A Policy at the Crossroads
Hong Kong stands poised to reshape how its children learn languages throughout their secondary education. The Education Bureau has confirmed plans to conduct a comprehensive review of the medium of instruction policy governing public secondary schools, marking the first major evaluation since controversial adjustments introduced in 2010. This review, scheduled for implementation between the 2028-29 and 2033-34 academic years, arrives as educators and policymakers confront uncomfortable truths about declining English proficiency and the city’s ability to compete as an international education hub in an increasingly competitive Asian landscape.
The review follows the completion of an extensive three-year longitudinal study conducted by the University of Hong Kong (HKU), which tracked English-medium instruction implementation across three representative schools beginning in the 2022-23 academic year. Longitudinal studies of this nature track changes, identify patterns, and establish potential causal relationships between variables over time by observing and collecting data from the same subjects repeatedly across multiple academic cycles. A bureau spokeswoman confirmed that data collection spanning three complete academic years has concluded, with researchers currently conducting detailed analysis before submitting findings to authorities. “HKU has completed the collection of data in three school years and is currently conducting a detailed analysis, after which it will submit a report to the Education Bureau,” the spokeswoman stated. “The Education Bureau will review the policy and share the research findings with stakeholders in a timely manner.”
Currently, Hong Kong operates a bifurcated system that sorts secondary schools into two distinct categories with vastly different perceived statuses. Institutions where at least 85 percent of Form One students performed in the top 40 percent citywide during the previous planning cycle may adopt English as their primary medium of instruction. These 114 government and subsidised schools enjoy elevated prestige and attract intense competition among students and parents seeking perceived advantages in university admissions and career prospects. Parents often view admission to these EMI schools as essential for their children’s future educational opportunities, creating a high-stakes allocation system that begins in primary school. Schools falling outside this threshold must teach in Chinese, though they may conduct extended learning activities in English or teach up to two subjects in the language, restrictions that many educators argue limit their ability to prepare students adequately for tertiary education.
The Legacy of the Mother Tongue Policy
To understand the current debate, one must examine the policy shifts that followed the 1997 handover. Following the reunification with China, Hong Kong implemented a strict mother-tongue policy in 1998 that mandated Cantonese as the medium of instruction for the vast majority of secondary schools. The policy aimed to promote learning in students’ native language while reducing the rote memorisation and language switching that critics associated with ineffective English-medium education. Proponents argued that learning in one’s mother tongue produces deeper conceptual understanding and better academic outcomes. However, the restriction immediately sparked controversy among parents who viewed English proficiency as essential for economic advancement and university access, leading to what researchers describe as three distinct phases of language policy evolution since the handover.
The 1998 policy created a stark division between English-medium instruction (EMI) schools and Chinese-medium instruction (CMI) schools that persists today. Critics argued that limiting English exposure during critical adolescent learning years damaged students’ long-term language acquisition capabilities and created a two-tiered education system. Research from Cambridge University Press examining Hong Kong’s language policy since the handover describes this as the “long march to biliteracy and trilingualism,” noting that policymakers set the ambitious goal of developing students’ ability to read and write Chinese and English while speaking Cantonese, Putonghua, and English, yet implemented policies that sometimes contradicted these aims by restricting English exposure precisely when students needed it most for cognitive development.
The government attempted to address mounting concerns in 2010 through “fine-tuning” measures that granted CMI schools greater flexibility to teach specific subjects in English. Under current arrangements, schools adopting Chinese as the language of instruction may conduct extended learning activities in English or teach at most two subjects in the language. Yet these adjustments failed to satisfy educators who argue the system still fails to prepare students adequately for higher education, where English dominates academic discourse, research publication, and international collaboration. The fine-tuning also failed to address the prestige gap between EMI and CMI schools, which continues to drive intense competition and educational inequality.
Declining Competence and Rising Concerns
The urgency for reform stems from measurable declines in English capability across the territory that threaten Hong Kong’s economic competitiveness. According to the global English Proficiency Index, Hong Kong has fallen for four consecutive years, now ranking 39th globally and third in Asia behind Malaysia and the Philippines. Singapore, often held up as a regional benchmark for language policy, has been reclassified as a native English-speaking country and no longer appears on the index for comparison. While literacy rates remain high on paper, spoken English skills have weakened considerably among graduates, creating a problematic gap between secondary school preparation and the demands of university-level study and international business.
The Council of Subsidised Secondary Schools has explicitly urged authorities to expand English-medium instruction permissions, arguing that the current policy leaves students unprepared for tertiary education programmes conducted almost exclusively in English. This disconnect represents what some educators describe as a fundamental policy failure: requiring students to spend six years learning primarily in Chinese, then expecting them to transition seamlessly into English-dominated university classrooms where lectures, textbooks, and examinations assume native-level comprehension. Students from CMI schools often struggle with the abrupt transition, experiencing academic shock that affects their confidence and performance during critical first-year university courses.
When schools are policy-bound to teach in Chinese, we are clearly not preparing our students to be part of the city’s education hub ambitions. This shows up a huge gap in our policies.
These concerns carry substantial economic weight as Hong Kong seeks to position itself as an international education hub capable of attracting overseas talent and students from across Asia and beyond. Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu has articulated ambitious plans to develop the territory into a regional higher education destination, using the presence of several top-ranked universities as a foundation. However, achieving this status requires a robust pipeline of local students capable of functioning in English at university level, alongside international students who expect English-medium environments both inside and outside classrooms. The current secondary school system, with its rigid division between EMI and CMI institutions, threatens to undermine these ambitions by producing graduates with inadequate English preparation while simultaneously making the city less attractive to international families seeking consistent English education for their children.
Pedagogical Complexities and Translanguaging
Beyond simple questions of language allocation, the review must confront sophisticated pedagogical challenges that have emerged from recent research. English Medium Instruction (EMI), defined academically as using English to teach academic subjects in jurisdictions where the majority population’s first language is not English, requires specific teaching competencies that extend beyond general English proficiency. Research published in academic journals examining Hong Kong’s EMI contexts reveals that strict English-only ideologies often create considerable pedagogical challenges, including students struggling with insufficient language competence for monolingual instruction and teachers facing difficulties in managing and implementing effective EMI practices. Institutions frequently lack adequate English language support for students and comprehensive EMI teacher training programmes, leading to situations where content learning suffers because of language barriers.
Recent scholarship has explored “translanguaging” pedagogies as potential solutions to these challenges. This approach recognizes that multilingual students possess flexible linguistic repertoires and challenges rigid boundaries between languages as separate, bounded systems. In EMI classrooms, translanguaging allows teachers to strategically deploy students’ full linguistic resources, including Cantonese and Putonghua, to support comprehension of complex academic content while simultaneously building English proficiency. Recent studies examining translanguaging in Hong Kong EMI contexts indicate that such approaches can reduce students’ cognitive load while developing technical vocabulary, particularly in STEM subjects where dense terminology and complex concepts present significant barriers to understanding when taught exclusively in English.
However, implementing effective translanguaging requires substantial teacher training and explicit policy support that currently remains inconsistent. The longitudinal study conducted by HKU likely examined how teachers navigate the complex demands of EMI classrooms, including when and how to switch between languages to maximize comprehension without undermining English development. Simply increasing the number of subjects taught in English will prove counterproductive if teachers lack the pedagogical skills to teach content through a second language effectively, or if they resort to ineffective rote memorisation techniques that characterized pre-1998 English education. The Education Bureau has stressed that any policy adjustments must account for teacher standards alongside student needs, recognizing that teacher capability represents a critical constraint on expansion.
Balancing National Integration and Global Competitiveness
The medium of instruction debate sits at the intersection of competing priorities that have defined Hong Kong’s post-handover identity: reinforcing national identity and integration with mainland China, while maintaining the international competitiveness and distinctiveness that define the territory’s economy. Since 1997, Chinese has officially become the medium of instruction to promote mother-tongue learning and advance national integration. Yet the territory simultaneously promotes “biliteracy and trilingualism” as core competencies, recognizing Cantonese as the mother tongue for approximately 90 percent of the population while stressing Putonghua for mainland integration and English for international commerce.
This linguistic trilemma creates inherent policy tensions that the current review must navigate carefully. Expanding English-medium instruction risks diluting Chinese language education and cultural connection, particularly given the historical role of English-medium schools as pathways to Western universities and international careers rather than local institutions. Conversely, restricting English exposure limits students’ access to global academic resources, international employment markets, and the ability to participate in global research networks. The Cambridge research notes that Hong Kong policymakers have historically pursued policies that “in some respects run counter” to their stated biliteracy and trilingualism goals, suggesting the current review offers a critical opportunity to resolve these contradictions through evidence-based adjustments.
The review timeline, stretching from 2028-29 through 2033-34, provides a window for gradual implementation that minimizes disruption to current students while allowing schools to prepare for transition through teacher recruitment and training. Education authorities have indicated that findings from the HKU longitudinal study, combined with comprehensive input from the education sector, will inform specific adjustments to the current threshold system. The study’s focus on three schools over three academic years offers empirical grounding for decisions that have historically been driven more by political pressure and parental demand than by educational evidence regarding what actually works in classrooms.
The Essentials
- Hong Kong’s Education Bureau is reviewing the medium of instruction policy for secondary schools, with changes to take effect between 2028-29 and 2033-34 following a three-year University of Hong Kong study.
- Currently, 114 schools qualify to teach in English based on having 85% of Form One students in the top 40% citywide academically; other schools must teach primarily in Chinese with limited English exceptions.
- Hong Kong has dropped to 39th globally in English proficiency, declining for four consecutive years according to the English Proficiency Index, raising concerns about graduates’ readiness for university.
- The review aims to address gaps between secondary education (mostly Chinese-medium) and higher education (mostly English-medium) as the city pursues international education hub status.
- Research suggests “translanguaging” pedagogies, which strategically use students’ full linguistic repertoires including Cantonese and Putonghua, may improve EMI effectiveness without sacrificing English development.
- Policy adjustments must balance biliteracy (Chinese and English) and trilingualism (Cantonese, Putonghua, and English) goals while maintaining rigorous teacher quality standards.
