In Hong Kong, a policy for the education of its gifted students has existed in its current form since 2000. However, the gifted education policy is yet to be evaluated, despite growing calls internationally and locally for increased accountability of public policy, including policies relating to gifted education. Using VanTassel-Baska’s five-component model of a high-quality gifted education policy as their conceptual framework, the authors analyze and evaluate the gifted education policy in Hong Kong by first collecting source materials related to the gifted education policy and conducting interviews with three key policy makers. A total of 75 documents and the interview data were subjected to content analysis and the findings indicate that the gifted education policy in Hong Kong has an additional component, which the authors term aims and objectives. Although the aims and objectives differ across the eight groups of beneficiaries, they are not explicitly stated. In addition, the policy neither reflects current research in giftedness nor is it mandated, highlighting possible areas that limit its effectiveness. It is concluded that a thorough update of the policy is warranted if it is to meet its stated aims and objectives.
AronsonJ.SteeleC. M. (2005). Stereotypes and the fragility of academic competence, motivation, and self-concept. In ElliotA. J.DweckC. S. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 436-456). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
2.
BellL.StevensonH. (2006). Education policy: Process, themes and impact. New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BerkR. A.RossiP. H. (1999). Thinking about program evaluation (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
BrodyN. (2006). Geocentric theory: A valid alternative to Gardner’s theory of intelligence. In SchalerJ. A. (Ed.), Howard Gardner under fire: The rebel psychologist faces his critics (pp. 73-94). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
5.
BrownE.AveryL.VanTassel-BaskaJ.WorleyB. B.IIStambaughT. (2006). A five-state analysis of gifted education policies. Roeper Review, 29(1), 11-23.
6.
CallahanC. M. (Ed.). (2004). Program evaluation in gifted education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
7.
ChanD. W. (1996). Program evaluation: Evaluating gifted programs in Hong Kong. Educational Research Journal, 11, 101-105.
8.
ChanD. W. (2000). ‘Education for the gifted’ and ‘Talent development’: What gifted education can offer education reform in Hong Kong. Education Journal, 28(2), 1-13.
9.
ChanD. W.ChanL.-K.ZhaoY. (2009). Twenty-five years of gifted education research in Hong Kong 1984-2008: What lessons have we learned?Educational Research Journal, 24, 135-164.
10.
ChengA. Y. N. (2009). Analysing complex policy change in Hong Kong: What role for critical discourse analysis?International Journal of Educational Management, 23, 360-366.
DatnowA.ParkV. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large scale reform in an era of complexity. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. N. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348-361). New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
DeauxK.BikmenN.GilkesA.VentuneacA.JosephY.PayneY. A.SteeleC. M.Becoming American: Stereotype threat effects in Afro-Caribbean immigrant groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 384-404.
14.
DweckC. S.MasterA. (2008). Self-theories motivate self-regulated learning. In SchunkD. H.ZimmermanB. J. (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 31-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
FeldhusenJ. F. (1991). Basic issues and approaches in identifying and educating gifted youth. Bulletin of the Hong Kong Psychological Society, 26-27, 28-46.
20.
GagnéF. (2005). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119-147.
21.
GallagherJ. J. (2006). Driving change in special education. London, England: Paul H. Brookes.
22.
GardnerH. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
23.
GardnerH.MoranS. (2006). The science of multiple intelligences theory: A response to Lynn Waterhouse. Educational Psychologist, 41, 227-332.
24.
GutchessA. H.YoonC.LuoT.FeinbergF.HeddenT.JingQ.. . . ParkD. C. (2006). Categorical organization in free recall across culture and age. Gerontology, 52, 314-323.
KennedyK. J.FokP. K.ChanK. S. J. (2006). Reforming the curriculum in a post-colonial society: The case of Hong Kong. Planning and Changing, 37, 111-130.
27.
Manpower. (2007). Confronting the talent crunch: 2007. Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China: Author.
28.
MarlandS. P. J. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Vol. 1. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
29.
MasudaT.NisbettR. E. (2006). Culture and change blindness. Cognitive Science, 30, 381-399.
30.
MiyamotoY.NisbettR. E.MasudaT. (2006). Culture and the physical environment: Holistic versus analytic perceptual affordances. Psychological Science, 17, 113-119.
31.
MorrisP.ScottI. (2003). Educational reform and policy implementation in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Policy, 18, 71-84.
32.
NussbaumA. D.DweckC. S. (2008). Defensiveness versus remediation: Self-theories and modes of self-esteem maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 599-612.
33.
PhillipsonS. N. (2008). Being gifted in Hong Kong: What does the research say?Paper presented at the 1st HK-UK Gifted Education Conference—From gifted to great, Hong Kong SAR.
34.
PhillipsonS. N.KaurI.PhillipsonS. (2003). A late developer-gifted education in Malaysia within a global context. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 12, 135-175.
35.
PhillipsonS. N.McCannM. (Eds.). (2007). Conceptions of giftedness: Sociocultural perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
PhillipsonS. N.ShiJ.ZhangG.TsaiD.-M.QuekC. K.MatsumuraN.ChoS. (2009). Recent developments in gifted education in East Asia. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), The international handbook on giftedness (pp. 1427-1461). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media.
37.
RenzulliJ. S. (1984). Evaluating programs for the gifted: Four questions about the larger issues. Gifted Education International, 2(2), 83-87.
38.
SchalerJ. A. (Ed.). (2006). Howard Gardner under fire: The rebel psychologist faces his critics. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
39.
SilkyW.ReadingJ. (1992). REDSIL: A fourth generation evaluation model for gifted education programs. Roeper Review, 15(2), 67-69.
40.
SternbergR. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
SwansonJ. D. (2007). Policy and practice: A case study of gifted education policy implementation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 131-164.
43.
TomlinsonC. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
44.
TomlinsonC. A.CallahanC. M. (1994). Planning effective evaluations for programs for the gifted. Roeper Review, 17(1), 46-51.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2009). United States policy development in gifted education: A patchwork quilt. In ShavininaL. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 1295-1312). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media.
47.
YangR. (2007). Comparing policies. In BrayM. M.AdamsonB.MasonM. (Eds.), Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (pp. 241-262). Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China: Springer.
48.
ZieglerA. (2005). The actiotope model of giftedness. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411-436). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
