Educational Equity for Migrant Children: A Policy Comparison of Shenzhen and Hong Kong

This study examined how two contrasting governance systems—Shenzhen and Hong Kong—address educational equity for migrant and immigrant children within the context of China’s Greater Bay Area. While both cities have expanded access to compulsory education, their institutional logics diverge sharply. Shenzhen operates a contribution‐based model, linking school access to parental contribution to the city. In contrast, Hong Kong guarantees near‐universal access under a rights‐based regime grounded in legal entitlements. These differences raise fundamental questions about how equity is defined, prioritized, and implemented across jurisdictions. Drawing on Rawlsian principles of justice and Edgar’s five‐dimensional equity framework, a comparative policy analysis was conducted, using over 40 official documents, including legislative texts, admission guidelines, and statistical reports. Coding was used to trace how each system frames and operationalizes equity across access, input, process, output, and outcome dimensions. The findings show that, while both systems emphasize transparency and capacity expansion, they differ in how they identify target groups, allocate resources, and balance merit with need. Shenzhen’s points‐based system creates strong incentives for formalized urban integration, but disadvantages low‐income migrants structurally. Hong Kong’s legal universalism offers broader entitlement but struggles with linguistic exclusion and digital barriers. By linking normative theory with empirical analysis, this study offers a multidimensional understanding of how education systems interpret fairness in contexts of mobility and inequality. It also contributes to broader debates on policy transfer, urban governance, and the role of ethics in educational inclusion.