Main Findings

3.6 Promoting Curriculum Planning and Development through School

results of Hong Kong Attainment Test (HKAT). It is quite obvious that the use of these reference data is not popular among the schools. This might be due to the fact that BCA data was only obtained from one year and one level in the 2004/05 school year and that HKAT had ceased to produce new test papers. However, the schools should still make full use of the data to help their students learn and proceed with corresponding curriculum arrangement by paying close attention to student learning.

Furthermore, only half of the schools had made use of the information obtained from the Assessment Programme for Affective and Social Outcomes (APASO) to assess their students’ performance in the moral and affection areas. This helped school identify the needs of the students and thereby provide various support services to stretch their potential and extend their learning experiences.

The schools had already started peer lesson observation. However, the strengths and areas for improvement regarding overall teaching performance had not been analysed for following up learning and teaching performances. In recent years, some schools started peer assessment and self-assessment in certain subjects to initiate the improvement of learning and teaching through SSE. However, data and information were not yet fully utilised to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the programme plans, and subsequently feedback on the directions of curriculum development, or the implementation strategies of the curriculum adaptation. Only about half of the schools could make reference to both the key performance measure (KPM) of schools and School Value Added Information System (SVAIS) for self-improvement.

3.6.2.1.2 Goals of Curriculum Development and Areas of Concern

In planning curriculum development, more than half of the schools fully considered factors like school culture, teachers’ capabilities and financial management. They also formulated definite learning policies to cater for student needs. Most of the schools that had undergone Quality Assurance Inspection managed to take appropriate follow-up actions according to the recommendations made in the inspection report when drawing up their areas of concern.

As observed from the inspection, most of the schools attached importance to curriculum development in their School Development Plan. Almost all schools had a clear annual curriculum development goal. Most of them set a priority for curriculum development over the three years. Yet, secondary schools were more concerned about the long-term curriculum development goal than primary schools.

Most of the school Annual Plans consisted of implementation strategies, success criteria and assessment methods, etc. aligning with the schools’ major concerns.

However, some schools were unable to identify focused areas of concern in their annual plans. Besides, there were too many implementation programmes, some of which were routine operations. A lack of overall key implementation strategy was also observed. Although some items were fairly well planned, the schools generally lacked specific implementation strategies to link up all the programmes. At the subject department and committee level, some development plans were drawn up

with details such as goals and implementation strategies. However, they were usually not closely integrated with the schools’ major areas of concern. As a result, the pace of development in terms of the schools’ overall development plans showed variation.

The majority of schools adjusted their curriculum progress and teaching contents as well as developed school-based curriculum in accordance with their students’ ability.

Besides, relevant learning elements of different subjects were integrated. New subjects like Integrated Humanities and initiatives such as thematic learning were introduced in junior secondary levels and primary schools respectively to develop students’ generic skills and promote their interests in learning. To enrich students’

learning experience, the schools also arranged a variety of extra-curricular activities after school to develop students’ potential and extend their learning experience.

Most schools listed the key tasks in curriculum reform as their annual concerns.

Among all these, Reading to Learn received the greatest attention. Secondary schools were more concerned about the promotion of Project Learning, whereas primary schools put more emphasis on promoting Moral and Civic Education.

However, due to the varied paces subject departments and committees responded to the curriculum reform, the implementation of the school’s major concerns and the overall effectiveness were affected. Besides, the School Development Plans paid relatively little attention in the aspects of catering for the learning difference, cultivating reading skills and promoting life-wide learning. Hence, schools should pay closer attention to the above areas of concern upon designing the school-based curriculum.

3.6.2.1.3 Implementation Strategies

Most of the schools rearranged the learning hours in accordance with the curriculum reform development. Compared to primary schools, secondary schools were more flexible to include morning reading sessions, life education lessons and co-curricular leisure groups into the regular timetable. They either adjusted the length of the lessons according to the curriculum contents or arranged special learning sessions for activities whenever necessary. More than half of the schools agreed that the arrangement of overall learning time complemented the implementation of curriculum. This created room for teachers and also strengthened their collaboration.

3.6.2.2 Use of SSE in Curriculum Implementation and Assessment 3.6.2.2.1 Curriculum Management Mechanism

The curriculum development committees in most schools were able to define the success criteria in the annual school plans. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were also drawn up with reference to the students’ academic performance. However, the success criteria stated in the annual plans of certain subjects were too vague, which did not tie in with students’ learning abilities and the effectiveness of learning and teaching.

The school self-evaluation team supported and assisted subject departments and committees in dealing with self-evaluation such as compiling and consolidating relevant data for their reference. The schools also arranged teachers to attend the training programmes organized by EMB and tertiary institutions. Yet, some teachers still could not grasp the concepts of self-evaluation.

In the course of implementing curriculum policies, the academic committee or panel heads responsible for curriculum development in some schools could not play a clear role in coordinating the curriculum-related issues. Their functions as curriculum co-coordinators and leaders were not effectively performed. They were unable to stimulate teachers’ creativity and motivation to change and to develop their positive values to keep abreast of schools’ curriculum goals and development.

3.6.2.2.2 Monitoring of Curriculum

Most schools had established a curriculum management and development mechanism, with designated teams or panel heads to monitor subject affairs.

Through panel meetings, form meetings, lesson observations and inspections of assignments, most panel heads were able to understand the implementation of programme plans within the panel, hence, promoting self-improvement and enhancing professional exchanges. The majority of schools had inter-disciplinary coordination and collaboration mechanisms. However, collaboration between key learning areas (KLAs) was only observed in some schools. It was found more noticeable in primary schools. In this regard, schools should pay more attention to establishing a monitoring mechanism to facilitate curriculum integration across KLAs..

In managing the implementation of curriculum policies, subjects tended to work independently. This was more prominent in secondary schools. The subject programme plans were found mainly subject-based. They usually lacked coherence with the schools’ areas of concern and did not keep pace with school development.

Furthermore, the operations of subject matters and self-evaluation were also mostly on subject basis. Evaluating curriculum implementation at school level was not commonly found. Regarding primary schools, although an evaluation mechanism had been in place to periodically review curriculum implementation, students’ needs at different learning stages were seldom taken into consideration during the reviews.

There was still room for improvement in respect of the review mechanism for curriculum implementation. Some evaluation reports tended to be too general, mainly describing the programme plans, the progress of the activities as well as the students’ attitudes and behaviours. Areas for improvement concluded from reviewing the expected goals listed in the annual plan were seldom mentioned. The analysis on students’ performance assessment was often not thorough enough to reflect their strengths and weaknesses, not being able to inform learning and teaching.

Schools’ records showed that the schools had introduced peer lesson observation and collaborative lesson preparation. However, schools, in general, had not yet

formulated proper implementation strategy to enable teachers to have in-depth discussion on teaching methodologies and classroom skills to enhance the effectiveness of learning and teaching. The collaborative lesson preparation time in individual schools was spent on discussing subject affairs. Sharing on curriculum planning and teaching strategies was inadequate.

3.6.2.2.3 Management of Resources

In general, the schools duly deployed the Capacity Enhancement Grant (CEG) and human resources to cater for their needs in developing curriculum and enhancing student learning.

Some schools also enlisted suitable external support, including parents, tertiary institutions and service organizations. Besides, the majority of schools spent considerable amount of resources to equip the libraries and the computer rooms to enhance the effectiveness of teaching and student support. However, most schools did not regularly review the financial status of individual subject departments and committees with reference to the curriculum goals.

Subject departments and committees seldom referred to the financial reviews to formulate the forthcoming budget. There was room for improvement in this respect.

3.6.2.2.4 Professional Development Plans for Teachers

The schools in general encouraged teachers to receive relevant training for professional enrichment and schools’ developmental needs. Some schools promoted cross-subject professional sharing and collaboration by means of collaborative lesson preparation time, peer lesson observation and IT platform. Some schools also introduced “lesson study” and arranged lesson observations for teachers with other schools to share experiences. Secondary schools were more proactive than primary schools in soliciting external resources to meet the professional development needs. However, most schools had not made full use of the staff appraisal information to devise appropriate professional development plans for teachers to achieve the goals in the curriculum development plans.

3.6.3 Summary of Good Practices of the Schools to Promote Curriculum Planning and