.1111/1467-9531.00110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reay, D., M. David, and S. J. Ball. 2001. “Making a Difference?: Institutional Habituses and Higher Education Choice.” Sociological Research Online 5(4). doi:10.5153/sro.548. Retrieved from www.socresonline.org.uk/5/4/reay.html
   Google Scholar
• Renzulli, L. A., and L. Evans. 2005. “School Choice, Charter Schools, and White Flight.” Social Problems 52(3): 398–418. doi:10.1525/sp.2005.52.3.398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapira, R., and P. Cookson. 1997. Autonomy and Choice in Context: An International Perspective. Oxford: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Theil, H. 1967. Economics and Information Theory. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Theil, H. 1971. Principles of Econometrics. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Tse, T. K. 2008. “Choices for Whom?: The Rhetoric and Reality of the Direct Subsidy Scheme in Hong Kong (1988–2006).” Education and Urban Society 40(5): 628–52. doi:10.1177/0013124508316309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viteritti, J. P. 2010. “School Choice and Market Failure: How Politics Trumps Economics in Education and Elsewhere.” Journal of School Choice 4(2): 203–21. doi:10.1080/15582159.2010.483923
   Google Scholar
• Whitty, G., S. Power, and D. Halpin. 1998. Devolution and Choice in Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, W. J. 2012. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy, 2nd ed. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, Y. C. 2013. “Education and Income Inequality in Hong Kong.” Hong Kong Economic Journal. Retrieved from www.wangyujian.com/?p=3425&lang=en
   Google Scholar
• World Education News and Reviews. 2010. “Education in Taiwan.” Retrieved from http://wenr.wes.org/2010/05/wenr-may-2010-feature/
   Google Scholar
• Wu, X. 2012. “School Choice with Chinese Characteristics.” Comparative Education 48(3): 347–66. doi:10.1080/03050068.2012.656901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, D., and X. Wu. 2015a. “School Allocation Policy and the Reverse Gender Gap in Academic Achievement: Evidence from a Quasi-Experiment in Hong Kong.” PSC Research Report No. 15–851.
   Google Scholar
• –––. 2015b. “The Rise of the Second Generation: Aspirations, Motivations and Academic Success of Chinese Immigrants’ Children in Hong Kong.” PSC Research Report No. 15–852.
   Google Scholar
• Yung, A. M. 2006. “The Policy of Direct Subsidy Scheme Schools in Hong Kong: Finance and Administration.” Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal 5: 94–111. Retrieved from http://edb.org.hk/HKTC/download/journal/j5/P094_111.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Z. 2014. “Contingent Transition to Triumph: Socioeconomic Attainments of Chinese Immigrants’ Children in Hong Kong.” Chinese Sociological Review 46(4): 68–88. doi:10.2753/CSA2162-0555460404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, X., L. Zhang, and T. O. K. Sit. 2004. “Income Inequalities Under Economic Restructuring in Hong Kong.” Asian Survey 44(3): 442–73. doi:10.1525/as.2004.44.3.442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, Y., Y. -L. Wong, and W. Li. 2015. “Educational Choice and Marketization in Hong Kong: The Case of Direct Subsidy Scheme Schools.” Asia Pacific Education Review 16(4): 627–36. doi:10.1007/s12564-015-9402-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar