Appendix 7
List of Schools Inspected in 2000/01
A. Primary Schools, Secondary Schools and Special Schools
Primary Schools
Buddhist Bright Pearl Primary School
CCC Kei Wai Primary School (AM)
CNEC Ta Tung School
CUHKFAA Thomas Cheung School
Faith Lutheran School
FDBWA Chow Chin Yau School (AM)
HKSYC & IA Chan Lai So Chun Memorial School
HKTA Shun Yeung Primary School
Holy Carpenter Primary School
Holy Cross Lutheran School (AM)
Jordan Road Government Primary School
King Lam Catholic Primary School
Lee Chi Tat Memorial School (AM)
Lee Chi Tat Memorial School (PM)
Ng Clan' s Association Tai Pak Memorial School
Sa Ann Wyllie Memorial Primary School (AM)
Sa Ann Wyllie Memorial Primary School (PM)
Sam Shui Natives Association Tong Yun Kai School
Shatin Government Primary School (AM)
Shatin Government Primary School (PM)
Sin To School (AM)
Sin To School (PM)
SKH Kei Lok Primary School (AM)
SKH Kei Lok Primary School (PM)
St Antonius Primary School (PM)
St Basil' s Primary School
Tak Sun School (AM)
Tak Sun School (PM)
Tsuen Wan Trade Association Primary School (AM)
Wanchai Church Kei To School (PM)
Secondary Schools
CCC Mong Man Wai College
Chan Sui Ki (La Salle) College
Cheng Chek Chee Secondary School
Christian Alliance S C Chan Memorial College
Gertrude Simon Lutheran College
HK SKH Bishop Hall Secondary School
HKTA Ching Chung Secondary School
Ju Ching Chu Secondary School (Yuen Long)
Lingnan Dr Chung Wing Kwong Memorial Secondary School
Mission Covenant Church Holm Glad College
San Wui Commercial Society Chan Pak Sha School
St Joseph' s College
Tang Shiu Kin Victoria Government School
Toi Shan Association College
True Light Girls' College
TWGH Sun Hoi Directors' College
Sheung Shui Government Secondary School
Special Schools
HK Juvenile Care Centre Chan Nam Cheong Memorial School
Jockey Club Hong Chi School
John F Kennedy Centre
B. Kindergartens Cheung Chau Sacred Heart Kindergarten
Christian Evangelical Centre Lok Fu Kindergarten
Cumberland Presbyterian Church Green Pasture Kindergarten
Fok Loy Estate Kam Chuen Kindergarten
Fu Heng Baptist Lui Kwok Pat Fong Kindergarten
Green Leaves Kindergarten
Jade Kindergarten
James Anglo-Chinese Kindergarten (Sam Shui Po)
Jing Jing Anglo-Chinese Kindergarten (Hung Shui Kiu Branch)
King Lam Catholic Kindergarten
Kowloon City Baptist Church Hay Nien Kindergarten
Lok Fu Rhenish Church Kindergarten
N-M-S' Lutheran Kindergarten
Precious Blood Kindergarten
St. Thomas' Catholic Kindergarten
Sun Island English Kindergarten (Aberdeen Branch)
Tai Po Chiu Chow Natives Association Kwong Fuk Kindergarten
Tsing Yi Trade Association Shek Yam Kindergarten
Tsuen Wan Trade Association Chu Cheong Kindergarten
Tuen Mun Kindergarten (Sheung Shui Branch)
Appendix 8
Schools' Responses to QA Inspection
It is an established practice that schools can express their views regarding the main findings and the key issues for action identified in the QA inspection reports. The response of each school inspected in the 2000/01 academic year was appended in its entirety to the respective QA inspection report, and a full set of the inspection reports is kept in the Education Library, 13/F., EDHQs.
Generally, schools' responses were focused and clearly made with reference to the unique circumstances of the schools. The schools made good use of the opportunity to further exchange views with the inspection teams on the observations made and follow up the points and issues raised. In ideas where schools felt there was a difference from the QA inspection team, further elaborations with reasons, fully reflecting the school’s own standpoint were made and included. Owing to the wide variations and the individual contexts of the schools, the remarks that were specific to the schools are not summarised in this report. Other than these remarks, the main points made in the responses are summarised as follows:
A. Primary Schools, Secondary Schools and Special Schools
|
B. Kindergartens
|
Appendix 9 Statistical Analysis of Post-inspection Questionnaires on QA Inspection
A. Primary Schools, Secondary Schools and Special Schools
School Type | Number of Schools Inspected | Number of Questionnaires Issued | Number of Questionnaires Returned | Response Rate (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary | 30 | 999 | 675 | 68 |
Secondary | 17 | 1071 | 575 | 54 |
Special | 3 | 118 | 66 | 68 |
Overall Response Rate : | 60 |
I Pre-inspection
Strongly agree (%) | Agree (%) | Disagree (%) | Strongly disagree (%) | No opinion/ not applicable (%) | Void (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | I am clear about the procedure of the QA inspection. | 16.0 | 75.3 | 4.6 | 0.4 | 3.2 | 0.5 |
2 | I am clear about the scope covered by the performance indicators. | 7.0 | 71.4 | 12.4 | 1.1 | 6.9 | 0.7 |
3 | The amount of documents and information requested by the QA inspection team is appropriate. | 10.0 | 66.8 | 9.2 | 1.0 | 12.3 | 0.7 |
4a | The preparatory visit has increased my understanding of the QA inspection. | 13.8 | 74.4 | 5.6 | 0.7 | 5.0 | 0.5 |
4b | The preparatory visit has helped dispel my worries about the QA inspection. | 8.3 | 52.4 | 24.3 | 3.2 | 11.2 | 0.6 |
II During Inspection
Strongly agree (%) | Agree (%) | Disagree (%) | Strongly disagree (%) | No opinion/ not applicable (%) | Void (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | Inspectors observed an appropriate number of the various types of school activity. | 7.1 | 69.3 | 12.5 | 1.2 | 9.1 | 0.8 |
6 | The frequency of meetings and interviews held by inspectors with me was appropriate. | 8.0 | 71.2 | 10.9 | 1.7 | 7.5 | 0.7 |
7 | Inspectors chose an adequate sample of students' assignments for scrutiny. | 7.6 | 65.2 | 10.8 | 1.6 | 13.7 | 1.1 |
8 | The QA inspection did not affect much my daily teaching duties. | 3.9 | 41.5 | 34.6 | 11.5 | 7.3 | 1.2 |
III Post-inspection
Strongly agree (%) | Agree (%) | Disagree (%) | Strongly disagree (%) | No opinion/ not applicable (%) | Void (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9 | The QA inspection can identify my school's strengths. | 9.0 | 71.4 | 11.3 | 1.4 | 5.9 | 1.0 |
10 | I agree with the key issues for action identified in the inspection report. | 5.9 | 64.0 | 14.0 | 1.5 | 12.8 | 1.8 |
11 | There is adequate time for the school to prepare its written response to the draft inspection report. | 4.3 | 52.4 | 14.7 | 3.1 | 24.0 | 1.5 |
IV Overall Evaluation
Strongly agree (%) | Agree (%) | Disagree (%) | Strongly disagree (%) | No opinion/ not applicable (%) | Void (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12 | The entire QA inspection processes were open and transparent. | 9.7 | 66.0 | 12.1 | 1.4 | 9.6 | 1.2 |
13a | The questionnaires issued were appropriately designed. | 3.3 | 71.2 | 8.2 | 0.4 | 16.0 | 0.9 |
13b | The questionnaires issued could effectively collect teachers' views about the school. | 60.3 | 3.3 | 14.7 | 2.2 | 18.7 | 0.8 |
14 | Inspectors' attitudes were sincere and friendly. | 27.1 | 63.1 | 4.7 | 0.3 | 4.3 | 0.5 |
15 | Inspectors were professional in their work. | 16.2 | 57.1 | 10.7 | 1.5 | 13.8 | 0.7 |
16 | Inspectors could objectively listen to views expressed by school staff in interviews. | 11.1 | 65.2 | 11.5 | 1.4 | 9.8 | 1.0 |
17 | I had adequate opportunities to express and exchange views with inspectors. | 8.4 | 58.6 | 19.2 | 3.3 | 9.7 | 0.8 |
18 | The QA inspection did not exert much pressure on me. | 3.9 | 34.1 | 41.0 | 13.9 | 6.5 | 0.6 |
19 | The scope covered by the performance indicators was adequate. | 2.2 | 53.3 | 16.3 | 2.3 | 24.5 | 1.4 |
20a | I think that the QA inspection can point out our school's strengths and key issues for action. | 8.8 | 71.2 | 11.0 | 1.4 | 6.5 | 1.1 |
20b | I think that the QA inspection can facilitate our school's formulation of its future goals and plans. | 9.3 | 67.3 | 11.0 | 1.3 | 10.3 | 0.8 |
21 | I am satisfied with the operation of the QA inspection. | 5.9 | 62.7 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 17.9 | 1.0 |
B. Kindergartens
Number of Schools Inspected | Number of Questionnaires Issued | Number of Questionnaires Returned | Response Rate (%) |
20 | 263 | 181 | 69 |
Overall Response Rate : | 69 |
I Pre-inspection
Strongly agree (%) | Agree (%) | Disagree (%) | Strongly disagree (%) | No opinion/ not applicable (%) | Void (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | I am clear about the procedure of the QA inspection. | 17.1 | 70.2 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 6.6 | 0.6 |
2 | I am clear about the scope covered by the performance indicators. | 18.2 | 68.5 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 7.2 | 0.6 |
3 | The amount of documents and information requested by the QA inspection team is appropriate. | 18.2 | 64.1 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 14.9 | 0.6 |
4a* | The preparatory visit has increased my understanding of the QA inspection. | 27.1 | 68.6 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 0.0 |
4b* | The preparatory visit has helped dispel my worries about the QA inspection. | 23.5 | 61.3 | 7.6 | 0.0 | 7.6 | 0.0 |
5 | I am clear about the scope covered by the performance indicators. | 18.2 | 68.5 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 7.2 | 0.6 |
II During Inspection
Strongly agree (%) | Agree (%) | Disagree (%) | Strongly disagree (%) | No opinion/ not applicable (%) | Void (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | Inspectors observed an appropriate number of the various types of school activity. | 13.3 | 76.8 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 4.9 | 2.2 |
6 | The frequency of meetings and interviews held by inspectors with me was appropriate. | 14.4 | 64.6 | 7.7 | 1.1 | 8.9 | 3.3 |
7 | Inspectors chose an adequate sample of students' assignments for scrutiny. | 16.0 | 68.0 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 11.0 | 2.2 |
8 | The QA inspection did not affect much my daily teaching duties. | 11.6 | 61.9 | 17.7 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 2.2 |
III Post-inspection
Strongly agree (%) | Agree (%) | Disagree (%) | Strongly disagree (%) | No opinion/ not applicable (%) | Void (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9 | The QA inspection can identify my school's strengths. | 22.7 | 67.4 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 4.9 | 1.7 |
10 | I agree with the key issues for action identified in the inspection report. | 16.0 | 73.0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 8.2 | 1.7 |
11 | There is adequate time for the school to prepare its written response to the draft inspection report. | 13.3 | 58.0 | 6.6 | 2.2 | 17.7 | 2.2 |
IV Overall Evaluation
Strongly agree (%) | Agree (%) | Disagree (%) | Strongly disagree (%) | No opinion/ not applicable (%) | Void (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12 | The entire QA inspection processes were open and transparent. | 26.5 | 57.5 | 3.9 | 0.6 | 8.7 | 2.8 |
13a | The questionnaires issued were appropriately designed. | 14.9 | 72.9 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 8.3 | 1.7 |
13b | The questionnaires issued could effectively collect teachers' views about the school. | 11.6 | 66.9 | 7.2 | 0.6 | 11.5 | 2.2 |
14 | Inspectors' attitudes were sincere and friendly. | 40.9 | 47.0 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 8.2 | 1.1 |
15 | Inspectors were professional in their work. | 37.6 | 51.9 | 0.0 | 0.6 | 8.8 | 1.1 |
16 | Inspectors could objectively listen to views expressed by school staff in interviews. | 27.6 | 56.9 | 6.1 | 1.1 | 6.1 | 2.2 |
17 | II had adequate opportunities to express and exchange views with inspectors. | 17.7 | 55.8 | 15.5 | 1.1 | 8.2 | 1.7 |
18 | The QA inspection did not exert much pressure on me. | 4.4 | 39.2 | 39.8 | 12.3 | 3.2 | 1.1 |
19 | The scope covered by the performance indicators was adequate. | 5.5 | 66.3 | 6.1 | 0.0 | 19.9 | 2.2 |
20a | I think that the QA inspection can point out our school's strengths and key issues for action. | 29.8 | 64.1 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 1.1 |
20b | I think that the QA inspection can facilitate our school's formulation of its future goals and plans. | 27.1 | 65.8 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 4.9 | 1.1 |
21 | I am satisfied with the operation of the QA inspection. | 15.5 | 65.7 | 2.8 | 0.6 | 14.8 | 1.1 |