Policy Enactments in Practice: Hong Kong Kindergartens’ Retrospective Experiences with Early Childhood Education Reforms

Policy Enactments in Practice: Hong Kong Kindergartens’ Retrospective Experiences with Early Childhood Education Reforms | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Policy Enactments in Practice: Hong Kong Kindergartens’ Retrospective Experiences with Early Childhood Education Reforms Jessie Ming Sin Wong This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5382677/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This narrative inquiry investigated how three Hong Kong kindergartens retrospectively experienced and reconceptualised the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme (PEVS) policy over its 2007–2017 lifespan through principal and teacher interview data. The PEVS aimed to increase affordability, quality, and choice in early childhood education through parent subsidies for non-profit-making kindergartens meeting quality standards. While the PEVS had these defined objectives, this study addresses the limited understanding of the long-term dynamics of policy enactment, specifically how practitioners at the grassroots level interpreted, navigated, and shaped the policy in diverse implementation settings over time. Adopting a sociocultural theoretical lens that conceptualises policy as emergent through interactions, semi-structured interviews were conducted to reconstruct the implementation experiences of three purposively sampled kindergartens, identifying changing reconceptualisations. Thematic analysis revealed that kindergarten principals and teachers actively reinterpreted the meaning and practical implications of the PEVS through ongoing meaning-making. This process led to varied local enactments, demonstrating how policy evolves in practice rather than being a static directive. The scheme’s impacts depended on a negotiated blending of goals with local realities and stakeholder agency. This study highlights the critical role of practitioner agency and concludes that effective education reform requires a genuine partnership with frontline educators. Social science/Education Social science/Social policy early childhood education education reform policy implementation grassroots perspectives Hong Kong Introduction Understanding how education policies are enacted in practice, particularly over the long term, is crucial for effective reform. While policies are often designed with clear objectives, their translation into tangible changes within educational settings is a complex, dynamic process, shaped significantly by the interpretations and actions of those at the grassroots level (Anderson, 2013; Sacramento, 2023). This is especially pertinent for reforms like voucher schemes, which aim to alter educational landscapes but often generate diverse stakeholder responses and unforeseen consequences depending on local contexts. This study explores these dynamics by examining the retrospective experiences of kindergartens in Hong Kong with a major early childhood education (ECE) reform, the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme (PEVS), to illuminate how policy is lived, negotiated, and reconstructed in practice over an extended period. In Hong Kong, prior to significant reforms initiated in the late 2000s, the ECE sector grappled with substantial challenges. These included insufficient government funding, intense competitive pressures among providers, and notable inconsistencies in service quality (Authors, 2015). A critical issue was the prevalent emphasis on academic development, often at the expense of holistic child development. In an environment lacking universal subsidies and standardised quality benchmarks, kindergartens prioritised rote learning and early mastery of literacy and numeracy skills to meet perceived parental demands for primary school readiness (Authors, 2020; Authors, 2022). While understandable in a competitive market, this focus on academics was considered problematic as it often neglected crucial aspects of early learning, such as social-emotional growth, creativity, and play-based exploration, which are fundamental to well-rounded development in young children (Curriculum Development Council, 2017; Leung, 2024). Recognising these deficiencies, reform proposals in 2000 signalled the government’s growing commitment to strengthening the ECE sector (Education Commission, 2000), setting the stage for subsequent policy interventions. A pivotal development occurred in 2007 with the introduction of the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme (PEVS). The scheme’s stated aims were to enhance affordability for parents, improve the quality of ECE provision, and increase accountability among non-profit-making kindergartens (NPMKs) by providing site-based subsidies contingent on meeting new service standards (Education and Manpower Bureau, 2006a). From the government’s perspective, initial evaluations of PEVS were largely positive, highlighting improvements in areas such as teachers’ qualifications, financial transparency, and certain quality indicators (Audit Commission, 2013; Education Commission, 2010). However, the PEVS was not without controversy. Its design, particularly the exclusion of private independent kindergartens (PIKs) from full participation and the potential for market distortion, raised immediate concerns among various stakeholders regarding equity and parental choice (Authors, 2010). While these official assessments provided one view of the policy’s impact, the long-term dynamics of how the PEVS was experienced and enacted by those directly involved in its implementation are less understood. To capture these complex, grassroots dynamics, this study adopts a qualitative, narrative approach exploring how kindergarten leaders enacted the PEVS over its decade-long lifespan. Although the PEVS has since been replaced, an analysis of its decade-long enactment offers critical lessons for informing current and future ECE policy in Hong Kong and beyond. The inquiry is therefore guided by the following central research question: How did Hong Kong kindergarten leaders, as street-level bureaucrats, interpret and enact the PEVS policy from its inception to its conclusion? The paper proceeds by first outlining the theoretical framework, where the two specific research questions guiding the analysis are detailed. It then presents the narrative methodology and findings, and concludes by discussing the implications of these long-term policy enactments for future ECE reform. Construction and Reconstruction of Policy This study moves beyond traditional models of policy implementation, which often depicted the process as a linear, technically rational transfer from government to practice (Harman, 1984; Jennings, 1977). Such models fail to capture the complexities and contingencies of real-world applications. Instead, this research aligns with a contemporary sociocultural perspective that frames policy not as a static text, but as a dynamic and contested process (Bell and Stevenson, 2006; Rizvi and Lingard, 2010; van Buuren and Gerrits, 2008). Central to this approach is the concept of policy “enactment” (Ball et al., 2012; Bowe et al., 1992; Braun et al., 2011). Enactment theory posits that policy is not merely implemented but is actively interpreted, negotiated, and re-created by stakeholders. This means that a policy’s meaning and effects are not fixed; they are emergent outcomes, shaped by the unique values, beliefs, histories, and material realities of the local contexts where the policy is put into practice. The journey from policy text to practice is rarely straightforward. It is an organic, often messy, arena of continuous negotiation where competing values and power dynamics are constantly at play as different actors seek to interpret, appropriate, or resist policy intentions in light of their own local realities and priorities (Lendvai and Stubbs, 2007; Newman and Clarke, 2009). This resonates strongly with Lipsky’s (1980/2010) seminal concept of “street-level bureaucrats”. Lipsky argued that frontline workers in public services are not merely policy implementers but, in effect, policy makers through the discretion they exercise in applying rules and allocating resources during their interactions with citizens. Education scholars like Bowe et al. (1992), Braun et al. (2011), and Ball et al. (2012) have built upon these insights within educational contexts, emphasising how teachers and school leaders actively mediate and translate policy, rather than passively receiving it, thus highlighting the crucial agency of practitioners in the policy enactment process (Datnow and Castellano, 2001; Tikly et al., 2022). To further elaborate on this dynamic, Bowe et al. (1992) offer a valuable framework by identifying three interrelated contexts where education policy is constructed and reconstructed: the context of influence, the context of policy text production, and the context of practice. The context of influence is the sociopolitical arena where competing discourses compete, and stakeholder interests coalesce or clash to shape emerging policy narratives and define agendas. Within this domain, broader societal debates and prevailing ideologies intersect to frame educational problems and potential solutions. The context of policy text production focuses on the actual authoring of policy documents. This is not a neutral process; instead, it involves negotiation, compromise, and synthesising multiple, sometimes conflicting, perspectives, often resulting in texts that are open to interpretation. Finally, and of central importance to this study, is the “context of practice”, where policies are operationalised in local settings. Frontline actors, such as principals and teachers, interpret and decipher policy texts based on grounded realities, institutional priorities, and professional judgment, frequently reconstructing policy to fit diverse needs and evolving circumstances over time. While the foundational work on policy enactment by scholars such as Ball, Bowe, and Braun was developed in the context of UK secondary schools, this study extends their theoretical conversation to the non-compulsory, market-influenced ECE sector in Hong Kong. The relevance of this extension is underscored by research in early years settings, such as Bradbury’s (2018) study of England’s Phonics Screening Check. Her work shows how enactment theory can powerfully illuminate practitioners’ responses to high-stakes assessment, including the adoption of practices they deem a “necessary evil” amid a “policy storm”. Drawing on these theoretical and empirical precedents, this paper therefore examines the PEVS’ journey in Hong Kong, which provides a compelling case through which to examine the “messy” realities of the policy reconceptualisation as it lived out over the long term in diverse kindergarten settings. Early Childhood Education Reform in Hong Kong The landscape of ECE in Hong Kong, prior to significant reforms initiated around the early 2000s, was profoundly shaped by decades of limited government investment and oversight. As briefly noted in the introduction, this resulted in a sector characterised by inconsistent funding, variable quality across providers, and intense competition (Authors, 2015). Many kindergartens, particularly PIKs, felt compelled to prioritise academic achievement over holistic child development to satisfy prevailing parental expectations geared towards primary school readiness (Authors, 2015, 2022). Such a market-driven focus, while reflecting consumer demand, not only entrenched pedagogical approaches that often sidelined play-based learning and socio-emotional growth but also rendered many PIKs financially and operationally vulnerable to subsequent large-scale policy interventions. The formal recognition of ECE’s importance began to emerge with the comprehensive review of Hong Kong’s education system in 2000 (Education Commission, 2000). This review acknowledged ECE as a crucial developmental stage and advocated for a child-centred, holistic approach. However, despite this rhetorical shift, the deeply entrenched challenges within the largely self-financing ECE sector meant that transformative, on-the-ground changes were slow to manifest. Key issues persisted, including a workforce whose qualifications often lagged behind international benchmarks and classroom environments where rote learning and didactic teaching methods frequently overshadowed more progressive, play-based pedagogies (Authors, 2020; Authors, 2015). This gap between policy aspiration and practical reality highlighted the need for more substantial and targeted interventions to uplift the sector. Historically, the Hong Kong government’s limited direct involvement in ECE provision meant the sector was predominantly operated by non-governmental entities (Education Commission, 1986; Authors, 2015). At the time leading up to the PEVS, the landscape comprised over 900 kindergartens, broadly categorised into non-profit-making kindergartens (NPMKs), which constituted approximately 80% of providers, and PIKs, making up the remaining 20% (Authors, 2015). While both operated as private institutions, this NPMK/PIK distinction became a critical determinant in the subsequent reform trajectory. The impending PEVS, with its preferential treatment for NPMKs, was set to amplify the existing competitive dynamics within a market already heavily influenced by parental demand for demonstrable academic preparedness (Authors, 2015, 2022). The implementation of the PEVS in 2007 represented a significant turning point in Hong Kong’s ECE reform agenda. As announced in the Chief Executive’s 2006 policy address, the PEVS had several core objectives: to enhance affordability for parents, to improve the quality of ECE provision through adherence to new standards, and to increase accountability among providers (Office of Chief Executive, 2006). The scheme operated by providing parents a direct subsidy (voucher) for eligible children, redeemable exclusively at NPMKs that met specified government quality benchmarks. A significant portion of the voucher value was mandated for fee subsidy, with the remainder allocated for teacher training, specifically for pursuing the newly required Certificate of Education in ECE 1 . Principals were required to obtain a bachelor’s degree in ECE within five years. The government envisioned that as teacher qualifications improved, the portion of the voucher for professional development would gradually be reallocated entirely to fee subsidies. Furthermore, participating “voucher kindergartens” became subject to regular government quality assurance inspections and evaluations (Education and Manpower Bureau, 2006a). However, the PEVS design, particularly its exclusion of PIKs from direct subsidy eligibility and the complexities surrounding funding for teacher remuneration, created immediate operational and financial challenges. While the scheme aimed to uplift teacher qualifications, it did not directly subsidise teacher salaries to a level commensurate with these enhanced qualifications or prevailing market expectations. This placed considerable strain on all kindergartens to fund salary increases and attract/retain qualified staff. For NPMKs, the voucher provided some financial leverage, but the pressure remained. For PIKs, the challenge was more acute: they faced the imperative to upgrade their staff to remain competitive and meet parental expectations, but without access to PEVS subsidies, they were forced to cover these significant costs entirely from their own fee income or other resources. This disparity immediately positioned PIKs at a competitive disadvantage. The PEVS faced immediate scrutiny for its potential to distort market competition by restricting parental choice and excluding PIKs. Concerns were raised by various stakeholders, including PIK operators and some parents, that this approach could stifle diversity in provision and might not effectively foster quality improvements across the entire sector if a significant portion of providers were disadvantaged (Authors, 2022). In response to these mounting public pressures and criticisms, the government announced several modifications to the PEVS in November 2006, even before its full implementation (Education and Manpower Bureau, 2006b). These adjustments included: a three-year transitional period allowing PIKs that met certain requirements (such as committing to quality enhancement) to redeem vouchers for existing students; a temporary fee remission for eligible students in these PIKs; and a one-time facilitation grant to assist PIKs wishing to convert to non-profit-making status. While these amendments offered temporary relief and a pathway for some PIKs to adapt, they also implicitly reinforced the Education Bureau’s (EDB’s) overarching policy direction favouring an NPMK-dominated ECE sector. Consequently, these modifications, coupled with the inherent financial and competitive pressures of the original PEVS design, likely accelerated the trend of PIKs either ceasing operations or converting to NPMK status, fundamentally reshaping the operational landscape and institutional identities within Hong Kong’s ECE sector. Understanding how kindergartens, particularly those that were formerly PIKs, navigated these profound and often challenging policy-induced transformations is central to this study. Theoretical Framework This study is anchored by a theoretical framework that synthesises the policy enactment lens (Ball et al., 2012; Braun et al., 2011) with the concept of street-level bureaucracy (Lipsky, 1980/2010). The policy enactment lens provides the core principle: that policy is not simply implemented but is actively interpreted, negotiated, and re-created by practitioners. To operationalise this, the analysis will focus on the “context of practice” (Bowe et al., 1992), examining how local actors’ values, histories, and material realities shape their responses. Lipsky’s (1980/2010) concept of the street-level bureaucrat will serve to illuminate the agency of kindergarten leaders, framing their daily discretionary decisions not as mere compliance or resistance, but as de facto policymaking. Together, these concepts provide the analytical tools to investigate how and why the PEVS was enacted differently across diverse kindergarten settings over time. Two specific research questions were designed to explore these processes of interpretation and adaptation from the perspective of those most directly involved: How did kindergartens retrospectively reconceptualise the PEVS policy over time? In what ways do the experiences and sense-making of kindergarten stakeholders offer insights into the broader processes of policy enactment and evolution? Methods This study employed a qualitative narrative inquiry approach (Byrne, 2017; Webster and Mertova, 2007) to understand kindergartens’ perspectives on evolving ECE policies retrospectively. Narrative inquiry is well-suited for capturing the complexity of lived experiences and meaning-making within specific contexts over time (Lima, 2023; Ntinda, 2019), allowing for an exploration of how practitioners navigated policy changes. The Sample Site selection: Three kindergartens were purposively selected (Patton, 2015) based on their varied stances (favourable, typical, oppositional) towards the PEVS as identified in a previous survey conducted by the author (Authors, 2022). This strategy aimed for heterogeneity in policy interpretation to illustrate diverse local enactments. To enhance comparability, all selected sites were formerly PIKs in Hong Kong’s New Territories West that converted to non-profit-making status to join the PEVS and offered half-day programmes. This focus on former PIKs was chosen due to the distinct adaptive pressures they faced. Kindergartens B (favourable) and C (oppositional) also had smaller enrolments (see Table 1). The selection of three sites allowed for in-depth narrative reconstruction (Creswell and Poth, 2025). Participant selection: Within each kindergarten, the principal and one veteran teacher (minimum ten years’ experience at the site, overlapping the PEVS lifespan) were invited, totalling six participants. This captured administrative and classroom perspectives on policy enactment and mediation (cf. Honig, 2006). This sample size aligns with narrative inquiry’s emphasis on depth (Creswell and Poth, 2025). All three kindergartens had passed the government’s quality assurance mechanism at the time of the interviews. [Insert Table 1 near here] Data Collection Semi-structured interviews (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016) were conducted by the author near the conclusion of the PEVS, allowing for comprehensive retrospective reflection on its entire lifespan. Interviews took place at each participant’s kindergarten and lasted between 21 and 59 minutes. An interview protocol with open-ended questions guided discussions, covering initial interpretations, implementation experiences, perceived impacts, and retrospective reconceptualisations of the PEVS. Example questions included: “Can you recall your initial understanding of the PEVS and how it evolved?” and “What were the most significant changes your kindergarten made to adapt to the PEVS?” Follow-up probes were used for depth (Rubin and Rubin, 2012). All interviews were conducted in Cantonese, audio-recorded with consent, and anonymised using pseudonyms. Data Analysis Interview recordings were semi-transcribed verbatim in Cantonese. An inductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2022) was conducted. Transcripts were segmented into meaningful text units (e.g., a principal’s account of curriculum revision). Inductive open coding (Saldaña, 2021) was applied to these units (e.g., code: “Increased Reporting Burden”). An iterative, constant comparative method was used, re-examining data as codes emerged, until theoretical saturation was approached (Charmaz, 2024). Codes were then grouped into categories (e.g., “Policy-Induced Workload Intensification”), which informed broader themes. Table 2 illustrates this analytical pathway, showing how sample codes were developed into focused categories, which in turn informed the broader themes that are presented in the Findings section. [Insert Table 2 near here] To enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings, a peer debriefing process was undertaken with a doctoral student in ECE who had two years of teaching experience in a voucher kindergarten. This peer reviewer examined a sample of coded excerpts, the assigned codes, and the developing code categories. Regular discussion between the author and the peer reviewer facilitated agreement on the interpretation and application of codes, the construction of categories, and the identification of themes. The finalised themes directly informed the interpretation of patterns and connections within the data, linking back to the study’s theoretical framework and research questions. Illustrative quotes were translated into English by the author. Findings The following narratives, reconstructed from interviews with principals and teachers, illustrate the diverse ways in which the three selected kindergartens experienced, interpreted, and ultimately enacted the PEVS over its decade-long lifespan. These accounts reveal how initial interpretations of the policy, shaped by each kindergarten’s unique history, mission, and perceived vulnerabilities, heavily influenced their subsequent adaptation strategies. Key themes emerging across these narratives include the significant role of principals as street-level bureaucrats mediating policy, the profound impact of the PEVS on curriculum and workload, the varied responses to government oversight and evaluation, and the ongoing negotiation between policy mandates and local realities. While each kindergarten’s journey was distinct, their collective experiences underscore the active role of grassroots practitioners in shaping policy in practice. Kindergarten A: A “Typical” Path of Pragmatic Adaptation Upon learning about the PEVS, Principal A and her Teacher experienced mixed emotions. They acknowledged the government’s positive intent to support parents and focus on kindergarten education, but immediately identified potential challenges. Principal A questioned the direct benefit to kindergartens, noting, “The face value of the vouchers didn’t mean much to us because it was the parents who received the subsidies, not us”. She also expressed concern over the mandated five-year timeframe for teacher professional development, feeling it was restrictive and overlooked the need for institutional autonomy: “Instead of imposing strict deadlines, the government could have just provided guidelines for us to follow… Kindergartens should be granted more autonomy. It’s challenging for us to adjust and adapt when so many restrictions exist”. This initial interpretation highlighted a tension between perceived policy benefits and concerns about operational constraints, as well as a desire for greater professional discretion. The educators also found the restriction of eligibility to NPMKs unfair, though Principal A acknowledged transparency issues among some PIKs. Eventually, in a pragmatic move reflecting the pressures faced by many PIKs, Kindergarten A converted to NPMK status in September 2007 to join the PEVS. This decision catalysed significant internal changes. A key strategic enactment was the curriculum overhaul. Previously focused on pre-academic skills to meet parental expectations for primary school readiness, the curriculum had to be adjusted to align with government prohibitions on examinations and dictations. However, showcasing her role in mediating policy, Principal A ensured the revised curriculum still maintained a perceived advanced standing to preserve the kindergarten’s distinct identity, stating her belief that “Kindergarten A should strive to differentiate itself”. She proactively communicated these changes to her staff, which helped build their confidence. Despite these preparatory steps, Principal A personally felt the weight of the new accountability measures: I’m always on edge, worrying about getting my work done right because even the tiniest mistakes can have significant consequences… One slip-up and they might yank away the subsidies. On top of that, now I have to report a bunch of stuff to the government… It’s piling on the pressure. (Principal A) This excerpt highlights the increased administrative burden and stress experienced by leaders under the new scheme. The PEVS brought unforeseen consequences. A significant positive outcome was a surge in enrolment, from fewer than 300 students to nearly 400. Principal A attributed this to increased affordability: Introducing vouchers has made our tuition much more affordable… Since the voucher policy was implemented, we have seen a significant increase in student enrolment, and our waiting list has grown considerably. This has boosted my confidence in the overall operation of our kindergarten. (Principal A) However, the transition also introduced substantial challenges that impacted staff morale and workload. Principal A detailed how the shift to non-profit-making status meant teachers lost their previous bonus system, which she felt had fostered “a stronger sense of belonging” and attentiveness to the kindergarten’s operations. This loss, she observed, led to “a decline in their overall job satisfaction and sense of belonging”. Furthermore, while intended to be beneficial, the mandated professional development created practical difficulties. The five-year restriction, Principal A explained, complicated workload management: We have much work to complete, but at the same time, many teachers need to attend training. As a result, teachers have less time to complete their tasks during weekdays, and they often have to catch up on work on Saturdays or during the holidays. This has increased teachers’ feelings of being overworked and stressed. (Principal A) The logistical demands of teacher training also disrupted internal communication, as scheduling whole-school meetings became challenging. This forced Principal A to hold repetitive grade-level meetings, adding to her “significant administrative workload and increased pressure”. These experiences illustrate how top-down policy requirements, even if well-intentioned, can create complex on-the-ground problems for practitioners. Despite these increased pressures, the interviewed Teacher at Kindergarten A reported adapting relatively easily, attributing this to Principal A’s “exceptional support”. This sentiment was echoed by other teachers in this study. Principal A’s actions exemplify the role of a street-level bureaucrat actively mediating policy to buffer staff from its harshest impacts. She described her approach: I always remind myself that teachers are swamped… So, I try my best to cut down on unnecessary stuff and put some activities on hold when needed… I could have insisted on having the open day, but I knew it would be too exhausting for them. So, I made the call to skip it… Teachers need breathing room to do their best work. That is my adjustment. (Principal A) This strategic decision-making, such as modifying school events and reducing reflective writing demands during busy periods, aimed to create “a less stressful environment”, which she believed contributed to low staff turnover despite salaries not being the highest. While Principal A herself felt a lack of external support, sharing her concerns mainly with peers, she “gradually adjusted” to the PEVS’ demands. Her final reconceptualisation of the policy was of qualified acceptance: “It is a good policy. It is just imperfect”. This demonstrates an evolution in her understanding, moving from initial reservations to a pragmatic acknowledgement of the policy’s dual nature. Kindergarten B: Proactive Enactment Driven by Mission Alignment Kindergarten B, serving a significant population of ethnic minority students, exhibited strong enthusiasm for the PEVS from its announcement, despite being a PIK. The management committee swiftly decided to convert to non-profit-making status, viewing the PEVS as a vehicle to achieve long-standing goals. Their primary motivations were twofold: they anticipated that the voucher subsidies would attract more low-income ethnic minority families, and crucially, they saw the policy as an opportunity to advance their mission of integrating these children into Hong Kong society by strengthening Chinese language instruction and incorporating more local curriculum elements – changes previously met with parental resistance. The PEVS mandate for a local curriculum was thus perceived as a strategic lever. This proactive stance was shared by teachers. Teacher B expressed optimism: Since most of our students were from South Asian backgrounds… joining the voucher scheme would change that. It would help more parents discover our kindergarten… I believe this would make us more competitive and provide better job security. (Teacher B) Consequently, Kindergarten B actively restructured its curriculum, referencing official guides and approved materials, significantly increasing Chinese language instruction. Local teachers welcomed this alignment with their mission, although it posed initial challenges for students with limited proficiency in Chinese. Teachers innovatively incorporated more music into Chinese language learning to engage students. Teacher B reflected on the pedagogical shift: It is quite different from the teaching methods I was accustomed to using. However, I want my students to develop stronger Chinese language skills, as it will be crucial for their future competitiveness. (Teacher B) This excerpt demonstrates a clear instance of policy being actively embraced and shaped to fit and further an existing organisational mission. Increased government monitoring under the PEVS also led to changes in management style. Teacher B welcomed this, stating: Before the PEVS came into play, the management at our kindergarten was pretty laid-back… But once the PEVS kicked in, the government set clear directions for us, making everything more structured and systematic. Honestly, that’s the thing I love most about the PEVS. (Teacher B) However, these ambitious curricular changes and stricter protocols significantly increased workloads. The leadership team (principal, supervisor, and clerks) attempted to mitigate this by taking on extra tasks, and teachers supported each other. Interestingly, while a government quality review report noted unclear teacher responsibilities, Teacher B reinterpreted this positively, emphasising teamwork: “I appreciate the strong bond we have as a team. It’s incredible how we all come together and share the workload”. This highlights a divergence between official assessment and internal perception of operational culture. Despite these coping mechanisms, the combined pressures of workload and professional upgrading led to higher staff turnover, with almost half the teachers resigning. This exacerbated the burden on remaining staff and created significant recruitment challenges. Principal B described the difficulty of finding qualified ECE teachers who could also meet the kindergarten’s specific need for English proficiency to communicate with a diverse staff, even when offering above-recommended salaries: Every single candidate asked for more money!... I contacted the EDB… They suggested that we could temporarily hire university graduates or individuals qualified to teach in primary or secondary schools… but they often lack the essential qualifications and expertise in early childhood education that we desperately require. (Principal B) This situation, which Principal B noted was widespread, illustrates a critical disconnect between policy-driven qualification upgrades and market realities regarding salary expectations and the availability of specialised ECE professionals. Faced with these challenges, Principal B admitted feeling “perplexed” about her initial high expectations. However, she adopted a proactive, problem-solving mindset. This resourcefulness was evident in how Kindergarten B actively sought external support. Parents became crucial volunteers; though initially requiring significant training, they evolved into a sustainable resource. The kindergarten’s new NPMK status also facilitated partnerships with other non-profit organisations and participation in Chinese enrichment projects. These strategies of community engagement and external collaboration were vital not only in alleviating staff stress and maintaining educational quality but also in fostering parental understanding and acceptance of the curricular changes. Over time, this collaborative enactment led to increased parental support for the kindergarten’s direction. Principal B’s concluding remark, “Our voice is getting stronger!” signifies a successful negotiation of policy challenges through adaptive leadership and community partnership, eventually strengthening the kindergarten’s position and ability to pursue its mission. Kindergarten C: Resistant Enactment and Perceived Antagonism In stark contrast to Kindergarten B, Principal C and her teacher met the PEVS with dismay and a sense of discrimination. As a PIK with low enrolment, they perceived the policy as an existential threat. Principal C expressed strong opposition: The voucher scheme felt incredibly unfair to private-independent kindergartens. It seemed like the EDB was [ acting in a heavy-handed, authoritarian manner ] , trying to take complete control over the free market… We were honestly reluctant to get on board with the scheme. (Principal C) Teacher C echoed this sentiment, feeling the policy was unreasonable towards small kindergartens: “The government wanted to ‘kill’ kindergartens!” (Teacher C) Despite this deep-seated opposition, the decision to convert to NPMK status and join the PEVS was driven by pragmatic concerns and complex parental pressures. Principal C described the dilemma: some parents feared a loss of status associated with becoming a non-profit, while others desired the fee reduction offered by vouchers. We were perplexed by these conflicting opinions … many parents preferred lower tuition fees, believing they deserved the benefits as taxpayers. As a result, we ultimately decided to join the voucher scheme. However, during the first year, a few parents chose to leave our kindergarten because they couldn’t accept our non-profit-making status. (Principal C) This illustrates how external stakeholder pressures (from parents) and market realities compelled reluctant compliance, even leading to some initial negative consequences, such as losing families who valued the PIK status. Initially, Principal C acknowledged some merit in enhanced government oversight for quality assurance: “It highlighted the need for proper supervision and standards… internal and external evaluations, like the quality review, can actually make a difference” (Principal C). However, negative interactions at government-led briefing sessions quickly eroded this conditional acceptance. Principal C recounted: Those officials seriously knew how to intimidate us … with such rude and authoritarian tones, threatening that if we didn’t meet their standards, they would withhold the voucher subsidies and even shut down our kindergartens! ... I’m not claiming to be the most experienced person, but I know how to run a kindergarten properly and effectively. (Principal C) These encounters seemingly solidified her oppositional stance, fostering a belief that compliance was performative (“kindergartens will just put on a show”) and that her professional expertise was being undermined. This reinforced resistance translated into a policy enactment strategy of minimal adaptation. Firm in her belief in the kindergarten’s existing quality and her own capabilities, Principal C implemented only a few major changes to professional development, staff benefits, and curriculum. While paperwork increased, it was deemed manageable. However, the underlying pressure took a toll. Teacher C observed a shift in the principal’s demeanour: Before the implementation, the principal had a more relaxed demeanour. However, she has become noticeably more nervous since we started with this new system… the EDB has placed more pressure on her … she often turns to us for assistance. This change has made her stricter and more demanding, which can be challenging for us as teachers. (Teacher C) Principal C herself admitted, “I constantly worry about the possibility of the EDB singling us out”. This reveals the personal stress and heightened vigilance experienced by leadership, even when overtly resisting policy directives — a clear burden of the reform process. The government evaluation process further fueled their negative perceptions. Despite successfully passing the inspection, both educators found the experience demoralising. Teacher C questioned the validity of criticisms from short-term observations: “They were only here for two days, but pointed out many problems. There were many things they did not know. How could they criticise us?”. Principal C was particularly incensed by what she perceived as ill-informed judgments about classroom management and material organisation, viewing them as a dismissal of her teachers’ professional practice: They criticised our teachers for the loud behaviour of three-year-olds ... [Regarding a jigsaw puzzle activity] the inspectors claimed it didn’t match the theme and accused us of having disorganised materials. It was like saying we did not use our brains! I would not change anything because of their comments! (Principal C) Ultimately, Principal C expressed pessimism about effecting any meaningful change in the face of policy challenges, seeing limited avenues for recourse beyond personal endurance or exit from the profession. This final reconceptualisation reflects a sense of disempowerment and resignation, contrasting sharply with Kindergarten B’s proactive engagement and Kindergarten A’s pragmatic adaptation. Discussion The retrospective accounts from the three kindergartens reveal the complex, dynamic, and highly contextual nature of policy implementation. The different approaches — from Kindergarten A’s practical adaptation, to Kindergarten B’s mission-oriented enforcement, and Kindergarten C’s opposition — highlight that policy is not a fixed plan executed uniformly but a continuous process of interpretation, negotiation, and modification by those directly involved (Ball et al., 2012; Braun et al., 2011; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). The varied strategies of Kindergartens A, B, and C emphasise how local actors, especially principals, act as crucial street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980/2010), mediating and influencing policy in accordance with their specific organisational environments, missions, and perceived pressures. Principals as Street-Level Bureaucrats and Policy Mediators A central theme emerging from this research is the critical role of kindergarten principals as key policy brokers and street-level bureaucrats (Honig, 2006; Lipsky, 1980/2010). As demonstrated in the Findings, Principals A, B, and C each navigated the PEVS in distinct ways, reflecting their agency in interpreting policy mandates and translating them into practice. Principal A’s pragmatic adaptation involved strategic mediation to buffer staff from excessive burdens while ensuring compliance and maintaining the kindergarten’s identity. This aligns with Lipsky’s (1980/2010) assertion that street-level bureaucrats develop coping mechanisms and routines to manage the demands of policy. Principal B proactively embraced the PEVS, using it as a lever to advance her kindergarten’s specific mission related to ethnic minority students, showcasing how policy can be strategically co-opted to fit local goals (Datnow and Castellano, 2001). Conversely, Principal C’s resistant enactment, born from a perception of unfairness and negative interactions with authorities, illustrates how street-level discretion can also manifest as minimal compliance or even opposition when policy is perceived as misaligned with professional expertise or local needs. These varied responses highlight that principals were not passive recipients but active agents who significantly shaped the policy-in-practice within their institutions. This finding resonates with extensive literature on policy enactment in educational settings (Ball et al., 2012; Datnow and Castellano, 2001; Spillane et al., 2002). The burdens of reform, such as increased workload and stress detailed in the Findings, were often directly shouldered or mitigated by these principals, further underscoring their pivotal mediating role. The Interplay of Context, Interpretation, and Enactment Strategies The divergent enactment paths were not arbitrary but deeply rooted in each kindergarten’s unique contexts and initial interpretations (Bowe et al., 1992). As the Findings suggest, Kindergarten B’s pre-existing mission to serve ethnic minority students and its leadership’s perception of PEVS as an opportunity directly shaped its proactive and enthusiastic adoption. In contrast, Kindergarten C’s status as a small PIK facing an existential threat, coupled with Principal C’s negative perception of the EDB’s approach, fostered a resistant stance. Kindergarten A, perhaps representing a more common scenario, balanced perceived benefits with concerns, resulting in a pragmatic and adaptive strategy. These differences affirm that policy enactment is profoundly influenced by factors such as organisational history, leadership philosophy, staff profile, the population served (as seen with Kindergarten B’s focus and Kindergarten C’s parental pressures), and the perceived alignment (or misalignment) of policy goals with institutional values and priorities (Coburn, 2005). The study, therefore, contributes to understanding why such variations occur, moving beyond simply describing their existence. The narratives reveal that the “sense-making” process (Sausman et al., 2016; Spillane et al., 2002) at the outset of policy engagement is critical in setting the trajectory for long-term enactment. Negotiating Policy: Forms, Limitations, and Grassroots Influence The nature and extent of negotiation in policy enactment, particularly between principals and government authorities, also warrant examination. While the data did not reveal extensive direct, formal negotiations between individual principals and central government authorities to alter the PEVS’s formal structure, the findings illustrate multiple implicit and localised negotiation forms. Principals negotiated the meaning of the policy within their kindergartens, negotiated its implementation with their staff (e.g., Principal A’s adjustments to workload), and negotiated its impact on their communities (e.g., Kindergarten B’s engagement with parents to gain acceptance for curriculum changes). While not altering the formal policy, Kindergarten C’s resistance was a form of negotiation through non-compliance with the spirit, if not the letter, of some expectations. This raises a crucial point regarding the scope of street-level influence on policy modification. While these grassroots enactments significantly altered how the PEVS was experienced and lived out in these specific kindergartens, the study does not provide evidence that these individual actions led to formal revisions of the PEVS policy itself during its lifespan. This suggests that while street-level bureaucracy can profoundly shape policy in practice, its power to effect change in formal policy texts may be more limited without collective action or more structured feedback channels. The PEVS did undergo government modifications (as noted in the “Early Childhood Education Reform in Hong Kong” section). However, these were largely in response to broader public and sector-wide pressures rather than the specific, isolated enactments detailed here. This distinction is important for understanding the different levels at which policy can be influenced. Long-Term Policy Impacts and the Value of Retrospective Narrative Inquiry Studying the PEVS retrospectively offers crucial insights into the enduring impacts of policy that initial evaluations might miss, a consideration for the relevance of such historical analyses. The narratives provided by principals and teachers, captured through in-depth inquiry, reveal the long-term emotional and operational sequelae of policy decisions, including shifts in professional identity, sustained changes in workload, and the lasting effects on school culture and community relationships (Goodson, 2001). For instance, the loss of bonuses in Kindergarten A had a lasting impact on morale, while Kindergarten B’s successful community engagement became an embedded strength. These nuanced, long-term effects, including how these experiences might subtly shape current operations, are often best understood through qualitative, narrative approaches that allow for rich, contextualised accounts. Instead of merely describing interviews, the narrative inquiry approach served as a site for critically engaged analysis. It allowed for the reconstruction of meaning-making processes over time, revealing how initial policy interpretations evolved through experience. The stories themselves, with their emotional content and detailed recounting of specific challenges and triumphs, provided a deeper understanding of the human dimension of policy enactment than could be achieved through more detached methods. This approach gives voice to practitioners and uncovers the “emic” perspective, generating insights into the “how” and “why” of policy enactment that are critical for developing more responsive and effective reforms (Byrne, 2017; Ntinda, 2019; Webster and Mertova, 2007). International Resonance and Broader Implications While focused on Hong Kong, the dynamics observed in this study, such as the mediating role of preschool leaders, the influence of local context on policy interpretation, the challenges of top-down reform, and the agency of practitioners, resonate with international experiences in ECE and broader education policy implementation (Bradbury, 2018; Fullan, 2025; UNESCO, 2024). In various forms, voucher schemes have been implemented globally, often generating similar debates around equity, quality, and market effects (Authors, 2023). The Hong Kong PEVS experience, particularly the challenges faced by different types of providers and the complexities of quality assurance, offers valuable lessons for other systems grappling with similar reforms. The finding that a “one-size-fits-all” approach is insufficient and that practitioner expertise is a crucial but often undervalued resource in policy processes is a theme of broad international relevance (Watkins, 2022). This study aligns with recent scholarship emphasising the need for more participatory and context-sensitive approaches to policy design and implementation globally (Sacramento, 2023; Tikly et al., 2022; UNESCO, 2024). Conclusions This narrative inquiry into Hong Kong kindergartens’ experiences with the PEVS has provided a crucial, long-term perspective on the grassroots dynamics of education policy. This study’s focus on the decade-long enactment of the scheme addressed a significant gap, moving beyond static implementation to reveal how policy is interactively constructed and reconstructed over time through practitioner meaning-making. The study’s primary conclusion is that policy enactment is an inherently dynamic and non-linear process. The varied journeys of the three kindergartens confirm that principals, as street-level bureaucrats, are not passive implementers but active mediators who shape policy-in-practice according to their unique institutional histories, missions, and leadership philosophies. Consequently, the notion of a “one-size-fits-all” policy is shown to be untenable; its impacts are inevitably context-dependent, forged in the interplay between top-down directives and bottom-up realities. Methodologically, this inquiry confirms the unique value of a retrospective, narrative approach for uncovering the nuanced, lived experiences of reform that short-term evaluations often miss. Giving voice to frontline educators reveals their critical agency and the accumulated wisdom gained from navigating policy, offering a holistic reconceptualisation of educational change from the ground up. This study thus reinforces a fundamental principle for effective educational reform: policy success is intrinsically linked to a genuine respect for practitioner expertise. Understanding policy as a co-constructed process is essential for developing more responsive, equitable, and sustainable educational improvements. The insights gleaned underscore the necessity of fostering robust partnerships between policymakers and those at the chalkface, ensuring that reforms are not only well-intentioned but also practically viable for the learning communities they aim to serve. Implications and Recommendations for Policy and Practice The insights derived from Hong Kong kindergartens’ experiences with the PEVS offer valuable lessons for policymakers, educational leaders, and researchers. To translate the study’s conclusions into practice, the following recommendations are proposed: Establish formal mechanisms for practitioner partnership: Instead of relying on informal feedback, policymakers should institutionalise the role of practitioners in the policy process. This could involve creating standing advisory panels composed of diverse ECE principals and teachers, implementing co-design methodologies for new initiatives, and establishing joint policy review committees. Such structures would embed the principle of partnership into the machinery of governance, ensuring that frontline expertise consistently informs policy design, implementation, and evaluation, thereby bridging the gap between intent and reality (Epstein, 2018 ; Fullan, 2025 ; UNESCO, 2024 ). Design flexible policies with differentiated support: Recognising that a “one-size-fits-all” approach is insufficient, future reforms should be designed with flexibility. This means moving beyond uniform mandates to create differentiated funding streams, tailored professional development pathways, and adaptive and developmental quality assurance processes (UNESCO, 2024 ). Support systems should be contextually sensitive, acknowledging the unique missions, resource capacities, and community needs of diverse providers (e.g., those serving specific ethnic minority populations or those in different socioeconomic areas). This approach fosters equitable improvement by empowering providers rather than simply mandating compliance. Commission longitudinal and qualitative research to inform policy: To build a more holistic evidence base for future reforms, government bodies and funding agencies should actively commission research that captures the long-term, lived experiences of practitioners. Prioritising narrative, ethnographic, and other qualitative methodologies alongside quantitative metrics will reveal the nuanced, and often unforeseen, consequences of policy on school culture, professional identity, and community relationships. This richer data is essential for designing more thoughtful, human-centred, and sustainable educational policies. Declarations Ethics approval: This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committee for Non-Clinical Faculties of The University of Hong Kong (Ref. no. EA290210). Informed consent Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the interviews. Participants were informed about the study’s purpose, the voluntary nature of their participation, their right to withdraw at any time without penalty, and their right to anonymity. All participants consented to the audio recording of interviews and the use of anonymised quotations in publications. Consent for publication: The author obtained consent from all the participants before data collection. Competing interest: The author declares no conflict of interest. Authors’contributions: The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: study conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation. Availability of data and materials: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the author upon reasonable request. Funding: No funding was received for the work described in this paper. Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank [Supervisor] and all the reviewers for their insightful comments and [Helper1] and [Helper2] for their support of the research. Special thanks go to the principals and teachers of the three kindergartens that participated in the study. References Authors (2020) Authors (2010) Authors (2023) Auhtors (2015) Authors (2022) Anderson R (2013) Doing emotion, doing policy; the emotional role of ‘grassroots’ community activists in poverty policymaking (Working paper 60). Third Sector Research Centre, Birmingham. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-social-sciences/social-policy/tsrc/working-papers/working-paper-96.pdf Audit Commission (2013) Pre-primary education voucher scheme (Director of Audit report no. 60). Audit Commission, Hong Kong Ball SJ, Maguire M, Braun A (2012) How schools do policy: policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge, London Bell L, Stevenson H (2006) Education policy: process, themes and impact. Routledge, Oxon, UK Bowe R, Ball SJ, Gold A (1992) Reforming education and changing schools: case studies in policy sociology. Routledge, London Bradbury A (2018) The impact of the Phonics Screening Check on grouping by ability: a ‘necessary evil’ amid the policy storm. British Educ Res J 44(4):539-556. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3449 Braun A, Ball SJ, Maguire M, Hoskins K (2011) Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4): 585–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601555 Braun V, Clark, V (2022) Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage, London Byrne G (2017) Narrative inquiry and the problem of representation: “giving voice”, making meaning. Int J Res Method Educ 40:36–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2015.1034097 Charmaz K (2024) Constructing grounded theory, 3rd edn. Sage, London Coburn CE (2005) Shaping teacher sense-making: school leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educ Policy 19:476–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805276143 Creswell JW, Poth CN (2025) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 5th edn. Sage, London Curriculum Development Council (2017) Kindergarten education curriculum guide. Education Bureau, Hong Kong Datnow A, Castellano ME (2001) Managing and guiding school reform: leadership in success for all schools. Educ Admin Q 37:219–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969307 Education and Manpower Bureau (2006a) Legislative Council Panel on Education paper for discussion: new initiatives in pre-primary education (LC Paper No. CB(2)277/06-07(01)). https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/edu-system/preprimary-kindergarten/preprimary-voucher/ed1113cb2-277-1-e.pdf Education and Manpower Bureau (2006b) Legislative Council Panel on Education paper for information: new initiatives in pre-primary education (LC Paper No. CB(2)369/06-07(01)). https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/edu-system/preprimary-kindergarten/preprimary-voucher/ed1113cb2-369-1-e.pdf Education Commission (1986) Report no. 2. Government printer, Hong Kong Education Commission (2000) Learning for life, learning through life: reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Education Commission, Hong Kong. https://www.e-c.edu.hk/wp-content/uploads/2000/09/Proposal_Edu_Reform_2000.pdf Education Commission (2010) Report on review of the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme. Education Commission, Hong Kong Epstein JL (2018) School, family, and community partnerships: preparing educators and improving schools. Routledge, New York Fullan M (2025) The new meaning of educational change, 6th edn. Teachers College Press, London Goodson IF (2001) Social histories of educational change. Journal of Educational Change 2: 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011508128957 Harman G (1984) Conceptual and theoretical issues. In: Hough JR (ed), Educational policy: an international survey. Croom-Helm, London, p 13–29 Honig MI (2006) Street-level bureaucracy revisited: frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educ Eval Policy Anal 28:357–383. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737028004357 Jennings RE (1977) Education and politics: policy-making in local education authorities. B. T. Batsford, London Lendvai N, Stubbs P (2007) Ten: policies as translation: situating transnational social policies. In: Policy reconsidered. Policy Press, Bristol, UK, p 173-190. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781847422996.ch010 Leung SKY (2024) Listening to Hong Kong children’s perspectives through pretend play. British Educ Res J 00: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3994 Lima A (2023) Understanding narrative inquiry through life story interviews with former prisoners. Ir Educ Stud 42:775–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2023.2257673 Lipsky M (2010) Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services, 30th anniversary expanded ed. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (Original work published 1980) Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ (2016) Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation, 4th edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Newman J, Clarke J (2009) Publics, politics and power: remaking the public in public services. Sage, London. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446216651 Ntinda K (2019) Narrative research. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Springer, Singapore, p 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_79 Office of Chief Executive (2006) The 2006–07 policy address: proactive, pragmatic, always people first. http://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/06-07/eng/pdf/speech.pdf Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice, 4th edn. Sage, London Rizvi F, Lingard B (2010) Globalising education policy. Routledge, Oxon, UK Rubin HJ, Rubin IS (2012) Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data, 3rd edn. Sage, London Sacramento NJ (2023) Grassroots involvement on Global South policy narratives and deliberative action on climate change loss and damage, Public Administration and Policy: An Asia-Pacific Journal 26: 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-12-2022-0146 Saldaña J (2021) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 4th edn. Sage, London Sausman C, Oborn E, Barrett M (2016) Policy translation through localisation: Implementing national policy in the UK. Policy Pol 44:563–589. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557315X14298807527143 Spillane JP, Reiser BJ, Reimer T (2002) Policy implementation and cognition: reframing and refocusing implementation research. Rev Educ Res 72:387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387 Tikly L, Barrett A, Batra P et al (2022) Decolonising teacher professionalism: foregrounding the perspectives of teachers in the global south. UNESCO background paper. Bristol working papers in education. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7097105 UNESCO (2024) Global education monitoring report 2024/5: leadership in education – Lead for learning. UNESCO, Paris van Buuren A, Gerrits L (2008) Decisions as dynamic equilibriums in erratic policy processes: positive and negative feedback as drivers of non-linear policy dynamics. Public Manag Rev 10:381–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802003038 Watkins NA (2022) The role of teachers in educational policymaking. Literature Reviews in Education and Human Services 1(1):1-23 Webster L, Mertova P (2007) Using narrative inquiry as a research method: an introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in research on learning and teaching. Routledge, London Tables Table 1. Profile of the three kindergartens that participated in the present study Kindergarten Programmes offered Total no. of enrolment a Total no. of principal and teaching staff Teacher-to-student ratio Rating on the PEVS on a scale of 100 ( SD ) Kindergarten A Both half-day and whole-day 277 19 1:10.8 56.67 (20.82) Catering mainly to children from middle-income families, Kindergarten A used to be a PIK that emphasised English language instruction before being converted into an NPMK. The principal had 22 years of experience as a kindergarten principal, and the teacher interviewed had been teaching in the ECE sector for eight years. Kindergarten B Half-day only 112 8 1:7.3 75.00 (5.77) Kindergarten B targeted ethnic minority students, most of them coming from low-income South Asian families. Approximately one-third of the students required fee remission under the Kindergarten and Child Care Centre Fee Remission Scheme, in addition to the PEVS. Like the students, their teachers also had different cultural backgrounds. However, the principal and the teacher interviewed were locally trained Chinese educators. At the time of the interviews, the principal had been a kindergarten principal for 26 years, and the teacher had taught in the kindergarten sector for 16.5 years. Kindergarten C Half-day only 45 6 1:7.5 26.00 (10.39) Kindergarten C was a small half-day NPMK converted from a PIK in a suburban middle-class housing estate. Although the kindergarten had a small enrollment, the campus was spacious and featured an outdoor playground, which was uncommon in Hong Kong. The principal had been a kindergarten principal for ten years, and the teacher interviewed had 15 years of teaching experience. Note : a Excluding children aged 2-3. Table 2. Thematic analysis code structure Sample Codes (from Data) Focused Categories (Grouping of Codes) Broader Themes (Presented in Findings) “piling on the pressure”, “always on edge”, “teachers are swamped”, “increased administrative workload” Policy-Induced Workload and Stress The profound impact of the PEVS on curriculum and workload “skip it [the open day]”, “cut down on unnecessary stuff”, “That is my adjustment”, “proactively communicated changes”, “she has become more nervous” Leadership Mediation and Buffering Strategies The significant role of principals as street-level bureaucrats mediating policy “officials seriously knew how to intimidate us”, “they did not know”, “unfair to private-independent”, “positive intent”, “reluctant to get on board” Perceptions of Government Oversight and Policy Intent The varied responses to government oversight and evaluation “curriculum overhaul”, “prohibitions on examinations”, “differentiate itself”, “strengthening Chinese language”, “minimal changes”, “boosted my confidence” Varied Institutional Adaptations (Curricular, Cultural, and Strategic) The ongoing negotiation between policy mandates and local realities Footnotes A Certificate of Education in ECE is normally equivalent to the first two years of study of a bachelor’s degree in ECE. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 17 Oct, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 16 Oct, 2025 First submitted to journal 09 Oct, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5382677","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":535430503,"identity":"b0293ed2-63ae-4655-ab49-85bdb7abd7c6","order_by":0,"name":"Jessie Ming Sin Wong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hong Kong Metropolitan University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jessie","middleName":"Ming Sin","lastName":"Wong","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-11-03 15:23:04","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5382677/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5382677/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":94856820,"identity":"1657e889-5f0d-4641-b92e-fc7f9251dca5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:23:10","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":78850,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"REALReconceptualisation251014clean.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5382677/v1/5388f6bf9e42fd71f9f4f7c5.docx"},{"id":94985636,"identity":"5e88d97e-844b-4dff-bf05-a4b5572945c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-03 06:58:31","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3916,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"35b97f4fb12b4446aa097360dea17e50.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5382677/v1/c36d64b02d4af78a7199c093.json"},{"id":94856824,"identity":"d787d0a2-2d76-40ca-9919-85522ef7419f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:23:10","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":116672,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"35b97f4fb12b4446aa097360dea17e501enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5382677/v1/00dcc5996eda0817d75e7e5a.xml"},{"id":94856825,"identity":"f8f22a04-1a60-4726-9fca-449e6c5f3156","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:23:10","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":114651,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"35b97f4fb12b4446aa097360dea17e501structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5382677/v1/068bf5db87daaad0a3c5308b.xml"},{"id":94856822,"identity":"a1381c8e-0a01-4fb5-bac7-6767c2ee89d4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-31 12:23:10","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":124516,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5382677/v1/68ec60dc211a936ec5a20e31.html"},{"id":94990338,"identity":"3eb36a9c-e1db-41b7-a219-ad3973529ee9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-03 07:16:27","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":839843,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5382677/v1/25ba9d6c-cd78-424b-ab97-6c70b06c4cd1.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Policy Enactments in Practice: Hong Kong Kindergartens’ Retrospective Experiences with Early Childhood Education Reforms","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eUnderstanding how education policies are enacted in practice, particularly over the long term, is crucial for effective reform. While policies are often designed with clear objectives, their translation into tangible changes within educational settings is a complex, dynamic process, shaped significantly by the interpretations and actions of those at the grassroots level (Anderson, 2013; Sacramento, 2023). This is especially pertinent for reforms like voucher schemes, which aim to alter educational landscapes but often generate diverse stakeholder responses and unforeseen consequences depending on local contexts. This study explores these dynamics by examining the retrospective experiences of kindergartens in Hong Kong with a major early childhood education (ECE) reform, the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme (PEVS), to illuminate how policy is lived, negotiated, and reconstructed in practice over an extended period.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Hong Kong, prior to significant reforms initiated in the late 2000s, the ECE sector grappled with substantial challenges. These included insufficient government funding, intense competitive pressures among providers, and notable inconsistencies in service quality (Authors, 2015). A critical issue was the prevalent emphasis on academic development, often at the expense of holistic child development. In an environment lacking universal subsidies and standardised quality benchmarks, kindergartens prioritised rote learning and early mastery of literacy and numeracy skills to meet perceived parental demands for primary school readiness (Authors, 2020; Authors, 2022). While understandable in a competitive market, this focus on academics was considered problematic as it often neglected crucial aspects of early learning, such as social-emotional growth, creativity, and play-based exploration, which are fundamental to well-rounded development in young children (Curriculum Development Council, 2017; \u0026nbsp;Leung, 2024). Recognising these deficiencies, reform proposals in 2000 signalled the government\u0026rsquo;s growing commitment to strengthening the ECE sector (Education Commission, 2000), setting the stage for subsequent policy interventions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA pivotal development occurred in 2007 with the introduction of the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme (PEVS). The scheme\u0026rsquo;s stated aims were to enhance affordability for parents, improve the quality of ECE provision, and increase accountability among non-profit-making kindergartens (NPMKs) by providing site-based subsidies contingent on meeting new service standards (Education and Manpower Bureau, 2006a). From the government\u0026rsquo;s perspective, initial evaluations of PEVS were largely positive, highlighting improvements in areas such as teachers\u0026rsquo; qualifications, financial transparency, and certain quality indicators (Audit Commission, 2013; Education Commission, 2010). However, the PEVS was not without controversy. Its design, particularly the exclusion of private independent kindergartens (PIKs) from full participation and the potential for market distortion, raised immediate concerns among various stakeholders regarding equity and parental choice (Authors, 2010). While these official assessments provided one view of the policy\u0026rsquo;s impact, the long-term dynamics of how the PEVS was experienced and enacted by those directly involved in its implementation are less understood.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo capture these complex, grassroots dynamics, this study adopts a qualitative, narrative approach exploring how kindergarten leaders enacted the PEVS over its decade-long lifespan. Although the PEVS has since been replaced, an analysis of its decade-long enactment offers critical lessons for informing current and future ECE policy in Hong Kong and beyond. The inquiry is therefore guided by the following central research question: \u003cem\u003eHow did Hong Kong kindergarten leaders, as street-level bureaucrats, interpret and enact the PEVS policy from its inception to its conclusion?\u003c/em\u003e The paper proceeds by first outlining the theoretical framework, where the two specific research questions guiding the analysis are detailed. It then presents the narrative methodology and findings, and concludes by discussing the implications of these long-term policy enactments for future ECE reform.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConstruction and Reconstruction of Policy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study moves beyond traditional models of policy implementation, which often depicted the process as a linear, technically rational transfer from government to practice (Harman, 1984; Jennings, 1977). Such models fail to capture the complexities and contingencies of real-world applications. Instead, this research aligns with a contemporary sociocultural perspective that frames policy not as a static text, but as a dynamic and contested process (Bell and Stevenson, 2006; Rizvi and Lingard, 2010; van Buuren and Gerrits, 2008). Central to this approach is the concept of policy \u0026ldquo;enactment\u0026rdquo; (Ball et al., 2012; Bowe et al., 1992; Braun et al., 2011). Enactment theory posits that policy is not merely implemented but is actively interpreted, negotiated, and re-created by stakeholders. This means that a policy\u0026rsquo;s meaning and effects are not fixed; they are emergent outcomes, shaped by the unique values, beliefs, histories, and material realities of the local contexts where the policy is put into practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe journey from policy text to practice is rarely straightforward. It is an organic, often messy, arena of continuous negotiation where competing values and power dynamics are constantly at play as different actors seek to interpret, appropriate, or resist policy intentions in light of their own local realities and priorities (Lendvai and Stubbs, 2007; Newman and Clarke, 2009). This resonates strongly with Lipsky\u0026rsquo;s (1980/2010) seminal concept of \u0026ldquo;street-level bureaucrats\u0026rdquo;. Lipsky argued that frontline workers in public services are not merely policy implementers but, in effect, policy makers through the discretion they exercise in applying rules and allocating resources during their interactions with citizens. Education scholars like Bowe et al. (1992), Braun et al. (2011), and Ball et al. (2012) have built upon these insights within educational contexts, emphasising how teachers and school leaders actively mediate and translate policy, rather than passively receiving it, thus highlighting the crucial agency of practitioners in the policy enactment process (Datnow and Castellano, 2001; Tikly et al., 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo further elaborate on this dynamic, Bowe et al. (1992) offer a valuable framework by identifying three interrelated contexts where education policy is constructed and reconstructed: the context of influence, the context of policy text production, and the context of practice. The context of influence is the sociopolitical arena where competing discourses compete, and stakeholder interests coalesce or clash to shape emerging policy narratives and define agendas. Within this domain, broader societal debates and prevailing ideologies intersect to frame educational problems and potential solutions. The context of policy text production focuses on the actual authoring of policy documents. This is not a neutral process; instead, it involves negotiation, compromise, and synthesising multiple, sometimes conflicting, perspectives, often resulting in texts that are open to interpretation. Finally, and of central importance to this study, is the \u0026ldquo;context of practice\u0026rdquo;, where policies are operationalised in local settings. Frontline actors, such as principals and teachers, interpret and decipher policy texts based on grounded realities, institutional priorities, and professional judgment, frequently reconstructing policy to fit diverse needs and evolving circumstances over time.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the foundational work on policy enactment by scholars such as Ball, Bowe, and Braun was developed in the context of UK secondary schools, this study extends their theoretical conversation to the non-compulsory, market-influenced ECE sector in Hong Kong. The relevance of this extension is underscored by research in early years settings, such as Bradbury\u0026rsquo;s (2018) study of England\u0026rsquo;s Phonics Screening Check. Her work shows how enactment theory can powerfully illuminate practitioners\u0026rsquo; responses to high-stakes assessment, including the adoption of practices they deem a \u0026ldquo;necessary evil\u0026rdquo; amid a \u0026ldquo;policy storm\u0026rdquo;. Drawing on these theoretical and empirical precedents, this paper therefore examines the PEVS\u0026rsquo; journey in Hong Kong, which provides a compelling case through which to examine the \u0026ldquo;messy\u0026rdquo; realities of the policy reconceptualisation as it lived out over the long term in diverse kindergarten settings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Education Reform in Hong Kong\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe landscape of ECE in Hong Kong, prior to significant reforms initiated around the early 2000s, was profoundly shaped by decades of limited government investment and oversight. As briefly noted in the introduction, this resulted in a sector characterised by inconsistent funding, variable quality across providers, and intense competition (Authors, 2015). Many kindergartens, particularly PIKs, felt compelled to prioritise academic achievement over holistic child development to satisfy prevailing parental expectations geared towards primary school readiness (Authors, 2015, 2022). Such a market-driven focus, while reflecting consumer demand, not only entrenched pedagogical approaches that often sidelined play-based learning and socio-emotional growth but also rendered many PIKs financially and operationally vulnerable to subsequent large-scale policy interventions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe formal recognition of ECE\u0026rsquo;s importance began to emerge with the comprehensive review of Hong Kong\u0026rsquo;s education system in 2000 (Education Commission, 2000). This review acknowledged ECE as a crucial developmental stage and advocated for a child-centred, holistic approach. However, despite this rhetorical shift, the deeply entrenched challenges within the largely self-financing ECE sector meant that transformative, on-the-ground changes were slow to manifest. Key issues persisted, including a workforce whose qualifications often lagged behind international benchmarks and classroom environments where rote learning and didactic teaching methods frequently overshadowed more progressive, play-based pedagogies (Authors, 2020; Authors, 2015). This gap between policy aspiration and practical reality highlighted the need for more substantial and targeted interventions to uplift the sector.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHistorically, the Hong Kong government\u0026rsquo;s limited direct involvement in ECE provision meant the sector was predominantly operated by non-governmental entities (Education Commission, 1986; Authors, 2015). At the time leading up to the PEVS, the landscape comprised over 900 kindergartens, broadly categorised into non-profit-making kindergartens (NPMKs), which constituted approximately 80% of providers, and PIKs, making up the remaining 20% (Authors, 2015). While both operated as private institutions, this NPMK/PIK distinction became a critical determinant in the subsequent reform trajectory. The impending PEVS, with its preferential treatment for NPMKs, was set to amplify the existing competitive dynamics within a market already heavily influenced by parental demand for demonstrable academic preparedness (Authors, 2015, 2022).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe implementation of the PEVS in 2007 represented a significant turning point in Hong Kong\u0026rsquo;s ECE reform agenda. As announced in the Chief Executive\u0026rsquo;s 2006 policy address, the PEVS had several core objectives: to enhance affordability for parents, to improve the quality of ECE provision through adherence to new standards, and to increase accountability among providers (Office of Chief Executive, 2006). The scheme operated by providing parents a direct subsidy (voucher) for eligible children, redeemable exclusively at NPMKs that met specified government quality benchmarks. A significant portion of the voucher value was mandated for fee subsidy, with the remainder allocated for teacher training, specifically for pursuing the newly required Certificate of Education in ECE\u003ca href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\" title=\"\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e. Principals were required to obtain a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree in ECE within five years. The government envisioned that as teacher qualifications improved, the portion of the voucher for professional development would gradually be reallocated entirely to fee subsidies. Furthermore, participating \u0026ldquo;voucher kindergartens\u0026rdquo; became subject to regular government quality assurance inspections and evaluations (Education and Manpower Bureau, 2006a).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the PEVS design, particularly its exclusion of PIKs from direct subsidy eligibility and the complexities surrounding funding for teacher remuneration, created immediate operational and financial challenges. While the scheme aimed to uplift teacher qualifications, it did not directly subsidise teacher salaries to a level commensurate with these enhanced qualifications or prevailing market expectations. This placed considerable strain on all kindergartens to fund salary increases and attract/retain qualified staff. For NPMKs, the voucher provided some financial leverage, but the pressure remained. For PIKs, the challenge was more acute: they faced the imperative to upgrade their staff to remain competitive and meet parental expectations, but without access to PEVS subsidies, they were forced to cover these significant costs entirely from their own fee income or other resources. This disparity immediately positioned PIKs at a competitive disadvantage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe PEVS faced immediate scrutiny for its potential to distort market competition by restricting parental choice and excluding PIKs. Concerns were raised by various stakeholders, including PIK operators and some parents, that this approach could stifle diversity in provision and might not effectively foster quality improvements across the entire sector if a significant portion of providers were disadvantaged (Authors, 2022). In response to these mounting public pressures and criticisms, the government announced several modifications to the PEVS in November 2006, even before its full implementation (Education and Manpower Bureau, 2006b). These adjustments included: a three-year transitional period allowing PIKs that met certain requirements (such as committing to quality enhancement) to redeem vouchers for existing students; a temporary fee remission for eligible students in these PIKs; and a one-time facilitation grant to assist PIKs wishing to convert to non-profit-making status. While these amendments offered temporary relief and a pathway for some PIKs to adapt, they also implicitly reinforced the Education Bureau\u0026rsquo;s (EDB\u0026rsquo;s) overarching policy direction favouring an NPMK-dominated ECE sector. Consequently, these modifications, coupled with the inherent financial and competitive pressures of the original PEVS design, likely accelerated the trend of PIKs either ceasing operations or converting to NPMK status, fundamentally reshaping the operational landscape and institutional identities within Hong Kong\u0026rsquo;s ECE sector. Understanding how kindergartens, particularly those that were formerly PIKs, navigated these profound and often challenging policy-induced transformations is central to this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTheoretical Framework\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is anchored by a theoretical framework that synthesises the policy enactment lens (Ball et al., 2012; Braun et al., 2011) with the concept of street-level bureaucracy (Lipsky, 1980/2010). The policy enactment lens provides the core principle: that policy is not simply implemented but is actively interpreted, negotiated, and re-created by practitioners. To operationalise this, the analysis will focus on the \u0026ldquo;context of practice\u0026rdquo; (Bowe et al., 1992), examining how local actors\u0026rsquo; values, histories, and material realities shape their responses. Lipsky\u0026rsquo;s (1980/2010) concept of the street-level bureaucrat will serve to illuminate the agency of kindergarten leaders, framing their daily discretionary decisions not as mere compliance or resistance, but as de facto policymaking. Together, these concepts provide the analytical tools to investigate \u003cem\u003ehow\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ewhy\u003c/em\u003e the PEVS was enacted differently across diverse kindergarten settings over time. Two specific research questions were designed to explore these processes of interpretation and adaptation from the perspective of those most directly involved:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHow did kindergartens retrospectively reconceptualise the PEVS policy over time?\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIn what ways do the experiences and sense-making of kindergarten stakeholders offer insights into the broader processes of policy enactment and evolution?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a qualitative narrative inquiry approach (Byrne, 2017; Webster and Mertova, 2007) to understand kindergartens\u0026rsquo; perspectives on evolving ECE policies retrospectively. Narrative inquiry is well-suited for capturing the complexity of lived experiences and meaning-making within specific contexts over time (Lima, 2023; Ntinda, 2019), allowing for an exploration of how practitioners navigated policy changes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Sample\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSite selection: Three kindergartens were purposively selected (Patton, 2015) based on their varied stances (favourable, typical, oppositional) towards the PEVS as identified in a previous survey conducted by the author (Authors, 2022). This strategy aimed for heterogeneity in policy interpretation to illustrate diverse local enactments. To enhance comparability, all selected sites were formerly PIKs in Hong Kong\u0026rsquo;s New Territories West that converted to non-profit-making status to join the PEVS and offered half-day programmes. This focus on former PIKs was chosen due to the distinct adaptive pressures they faced. Kindergartens B (favourable) and C (oppositional) also had smaller enrolments (see Table 1). The selection of three sites allowed for in-depth narrative reconstruction (Creswell and Poth, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipant selection: Within each kindergarten, the principal and one veteran teacher (minimum ten years\u0026rsquo; experience at the site, overlapping the PEVS lifespan) were invited, totalling six participants. This captured administrative and classroom perspectives on policy enactment and mediation (cf. Honig, 2006). This sample size aligns with narrative inquiry\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on depth (Creswell and Poth, 2025). All three kindergartens had passed the government\u0026rsquo;s quality assurance mechanism at the time of the interviews.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Table 1 near here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eData Collection\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSemi-structured interviews (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016) were conducted by the author near the conclusion of the PEVS, allowing for comprehensive retrospective reflection on its entire lifespan. Interviews took place at each participant\u0026rsquo;s kindergarten and lasted between 21 and 59 minutes. An interview protocol with open-ended questions guided discussions, covering initial interpretations, implementation experiences, perceived impacts, and retrospective reconceptualisations of the PEVS. Example questions included: \u0026ldquo;Can you recall your initial understanding of the PEVS and how it evolved?\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;What were the most significant changes your kindergarten made to adapt to the PEVS?\u0026rdquo; Follow-up probes were\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eused for depth (Rubin and Rubin, 2012). All interviews were conducted in Cantonese, audio-recorded with consent, and anonymised using pseudonyms.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eData Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterview recordings were semi-transcribed verbatim in Cantonese. An inductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2022) was conducted. Transcripts were segmented into meaningful text units (e.g., a principal\u0026rsquo;s account of curriculum revision). Inductive open coding (Salda\u0026ntilde;a, 2021) was applied to these units (e.g., code: \u0026ldquo;Increased Reporting Burden\u0026rdquo;). \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;An iterative, constant comparative method was used, re-examining data as codes emerged, until theoretical saturation was approached (Charmaz, 2024). Codes were then grouped into categories (e.g., \u0026ldquo;Policy-Induced Workload Intensification\u0026rdquo;), which informed broader themes. Table 2 illustrates this analytical pathway, showing how sample codes were developed into focused categories, which in turn informed the broader themes that are presented in the Findings section.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[Insert Table 2 near here]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings, a peer debriefing process was undertaken with a doctoral student in ECE who had two years of teaching experience in a voucher kindergarten. This peer reviewer examined a sample of coded excerpts, the assigned codes, and the developing code categories. Regular discussion between the author and the peer reviewer facilitated agreement on the interpretation and application of codes, the construction of categories, and the identification of themes. The finalised themes directly informed the interpretation of patterns and connections within the data, linking back to the study\u0026rsquo;s theoretical framework and research questions. Illustrative quotes were translated into English by the author.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe following narratives, reconstructed from interviews with principals and teachers, illustrate the diverse ways in which the three selected kindergartens experienced, interpreted, and ultimately enacted the PEVS over its decade-long lifespan. These accounts reveal how initial interpretations of the policy, shaped by each kindergarten\u0026rsquo;s unique history, mission, and perceived vulnerabilities, heavily influenced their subsequent adaptation strategies. Key themes emerging across these narratives include the significant role of principals as street-level bureaucrats mediating policy, the profound impact of the PEVS on curriculum and workload, the varied responses to government oversight and evaluation, and the ongoing negotiation between policy mandates and local realities. While each kindergarten\u0026rsquo;s journey was distinct, their collective experiences underscore the active role of grassroots practitioners in shaping policy in practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKindergarten A: A \u0026ldquo;Typical\u0026rdquo; Path of Pragmatic Adaptation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUpon learning about the PEVS, Principal A and her Teacher\u0026nbsp;experienced mixed emotions. They acknowledged the government\u0026rsquo;s positive intent to support parents and focus on kindergarten education, but immediately identified potential challenges.\u0026nbsp;Principal A questioned the direct benefit to kindergartens, noting, \u0026ldquo;The face value of the vouchers didn\u0026rsquo;t mean much to us because it was the parents who received the subsidies, not us\u0026rdquo;. She also expressed concern over the mandated five-year timeframe for teacher professional development, feeling it was restrictive and overlooked the need for institutional autonomy: \u0026ldquo;Instead of imposing strict deadlines, the government could have just provided guidelines for us to follow\u0026hellip; Kindergartens should be granted more autonomy. It\u0026rsquo;s challenging for us to adjust and adapt when so many restrictions exist\u0026rdquo;. This initial interpretation highlighted a tension between perceived policy benefits and concerns about operational constraints, as well as a desire for greater professional discretion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe educators also found the restriction of eligibility to NPMKs unfair, though Principal A acknowledged transparency issues among some PIKs. Eventually, in a pragmatic move reflecting the pressures faced by many PIKs, Kindergarten A converted to NPMK status in September 2007 to join the PEVS.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis decision catalysed significant internal changes. A key strategic enactment was the curriculum overhaul. Previously focused on pre-academic skills to meet parental expectations for primary school readiness, the curriculum had to be adjusted to align with government prohibitions on examinations and dictations. However, showcasing her role in mediating policy, Principal A ensured the revised curriculum still maintained a perceived advanced standing to preserve the kindergarten\u0026rsquo;s distinct identity, stating her belief that \u0026ldquo;Kindergarten A should strive to differentiate itself\u0026rdquo;. She proactively communicated these changes to her staff, which helped build their confidence. Despite these preparatory steps, Principal A personally felt the weight of the new accountability measures:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI\u0026rsquo;m always on edge, worrying about getting my work done right because even the tiniest mistakes can have significant consequences\u0026hellip; One slip-up and they might yank away the subsidies. On top of that, now I have to report a bunch of stuff to the government\u0026hellip; It\u0026rsquo;s piling on the pressure.\u003c/em\u003e (Principal A)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis excerpt highlights the increased administrative burden and stress experienced by leaders under the new scheme.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe PEVS\u0026nbsp;brought\u0026nbsp;unforeseen\u0026nbsp;consequences. A significant\u0026nbsp;positive outcome was a surge in\u0026nbsp;enrolment, from fewer than 300 students to nearly 400.\u0026nbsp;Principal A attributed this to increased affordability:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntroducing vouchers has made our tuition much more affordable\u0026hellip; Since the voucher policy was implemented, we have seen a significant increase in student enrolment, and our waiting list has grown considerably. This has boosted my confidence in the overall operation of our kindergarten.\u003c/em\u003e (Principal A)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, the transition also introduced substantial challenges that impacted staff morale and workload. Principal A detailed how the shift to non-profit-making status meant teachers lost their previous bonus system, which she felt had\u0026nbsp;fostered \u0026ldquo;a stronger sense of belonging\u0026rdquo; and attentiveness to the kindergarten\u0026rsquo;s operations. This loss, she observed, led to \u0026ldquo;a decline in their overall job satisfaction and sense of belonging\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, while intended to be beneficial, the mandated professional development created practical difficulties. The five-year restriction, Principal A explained, complicated workload management:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWe have much work to complete, but at the same time, many teachers need to attend training. As a result, teachers have less time to complete their tasks during weekdays, and they often have to catch up on work on Saturdays or during the holidays. This has increased teachers\u0026rsquo; feelings of being overworked and stressed.\u003c/em\u003e (Principal A)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe logistical demands of teacher training also disrupted internal communication, as scheduling whole-school meetings became challenging. This forced Principal A to hold repetitive grade-level meetings, adding to her \u0026ldquo;significant administrative workload and increased pressure\u0026rdquo;. These experiences illustrate how top-down policy requirements, even if well-intentioned, can create complex on-the-ground problems for practitioners.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite these increased pressures, the interviewed Teacher at Kindergarten A reported adapting relatively easily, attributing this to Principal A\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;exceptional support\u0026rdquo;. This sentiment was echoed by other teachers in this study. Principal A\u0026rsquo;s actions exemplify the role of a street-level bureaucrat actively mediating policy to buffer staff from its harshest impacts. She described her approach:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI always remind myself that teachers are swamped\u0026hellip; So, I try my best to cut down on unnecessary stuff and put some activities on hold when needed\u0026hellip; I could have insisted on having the open day, but I knew it would be too exhausting for them. So, I made the call to skip it\u0026hellip; Teachers need breathing room to do their best work. That is my adjustment.\u003c/em\u003e (Principal A)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis strategic decision-making, such as modifying school events and reducing reflective writing demands during busy periods, aimed to create \u0026ldquo;a less stressful environment\u0026rdquo;, which\u0026nbsp;she believed contributed to low staff turnover despite salaries not being the highest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile\u0026nbsp;Principal A herself\u0026nbsp;felt a lack of external\u0026nbsp;support, sharing her concerns mainly with peers,\u0026nbsp;she \u0026ldquo;gradually adjusted\u0026rdquo; to the PEVS\u0026rsquo; demands.\u0026nbsp;Her final reconceptualisation of the policy was of qualified acceptance:\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;It is a good policy. It is just imperfect\u0026rdquo;. This demonstrates an evolution in her understanding, moving from initial reservations to a pragmatic acknowledgement of the policy\u0026rsquo;s dual nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKindergarten B: Proactive Enactment Driven by Mission Alignment\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKindergarten B, serving a significant population of ethnic minority students, exhibited strong enthusiasm for the PEVS from its announcement, despite being a PIK. The management committee swiftly decided to convert to non-profit-making status, viewing the PEVS as a vehicle to achieve long-standing goals. Their primary motivations were twofold: they anticipated that the voucher subsidies would attract more low-income ethnic minority families, and crucially, they saw the policy as an opportunity to advance their mission of integrating these children into Hong Kong society by strengthening Chinese language instruction and incorporating more local curriculum elements \u0026ndash; changes previously met with parental resistance. The PEVS mandate for a local curriculum was thus perceived as a strategic lever.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis proactive stance was shared by teachers. Teacher B expressed optimism:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSince most of our students were from South Asian backgrounds\u0026hellip; joining the voucher scheme would change that. It would help more parents discover our kindergarten\u0026hellip; I believe this would make us more competitive and provide better job security.\u003c/em\u003e (Teacher B)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsequently, Kindergarten B actively restructured its curriculum, referencing official guides and approved materials,\u0026nbsp;significantly increasing\u0026nbsp;Chinese\u0026nbsp;language instruction.\u0026nbsp;Local teachers welcomed this alignment with their mission,\u0026nbsp;although it posed initial challenges for students with limited proficiency in Chinese. Teachers\u0026nbsp;innovatively\u0026nbsp;incorporated more\u0026nbsp;music into Chinese language learning to engage students. Teacher B reflected on the pedagogical shift:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIt is quite different from the teaching methods I was accustomed to using. However, I want my students to develop stronger Chinese language skills, as it will be crucial for their future competitiveness.\u003c/em\u003e (Teacher B)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis excerpt demonstrates a clear instance of policy being actively embraced and shaped to fit and further an existing organisational mission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIncreased government monitoring under the PEVS also led to changes in management style. Teacher B welcomed this, stating:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBefore the PEVS came into play, the management at our kindergarten was pretty laid-back\u0026hellip; But once the PEVS kicked in, the government set clear directions for us, making everything more structured and systematic. Honestly, that\u0026rsquo;s the thing I love most about the PEVS.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Teacher B)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, these ambitious curricular changes and stricter protocols significantly increased workloads. The leadership team (principal, supervisor, and clerks) attempted to mitigate this by taking on extra tasks, and teachers supported each other. Interestingly, while a government quality review report noted unclear teacher responsibilities, Teacher B reinterpreted this positively, emphasising teamwork: \u0026ldquo;I appreciate the strong bond we have as a team. It\u0026rsquo;s incredible how we all come together and share the workload\u0026rdquo;. This highlights a divergence between official assessment and internal perception of operational culture.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite these\u0026nbsp;coping mechanisms, the combined pressures of\u0026nbsp;workload and\u0026nbsp;professional\u0026nbsp;upgrading\u0026nbsp;led to\u0026nbsp;higher staff turnover, with almost half the teachers resigning.\u0026nbsp;This exacerbated the\u0026nbsp;burden on remaining staff\u0026nbsp;and created significant recruitment challenges.\u0026nbsp;Principal B described the difficulty of finding qualified ECE teachers who could also meet the kindergarten\u0026rsquo;s specific need for English proficiency to communicate with a diverse staff, even when offering above-recommended salaries:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvery single candidate asked for more money!... I contacted the EDB\u0026hellip; They suggested that we could temporarily hire university graduates or individuals qualified to teach in primary or secondary schools\u0026hellip; but they often lack the essential qualifications and expertise in early childhood education that we desperately require.\u003c/em\u003e (Principal B)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis situation, which Principal B noted was widespread, illustrates a critical disconnect between policy-driven qualification upgrades and market realities regarding salary expectations and the availability of specialised ECE professionals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFaced with these challenges, Principal B\u0026nbsp;admitted feeling \u0026ldquo;perplexed\u0026rdquo; about her initial high expectations. However, she adopted a proactive, problem-solving mindset. This resourcefulness was evident in how Kindergarten B actively sought external support. Parents became crucial volunteers; though initially requiring significant training, they evolved into a sustainable resource. The kindergarten\u0026rsquo;s new NPMK status also facilitated partnerships with other non-profit organisations and participation in Chinese enrichment projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese strategies of community engagement and external collaboration were vital not only in alleviating staff stress and maintaining educational quality but also in fostering parental understanding and acceptance of the curricular changes. Over time, this collaborative enactment led to increased parental support for the kindergarten\u0026rsquo;s direction. Principal B\u0026rsquo;s concluding remark, \u0026ldquo;Our voice is getting stronger!\u0026rdquo; signifies a successful negotiation of policy challenges through adaptive leadership and community partnership, eventually strengthening the kindergarten\u0026rsquo;s position and ability to pursue its mission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKindergarten C: Resistant Enactment and Perceived Antagonism\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn stark contrast to Kindergarten B, Principal C and her teacher met the PEVS with dismay and a sense of discrimination. As a PIK with low enrolment, they\u0026nbsp;perceived\u0026nbsp;the policy as an existential\u0026nbsp;threat. Principal C expressed strong opposition:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe voucher scheme felt incredibly unfair to private-independent kindergartens. It seemed like the EDB was\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e[\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eacting in a heavy-handed, authoritarian manner\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e]\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e, trying to take complete control over the free market\u0026hellip; We were honestly reluctant to get on board with the scheme.\u003c/em\u003e (Principal C)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeacher C echoed this sentiment, feeling the policy was unreasonable towards small kindergartens:\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;The government wanted to\u0026nbsp;\u0026lsquo;kill\u0026rsquo;\u0026nbsp;kindergartens!\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(Teacher C)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite this deep-seated opposition, the decision to convert to NPMK status and join the PEVS was driven by pragmatic concerns and complex parental pressures. Principal C described the dilemma: some parents feared a loss of status associated with becoming a non-profit, while others desired the fee reduction offered by vouchers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWe were perplexed by these conflicting opinions\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026hellip;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;many parents preferred lower tuition fees, believing they deserved the benefits as taxpayers. As a result, we ultimately decided to join the voucher scheme. However, during the first year, a few parents chose to leave our kindergarten because they couldn\u0026rsquo;t accept our non-profit-making status.\u003c/em\u003e (Principal C)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis illustrates how external stakeholder pressures (from parents) and market realities compelled reluctant compliance, even leading to some initial negative consequences, such as losing families who valued the PIK status.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInitially, Principal C acknowledged some merit in enhanced government oversight for quality assurance: \u0026ldquo;It highlighted the need for proper supervision and standards\u0026hellip;\u0026nbsp;internal and external evaluations, like the quality review, can actually make a difference\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(Principal C).\u0026nbsp;However, negative interactions at government-led briefing sessions quickly eroded this conditional acceptance. Principal C recounted:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThose officials seriously knew how to intimidate us\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ewith such rude and authoritarian tones, threatening that if we didn\u0026rsquo;t meet their standards, they would withhold the voucher subsidies and even shut down our kindergartens!\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e...\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;I\u0026rsquo;m not claiming to be the most experienced person, but I know how to run a kindergarten properly and effectively.\u003c/em\u003e (Principal C)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese encounters seemingly solidified her oppositional stance, fostering a belief that compliance was performative (\u0026ldquo;kindergartens will just put on a show\u0026rdquo;) and that her professional expertise was being undermined.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis reinforced resistance translated into a policy enactment strategy of minimal adaptation. Firm in her belief in the kindergarten\u0026rsquo;s existing quality and her own capabilities, Principal C implemented\u0026nbsp;only a few major changes to professional development, staff benefits, and curriculum. While paperwork increased, it was deemed manageable. However, the underlying pressure took a toll. Teacher C observed a shift in the principal\u0026rsquo;s demeanour:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBefore the implementation, the principal had a more relaxed demeanour. However, she has become noticeably more nervous since we started with this new system\u0026hellip; the EDB has placed more pressure on her\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026hellip;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eshe often turns to us for assistance. This change has made her stricter and more demanding, which can be challenging for us as teachers.\u003c/em\u003e (Teacher C)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrincipal C herself admitted, \u0026ldquo;I constantly worry about the possibility of the EDB singling us out\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp;This reveals the personal stress and heightened vigilance experienced by leadership, even when overtly resisting policy directives \u0026mdash; a clear burden of the reform process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe government evaluation process further fueled their negative perceptions. Despite successfully passing the inspection, both educators found the experience demoralising. Teacher C questioned the validity of criticisms from short-term observations:\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;They were only here for two days, but pointed out many problems. There were many things they did not know. How could they criticise us?\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp;Principal C was particularly incensed by what she perceived as ill-informed judgments about classroom management and material organisation, viewing them as a dismissal of her teachers\u0026rsquo; professional practice:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThey criticised our teachers for the loud behaviour of three-year-olds\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e... [Regarding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ea jigsaw puzzle\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;activity]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ethe inspectors claimed it didn\u0026rsquo;t match the theme and accused us of having disorganised materials. It was like saying we did not use our brains! I would not change anything because of their comments!\u003c/em\u003e (Principal C)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUltimately, Principal C expressed pessimism about effecting any meaningful change in the face of policy challenges, seeing limited avenues for recourse beyond personal endurance or exit from the profession. This final reconceptualisation reflects a sense of disempowerment and resignation, contrasting sharply with Kindergarten B\u0026rsquo;s proactive engagement and Kindergarten A\u0026rsquo;s pragmatic adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe retrospective accounts from the three kindergartens reveal the complex, dynamic, and highly contextual nature of policy implementation. The different approaches \u0026mdash; from Kindergarten A\u0026rsquo;s practical adaptation, to Kindergarten B\u0026rsquo;s mission-oriented enforcement, and Kindergarten C\u0026rsquo;s opposition \u0026mdash; highlight that policy is not a fixed plan executed uniformly but a continuous process of interpretation, negotiation, and modification by those directly involved (Ball et al., 2012; Braun et al., 2011; Rizvi \u0026amp; Lingard, 2010). The varied strategies of Kindergartens A, B, and C emphasise how local actors, especially principals, act as crucial street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980/2010), mediating and influencing policy in accordance with their specific organisational environments, missions, and perceived pressures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrincipals as Street-Level Bureaucrats and Policy Mediators\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA central theme emerging from this research is the critical role of kindergarten principals as key policy brokers and street-level bureaucrats (Honig, 2006; Lipsky, 1980/2010). As demonstrated in the Findings, Principals A, B, and C each navigated the PEVS in distinct ways, reflecting their agency in interpreting policy mandates and translating them into practice. Principal A\u0026rsquo;s pragmatic adaptation involved strategic mediation to buffer staff from excessive burdens while ensuring compliance and maintaining the kindergarten\u0026rsquo;s identity. This aligns with Lipsky\u0026rsquo;s (1980/2010) assertion that street-level bureaucrats develop coping mechanisms and routines to manage the demands of policy. Principal B proactively embraced the PEVS, using it as a lever to advance her kindergarten\u0026rsquo;s specific mission related to ethnic minority students, showcasing how policy can be strategically co-opted to fit local goals (Datnow and Castellano, 2001). Conversely, Principal C\u0026rsquo;s resistant enactment, born from a perception of unfairness and negative interactions with authorities, illustrates how street-level discretion can also manifest as minimal compliance or even opposition when policy is perceived as misaligned with professional expertise or local needs. These varied responses highlight that principals were not passive recipients but active agents who significantly shaped the policy-in-practice within their institutions. This finding resonates with extensive literature on policy enactment in educational settings (Ball et al., 2012; Datnow and Castellano, 2001; Spillane et al., 2002). The burdens of reform, such as increased workload and stress detailed in the Findings, were often directly shouldered or mitigated by these principals, further underscoring their pivotal mediating role.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Interplay of Context, Interpretation, and Enactment Strategies\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe divergent enactment paths were not arbitrary but deeply rooted in each kindergarten\u0026rsquo;s unique contexts and initial interpretations (Bowe et al., 1992). As the Findings suggest, Kindergarten B\u0026rsquo;s pre-existing mission to serve ethnic minority students and its leadership\u0026rsquo;s perception of PEVS as an opportunity directly shaped its proactive and enthusiastic adoption. In contrast, Kindergarten C\u0026rsquo;s status as a small PIK facing an existential threat, coupled with Principal C\u0026rsquo;s negative perception of the EDB\u0026rsquo;s approach, fostered a resistant stance. Kindergarten A, perhaps representing a more common scenario, balanced perceived benefits with concerns, resulting in a pragmatic and adaptive strategy. These differences affirm that policy enactment is profoundly influenced by factors such as organisational history, leadership philosophy, staff profile, the population served (as seen with Kindergarten B\u0026rsquo;s focus and Kindergarten C\u0026rsquo;s parental pressures), and the perceived alignment (or misalignment) of policy goals with institutional values and priorities (Coburn, 2005). The study, therefore, contributes to understanding \u003cem\u003ewhy\u003c/em\u003e such variations occur, moving beyond simply describing their existence. The narratives reveal that the \u0026ldquo;sense-making\u0026rdquo; process (Sausman et al., 2016; Spillane et al., 2002) at the outset of policy engagement is critical in setting the trajectory for long-term enactment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNegotiating Policy: Forms, Limitations, and Grassroots Influence\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe nature and extent of negotiation in policy enactment, particularly between principals and government authorities, also warrant examination. While the data did not reveal extensive direct, formal negotiations between individual principals and central government authorities to alter the PEVS\u0026rsquo;s formal structure, the findings illustrate multiple implicit and localised negotiation forms. Principals negotiated the \u003cem\u003emeaning\u003c/em\u003e of the policy within their kindergartens, negotiated its \u003cem\u003eimplementation\u003c/em\u003e with their staff (e.g., Principal A\u0026rsquo;s adjustments to workload), and negotiated its \u003cem\u003eimpact\u003c/em\u003e on their communities (e.g., Kindergarten B\u0026rsquo;s engagement with parents to gain acceptance for curriculum changes). While not altering the formal policy, Kindergarten C\u0026rsquo;s resistance was a form of negotiation through non-compliance with the spirit, if not the letter, of some expectations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis raises a crucial point regarding the scope of street-level influence on policy modification. While these grassroots enactments significantly altered how the PEVS was \u003cem\u003eexperienced\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003elived out\u003c/em\u003e in these specific kindergartens, the study does not provide evidence that these individual actions led to formal revisions of the PEVS policy itself during its lifespan. This suggests that while street-level bureaucracy can profoundly shape policy in practice, its power to effect change in formal policy texts may be more limited without collective action or more structured feedback channels. The PEVS did undergo government modifications (as noted in the \u0026ldquo;Early Childhood Education Reform in Hong Kong\u0026rdquo; section). However, these were largely in response to broader public and sector-wide pressures rather than the specific, isolated enactments detailed here. This distinction is important for understanding the different levels at which policy can be influenced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLong-Term Policy Impacts and the Value of Retrospective Narrative Inquiry\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudying the PEVS retrospectively offers crucial insights into the enduring impacts of policy that initial evaluations might miss, a consideration for the relevance of such historical analyses. The narratives provided by principals and teachers, captured through in-depth inquiry, reveal the long-term emotional and operational sequelae of policy decisions, including shifts in professional identity, sustained changes in workload, and the lasting effects on school culture and community relationships (Goodson, 2001). For instance, the loss of bonuses in Kindergarten A had a lasting impact on morale, while Kindergarten B\u0026rsquo;s successful community engagement became an embedded strength. These nuanced, long-term effects, including how these experiences might subtly shape current operations, are often best understood through qualitative, narrative approaches that allow for rich, contextualised accounts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstead of merely describing interviews, the narrative inquiry approach served as a site for critically engaged analysis. It allowed for the reconstruction of meaning-making processes over time, revealing how initial policy interpretations evolved through experience. The \u003cem\u003estories\u003c/em\u003e themselves, with their emotional content and detailed recounting of specific challenges and triumphs, provided a deeper understanding of the human dimension of policy enactment than could be achieved through more detached methods. This approach gives voice to practitioners and uncovers the \u0026ldquo;emic\u0026rdquo; perspective, generating insights into the \u0026ldquo;how\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;why\u0026rdquo; of policy enactment that are critical for developing more responsive and effective reforms (Byrne, 2017; Ntinda, 2019;\u0026nbsp;Webster\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;Mertova, 2007).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Resonance and Broader Implications\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile focused on Hong Kong, the dynamics observed in this study, such as the mediating role of preschool leaders, the influence of local context on policy interpretation, the challenges of top-down reform, and the agency of practitioners, resonate with international experiences in ECE and broader education policy implementation (Bradbury, 2018; Fullan, 2025; UNESCO, 2024). In various forms, voucher schemes have been implemented globally, often generating similar debates around equity, quality, and market effects (Authors, 2023). The Hong Kong PEVS experience, particularly the challenges faced by different types of providers and the complexities of quality assurance, offers valuable lessons for other systems grappling with similar reforms. The finding that a \u0026ldquo;one-size-fits-all\u0026rdquo; approach is insufficient and that practitioner expertise is a crucial but often undervalued resource in policy processes is a theme of broad international relevance (Watkins, 2022). This study aligns with recent scholarship emphasising the need for more participatory and context-sensitive approaches to policy design and implementation globally (Sacramento, 2023; Tikly et al., 2022; UNESCO, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003e This narrative inquiry into Hong Kong kindergartens\u0026rsquo; experiences with the PEVS has provided a crucial, long-term perspective on the grassroots dynamics of education policy. This study\u0026rsquo;s focus on the decade-long enactment of the scheme addressed a significant gap, moving beyond static implementation to reveal how policy is interactively constructed and reconstructed over time through practitioner meaning-making.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study\u0026rsquo;s primary conclusion is that policy enactment is an inherently dynamic and non-linear process. The varied journeys of the three kindergartens confirm that principals, as street-level bureaucrats, are not passive implementers but active mediators who shape policy-in-practice according to their unique institutional histories, missions, and leadership philosophies. Consequently, the notion of a \u0026ldquo;one-size-fits-all\u0026rdquo; policy is shown to be untenable; its impacts are inevitably context-dependent, forged in the interplay between top-down directives and bottom-up realities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMethodologically, this inquiry confirms the unique value of a retrospective, narrative approach for uncovering the nuanced, lived experiences of reform that short-term evaluations often miss. Giving voice to frontline educators reveals their critical agency and the accumulated wisdom gained from navigating policy, offering a holistic reconceptualisation of educational change from the ground up.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study thus reinforces a fundamental principle for effective educational reform: policy success is intrinsically linked to a genuine respect for practitioner expertise. Understanding policy as a co-constructed process is essential for developing more responsive, equitable, and sustainable educational improvements. The insights gleaned underscore the necessity of fostering robust partnerships between policymakers and those at the chalkface, ensuring that reforms are not only well-intentioned but also practically viable for the learning communities they aim to serve.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eImplications and Recommendations for Policy and Practice\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe insights derived from Hong Kong kindergartens\u0026rsquo; experiences with the PEVS offer valuable lessons for policymakers, educational leaders, and researchers. To translate the study\u0026rsquo;s conclusions into practice, the following recommendations are proposed:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstablish formal mechanisms for practitioner partnership: Instead of relying on informal feedback, policymakers should institutionalise the role of practitioners in the policy process. This could involve creating standing advisory panels composed of diverse ECE principals and teachers, implementing co-design methodologies for new initiatives, and establishing joint policy review committees. Such structures would embed the principle of partnership into the machinery of governance, ensuring that frontline expertise consistently informs policy design, implementation, and evaluation, thereby bridging the gap between intent and reality (Epstein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Fullan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; UNESCO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDesign flexible policies with differentiated support: Recognising that a \u0026ldquo;one-size-fits-all\u0026rdquo; approach is insufficient, future reforms should be designed with flexibility. This means moving beyond uniform mandates to create differentiated funding streams, tailored professional development pathways, and adaptive and developmental quality assurance processes (UNESCO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Support systems should be contextually sensitive, acknowledging the unique missions, resource capacities, and community needs of diverse providers (e.g., those serving specific ethnic minority populations or those in different socioeconomic areas). This approach fosters equitable improvement by empowering providers rather than simply mandating compliance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommission longitudinal and qualitative research to inform policy: To build a more holistic evidence base for future reforms, government bodies and funding agencies should actively commission research that captures the long-term, lived experiences of practitioners. Prioritising narrative, ethnographic, and other qualitative methodologies alongside quantitative metrics will reveal the nuanced, and often unforeseen, consequences of policy on school culture, professional identity, and community relationships. This richer data is essential for designing more thoughtful, human-centred, and sustainable educational policies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthics approval:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was granted by\u0026nbsp;the Human Research Ethics Committee for Non-Clinical Faculties of The University of Hong Kong (Ref. no. EA290210).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInformed consent\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the interviews. Participants were informed about the study\u0026rsquo;s purpose, the voluntary nature of their participation, their right to withdraw at any time without penalty, and their right to anonymity. All participants consented to the audio recording of interviews and the use of anonymised quotations in publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsent for publication:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author obtained consent from all the participants before data collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompeting interest:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares\u0026nbsp;no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo;contributions:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author confirms\u0026nbsp;sole responsibility for the following: study conception and design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results, and manuscript preparation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAvailability of data and materials:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFunding:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo funding was received for the work described in this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAcknowledgements:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author would like to thank [Supervisor] and all the reviewers for their insightful comments and [Helper1] and [Helper2] for their support of the research. Special thanks go to the principals and teachers of the three kindergartens that participated in the study. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthors (2020) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthors (2010) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthors (2023) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuhtors (2015) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthors (2022) \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson R (2013) Doing emotion, doing policy; the emotional role of \u0026lsquo;grassroots\u0026rsquo; community activists in poverty policymaking (Working paper 60). Third Sector Research Centre, Birmingham. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-social-sciences/social-policy/tsrc/working-papers/working-paper-96.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAudit Commission (2013) Pre-primary education voucher scheme (Director of Audit report no. 60). Audit Commission, Hong Kong\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBall SJ, Maguire M, Braun A (2012) How schools do policy: policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge, London\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBell L, Stevenson H (2006) Education policy: process, themes and impact. Routledge, Oxon, UK\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBowe R, Ball SJ, Gold A (1992) Reforming education and changing schools: case studies in policy sociology. Routledge, London\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBradbury A (2018) The impact of the Phonics Screening Check on grouping by ability: a \u0026lsquo;necessary evil\u0026rsquo; amid the policy storm. British Educ Res J 44(4):539-556. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3449\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun A, Ball SJ, Maguire M, Hoskins K (2011) Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4): 585\u0026ndash;596. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601555\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun V, Clark, V (2022) Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage, London \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eByrne G (2017) Narrative inquiry and the problem of representation: \u0026ldquo;giving voice\u0026rdquo;, making meaning. Int J Res Method Educ 40:36\u0026ndash;52. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2015.1034097\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCharmaz K (2024) Constructing grounded theory, 3rd edn. Sage, London \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoburn CE (2005) Shaping teacher sense-making: school leaders and the enactment of reading policy.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eEduc Policy\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e19:476\u0026ndash;509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805276143\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell JW, Poth CN (2025) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 5th edn. Sage, London\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCurriculum Development Council (2017) Kindergarten education curriculum guide. Education Bureau, Hong Kong\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDatnow A, Castellano ME (2001) Managing and guiding school reform: leadership in success for all schools. Educ Admin Q 37:219\u0026ndash;249. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969307\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEducation and Manpower Bureau (2006a) Legislative Council Panel on Education paper for discussion: new initiatives in pre-primary education (LC Paper No. CB(2)277/06-07(01)). https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/edu-system/preprimary-kindergarten/preprimary-voucher/ed1113cb2-277-1-e.pdf\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEducation and Manpower Bureau (2006b) Legislative Council Panel on Education paper for information: new initiatives in pre-primary education (LC Paper No. CB(2)369/06-07(01)). https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/edu-system/preprimary-kindergarten/preprimary-voucher/ed1113cb2-369-1-e.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEducation Commission (1986) Report no. 2. Government printer, Hong Kong\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEducation Commission (2000) Learning for life, learning through life: reform proposals for the education system in Hong Kong. Education Commission, Hong Kong. https://www.e-c.edu.hk/wp-content/uploads/2000/09/Proposal_Edu_Reform_2000.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEducation Commission (2010) Report on review of the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme. Education Commission, Hong Kong\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEpstein JL (2018) School, family, and community partnerships: preparing educators and improving schools. Routledge, New York\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFullan M (2025) The new meaning of educational change, 6th edn. Teachers College Press, London\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoodson IF (2001) Social histories of educational change. Journal of Educational Change 2: 45\u0026ndash;63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011508128957\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarman G (1984) Conceptual and theoretical issues. In: Hough JR (ed), Educational policy: an international survey. Croom-Helm, London, p 13\u0026ndash;29\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHonig MI (2006) Street-level bureaucracy revisited: frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educ Eval Policy Anal 28:357\u0026ndash;383. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737028004357\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJennings RE (1977) Education and politics: policy-making in local education authorities. B. T. Batsford, London\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLendvai N, Stubbs P (2007) Ten: policies as translation: situating transnational social policies. In: Policy reconsidered. Policy Press, Bristol, UK, p 173-190. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781847422996.ch010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeung SKY (2024) Listening to Hong Kong children\u0026rsquo;s perspectives through pretend play. British Educ Res J 00: 1\u0026ndash;23. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3994\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLima A (2023) Understanding narrative inquiry through life story interviews with former prisoners. Ir Educ Stud 42:775\u0026ndash;786. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2023.2257673\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLipsky M (2010) Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services, 30th anniversary expanded ed. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (Original work published 1980)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMerriam SB, Tisdell EJ (2016) Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation, 4th edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewman J, Clarke J (2009) Publics, politics and power: remaking the public in public services. Sage, London. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446216651\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNtinda K (2019) Narrative research. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Springer, Singapore, p 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_79 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOffice of Chief Executive (2006) The 2006\u0026ndash;07 policy address: proactive, pragmatic, always people first. http://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/06-07/eng/pdf/speech.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePatton MQ (2015) Qualitative research \u0026amp; evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice, 4th edn. Sage, London\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRizvi F, Lingard B (2010) Globalising education policy. Routledge, Oxon, UK\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRubin HJ, Rubin IS (2012) Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data, 3rd edn. Sage, London\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSacramento NJ (2023) Grassroots involvement on Global South policy narratives and deliberative action on climate change loss and damage, Public Administration and Policy: An Asia-Pacific Journal 26: 156-168. https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-12-2022-0146\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalda\u0026ntilde;a J (2021) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 4th edn. Sage, London\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSausman C, Oborn E, Barrett M (2016) Policy translation through localisation: Implementing national policy in the UK. Policy Pol\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e44:563\u0026ndash;589. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557315X14298807527143\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpillane JP, Reiser BJ, Reimer T (2002) Policy implementation and cognition: reframing and refocusing implementation research. Rev Educ Res\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e72:387\u0026ndash;431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTikly L, Barrett A, Batra P et al (2022) Decolonising teacher professionalism: foregrounding the perspectives of teachers in the global south. UNESCO background paper. Bristol working papers in education. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7097105\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNESCO (2024) Global education monitoring report 2024/5: leadership in education \u0026ndash; Lead for learning. UNESCO, Paris\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Buuren A, Gerrits L (2008) Decisions as dynamic equilibriums in erratic policy processes: positive and negative feedback as drivers of non-linear policy dynamics. Public Manag Rev\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e10:381\u0026ndash;399. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030802003038\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatkins NA (2022) The role of teachers in educational policymaking. Literature Reviews in Education and Human Services 1(1):1-23\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWebster L, Mertova P (2007) Using narrative inquiry as a research method: an introduction to using critical event narrative analysis in research on learning and teaching. Routledge, London\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProfile of the three kindergartens that participated in the present study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"962\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 149px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKindergarten\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProgrammes offered\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal no. of enrolment \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal no. of principal and teaching staff\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 173px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeacher-to-student ratio\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 173px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRating on the PEVS on a scale of 100\u0026nbsp;(\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 149px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKindergarten A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoth half-day and whole-day\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e277\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 173px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1:10.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 173px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.67 (20.82)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 149px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 813px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCatering mainly to children from middle-income families, Kindergarten A used to be a PIK that emphasised English language instruction before being converted into an NPMK. The principal had 22 years of experience as a kindergarten principal, and the teacher interviewed had been teaching in the ECE sector for eight years.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 149px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKindergarten B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHalf-day only\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e112\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 173px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1:7.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 173px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75.00 (5.77)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 149px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 813px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKindergarten B targeted ethnic minority students, most of them coming from low-income South Asian families. Approximately one-third of the students required fee remission under the Kindergarten and Child Care Centre Fee Remission Scheme, in addition to the PEVS. Like the students, their teachers also had different cultural backgrounds. However, the principal and the teacher interviewed were locally trained Chinese educators. At the time of the interviews, the principal had been a kindergarten principal for 26 years, and the teacher had taught in the kindergarten sector for 16.5 years.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 149px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKindergarten C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 165px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHalf-day only\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 159px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 173px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1:7.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 173px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.00 (10.39)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 149px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 813px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKindergarten C was a small half-day NPMK converted from a PIK in a suburban middle-class housing estate. Although the kindergarten had a small enrollment, the campus was spacious and featured an outdoor playground, which was uncommon in Hong Kong. The principal had been a kindergarten principal for ten years, and the teacher interviewed had 15 years of teaching experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e: \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e Excluding children aged 2-3.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2. Thematic analysis code structure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSample Codes (from Data)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFocused Categories (Grouping of Codes)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBroader Themes (Presented in Findings)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;piling on the pressure\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;always on edge\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;teachers are swamped\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;increased administrative workload\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePolicy-Induced Workload and Stress\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe profound impact of the PEVS on curriculum and workload\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;skip it [the open day]\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;cut down on unnecessary stuff\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;That is my adjustment\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;proactively communicated changes\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;she has become more nervous\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeadership Mediation and Buffering Strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe significant role of principals as street-level bureaucrats mediating policy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;officials seriously knew how to intimidate us\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;they did not know\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;unfair to private-independent\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;positive intent\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;reluctant to get on board\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceptions of Government Oversight and Policy Intent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe varied responses to government oversight and evaluation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;curriculum overhaul\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;prohibitions on examinations\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;differentiate itself\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;strengthening Chinese language\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;minimal changes\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;boosted my confidence\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVaried Institutional Adaptations (Curricular, Cultural, and Strategic)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe ongoing negotiation between policy mandates and local realities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e A Certificate of Education in ECE is normally equivalent to the first two years of study of a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree in ECE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"early childhood education, education reform, policy implementation, grassroots perspectives, Hong Kong","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5382677/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5382677/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis narrative inquiry investigated how three Hong Kong kindergartens retrospectively experienced and reconceptualised the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme (PEVS) policy over its 2007\u0026ndash;2017 lifespan through principal and teacher interview data. The PEVS aimed to increase affordability, quality, and choice in early childhood education through parent subsidies for non-profit-making kindergartens meeting quality standards. While the PEVS had these defined objectives, this study addresses the limited understanding of the long-term dynamics of policy enactment, specifically how practitioners at the grassroots level interpreted, navigated, and shaped the policy in diverse implementation settings over time. Adopting a sociocultural theoretical lens that conceptualises policy as emergent through interactions, semi-structured interviews were conducted to reconstruct the implementation experiences of three purposively sampled kindergartens, identifying changing reconceptualisations. Thematic analysis revealed that kindergarten principals and teachers actively reinterpreted the meaning and practical implications of the PEVS through ongoing meaning-making. This process led to varied local enactments, demonstrating how policy evolves in practice rather than being a static directive. The scheme\u0026rsquo;s impacts depended on a negotiated blending of goals with local realities and stakeholder agency. This study highlights the critical role of practitioner agency and concludes that effective education reform requires a genuine partnership with frontline educators.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Policy Enactments in Practice: Hong Kong Kindergartens’ Retrospective Experiences with Early Childhood Education Reforms","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-31 12:23:05","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5382677/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"53851891810696819189133072412397509692","date":"2026-02-22T04:33:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-17T09:10:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-10-16T06:31:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-10-09T12:11:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"18da27e9-eeb3-463b-95c6-fb3576dde02e","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 31st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":56917070,"name":"Social science/Education"},{"id":56917071,"name":"Social science/Social policy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-31T12:23:05+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-31 12:23:05","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5382677","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5382677","identity":"rs-5382677","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}