Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cslm20

Download by: [The Education University of Hong Kong (EdUHK)] Date: 29 November 2016, At: 04:44

School Leadership & ManagementFormerly School Organisation

ISSN: 1363-2434 (Print) 1364-2626 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cslm20

Capacity building for school development: currentproblems and future challenges

Dora Ho & Moosung Lee

To cite this article: Dora Ho & Moosung Lee (2016): Capacity building for school development:current problems and future challenges, School Leadership & Management, DOI:10.1080/13632434.2016.1247040

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1247040

Published online: 28 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Capacity building for school development: current problemsand future challengesDora Hoa and Moosung Leeb

aDepartment of Early Childhood Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, Hong Kong;bFaculty of Education, Science, Technology, and Mathematics, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

ABSTRACTThis article offers a theoretical discussion on the current problemsand future challenges of school capacity building in earlychildhood education (ECE), aiming to highlight some key areas forfuture research. In recent years, there has been a notable policyshift from monitoring quality through inspection to improvingquality through school capacity building in early childhoodinstitutions in the global discourse for quality. Reflecting thispolicy shift and its implications on school development, ECE inHong Kong is used as an illustrative example to deliberate theissues of school capacity building in Chinese educational contexts.We identify three challenging contexts: (1) low professionalqualification and minimal teacher education resulting in a deficitapproach to processional development, (2) absence of school-based professional learning culture for empowering teachers asinternal agents of change, and (3) hierarchical culture within aschool and between university and school hindering the processof school capacity building. Corresponding to these challenges,we aim to propose two suggestions, including (1) empoweringteachers in ECE through school-based professional learningcommunity and (2) promoting authentic external support in theprocess of university–school collaboration. Finally, we furtherpropose specific directions for future research on school capacitybuilding in ECE in Hong Kong. In doing so, it will contribute toknowledge-based development in school capacity building inChinese educational contexts.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 3 May 2015Accepted 27 June 2016

KEYWORDSSchool capacity building;university–schoolcollaboration; earlychildhood education; HongKong; Chinese context

Introduction

In recent years, the government of Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of China,has adopted a different approach to tackling the issues of quality in early childhood edu-cation (ECE). The new approach has involved a shift from monitoring quality throughinspection to improving quality through school capacity building. The establishment ofthe Pre-primary School-based Support Team under the Education Bureau, a local edu-cation authority, in 2006 is a cornerstone of that new policy approach. Launching the Uni-versity-School Support Programme (USP) in 2008 can be understood as the emergingpractice of capacity building in local preschools. This practice follows the trend in many

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Dora Ho doraho@eduhk.hk

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1247040

Western developed countries. Prior research in comparative studies have indicated theissues of transferability of educational models, in which Western ideologies are beingadopted in educational reform in highly centralised Asian countries (e.g. Hallinger,Walker, and Bajunid 2005). With this in mind, we aim to delineate the complexityembedded in school capacity building in the context of ECE in Hong Kong, which are neg-lected in the process of adopting Western models of school capacity building. Using ECE inHong Kong as an illustrative example, this paper aims to offer a theoretical discussion onwhether and how school capacity building as a fundamental mode of thought and actionfor change, which has been advocated in Western-based policy and research literature,can fit into in a Chinese educational context. To this end, we begin by setting out abrief description of the recent policy development in ECE in Hong Kong as the backdropfor deploying our discussion. Next are the key concepts relating to school capacity build-ing and the theoretical constructs underpinning the Western models of university–schoolcollaboration, followed by a deliberation on three key challenges embedded in thecontext of ECE in Hong Kong, namely (1) low professional qualification and minimalteacher education resulting in a deficit approach to processional development, (2)absence of school-based mechanism for empowering teachers as internal agents ofchange, and (3) hierarchical culture within a school and between university and schoolhindering the process of school capacity building. Corresponding to each of these chal-lenges, at the same time, we emphasise the following approaches as possible solutions:(1) empowering teachers through school-based professional learning community (PLC)and (2) promoting authentic external support in university–school collaboration. Weargue that the aforementioned challenges, complicating school capacity building inHong Kong, must have a high place in research in order to develop a more contextualisedmodel or mechanism of school capacity building. Through this argument, we aim to pavethe way for future studies of school capacity building in ECE and contribute to broaderimplications on the influences of Western ideologies on Chinese education policy andpractices.

The policy shift in ECE

In 2013, the Hong Kong government has set up a committee to oversee the implemen-tation of free ECE. The pursuit of quality is now in high priority in policy agenda. Beforethe 1997 handover, a minimal intervention approach was adopted to the managementof preschools. Service providers were only required to comply with the statutory require-ments on registration, safety, sanitation, staff qualifications, and staff–student ratio forthe operation of preschools. The educational reform after 1997 has signified a changein the role of government from maintenance of status quo to legitimated control in linewith neo-liberal ideas (Ho 2007). For example, the Education Bureau, a local educationauthority, issued the Performance Indicators in 2000 and Quality Review Framework in2004 to monitor the quality of preschools. These quality assurance policies aimed atpushing local preschools to hold accountable for the quality of their services throughexternal surveillance systems. To accelerate the speed of quality enhancement, thesepolicies have been tied with the implementation of the Pre-primary Education VoucherScheme (PEVS) in 2007. Given that all local preschools are privately run, to most of thepreschools opting for the PEVS has been the key to secure the income for operation.

2 D. HO AND M. LEE

However, whether quality assurance used as an effective approach to improving quality ofeducation has been placed at the centre of global debate (e.g. Apple 2006; Ho, Campbell-Bar, and Leeson 2010; Morris 2004; Wong and Li 2010). The bottom line of the debate isthat the effect of inspection on enhancing quality is not conclusive as the servicequality of a preschool at the passing grade level presents the minimum standards only.An emerging body of studies has reported the negative effects of quality assurance onstudent and teacher outcomes although those focused on Hong Kong primary and sec-ondary schools (e.g. Lee, Louis, and Anderson 2012; Hallinger and Walker 2013). In thecontext of ECE, the work of Campbell-Barr (2010) has revealed that preschools havingpassed an inspection do not always value the need for quality improvement. Similar con-cerns have been identified in ECE in Hong Kong (Ho 2007). In this regard, it is reasonable toquestion whether the quality assurance mechanism through inspection can promote thequality of preschooling in Hong Kong. It should be noted that in local ECE context, majorityof preschools have joined the PEVS in order to receive the funding for operation. Forexample, presently 735 out of the total of 839 preschools are joining theScheme (Education Bureau 2013). Passing the quality assurance inspection (QAI) is amust for redeeming the vouchers for the majority of local preschools. The individualquality QAI reports of the kindergartens inspected are uploaded onto the homepage ofEducation Bureau for public reference. Those reports provide the information onwhether the kindergartens inspected have passed the inspection but without specifyingthe level of performance (i.e. unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, and excellent). In thispolicy environment, it is reasonable to assume that local preschools are more likely toalign their efforts to meet the paper requirements from quality assurance inspection inorder to secure funding from PEVS without necessarily changing classroom practices orteaching quality. This raises concerns about whether the quality assurance mechanismcould promote the quality of preschooling beyond the minimum standards.

Reflecting this concern, the rapidly evolving educational reform has imposed a newagenda based on authentic assessment for learning, school-based curriculum develop-ment, and school quality review for improvement, and that has created challenges forlocal preschools. Subsequently, this creates a great demand for school-based support. Inaddition to quality assurance inspection, building the capacity of preschools has beentherefore used as an alternative approach to improving quality of ECE. The establishmentof Pre-primary School-based Support Team under the Education Bureau in 2006 is a cor-nerstone of that policy shift. As there is very limited research on school capacity building inECE in Hong Kong, the local government has adopted educational models for qualityimprovement from various Western developed countries. For example, a USP waslaunched in 2008, aiming to build up the capacity of preschool principals and teachersfor school change with the consultancy support of a university. Development grants aregiven to preschools to hire consultancy services from universities to provide support. Asa result, there has been a rapid increase in university involvement in school developmentover the past few years. This involvement has provided an opportunity for preschool prin-cipals and teachers to focus on in-depth changes in student learning, teaching practices,school leadership, and school organisation. However, as educational models are culture-specific, these Western experiences must be critically examined when they are adoptedin a Chinese educational context (Dimmock and Walker 2000; Hallinger, Walker, andBajunid 2005).

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 3

Conceptualising school capacity building

In the past, traditional models of professional development programmes taking place atuniversities, or comprising of those offered by outside experts, mainly focus on transmit-ting knowledge and skills of teaching. The literature on quality improvement indicates thatthese professional development programmes are ineffective in preparing school principalsand teachers to tackle the increasing complexity of problems presented in the currenteducational context (Garet et al. 2001). This situation has led to a re-conceptualisationof the purpose and structure of professional development, and a growing interest inthe idea of school capacity building for quality improvement in many developedWestern countries.

School capacity building can be defined as a set of coherent, deliberate strategiesenacted at a whole school level to positively influence the knowledge, skills, and prioritiesof individuals (Bain, Walker, and Chan 2011). There is a large volume of published studiesdescribing the role of school capacity building is critical to quality improvement (Harris2003; Lambert 2003; Mulford et al. 2007; Stroll 2009; Thoonen et al. 2012; Tognolini andStanley 2007). Thoonen et al. (2012) argue that school capacity building provides ameans through which quality improvement in education is possible. Specifically,Hopkins (2001, 13) considers school capacity building as

a distinct approach to educational change because capacity building aims to strengthen theability of school members to work together for better quality by providing them with the skillsand knowledge they need to define problems, formulate solutions and plan ahead.

In this sense, the notion of school capacity building is mainly concerned with ‘providingopportunities for people to work together in a new way’ (Harris 2003, 4). Taken together,the above literature suggests that the idea of school capacity building focuses not only onequipping teachers with the knowledge and skills of the new change, but also on aligningall the aspects of the school into a unified effort for sustainable development (Crowther2011; Hallinger and Heck 2010).

In the process of school capacity building, universities, the education authority, andprofessional organisations play an important role in facilitating the changes (Goodlad1990; Holmes Group 2007; Lieberman 2000). In particular, university–school collaborationhas been a pervasive theme documented in the Western literature as an essential part ofcapacity building (Schwartz et al. 2009). These collaborations between universities andschool systems can vary from a form of equal partnership with participation of universitiesand schools, to a form of support provided by universities to schools in the qualityimprovement process (Brady 2000; Fullan 2001; Hargreaves 2003; Lee 2006). Althoughthese differences can be described in the dimensions of role, function, formality, andvalue, the notion of university–school collaboration generally focuses on how, and towhat extent, universities can act as external change agents to empower school principalsand teachers as internal change agents for school improvement. A local research studyon school improvement has also indicated that teacher commitment, power indecision-making, professional autonomy, and self-efficacy are the indicators of teacherempowerment in school capacity building (Lo 2005). In short, the recent literature hasconsistently argued that school capacity building through teacher empowerment in con-junction with school capacity building is essential to quality improvement. Drawing on and

4 D. HO AND M. LEE

extending this perspective, the concept of a change agent, who plays a crucial role insupporting, stimulating, or initiating change, can be viewed as a core element of schoolcapacity building (Bain, Walker, and Chan 2011).

In what follows, we explore further the three challenging contexts that complicate theenactment of school capacity building in ECE in Hong Kong. As briefly mentioned in theprevious section, the challenging contexts are low professional qualification and minimalteacher education resulting in a deficit approach to professional development, absence ofschool-based mechanism for empowering teachers as internal agents of change, and hier-archical culture within a school and between university and school hindering the processof school capacity building. In response to this identification of challenging contexts, wediscuss possible solutions respectively: empowering the internal change agents, restruc-turing and reculturing linked with external support, and developing a mutual, egalitarianrelationship in the following sections. On that basis, a new space for researching schoolcapacity building in Hong Kong ECE will be identified. This will lay the direction forfuture research in both local and international community for school capacity buildingin ECE.

Low professional qualification and minimal professional training

The Hong Kong government has long been criticised for giving minimal support to localpreschools. The ECE sector has been described as the Cinderella of the education systembecause of its poor status (Opper 1992; Rao and Li 2009). Historically, minimum and inap-propriate professional training is a key feature of ECE in Hong Kong. In the past, those whoreceived nine years of basic education were permitted to teach. Not until 2003 were tea-chers required to receive prior teacher education at one-year certificate level for pro-fessional registration. That is to say, the practice of majority of teachers was largelydrawn from the experiences of those have more experience in teaching young children.This process of learning to become teachers strongly shaped the way how teachers per-ceived as followers in school operation (Ho and Tikly 2012), despite the fact that thelocal government has increased investment in teacher education to upgrade professionaltraining of teachers to higher diploma level and that of principals to bachelor degree levelin the recent years. In short, the minimalist approach to maintaining status quo shaped lowlevels of teacher qualifications during the period of the colonial Hong Kong government.

Since the handover of Hong Kong to China, the government has taken several visibleactions for improving teacher professionalism through quality assurance measures(Morris 2004). In this process, public dissatisfaction with the quality of ECE has been adriving force for reforming the local preschools. As mentioned earlier, quality assurancemeasures relied on external drivers such as government inspection of local schools inorder to expand the capacity of the preschool system to meet the higher quality standards.While most of quality assurance measures adopted monitoring or surveillance approaches,the Education Bureau has provided some supportive measures for local schools within theframework of quality assurance. Continuing professional development (CPD) has beenused as a means to support school development. The CPD aimed to provide opportunitiesfor CPD of early childhood educators, including short courses, training workshops, andseminars. This model of CPD, originated from Western countries’ practices in the 1990s,was characterised by centrally designed and externally delivered, off-site courses.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 5

Meanwhile, the local higher education institutions have also played an important role inCPD in ECE. Despite the fact that the professional qualifications of preschool principalsand teachers have been upgraded to bachelor degree and high diploma level, respect-ively, in recent years, it is quite common for local preschools to seek support fromoutside experts from higher education institutions. We call this a deficit approach givenits heavy reliance on external expertise through which school-based resources, knowl-edge, and capacity building are often ignored. The deficit approach has been oftenadopted in the change process that basically focuses only on the ‘know-how’ aspect ofthe new change but without aligning all aspects of the school into a unified effort forlong-term development (Ho 2005). In short, despite the supportive feature of CPD, thedeficit approach to CPD used by the Education Bureau and higher education institutionssince the handover seldom addressed the fundamental (e.g. building internal capacity,motivating school-based professional learning, and nurturing learning culture in school)of school-based development and school capacity building.

Absence of school-based professional learning culture for empoweringteachers

The flip side of the deficit approach to upgrading ECE teachers’ professionalisation,imposed by the Hong Kong government indicates that there is an absence of school-based mechanism for empowering ECE teachers as internal change agents. Internal-driven professional learning cultures have been largely neglected in dialogue on policydeliberation. We think that such absence of school culture that empower teachers toact as internal agents of change can be filled with school-based PLC, particularly in con-junction with school capacity building. A substantial body of literature and research docu-ments the importance of teachers as change agents for school reform. In general, changeagency is defined as the realised capacity of people to act upon their world. That capacityis explained as the power of people to act purposively and reflectively for the bettermentof society (Inden, Walters, and Ali 2000). Closely coupled with the notion of teachers aschange agents, there is a growing awareness of the role of PLC in the process of capacitybuilding (Hargreaves 2007). Generally, PLC is defined as ‘a group of teachers sharing andcritically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive,learning-oriented, growth-promoting way’ (Stoll and Louis 2007, 2). Conceptually, thereare three interdependent dimensions of PLC: shared responsibility, de-privatised practices,and reflective dialogue (Lee, Louis, and Anderson 2012) which help develop commonunderstandings and expectations for practice, and promotes teacher collaboration inschools. Associated with nurturing positive school culture, school-based PLC as an alterna-tive capacity building strategy can empower teachers as change agents by enabling themto take charge of teaching and learning in their classrooms and beyond (Rarieya 2005). PLChas emerged as an integral part of capacity building for empowering teachers as internalagents of change to address the demand for school reform (McLaughlin and Talbert 2006).

There has been documented in the Western literature that the formation of school-based PLC as platform for teacher empowerment is a key to school reform (Walker2009). A number of research has revealed that schools provide a context for professionallearning (Putnam and Borko 2000). In schools, teachers have the opportunities to worktogether to develop pedagogical knowledge about teaching within an authentic

6 D. HO AND M. LEE

context (Maloney and Konza 2011). Teachers can contextualise teaching practices byexamining their students’ learning in collaboration with other teachers (Bolam et al.2005; Hadar and Brody 2013). They can also carry out classroom action research thataims at investigating their teaching problems, creating solutions to improve practices(Sachs 2003). Through such action learning process, teachers are empowered to movefrom passively acting as the knowledge consumers to become the knowledge producers.Effective functioning of school-based PLC can foster a collaborative and collegial culturethat enables teachers to actively involve in professional dialogue and exchange forimproving teaching practices (Vanderlinde and van Braak 2010).

Recent research has revealed that PLC is a promising direction for the sustainable devel-opment of education systems (Sargent and Hannum 2009). In Hong Kong, early childhoodeducators have long been viewed by policy-makers as objects being changed andimproved rather than subjects for leading change (Yuen 2008). Since 1980s, there havebeen waves of policies, such as upgrading the teacher professional qualifications, regulat-ing service quality of local preschools, and improving curriculum and pedagogy in localpreschools. In the process of policy formulation, early childhood educators eitherseldom actively participated or were involved by policy-makers in public discussion. Akey feature of top-down policy formation process is that the role of teachers is conceptu-alised as objects being changed. Thus, there is an absence of policy direction to promoteteachers as internal change agents for school reform. To fill in this policy gap, we proposedschool-based PLC as a possible solution could be used to empower ECE teachers asinternal change agents for school reform in conjunction with school capacity building. Itis worthy to look into the relevancy of the Western models of school-based PLC to thelocal sector of ECE and how the notion of teacher empowerment embedded in school-based PLC is interpreted by early childhood educators in Hong Kong.

Hierarchical culture within a school and between university and school

In the previous section we highlighted the importance of school-based professional learn-ing as mechanism for empowering teachers as internal change agents as core part ofschool capacity building. Notably, our emphasis on school-based professional learningdoes not mean complete ignoring of outside support. To take the discussion further, wehere provide a review of the literature of school-based PLC with a focus on the role ofexternal experts.

As Stoll and Louis (2007, 7) pointed out, strong school-based PLCs paradoxically canfunction as a barrier to change ‘without due attention to fostering ties outside theschool’. In a similar vein, Hargreaves (2007, 190) highlighted ‘Strong and sustainablePLCS are also connected to others around them. They learn from the outside as well asthe inside’ research delving into quality improvement also indicates that outside help isessential for schools to extend and expand themselves beyond their limits in a new eraof educational change (Baumfield, Hall, and Wall 2008). In general, this outside helprefers to universities, professional organisations, and local education authorities, whichact as external change agents in the process of school capacity building (Brady 2000).There is a variety of support activities provided by these external change agents, includingteaching innovations, professional development, shared planning, and collaborativeresearch (Brady 2000; Gonzales and Lambert 2001; Hooks and Randolph 2004). Aiming

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 7

at building individual and school capacity, these activities, to a great extent, promote thepower of professional dialogue, the practice of shared leadership, the use of critical reflec-tion, and the norm of systemic inquiry (Feldman 1997). External expertise can oftenprovide critical thinking that is needed for the school to assess current status and identifyfuture development plans (Fullan 2004; Newmann, King, and Youngs 2000; Ouellette2000). Studies on the impact of support activities reveal that a formally constituted part-nership with a common vision and clearly defined roles and expectations has the potentialto enhance teacher professionalism and promote the schools’ capacity for change (Calla-han and Martin 2007). Additionally, external assistance can also help schools incorporateinnovations into existing system and programmes (Ouellette 2000).

Recognising the important role of external support in school capacity building, the Edu-cation Bureau established the Pre-primary Education Support Team in 2006 to providesuch services. As mentioned earlier, one major initiative of the Team was to launch USPin 2008. The Programme aims to build up capacity for quality improvement at schoollevel through university–school collaboration. Theoretically, this is to provide a channelfor empowering preschool principals and teachers to reflect on in-depth changes invalues and beliefs about student learning, teacher professionalism, and school leadershipthrough exchanging ideas with university education experts and putting theories intopractices. However, what has happened through university–school collaboration is follow-ing the old CPD model; local universities have been providing short courses, training work-shops, and seminars for the CPD of early childhood educators. Under this circumstance,the focus of university–school collaboration has been on the transmission of skills andknowledge. Like the old wine in the new bottle, university–school collaboration forcapacity building focuses on delivering the know-how aspect of teaching and learningfrom university to preschool. This however seldom addresses the fundamentals ofschools’ capacity for change (Ho and Chen 2013).

The remaining question is why the positive features of external support in university–school collaboration models are not seen in school capacity building processes in ECE inHong Kong but rather are implemented following the way how the CPD model has beenimplemented. To seek an answer, we wish to note that educational practices in Hong Kongschools have been characterised by hierarchical organisational culture (Hallinger andWalker 2013). We argue that hierarchical organisational culture hinders school capacitybuilding as well. We think that the hierarchical culture between preschool and universityin the model of university–school collaboration, which is a key barrier to school capacitybuilding. Research on quality improvement indicates that there are various conditionsthat promote and challenge the process of school capacity building with the consultancysupport of university. Tensions arising from the interactions between universities andschools are often identified in such a process (Yamagata-Lynch and Smaldino 2007).The tensions appear to stem from different foci of universities and schools. In general, uni-versities are critical to a holistic understanding of the school and its sustainability in thefuture while schools focus on immediate outcomes to benefit student learning and pro-fessional development. To minimise these tensions, both parties have to work togethertowards a common goal on an egalitarian basis, rather than competing with or ignoringone another. In other words, a relationship of mutuality is a primary element in successfulschool capacity building. Osguthorpe and Patterson (1998) contend that a relationship ofmutuality develops depends on four conditions: interest, commitment, caring, and

8 D. HO AND M. LEE

involvement. In general, universities are interested in theoretical premises whereasschools focus on practical procedures around school improvement aligned with organis-ational goals. Both parties must identify their common interests. Otherwise they will beunable to create joint efforts for change (Clark 1996). Also, to successfully establish collab-oration, schools and university departments need to negotiate through the culturalboundaries between them (Carr 2002). School capacity building also requires both univer-sities and schools to develop their interests into commitment to contributing time, effort,and thought to school change. Growing out of common interests and commitment, caringis a key characteristic of a relationship of mutuality in school capacity building. This idearefers to genuine responses to the needs and desires of others (Fetters and Vellom 2002).The nature of involvement of universities and schools is critical to school capacity building.As Osguthorpe and Patterson (1998) point out, if the involvement of both parties is volun-tary and intrinsically motivated rather than mandated and externally enforced, the prac-tice of empowering key school principals and teachers as internal change agents willhave a better chance of success in capacity building.

In relation to this, the work of Golsan (1997) also points to several factors that increasethe likelihood of success of university–school support: a climate of trust and openness thatlays the foundation for effective communication; a learning orientation that recognises theeffectiveness of team learning, collegiality, and shared leadership promoting teachers’ per-formance of multiple leading roles; and ample time that allows personal ability to developgradually. In addition, a clear governance structure and a well-defined accountability andevaluation plan can help overcome obstacles in the partnership (Purcell 2006). As docu-mented in Western literature, empowerment has both individual and group dimensionsin school capacity building, which is a mutual, interactive, and egalitarian process of sup-porting school stakeholders to make decisions to solve problems, take initiative forchange, and improve quality (e.g. Carl 2009). A study conducted by Ho and Chen (2013)on school capacity building revealed that external agents from universities played a keyrole in school capacity building in ECE in Hong Kong. However, the power of externalagents tended to be uncritically accepted by the school principals and teachers in theprocess of change in local preschool settings where the professional qualifications ofearly childhood educators are still relatively low. In this regard, there are questions sur-rounding how and to what extent the emerging practice of school capacity building inECE can be understood by the school consultants from local universities as a form ofempowering school principals and teachers as internal change agents for quality improve-ment, similar to the experience in the Western developed countries.

Moreover, relevant research has also found that providing effective support for schoolimprovement efforts should be an integral part of the current practice of promoting staffand student learning (Sealey, Robson, and Hutchins 1997). The literature on school devel-opment identifies that the distinctiveness of the two cultures of schools and externalagents sometimes creates tensions in interactions. For example, external agents focuson developing school capacity to generate solutions to their own problems, whereasschools focus on the importance of practical knowledge and skills for effective teaching(Perry and Power 2004). Research also indicates that the efforts of external agentsworking in a ‘top-down’ or ‘outside-in’ approach to capacity building are frequently unsuc-cessful (Yamagata-Lynch and Smaldino 2007); that is, university–school support should beessentially egalitarian in nature (Osguthorpe and Patterson 1998). Furthermore, the efforts

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 9

of external change agents to build school capacity should be contextually based on a sys-tematic assessment of the school’s strengths and limitations. Potential debate has sur-rounded what is required in terms of egalitarian principles and contextualisation ofschool change sensitive to the process of school capacity building, with the support of uni-versities as key external change agents in ECE. Investigating the extent to which theseviews are valid in local preschools is important to shed light on the impact of consultancysupport of universities on school capacity building for quality improvement of the ECEsector in HK. From a wider perspective, it would provide a better understanding ofwhether and how Western ideas on quality improvement policy and practices work in aChinese educational context.

Implications for future research

School capacity building through university–school support is increasingly viewed as keyto quality improvement in ECE in Hong Kong. The common theme of various Westernmodels of university–school collaboration is the idea that universities act as externalchange agents to empower school stakeholders to play the role of internal changeagents for quality improvement in the process of school capacity building. In the previoussections, three challenges that complicate the enactment of school capacity building inHong Kong: low professional qualification and minimal training (and thereby deficitapproach to processional development), the absence of school-based mechanism forempowering teachers as internal change agents and hierarchical cultural normsbetween school and university in their collaboration. We have also highlighted that theWestern models of school capacity building through university–school collaborationmay not work without critical explorations of these challenging contexts. In line withthis, we provided possible solutions respectively: for the first two challenging features,we proposed school-based PLC as a vehicle to empower teachers as the internalchange agents. For the third challenging context, we think that developing a mutual, ega-litarian relationship between school and university in their collaboration is critical.

In what follows, we further pinpoint the challenging contexts as key areas for futureresearch on school capacity building in Hong Kong. The ECE in Hong Kong has historicallybeen characterised by low levels of professional qualifications and inappropriate training.Prior professional training at the one-year certificate level only became an entry require-ment in 2003. The majority of kindergarten educators were originally ‘trained’ in a modi-fied form of apprenticeship (Ho 2006, 307). That was following the practice of those whohad more experience in teaching. A number of measures for upgrading teacher qualifica-tions have been implemented in the past 15 years. For example, all preschool teachers arerequired to receive professional education at higher diploma level and principals at bache-lor level by 2012. This move in the professionalisation of teaching has gained impetus fromthe public’s call for quality. Due to the enhancement, the professional qualifications of ECEteaching force have been improving. In 2014, there were 39.3% of teachers who aredegree holders (Education Bureau 2014). Under the circumstance of upgrading teachers’professional qualification, there are two issues relating to school capacity building with thesupport of universities.

First, with a deeply rooted mindset of apprentices, preschool principals and teachersseldom exercise their professional autonomy to initiate change and challenge the status

10 D. HO AND M. LEE

quo in their schools. Whether those who have received higher level of teacher educationcan be empowered to act as internal change agents is critical to the quality improvementand sustainable development of ECE in Hong Kong. There is a need to explore the wayslocal early childhood educators to be empowered as catalysts for organisational transform-ation whereas universities as external change agents to move beyond the traditionaldeficit approach to teacher empowerment in supporting changes at school level.

Second, closely coupled with the characteristics of apprenticeship, preschool principals,and teachers tend to accept uncritically the power and authority exercised by those whoare in higher positions and have greater professional status, like university academics eventhough principals and teachers have already received higher level of teacher education. Ahierarchical, high power distance culture has long been a source of pervasive influence inlocal ECE contexts. For example, a case study on the impact of consultancy support of uni-versities under the USP has revealed that the external support essentially provided stimu-lating conditions for school restructuring and reculturing. However, the case study alsoindicated that there is an unequal power distribution between the school consultantsand key school stakeholders (Ho and Chen 2013). Much of the Western literature indicatesthat university–school collaboration is a mutual, interactive process. The roles of schoolsand universities ought to be egalitarian in nature, as a key characteristic of the processof school capacity building is empowerment, which increases the strength of individualsand groups, develops confidence in their capacity, and enables democratic decision-making and common action for change (Osguthorpe and Patterson 1998). Tensionsarising from power distribution between schools and universities in the process ofschool capacity building as well as different priorities or foci between schools and univer-sities (e.g. theory-based long-term capacity building vs. immediate applications of skillsand knowledge) should be placed more firmly on the foreground of research intoquality improvement, given the rapid increase in the involvement of universities inschool-based development in recent years.

As discussed above, school capacity building is defined in various ways in the literatureon quality improvement, suggesting that there is a need to develop contextually relevantmodels of school capacity building that take into account local realities and needs. Futureresearch would benefit from (1) further elaborating the conceptual pitfall of the deficitapproach in empowering the internal change agents, (2) delving into formal and informalchannels of external support for school-based PLCs, and (3) developing practical ways of amutual, egalitarian relationship in school–university collaboration, underpinning the the-ories of school capacity building. In addition, although the development of university–school support policy requires adequate attention to its impacts on school capacity build-ing, it is also essential that the applicability and/or adjustment of the Western models ofschool capacity building to preschool settings in Hong Kong should be systemically inves-tigated with empirical data. In this way, the potentials and challenges that may help orhinder school capacity building can be identified, and possible strategies for future devel-opment can be formulated. This will ensure the appropriate use of resources for buildingthe school capacity in local ECE sector. In other words, it is important to sensitise the rel-evance of Western school capacity building models to educational settings in Hong Kong,and to examine critically the way in which these models are being used as a panacea in aChinese educational context, where the mixture of a high power distance culture and neo-liberal ideas has been a source of pervasive influence (Ho and Tikly 2012). In conclusion,

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 11

the discussions on school capacity building have ranged widely in the literature, but thechallenging features described in this article can be conceptualised and empirically inves-tigated as key areas for future research. In doing so, it will contribute to theory and empiri-cally based knowledge development in school capacity building.

Acknowledgements

This article is adapted from an original research proposal submitted to the Research Grants Councilof the Government of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China. The title of the projectproposal is Capacity Building for Quality in Early Childhood Education. The second author of thisarticle acknowledges that his contribution to the article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Koreangovernment (NRF-2014S1A3A2044609).

Notes on contributors

Dora Ho is Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education at the Hong Kong Institute of Education.Her research interests include school leadership, education policy, curriculum and pedagogy, andearly childhood education. She has written extensively on issues of school leadership, curriculumchange, education policy, and teacher development. She has published book chapters, articles inleading international, peer-reviewed journals. She is an active researcher in the field of school leader-ship for change. Many of her research studies are concerned with the role of leadership in leadingschool-level development. Her publications have led to the professional community to rethink therole of leadership in the process of school development.

Moosung Lee is a Centenary Research Professor at the University of Canberra. Prior to joining theUniversity of Canberra, he held an appointment as an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Educationat Hong Kong University. He earned his Ph.D. in Educational Policy and Administration at the Univer-sity of Minnesota in 2009, funded by a Fulbright scholarship. He has extensively published articles inthe areas of urban education and educational administration some of which have been selected asbest papers by academic societies such as American Educational Research Association and the Inter-national Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

References

Apple, P. 2006. “A Developmental Approach to Early Childhood Program Quality Improvement: TheRelation between State Regulation and NAEYC Accreditation.” Early Education and Development 17(4): 535–552.

Bain, A., A. Walker, and A. Chan. 2011. “Self-organisation and Capacity Building: Sustaining theChange.” Journal of Educational Administration 49 (6): 701–719.

Baumfield, V., E. Hall, and K. Wall. 2008. Action Research in the Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Bolam, R., A. McMahon, L. Stoll, S. Thomas, and M. Wallace. 2005. Creating and Sustaining Effective

Professional Learning Communities. London: DfES.

12 D. HO AND M. LEE

Brady, L. 2000. “School-University Partnerships in Teacher Education.” Educational Practice and Theory22 (2): 55–65.

Callahan, J. L., and D. Martin. 2007. “The Spectrum of School–University Partnerships: A Typology ofOrganizational Learning Systems.” Teaching and Teacher Education 23 (2): 136–145.

Campbell-Barr, V. 2010. “Providing a Context for Looking at Quality and Value in Early YearsEducation.” Report to the Office for National Statistics Measuring Outcomes for Public ServiceUsers Project. Newport: Office for National Statistics.

Carl, A. E. 2009. Teacher Empowerment through Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice. CapeTown: Juta.

Carr, K. 2002. “Building Bridges and Crossing Borders: Using Service Learning to Overcome CulturalBarriers to Collaboration between Science and Education Departments.” School Science andMathematics 102: 285–298.

Clark, D. 1996. Schools as Learning Communities. London: Cassell.Crowther, F. 2011. From School Improvement to Sustained Capacity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;

Corwin Press.Dimmock, C., and A. Walker. 2000. “Societal Culture and School Leadership Charting the Way Ahead.”

Asia Pacific Journal of Education 20 (2): 110–116.Education Bureau. 2013. The Statistics of Kindergarten Teachers in 2012/13 School Year. Hong Kong:

Hong Kong Government.Education Bureau. 2014. Statistics on Kindergarten Teachers 2013/14. Hong Kong: Education Bureau.Feldman, A. 1997. “Varieties of Wisdom in the Practice of Teachers.” Teaching and Teacher Education

13 (7): 757–773.Fetters, M. K., and P. Vellom. 2002. “Linking Schools and Universities in Partnership for Science

Teacher Preparation.” Science & Technology Education Library 13: 67–88.Fullan, M. 2001. The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.Fullan, M. 2004. “Leadership across the System.” Insight 61: 14–17.Garet, M. S., A. C. Porter, L. Desimone, B. F. Birman, and K. S. Yoon. 2001. “What makes Professional

Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers.” American EducationalResearch Journal 38 (4): 915–945.

Golsan, V. G. 1997. “Creating a Community of Inquiry: An Investigation of a University-SchoolPartnership focused on a Student Teaching Seminar.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, United States.

Gonzales, S., and L. Lambert. 2001. “Teacher Leadership in Professional Development Schools:Emerging Conceptions, Identities, and Practices.” Journal of School Leadership 11 (1): 6–24.

Goodlad, J. I. 1990. Teachers for Our Nation’s Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Hadar, L. L., and D. L. Brody. 2013. “The Interaction between Group Processes and Personal

Professional Trajectories in a Professional Development Community for Teacher Educators.”Journal of Teacher Education 64 (2): 145–161.

Hallinger, P., and R. H. Heck. 2010. “Collaborative Leadership and School Improvement:Understanding the Impact on School Capacity and Student Learning.” School Leadership andManagement 30 (2): 95–110.

Hallinger, P., and A. Walker. 2013. “Values: The Core Value of Successful School Leadership.” InAchieving Quality Education for All: Perspectives from the Asia-Pacific Region and Beyond, editedby P. Hughes, 217–222. London: Springer.

Hallinger, P., A. Walker, and I. Bajunid. 2005. “Educational Leadership in East Asia: Implications forEducation in a Global Society.” UCEA Review 1: 1–4.

Hargreaves, A. 2003. Teaching in the Knowledge Society. New York: Teachers College Press.Hargreaves, A. 2007. “Sustainable Leadership and Development in Education: Creating the Future,

Conserving the Past.” European Journal of Education 42 (2): 223–233.Harris, A. 2003. Building Leadership Capacity for School Improvement. Buckingham:OpenUniversity Press.Ho, C. W. D. 2005. “On Curriculum Change: The Developing Role of Preschool Heads in Hong Kong.”

International Journal of Educational Management 19 (1): 48–58.Ho, C. W. D. 2006. “Understanding the Complexity of Preschool Teaching in Hong Kong: The Way

Forward to Professionalism.” International Journal of Educational Development 26 (3): 305–314.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 13

Ho, C. W. D. 2007. “Policy of Quality Assurance in Hong Kong Preschools.” Early Child Development andCare 177 (5): 493–505.

Ho, D., V. Campbell-Barr, and C. Leeson. 2010. “Quality Improvement in Early Years Settings in HongKong and England.” International Journal of Early Years Education 18 (3): 243–258.

Ho, D., and S.-C. S. Chen. 2013. “Behind the Starting Line: School Capacity Building in Early ChildhoodEducation.” School Leadership and Management 33 (5): 501–514.

Ho, D., and L. P. Tikly. 2012. “Conceptualizing Teacher Leadership in a Chinese, Policy-driven Context:A Research Agenda.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 23 (4): 401–416.

Holmes Group. 2007. The Holmes Partnership Trilogy: Tomorrow’s Teachers, Tomorrow’s Schools,Tomorrow’s Schools of Education. New York: Peter Lang.

Hooks, L. M., and L. Randolph. 2004. “Excellence in Teacher Preparation: Partners for Success.”Childhood Education 80 (5): 231–236.

Hopkins, D. 2001. School Improvement for Real. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Inden, R., J. S. Walters, and D. Ali. 2000. Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practices in

South Asia. New York: Oxford University Press.Lambert, L. 2003. Leadership Capacity for Lasting School Improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Lee, J. C. K. 2006. “Hong Kong: Accelerated Schools for Quality Education Project (ASQEP)

Experiences.” In School Improvement: International Perspectives, edited by J. C. K. Lee, and M.Williams, 159–174. New York: Nova Science.

Lee, M., and T. Friedrich. 2007. “The ‘Smaller’ the School, the Better? The Smaller LearningCommunities (SLC) Program in US High Schools.” Improving Schools 10 (3): 261–282.

Lee, M., K. S. Louis, and S. Anderson. 2012. “Local Education Authorities and Student Learning: TheEffects of Policies and Practices.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 23 (2): 133–158.

Lee, M., A. Walker, and Y. L. Chui. 2012. “Contrasting Effects of Instructional Leadership Practices onStudent Learning in a High Accountability Context.” Journal of Educational Administration 50 (5):586–611.

Lieberman, A. 2000. “Networks as Learning Communities: Shaping the Future of TeacherDevelopment.” Journal of Teacher Education 51 (3): 221–227.

Lo, L. N. K. 2005. “Empowerment of Teachers for Efficacy in our Reforming Schools: An Exploration ofPartnership for Change.” Paper presented at the 40th Anniversary International Conference, TheChinese University of Hong Kong.

Maloney, C., and D. Konza. 2011. “A Case Study of Teachers’ Professional Learning: Becoming aCommunity of Professional Learning or Not?” Issues in Educational Research 21 (1): 75–87.

McLaughlin, M. W., and J. E. Talbert. 2006. Building School-based Teacher Learning Communities:Professional Strategies to Improve Student Achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.

Morris, P. 2004. “Teaching in Hong Kong: Professionalization, Accountability and the State.” ResearchPapers in Education 19 (1): 105–121.

Mulford, B., D. Kendall, B. Edmunds, L. Kendall, J. Ewington, and H. Silins. 2007. “Successful SchoolLeadership: What is It and Who Decides?” Australian Journal of Education 51 (3): 228–246.

Newmann, F. M., M. B. King, and P. Youngs. 2000. “Professional Development that Addresses SchoolCapacity: Lessons fromUrban Elementary Schools.” American Journal of Education 108 (4): 259–299.

Opper, S. 1992. Hong Kong’s Young Children: Their Preschools and Families. Hong Kong: University ofHong Kong Press.

Osguthorpe, R. T., and R. S. Patterson. 1998. Balancing the Tensions of Change: Eight Keys toCollaborative Educational Renewal. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Ouellette, M. 2000. Improving Academic Performance by Meeting Student Health Needs. Issue brief.Washington, DC: National Governors Association.

Perry, C., and B. M. Power. 2004. “Finding the Truths in Teacher Preparation Field Experiences.”Teacher Education Quarterly 31 (2): 125–136.

Purcell, J. P. 2006. “Uncovering Promising Practices in School/University Partnerships: A Look at High-performing Charter Schools.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California,CA, United States.

Putnam, R., and H. Borko. 2000. “What do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking have to Say aboutResearch on Teacher Learning?” Educational Researcher 29: 4–15.

14 D. HO AND M. LEE

Rao, N., and H. Li. 2009. “Quality Matters: Early Childhood Education Policy in Hong Kong.” Early ChildDevelopment and Care 179 (3): 233–245.

Rarieya, J. F. A. 2005. “Reflective Dialogue: What’s in it for Teachers? A Pakistan Case” Journal of In-service Education 31 (2): 313–336.

Sachs, J. 2003. The Activist Teaching Profession. Buckingham: Open University Press.Sargent, T. C., and E. Hannum. 2009. “Doing More with Less: Teacher Professional Learning

Communities in Resource-constrained Primary Schools in Rural China.” Journal of TeacherEducation 60 (3): 258–276.

Schwartz, T., B. Lawson, A. Masters, and L. Milillo. 2009. “Are We There Yet? Mapping a PartnershipJourney.” In The Art and Science of Partnership: Catalytic Cases of School, University, andCommunity Renewal, edited by S. P. Thomas, and J. F. Eagle, 161–172. Lanham, MD: UniversityPress of America.

Sealey, R., M. Robson, and T. Hutchins. 1997. “School and University Partnerships: Some Findings froma Curriculum-development Project.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 25 (1): 79–89.

Stroll, L. 2009. “Capacity Building for School Improvement or Creating Capacity for Learning? AChanging Landscape.” Journal of Educational Change 10 (2): 115–127.

Stoll, L., and K. S. Louis. 2007. Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and Dilemmas.Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

Thoonen, E. J., P. J. C. Sleegers, F. J. Oort, and T. D. Peetsma. 2012. “Building School-wide Capacity forImprovement: The Role of Leadership, School Organizational Conditions, and Teacher Factors.”School Effectiveness and School Improvement 23 (4): 441–460.

Tognolini, J., and G. Stanley. 2007. “Standards-based Assessment: A Tool and Means to theDevelopment of Human Capital and Capacity Building in Education.” Australian Journal ofEducation 51 (2): 129–145.

Vanderlinde, R., and J. van Braak. 2010. “The Gap between Educational Research and Practice: Viewsof Teachers, School Leaders, Intermediaries and Researchers.” British Educational Research Journal36 (2): 299–316.

Walker, J. 2009. “Creating Space for Professional Learning.” In Professional Learning in Early ChildhoodSettings, edited by S. Edwards, and J. Nuttall, 49–60. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Wong, M., and H. Li. 2010. “From External Inspection to Self-evaluation: A Study of Quality Assurancein Hong Kong Kindergartens.” Early Education and Development 21 (2): 205–233.

Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., and S. Smaldino. 2007. “Using Activity Theory to Evaluate and Improve K-12School and University Partnerships.” Evaluation and Program Planning 30 (4): 364–380.

Yuen, G. 2008. “Education Reform Policy and Early Childhood Teacher Education in Hong KongBefore and After the Transfer of Sovereignty to China in 1997.” Early Years 28 (1): 23–45.

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT 15