The Development Trajectory of the Sister School Scheme Between Hong Kong and Chinese Mainland Schools: From the Intertextuality Perspective

Abstract

Purpose

Despite growing recognition of the importance of cross-system collaboration, there remains limited scholarship on policies promoting cross-system school partnerships. This paper examines an underexplored policy initiative—the Sister School Scheme—implemented between schools in Hong Kong and Chinese mainland since 2004. We trace the development trajectory of this initiative and analyze its implications for cross-border educational collaboration.

Design/Approach/Methods

The study primarily relies on official policy documents issued by national, provincial, and local governments between 2004 and 2023, as well as speeches by politicians reported in media sources. Data analysis involved a comprehensive review and comparison of these texts to identify patterns, recurring themes, and discursive shifts over time.

Findings

This preliminary analysis reveals that, since the Scheme's launch, its scope and focus have been significantly shaped by major social events occurring at critical historical junctures. In addition, the policy has served as a strategic tool to foster cross-border educational exchange and collaboration between schools in Hong Kong and Chinese mainland.

Originality/Value

This study contributes original insights by offering the first longitudinal policy analysis of the Sister School Scheme, a relatively overlooked initiative in cross-border education research. It adds value by uncovering how educational policy evolves in response to broader social dynamics, and by shedding light on the role of school partnerships in fostering cross-system collaboration.

Keywords

Education policy inter-school collaboration intertextuality Sister School Scheme the Greater Bay Area

Introduction

Promoting inter-school collaboration has been increasingly prioritized in many societies (Chapman & Muijs, 2013; Muijs, 2015), and China is no exception. There is a unique form of inter-school collaboration involving schools in Hong Kong and Chinese mainland cities. Policies that promote inter-school collaboration between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland schools are often referred to as the Sister School Scheme (zimei xuexiao jihua) (Hong Kong Education Bureau, 2018) (hereafter “the Scheme”).

In this paper, we track the development trajectories of the Scheme over the past two decades and explore why the Scheme received mixed momentum at different times. In this way, we attempt to enrich the existing body of knowledge on inter-school partnerships between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland.

School improvement through partnership has been promoted by a myriad of policy initiatives with the strong belief that successful partnership may facilitate the sharing of resources, establish mutual support mechanisms for problem-solving and provide opportunities for students to broaden their horizons (Armstrong, 2015; Armstrong et al., 2021; Chapman & Muijs, 2014). Studies have explored different types of inter-school collaboration, factors that shape the inter-school collaboration process, and successful collaboration practices (e.g., Greany & Kamp, 2022; Muijs, 2015). This study examined the dynamics of inter-school collaboration in China using a policy perspective. The Scheme was initiated to foster cross-border collaborative learning activity, promote wider educational change, and cultivate a stronger sense of national identity (Hong Kong Education Bureau, 2024). The Scheme promotes and encourages partnerships between schools located in Chinese mainland and Hong Kong (Hong Kong Education Bureau, 2018). In retrospect, the policy could be viewed as a success considering the number of sister-school partnerships formed. As of late 2022, partnerships have been formed between 780 public primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong and over 2,100 Chinese mainland schools (Hong Kong SAR Government, 2022). The Chinese mainland schools are mainly from cities in neighboring provinces such as Guangdong and Fujian and other major cities, that is, Beijing, and Shanghai (Hong Kong Education Bureau, 2018).

Despite its role as a catalyst for fostering inter-school collaboration and cultural exchange between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland, the Scheme has received limited scholarly attention. While several studies have examined cross-border academic partnerships at the tertiary level, focusing on collaboration and knowledge transfer among universities in Hong Kong and Chinese mainland (Mok & Jiang, 2017; Oleksiyenko, 2010), there exists a research gap regarding partnerships between primary and secondary schools in Chinese mainland and Hong Kong. As such, the analysis of the contextual factors driving the evolution of the Scheme may provide some insights for the formulation and implementation of effective strategies to promote future cross-school collaborations. Accordingly, our study is guided by two questions:

How has the Scheme evolved since its inception in 2004?

What contextual factors have driven the development trajectory of the Scheme?

Theoretical perspective: Intertextuality

Our study employs a critical discourse analysis approach to examine the policy texts of the Scheme. The primary objective of critical discourse analysis is to closely examine key policy documents. Drawing on Luke's (2019) definition, which emphasizes the role of language in shaping institutional, globalized, political, and organizational agendas, we explore how language serves as a mechanism for influence. In critical discourse analysis, the power dynamics embedded in policies are central to the investigation for uncovering the strategic use of language in the contestation between stakeholders with competing objectives (Fulcher, 1989).

Fairclough's (2004) critical discourse analysis framework, particularly his conceptualization of intertextuality, can offer profound insights into the development and understanding of educational policies. The Scheme, which aims to foster cross-border educational collaborations, provides rich ground for applying Fairclough's theory, especially in today's context of heightened global interconnectivity in education.

Fairclough (1992) describes two dimensions of intertextuality: manifest and constitutive. Manifest intertextuality refers to the explicit or implicit references within a text. Manifest intertextuality can be observed in how policies and agreements reference and build upon pre-existing educational frameworks, international standards, and cultural exchange programs. This form of intertextuality highlights the continuity and evolution of educational discourse across different cultures and systems, revealing a tapestry of influences and interactions. Constitutive intertextuality, on the other hand, pertains to the broader genres, discourses, and styles that shape a text. This dimension reveals how education policies challenge or align with existing educational norms. By examining the constitutive intertextuality of these policies, one can uncover their ideological underpinnings, power dynamics, and cultural assumptions, offering insights into how they contribute to shaping global educational discourses (Fairclough, 1992).

Recent studies have elaborated on Fairclough's ideas. For instance, Bloor and Bloor (2013) provided a comprehensive guide for applying Fairclough's principles in various contexts, including education. Their work underscores the usefulness of critical discourse analysis for interpreting the complexities of modern educational policies. Additionally, Wodak and Meyer's (2015) edited volume on methods of critical discourse analysis offers updated methodologies and perspectives that are particularly useful in analyzing the intertextual dynamics of education policies.

In today's globalized educational environment, analyzing intertextuality in the development of education policies is essential. This approach not only illuminates the influences and evolution of educational policies but also helps to anticipate future trends and challenges in global education. By employing interdiscursive analysis, we aim to bridge the micro-level lexico-grammatical choices in discourse with the broader sociocultural context in which these texts are commissioned and produced (Halliday, 2014). According to the intertextuality perspective, we adopted the following levels of analysis:

Text-internal analysis of policy documents, including their contents, topics, and genre.

Intertextual connections to past and present policy documents.

The extralinguistic social variables, including institutional contexts in which the policies are interpreted and implemented.

Method

The methodology employed in this study involves an intertextual approach to analyze the development of sister school policies. Intertextuality, as a theoretical framework, enables the examination of interconnectedness and influences among various texts. In this research, intertextuality is applied to investigate the relationships and interplay between policy documents, official speeches, and news reports pertaining to sister school policies. By employing intertextuality, we aim to uncover the underlying discourses, intertextual references, and textual borrowings that shape the evolution of sister school policies, contributing to a deeper understanding of their development.

For analysis, we selected 15 policy documents issued by national, provincial, and local governments from 2004 to 2023. To identify these documents, we conducted a search using the key term “Sister School Scheme” on the official websites of the Central Government of the People's Republic of China, the People's Government of Guangdong Province, and the Hong Kong Education Bureau. Additionally, we used articles from official national media outlets, such as the Xinhua News Agency, to further support and validate our findings. These 15 documents were considered representative of the core interests of the Scheme over the past two decades. They have been translated from Chinese to English and are presented in Table 1. Furthermore, we collected politicians’ speeches from media sources or public events as additional data to analyze the driving forces behind policymaking, including the influence of historical, political, and social contexts.

Table 1.

Key policies/agreements about the sister school scheme.

Time	Issuing organization	Policy/agreement name	Policy gist (coding from the policy documents)
2004	Central Government of the People's Republic of China	Framework Agreement on Cooperation in the Pan-Pearl River Delta Region	Inception of Sister School Scheme: against the backdrop of economic globalization and regional economic cooperation, the Pan-Pearl River Delta has become a key area for developing regional cooperation through complementary advantages, emphasizing education exchange and collaboration.
2004	Hong Kong Education Bureau	Sister School Scheme	Hong Kong Education Bureau launched a Sister School Scheme in Hong Kong.
2005	Guangdong Education Bureau and Hong Kong Education Bureau	Framework Agreement on the Establishment of Sister Schools Between Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao	Encouraging exchange and collaboration between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland schools.
2006	The State Council of the People's Republic of China	The 11th Five-Year Plan of the People's Republic of China	To strengthen and promote exchanges and collaboration between Chinese mainland, Hong Kong, and Macao in the fields of economy, trade, science, education, culture, health, and sports.
2011	The State Council of the People's Republic of China	The 12th Five-Year Plan of the People's Republic of China	To strengthen exchanges and collaboration between Chinese mainland, Hong Kong, and Macao in the fields of culture and education.
2015	People's Government of Guangdong Province	Guangdong-Hong Kong Sister School Cooperation Agreement	To strengthen exchanges and collaboration of sister schools between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland, planning to increase at least 60 pairs of sister schools.
2015	Hong Kong SAR Government	Policy Address: Pilot Scheme to Promote Exchange Between Hong Kong-Mainland Sister Schools	To further strengthen exchanges and collaboration of sister schools between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland. To provide an annual subsidy of HK$ 120,000 to each public school and Direct Subsidy Scheme (DSS) school that has established sister schools with Chinese mainland schools since the 2015/2016 academic year, planning to increase 600 sister schools in Hong Kong within three years.
2016	Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China	Implementation Opinions on Deepening Patriotic Education in the Education System	To intensify patriotic education among young students from Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan regions by strengthening the establishment of “sister school” platforms between primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong, Macao, and Chinese mainland.
2019	Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council	Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area	To strengthen the exchange and collaboration of basic education and encourage primary and secondary schools in Guangdong Province, Hong Kong, and Macao to pair up as sister schools.
2019	People's Government of Guangdong Province	Three-Year Action Plan for Promoting the Construction of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (2018–2020)	To strengthen interaction and communication among schools in the Greater Bay Area. To encourage kindergartens, primary schools, secondary schools, and secondary vocational schools in Guangdong Province, Hong Kong, and Macao to participate in the Sister School Scheme.
2019	Hong Kong SAR Government	Policy Address 2019	To further strengthen professional exchanges and diversified collaboration of sister schools between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland. To provide a subsidy of HK$ 155,000 to each public school and DSS school that has established sister schools with Chinese mainland schools in the 2019/2020 academic year, encouraging more Hong Kong schools to participate in the Sister School Scheme.
2020	People's Government of Guangdong Province	Guangdong-Hong Kong Cooperation Framework Agreement	To support schools for Hong Kong children in Guangdong Province to pair up sister schools with Hong Kong secondary and primary schools.
2021	The State Council of the People's Republic of China	The 14th Five-Year Plan of the People's Republic of China	To strengthen exchange and collaboration between Chinese mainland and Hong Kong as well as Macao in various fields. To strengthen the national consciousness and patriotism of Hong Kong and Macao people. To support Hong Kong and Macao to launch exchanges and collaboration with various areas.
2021	Hong Kong SAR Government	Policy Address 2021	To further strengthen professional exchanges and diversified collaboration of sister schools between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland. To provide a subsidy of HK$ 157,000 to each public school and DSS school that has established sister schools with Chinese mainland schools in the 2021/2022 academic year, encouraging more Hong Kong schools to participate in the Sister School Scheme.
2022	Hong Kong SAR Government	Policy Address 2022	To promote friendships between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland students, broaden horizons, enhance understanding of Chinese mainland, and increase the national identity of Hong Kong students, the Hong Kong SAR Government will enlarge the networks of sister schools in Hong Kong, planning to increase 10% public schools paring up with sister schools by the end of 2023.
2023	Hong Kong SAR Government	Policy Address 2023	To establish the first teacher training and exchange base in collaboration with the authorities or institutions of Chinese mainland within the 2023/2024 school year, with a view to organizing regular training, exchange, and collaboration projects in Chinese mainland. To continue to provide more opportunities for students to participate in Chinese mainland study tours.

The analysis involved a comprehensive review and comparison of these texts to identify patterns, recurring themes, and discursive shifts over time. To facilitate this analysis, we used NVivo 14, qualitative research software. The content analysis consisted of three steps. First, we extracted and compiled all sections of the policy texts that mentioned the Scheme. Second, we analyzed the background, purpose of publication, and policy objectives of the Scheme to understand its evolution and examined the contextual factors surrounding its development. For example, the “Implementation Opinions on Deepening Patriotic Education in the Education System” issued in 2016 stated its purpose was to intensify patriotic education among young students from Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan regions through the establishment of sister school platforms between primary and secondary schools in these regions. Then “patriotic education” as a keyword was coded as a stated policy objective. Third, we contextualized the Scheme, examining discursive changes across the policy documents. Two of the authors independently conducted manual coding, and their results were later compared, combined, and refined.

Findings

Considering the cross-jurisdictional expectations and practices, regional collaboration is complex and challenging (Osborne, 2006). The following section traces the trajectory of the Scheme from 2004 to 2023 and examines the development of the policy.

The Sister School Scheme during 2004–2013

The “Framework Agreement on Cooperation in the Pan-Pearl River Delta Region” (Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China, 2004) and the signing of “Framework Opinions on Strengthening Education Co-operation Among the Nine Pan-Pearl River Delta Provinces” (People's Government of Guangdong Province, 2004) in 2004 marked the official launch of large-scale regional cooperation in China. These two policies were intended to strengthen the integration and complementarity of advantages in the areas of economic resources, industrial construction, science and technology, culture and education, and personnel training and exchange. Economic and education agencies were increasingly involved in cross-border collaborations that radically changed their institutional character.

Subsequently, the Hong Kong Education Bureau launched the Sister School Scheme using a top-down approach to promote educational exchange and collaboration with Chinese mainland schools. Through exchange and collaboration, this Scheme aimed to expand and enhance understanding and communication between partner schools by deepening knowledge of the two cultures and working together to improve the quality of education. The Scheme established institutional arrangements that promoted cross-system school interaction. In 2004, the Hong Kong Education Bureau facilitated the twinning of around 20 schools in Hong Kong with schools in, Guangdong, Sichuan, Zhejiang, and Fujian provinces, as well as Beijing and Shanghai (Panel on Education, 2015).

The “Framework Agreement on the Establishment of Sister Schools Between Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao” in 2005 highlighted the main objective of the Scheme, which was to encourage exchange and collaboration between schools in Hong Kong and Chinese mainland (Guangdong Education Bureau, 2015). It positioned the Scheme as a means to bridge educational and cultural gaps between the two regions, fostering mutual understanding and cooperation. Since the inception of this policy, the Scheme has been widely welcomed by schools in Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao due to their geographical proximity, language, and cultural similarities. The policy release led to rapid growth in cross-border partnerships in terms of the number of sister schools, the range of activities, and the variety of exchange formats. For example, in May 2005, 22 primary and secondary schools in Guangzhou signed contracts with primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong as sister schools (Nanfang Daily, 2016). Additionally, the policy facilitated school collaborations across different regions, thereby expanding its regional reach.

“The 11th Five-Year Plan of the People's Republic of China” in 2006 (The State Council of the People's Republic of China, 2006) and “The 12th Five-Year Plan of the People's Republic of China” in 2011 (The State Council of the People's Republic of China, 2011) reiterated the emphasis on cultural and educational exchanges and collaboration between Chinese mainland, Hong Kong, and Macao. It stated that the Scheme should focus on these two domains as key areas for strengthening ties and promoting mutual learning among the regions. The Scheme was presented as a strategic initiative to foster collaboration, mutual understanding, and integration between Hong Kong, Chinese mainland, and Macao, with an aim to leverage complementary advantages and promote cooperation in education fields.

Social variables were also highlighted in the development of the Scheme, specifically social events which were highly relevant to the development of the Scheme. The 2008 Beijing Olympics substantially enhanced the perceptions of Hong Kong people toward Chinese mainland (Lau et al., 2010). The Olympics showcased China's growing influence, economic prowess, and increased international engagement (Chen et al., 2012). As emphasized by Brownell (2012), one of the Olympics’ primary impacts was the cultivation of stronger connections between China and the global community by displaying a new image of China. The Olympics also fostered a sense of solidarity and Chinese identity among citizens (Chen et al., 2012). Emphasizing themes of “harmony and peace,” “unity,” and “power and innovation,” the Olympics reflected a revival of traditional cultural values rooted in Confucianism (Chen et al., 2012). Despite being Special Administrative Regions (SARs) with separate teams under the “One Country, Two Systems” principle, Hong Kong and Macao embraced what was referred to as Olympic nationalism, aligning their sentiments with the rest of the Chinese population (Ho & Bairner, 2013). The Olympics not only nurtured unity and Chinese identity among students in these regions but also transcended internal divisions, emphasizing international solidarity. The display of Chinese culture during the Olympics played a significant role in shaping Hong Kong people's understanding of their Chinese identity (Ho & Bairner, 2013).

Additionally, influenced by the “One Country, Two Systems” principle, which aimed to maintain Hong Kong's autonomy while being part of China, the Scheme was seen as a platform to promote cooperation and understanding between the two regions, enhancing the implementation of this principle. Hong Kong and Chinese mainland experienced increased economic integration through initiatives such as the “Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement.” The Scheme was further developed to support this economic integration by promoting cultural understanding and business collaborations between the two regions. Government policies in Hong Kong during 2004–2011 emphasized the importance of providing students with international exposure and global perspectives. The Scheme, aligned with these policies, facilitated educational exchanges, language learning, and cultural immersion opportunities for students in both regions.

The Sister School Scheme during 2012–2013

In 2012, the Hong Kong SAR Government proposed the implementation of a “Moral and National Education” curriculum in schools, intending to make it a compulsory subject in primary and secondary education. The aim was purportedly to deepen students’ identification with the motherland and foster a sense of national identity.

The Mainland exchange program was expected to play a more important role in understanding the national situation. The number of participants in the Mainland exchange program reversed the previous decline showing a “V-shaped” rebound. The number of participants rose from 26,000 to 50,000, nearly a 100% increase (Fung, 2019). This indicated that the relevant authorities had taken appropriate and effective countermeasures after social incidents, increasing the importance of Mainland exchanges.

Over time, the Scheme was seen as a promising policy tool and was highly promoted by the multi-level governments. For example, in the province with the largest number of partner schools, Guangdong, the local governments there together with the governments of Hong Kong and Macao SAR communicated frequently to explore themes, modes of activities, pathways, and methods of cooperation and exchange. These policies indicate that the Central, Hong Kong, and Guangdong governments promoted the Scheme to accommodate inter-school collaborative arrangements. The development of these policies indicated an increased interdependence of governments operating at different levels regarding the Scheme. The Central Government established the political direction for the development of educational collaboration between Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao in the Greater Bay Area (Li & Zheng, 2023a, 2023b). The Central Government issued policies to determine the appropriate boundaries of influence and encourage formal school partnerships while sharing their concerns with the regional and local governments. The regional and local governments aligned the national policy with the local school contexts to moderate the policies and to provide structure and resources for cross-region school collaboration (Jiang, 2021).

The Scheme expanded rapidly during its first 10 years, promoting multi-faceted bilateral communication while creating positive changes in teachers, students, and even parents. First, it enhanced the capacity of school leadership through reciprocal visits and sharing of experiences. Second, it established learning communities, strengthened curriculum leadership, promoted professional development, and enhanced teaching efficacy among teachers through methods including classroom observation, assessment, experience sharing, and professional exchange. Third, it deepened students’ understanding of the culture, education, and economic development of Hong Kong and Chinese mainland through various forms of joint cultural and intellectual activities, as well as classroom and immersive experiences.

The Sister School Scheme during 2014–2015

During 2014–2015, adjustments were made to the Scheme to strengthen educational ties between Chinese mainland and Hong Kong. The first indication of revitalizing the Scheme came in 2014 with a speech delivered by a Vice Inspector from the Guangdong Education Bureau. He emphasized the necessity to establish and enhance a long-term exchange mechanism for the Scheme, continuously improving its levels of cooperation and standards (Guangdong Education Bureau, 2014). The Hong Kong SAR Government echoed the call to strengthen collaboration in the education sector, prompting the promotion of the Scheme by key political figures and policymakers. The then Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Leung Chun-Ying, highlighted plans to fund students’ visits to Chinese mainland and explore further opportunities for exchanges and cooperation with different provinces and cities in Chinese mainland (Hong Kong SAR Government, 2015).

In 2015, the State Council authorized three ministries, namely the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Commerce, to jointly release the “Vision and Actions on Jointly Building the Silk Road Economic Belt and the twenty-first-century Maritime Silk Road” (referred to as the Belt and Road Initiative) white paper. The objective was to “strengthen regional connectivity and embrace a brighter future,” encouraging cooperation and exchanges among the regions and countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative. Hong Kong was recognized as playing a unique role in the development of the initiative, serving as a hub to strengthen educational exchanges with Chinese mainland and other countries/regions along the Belt and Road. Policy texts indicated that the Belt and Road Initiative served as one of the driving forces behind sister school cooperation.

With the Scheme initiated a decade earlier receiving increased attention, the anticipation was that it would facilitate the reconnection of Hong Kong students and youths with their counterparts in Chinese mainland.

Overall, the adjustments made to the Scheme aimed to address the weaknesses in ties between Chinese mainland and Hong Kong and to foster stronger connections and exchanges through the education sector.

The Sister School Scheme during 2016–2019

Directed by the Central Government, the Scheme emphasized organizing national education activities, facilitating exchange programs, and strengthening the development of sister schools (Hong Kong Education Bureau, n.d.). This was part of a broader effort to foster a sense of national identity and mutual understanding among the youth of these regions. Key features of the Scheme during this period focused on appreciating Chinese culture and history while promoting multidimensional professional and cultural collaborations. The number of schools participating in the Scheme also significantly increased, from 302 schools in the 2015/2016 academic year to 535 schools in the 2017/2018 academic year, representing a growth of over 77%. This demonstrated the increasing popularity and prevalence of the Mainland exchange program (Fung, 2019).

In 2016, The Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (2016a) issued the “Implementation Opinions on Deepening Patriotic Education in the Education System” and reframed the purpose of the Scheme. The objectives of the policy included

organizing national education activities such as visits to Chinese mainland by young people from Hong Kong and Macao, implementing exchange programs between higher education institutions in Hong Kong, Macao, and Chinese mainland, and strengthening the development of sister schools between primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong, Macao, and Chinese mainland. (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, 2016a)

In the same year, the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (2016b) issued another document entitled “2016 Work Points of the Basic Education Department,” which again emphasized the importance of “strengthening exchanges between primary and secondary schools in Chinese mainland and Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan regions and guiding the establishment of sister schools.”

The Hong Kong Education Bureau soon echoed the national policy. In November 2016, the then Secretary for Education of Hong Kong, Eddie Ng, delivered a speech, stating that the Scheme “not only strengthens friendship between the two places, but also promotes professional interaction and cultural exchange, producing a synergistic effect”; in addition, through the Scheme, “schools can extend cooperation to domestic and even other schools through the contacts of sister schools. Promoting multidimensional and deeper professional exploration and diversified collaboration between the two places” (Hong Kong Education Bureau, 2016).

The year 2017 marked the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to China, commemorated under the official slogan “Together · Progress · Opportunity,” which emphasized unity, development, and the shared benefits of integration with Chinese mainland.

In the following two years, the Scheme was further promoted against the macro background of the development of the Greater Bay Area. In early 2019, the State Council issued the “Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area,” which supported the cooperation of Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao universities and encouraged Hong Kong and Macao youth to study in Chinese mainland schools while encouraging primary and secondary schools in Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Macao to establish sister schools (State Council of the People's Republic of China, 2019). In October 2019, in her 2019 Policy Address, Carrie Lam again stated that it is important to “further promote professional exchanges and diversified collaboration between sister schools in the two places and encourage more Hong Kong schools to participate in the sister school program” (Hong Kong SAR Government, 2019).

The Sister School Scheme during 2020–2023

Support for sister schools during this period continued and accelerated. Both the 2021 and 2022 Policy Addresses by the Chief Executive of Hong Kong emphasized the importance of further promoting the Scheme, which suggests that its goals extended beyond simply delivering educational outcomes. Meanwhile, Chinese mainland actively collaborated with Hong Kong to develop school and student ties and to expand the scope of the Scheme (People's Government of Guangdong Province, 2021).

In a speech, the then Secretary for Education of Hong Kong Yeung Yun-hung stated that “support will be provided for exchanges and communication between Chinese mainland and Hong Kong, and more sister schools will be paired” (Liaison Office of the Central People's Government, 2020). Correspondingly, in 2020, the Department of Education of Guangdong Province and the Hong Kong Education Bureau issued the “Guangdong-Hong Kong Cooperation Framework Agreement,” which “support[ed] Hong Kong schools for children of Hong Kong residents to establish sister schools with primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong” (Hong Kong SAR Government, 2020).

Although the pandemic had some impact on the Scheme, its nature and scope did not change. Instead, sister school activities were conducted online during the pandemic. The subsidy amount for the Sister School Scheme in the 2023/2024 academic year is set at HK$ 159,955 per local school (Hong Kong Education Bureau, 2023). On November 16, 2023, there was a summit on the Scheme in Hong Kong which was attended by high-level government officials and celebrities from both Chinese mainland and Hong Kong including the then Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. The summit aimed to promote exchange activities between Guizhou and Hong Kong with the Scheme being its focal point (Bauhinia Magazine, 2023).

Discussion and conclusion

The past two decades have witnessed the development trajectory of sister school exchanges and collaborations between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland.

Our analysis builds intertextual connections between past and present policy documents (Richardson & Wodak, 2009). The trajectory of the Scheme has been dynamic and shaped by the interactions between governmental units at all levels (Ball, 2012; Bowe et al., 2017). The policy development process reveals how the governments at different levels had a major influence over the Scheme, which echoes previous findings suggesting the governments were the initiators (Chen & Zheng, 2019; Ma, 2010).

Our findings regarding social variables demonstrate how the roles of governments are constructed at different levels. We revealed the centrality of national policy in the process of the school collaboration between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland and how the national and provincial governments played a role in providing political direction (Li & Zheng, 2023a, 2023b). Local governments were increasingly caught up in a web of interdependence that delivered relational and structural guidance (Jiang, 2021). Through the prism of multilevel governance, the context, purpose, and motivation behind the collaborative activities become evident. In addition to the government-related influences, the Scheme has undergone significant changes since its establishment in 2004, reflecting the dynamic relationship between Chinese mainland and Hong Kong.

According to the text-internal analysis of policy documents (Richardson & Wodak, 2009), the Scheme was initially established to promote cultural and educational exchange between the two regions.

In addition, our findings show the centrality of national policy in the development of the Scheme and the “steering role” of the Central Government. The Hong Kong SAR Government, on the other hand, has been a collaborating partner, responding to policy changes and expanding the scope of the Scheme. Such a relationship shows the workings of multilevel governance in education in the Greater Bay Area. This non-Western case of cross-system collaboration demonstrates the inter-workings of multilevel governments and explores its scope.

As the Sister School Scheme approaches its third decade, the policy landscape it navigates is more complex with both opportunities and challenges ahead.

The recent “blowout” in the Scheme's expansion, characterized by a heightened emphasis on fostering national identity and security through educational exchanges, raises critical questions about the future of cross-border educational collaboration. This phase may not mark the culmination of the Scheme but could signal a pivot toward more nuanced and multifaceted objectives. This could entail a diversification of activities under the Scheme, incorporating not just student exchanges but also joint research initiatives, co-curricular projects focusing on technology and innovation, and platforms for the professional development of educators that emphasize cross-cultural understanding and cooperation.

While the “blowout” phase of the Sister School Scheme represents a significant milestone, it is unlikely to be the end of the road. The evolving geopolitical landscape, coupled with the inherent challenges and opportunities of cross-border educational collaboration, suggests a future where the Scheme could play an even more critical role.

The article closes by considering the limitations of analyzing intertextuality. We used intertextuality to analyze the Scheme in order to understand how the texts are related. It is important to acknowledge that different kinds of analysis, influenced by methodological biases, can yield varying interpretations of the same text (Krippendorff, 2018). By using intertextuality, we try to stimulate a dialogue between the text and context (Fairclough, 1992). We may not pay full attention to how the Scheme may transform the social and historical resources. Future research can delve into providing a more comprehensive analysis of the implementation performance of the Scheme.

Footnotes

Contributorship

Haiyan Qian was responsible for conceptualization, writing and editing the paper. Jiawen Yang contributed to data analysis and draft writing. Jianjing Tang was responsible for methodology and draft writing. Meruyert Seidumanova focused on teasing out literature on partnership and reviewing writing. Jiafang Lu contributed to data collection, summarizing the literature on partnership, and language polishing.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jianjing Tang

References

Armstrong

(2015). Effective school partnerships and collaboration for school improvement: A review of the evidence. Department for Education.

Armstrong

P. W.

Brown

Chapman

C. J.

(2021). School-to-school collaboration in England: A configurative review of the empirical evidence. Review of Education, 9(1), 319–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3248

Ball

S. J.

(2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Routledge.

Bauhinia Magazine. (2023). The 8th Anniversary Celebration of the Hong Kong-Guizhou Cultural Exchange Fund and the Sister School Sharing Session 2023 were held grandly. https://zijing.com.cn/article/2023-11/18/content_1175380778817978368.html

Bloor

(2013). The practice of critical discourse analysis: An introduction. Hodder Education.

Bowe

Ball

S. J.

Gold

(2017). Reforming education and changing schools: Case studies in policy sociology, Vol. 10. Routledge.

Brownell

(2012). Human rights and the Beijing Olympics: Imagined global community and the transnational public sphere 1. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(2), 306–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2012.01411.x

Chapman

Muijs

(2013). Collaborative school turnaround: A study of the impact of school federations on student outcomes. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(3), 200–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2013.831456

Chapman

Muijs

(2014). Does school-to-school collaboration promote school improvement? A study of the impact of school federations on student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(3), 351–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2013.840319

10.

Chen

C. C.

Colapinto

Luo

(2012). The 2008 Beijing Olympics opening ceremony: Visual insights into China’s soft power. Visual Studies, 27(2), 188–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2012.677252

11.

Chen

Zheng

(2019). The practical basis and rationale for education collaboration in the Greater Bay Area of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao [in Chinese]. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition), (6), 67–72.

12.

Education Bureau. (2024). About the Sister School Scheme. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. https://sss.edb.gov.hk/tc/about/index.html

13.

Fairclough

(1992). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and Education, 4(3–4), 269–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-5898(92)90004-G

14.

Fairclough

(2004). Semiotic aspects of social transformation and learning. In Rogers

(Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 49–80). Routledge.

15.

Fulcher

(1989). Disabling policies? A comparative approach to education policy and disability. The Falmer Press.

16.

Fung

(2019). A review of two major students Mainland exchange programmes, Hong Kong Policy Research Institute. http://www.hkpri.org.hk/storage/app/media/report/full-report-v11v1web3_compressed.pdf

17.

Greany

Kamp

(2022). Leading educational networks: Theory, policy and practice. Bloomsbury Publishing.

18.

Guangdong Education Bureau. (2014). Guangdong Education Bureau holds a working symposium on “Guangdong-Hong Kong sister schools” [in Chinese]. http://edu.gd.gov.cn/gkmlpt/content/2/2091/post_2091798.html#1659

19.

Guangdong Education Bureau. (2015, December 4). Framework agreement on the establishment of sister schools between Guangdong and Hong Kong [in Chinese]. http://edu.gd.gov.cn/gkmlpt/content/2/2096/post_2096767.html#1659

20.

Halliday

M. A. K.

(2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.

21.

Bairner

(2013). One country, two systems, three flags: Imagining Olympic nationalism in Hong Kong and Macao. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 48(3), 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690212441160

22.

Hong Kong Education Bureau. (2016). Speech at the Signing Ceremony of the “Guangdong-Hong Kong Sister Schools Partnership Scheme” 2016. https://www.edb.gov.hk/tc/about-edb/press/speeches/sed/20161108100538.html

23.

Hong Kong Education Bureau. (2018, June 15). Education Bureau Circular No. 9/2018 Grant for the Sister School Scheme. https://applications.edb.gov.hk/circular/upload/EDBC/EDBC18009E.pdf

24.

Hong Kong Education Bureau. (2023). EDB Circular Memorandum No. 5/2023: Teacher secondment scheme (Mainland-Hong Kong teacher exchange and collaboration scheme) for the 2023/24 school year. Hong Kong SAR Government. https://sss.edb.gov.hk/uploads/zh-CN/table/EDBC5_2023_SC.pdf

25.

Hong Kong Education Bureau. (n.d.). Sister School Scheme. https://www.edb.gov.hk/sc/sch-admin/admin/about-sch/sister-sch-scheme/sister-sch-scheme-index.html

26.

Hong Kong SAR Government. (2015). The 2015 policy address: Uphold the rule of law, seize the opportunities, make the right choices. https://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/2015/chi/index.html

27.

Hong Kong SAR Government. (2019). Policy Address 2019. https://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/2019/chi/policy.html

28.

Hong Kong SAR Government. (2020). Framework Agreement on Hong Kong/Guangdong Cooperation. https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202010/30/P2020103000489.htm

29.

Hong Kong SAR Government. (2022). The Chief Executive’s 2022 policy address: Charting a brighter tomorrow for Hong Kong. https://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/2022/en/p123.html

30.

Jiang

(2021). Promoting “sister school” co-operation and fostering education integration in the Greater Bay Area [in Chinese]. People’s Education, Z3, 120–121.

31.

Krippendorff

(2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications.

32.

Lau

P. W.

Lam

M. H.

Leung

B. W.

(2010). National identity and the Beijing Olympics: School children’s responses in Mainland China, Taiwan & Hong Kong. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(5), 6729–6738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.05.019

33.

Zheng

(2023a). Co-operation and development of basic education in the Greater Bay Area of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao: Practical challenges and pathway options [in Chinese]. Education Sciences in China, 6(02), 99–108.

34.

Zheng

(2023b). Development of basic education collaboration in the Greater Bay Area of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao: Current challenges and pathways [in Chinese]. Education Sciences in China (In Chinese and English), 6(2), 99–108.

35.

Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government. (2020). “National security education must take ‘one country’ as the fundamental starting point”—Interview with Yeung Yun-hung, Secretary for Education of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [in Chinese]. http://www.locpg.gov.cn/jsdt/2020-07/14/c_1210701538.htm

36.

Luke

(2019). Educational policy, narrative and discourse. Routledge.

37.

(2010). Exploring regional educational collaboration: Models, dynamics, process models [in Chinese]. Journal of the National Academy of Education Administration, 7, 3–7.

38.

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2016a). Strengthening national unity education for young students [in Chinese]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/s5147/201602/t20160205_229517.html

39.

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2016b). Work Points for the Basic Education Department in 2016 [in Chinese]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/A06/tongzhi/201601/t20160122_228669.html

40.

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2016c). Promoting “One best one road” education initiative [in Chinese]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A20/s7068/201608/t20160811_274679.html

41.

Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China. (2004). National guidelines for medium- and long-term plans for science and technology development (2006–2020) [in Chinese]. http://www.most.gov.cn/

42.

Mok

K. H.

Jiang

(2017). Questing for entrepreneurial university in Hong Kong and Shenzhen: The promotion of industry-university collaboration and entrepreneurship. In The sustainability of higher education in an era of post-massification (pp. 115–133). Routledge.

43.

Muijs

(2015). Improving schools through collaboration: A mixed methods study of school-to-school partnerships in the primary sector. Oxford Review of Education, 41(5), 563–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1047824

44.

Nanfang Daily. (2016). Six new schools in Hong Kong and Guangzhou have entered into sister-school agreements [in Chinese]. http://hm.people.com.cn/GB/n1/2016/0325/c42272-28227676.html

45.

Oleksiyenko

(2010). Academic partnerships in the age of globalization: Exploring policies for cross-border collaboration in Hong Kong. In Competition and cooperation among universities in the age of internationalization (pp. 186–206). Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.

46.

Osborne

R. D.

(2006). Cross-border higher education collaboration in Europe: Lessons for the ‘two Irelands’? European Journal of Education, 41(1), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2006.00250.x

47.

Panel on Education. (2015). Pilot scheme to facilitate exchanges between sister schools in Hong Kong and the Mainland. https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr14-15/chinese/panels/ed/papers/ed20150511cb4-925-1-c.pdf

48.

People’s Daily. (2017). Let blood ties connect closely—Hong Kong compatriots enhance national and ethnic identity [in Chinese]. http://www.locpg.hk/2017-06/26/c_129640946.htm

49.

People's Government of Guangdong Province. (2004, July 28). Framework opinions on strengthening education co-operation among the nine Pan-Pearl River Delta provinces [in Chinese]. https://www.gd.gov.cn/gkmlpt/content/0/136/post_136289.html?jump=false#7

50.

People’s Government of Guangdong Province. (2021). Guangdong Province Education Development “14th Five-Year Plan” [in Chinese]. http://www.gd.gov.cn/attachment/0/472/472294/3602378.pdf

51.

State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2006, March). The 11th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development of the People's Republic of China [in Chinese]. National Development and Reform Commission. https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xwdt/gdzt/ghjd/quanwen/

52.

State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2011, March). The 12th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development of the People's Republic of China [in Chinese]. National Development and Reform Commission. https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/fggz/fzzlgh/gjfzgh/201109/P020191029595702423333.pdf

53.

State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2019). Building an education and talent highland in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area [in Chinese]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/s6052/moe_838/201902/t20190219_369999.html

54.

Wodak

Meyer

(2015). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

55.

Wodak

Richardson

J. E.

(2009). On the politics of remembering (or not). Critical Discourse Studies, 6(4), 231–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900903180954

56.

(2021). Collaboration in educational research in the Greater Bay Area of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao: Characteristics, issues and prospects [in Chinese]. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition), 5, 91–98.

57.

Xie

Postiglione

G. A.

Huang

(2021). The Greater Bay Area (GBA) development strategy and its relevance to higher education. ECNU Review of Education, 4(1), 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120964466