Interest in Hong Kong’s Diploma of Secondary Education has increased steadily in recent years. The government is committed to strengthening the city’s role as an international education hub, not just in tertiary education but also in basic education. Following this directive, the Education Bureau recently invited all Direct Subsidy Scheme schools to apply to increase their intake of non-local students.

Hong Kong’s education sector offers biliteracy and trilingualism, and provides a broader range of pathways. Today, 165 mainland institutions accept DSE students without requiring additional entry tests. Abroad, over 600 universities – including top institutions in Britain, Australia, Europe and the United States – recognise it as a standard qualification. 

Growing interest from the mainland has been evident in recent years, where the gaokao university entrance exam, taken by about 13 million students annually, remains one of the most competitive exams globally. Research indicates that more than 100 mainland schools and several tutorial centres now teach the DSE curriculum, with more than 40 of them charging annual fees of 100,000 yuan (US$14,200) or above. 

However, only four schools on the mainland, all within the Greater Bay Area, are officially recognised by the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA) as DSE “participating schools”, enabling them to enrol their pupils as “school candidates”. The rest rely on private candidate arrangements, leading to significant uncertainty. In particular, candidates under 19 must submit a special application which the HKEAA assesses case by case. 

This gap between demand and regulation has caused problems. A recent case in Shenzhen saw dozens of private-candidate applications initially rejected, only to be approved after additional documentation was submitted. Concerns have also emerged about “shell schools”, where Hong Kong-registered institutions operate in practice as fronts for mainland tutorial centres. 

Coupled with Hong Kong’s falling birth rate and the government’s aim of establishing the city as an international education hub, this all points to the need for a unified, secure and globally accessible DSE pathway to support the expected growth in non-local student enrolment, while tackling local manpower challenges. 

A strategic solution would be to align the DSE with other international exam models and establish an international qualification, say, an iHKDSE. Britain has long offered the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) alongside the IGCSE, as well as A Levels alongside international A Levels, keeping domestic standards while providing an alternative route for international students. A similar approach in Hong Kong would preserve the integrity of the DSE while enabling a more structured and sustainable growth in non-local student numbers. An iHKDSE could adopt a more global syllabus. Subjects such as Chinese, citizenship and social development could be adjusted, with universities setting their own entry requirements. A “Chinese as a second language” option should be provided to enable non-native speakers to meet language requirements more equitably. Assessment could centre on written exams, offer flexible test windows and use on-screen marking, aligning assessments with international practice and enabling large-scale overseas delivery. 

The DSE would keep its school-based assessments, Hong Kong-focused content and timetable. Both tracks could use the same grading scale, with separate curves and external checks to ensure standards remain aligned. However, articulation tracks could be separated to ensure local students’ university admission quotas are unaffected. 

An iHKDSE would give non-local students a more straightforward route into Hong Kong’s schools and universities. It could provide a consistent benchmark for applicants from Southeast Asia and Belt and Road Initiative nations to be admitted into universities in Hong Kong and on the Chinese mainland, and help counter declining local numbers. 

By establishing a recognised international pathway, the iHKDSE would meet increasing demand while enhancing Hong Kong’s competitiveness, positioning and policy ambitions as a global education hub capable of attracting top talent from across the region, all while safeguarding the development pathways for local youth. 

However, expansion would require robust oversight to mitigate risks. The mix of unregulated tutorial centres, vague accreditation claims and ad hoc private candidate arrangements cannot support the DSE if it becomes a regional gateway exam. 

Any move towards an iHKDSE must be underpinned by clear rules, transparent quality assurance and strong data sharing with universities, supported by a balanced approach that includes stricter regulation, recognised accreditation for local and overseas centres, and a dedicated unit to oversee partnerships and address irregularities. 

Together, a well-defined dual-track system providing DSE and iHKDSE, backed by robust oversight and a focused talent strategy, would reinforce Hong Kong’s role as an international education hub and underscore its position as a bridge between cultures, systems and opportunities.