Ranking arrangement of principals and vice-principals

4.24 The Task Force notes that the loading and complexity of the work undertaken by principals and vice-principals have increased significantly with the implementation of various new education initiatives. The responsibilities they shoulder have become heavier, and society also expects them to possess more sophisticated professional leadership competencies.

(a) Salaries for school heads and deputy heads in primary schools Views of Stakeholders

4.25 Regarding the salaries of school heads, there are views that the salaries of primary school heads set years ago have not been adjusted to take into account the significant developments in primary schools.

Stakeholders feel that the operation and development of primary schools have undergone substantial changes over the years, and the work of school heads has become heavier and more complex. They urge improvement in salaries to duly reflect the responsibilities of the school heads. There are different suggestions on the magnitude of

48

improvement sought for, but stakeholders are generally of the view that the gap between the salaries of school heads in primary schools and those of principals in secondary schools should be narrowed and there should be a reasonable number of pay points in the pay scale of each of the ranks for school head positions. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the overlaps between the salary scales of different ranks should be removed.

There are also views that school heads managing schools of larger scale should be paid allowance, and that heads of schools of smaller scale should be pegged at HM II rank.

4.26 Regarding the salaries of deputy heads in primary schools, the views are that the loading and complexity of their work have similarly increased with the development in primary education and various education initiatives and they now shoulder much heavier responsibilities.

However, the current salary scale of deputy heads at SPSM rank consists of only two pay points. Such a pay scale cannot fairly reflect their important responsibilities in present day circumstances, and is unattractive.

The Task Force’s Deliberation and Recommendations

4.27 The Task Force notes that the salaries of School Heads in primary schools were set many years ago based on the arrangements for half-day primary schooling. It is also recognized that over the past decades, numerous new education initiatives and developments including whole-day primary schooling, requirement for CFP and various education reform measures, as well as the increasingly sophisticated and complex society have impacted significantly on students’ learning, development and growth. All these have imposed much heavier workload and demands on primary school heads and deputy heads. Their roles had grown significantly with much higher and complex responsibilities.

49

4.28 In particular, the gradual implementation of whole-day primary schooling since 1993 has brought on substantial changes to school operations and development, and hence more onerous duties, higher responsibilities and heavier workload of the school heads. The longer school days have enabled planning of more flexible curriculum and diversified student learning activities. The school heads need to lead their professional teaching teams in designing and delivering curricula that are conducive to promoting all-round education for the development of students’ potential. The operation of whole-day classes with an expanded teaching force has rendered school administration more complex, requiring sophisticated professional and managerial leadership of the school heads.

4.29 With the creation of the PSM grade since the 1994/95 school year and the increase of graduate teacher posts over the years, schools have benefitted from the qualification upgrade and professional capacity enhancement of the teaching force. However, the organization hierarchy and the need for nurturing teacher professional growth and development have also become more complex demanding higher level of professional leadership competencies of the school heads.

4.30 The introduction of school-based management has also significantly changed the roles and responsibilities of school heads. Under the school-based management, schools have been devolved with more responsibilities in holistic planning, strategic development, design and delivery of curriculum, as well as personnel and financial management. The checks and balance from the Incorporated Management Committees, the participation of stakeholders in the school policy decision-making processes, the transparency in the school operations and accountability have further added to the challenges for the school heads.

50

4.31 Another major initiative that has impacted on the work of school leadership is the School Development and Accountability Framework launched in the 2003/04 school year which empowers schools to strengthen self-evaluation for continuous improvement and enhance accountability and transparency. With the school self-evaluation, school inspections and External School Review under this Framework, continuous self-improvement in schools are promoted through putting in place a systematic Planning-Implementation-Evaluation cycle. School heads shoulder the leading role in its strategic planning, implementation, continuous monitoring and effective evaluation to ensure enhancement of school effectiveness and quality.

4.32 The examples in the paragraphs above well illustrate how the multi-faceted work of school heads in primary schools has grown in complexity with the education developments over the years. School leaders are expected to be more professionally competent in their major domains of duties in strategic direction, learning and teaching, curriculum leadership, teacher professional development, staff and resources management, quality assurance and accountability, as well as external communication, connections and networking with the community. Since the 2004/05 school year, aspiring principals in both primary and secondary schools have been required to attain the CFP prior to appointment.

4.33 While there have been significant school development over the years, the salaries of the school heads set long ago based on half-day primary schooling have not been adjusted to reflect the substantial changes in the scope of work and the increased complexity of responsibilities. The Task Forces is of the view that the current arrangements are unsatisfactory and need to be rationalized to give due recognition to the important roles they play and the complex duties and responsibilities they shoulder.

51

4.34 The Task Force also finds the current overlapping salary scales for school heads at HM I, HM II ranks undesirable. HM II is deployed as head of school of smaller scale with 12 to 23 classes, whereas HM I is head of a school of larger scale with 24 classes or more. In terms of workload and responsibilities, especially in personnel management and resources deployment, there are differences in magnitude and complexity. The Task Force considers that the existing salaries for these two ranks have not adequately reflected the different levels of responsibilities involved, and that the overlapping salary scales should be rationalized.

4.35 The Task Force has taken note of the sizeable differences between the maximum pay points of school heads in primary schools and those of principals in secondary schools, and there have been calls from the sector for bringing them on par. The Task Force considers that it might be inappropriate to make direct comparison of the salaries for the school heads in primary schools and those for principals in secondary schools, given that there are differences in the breadth and depth of the respective curricula, impacts of public examination, focuses for student development, approaches to counselling adopted in life planning in the two sectors. Nonetheless, the Task Force acknowledges that the gaps in their salaries could be narrowed to better attract talents to join the primary sector for its long-term development.

4.36 Regarding the salaries for deputy heads, the Task Force notes that the creation of the SPSM rank for deputy heads in 2008 for assisting the school heads was an improvement to the structure of the PSM grade then, but its salary scale was constrained by the salaries of school heads and the scale was relatively short (only two pay points from MPS 34 to 35).

52

4.37 The Task Force is similarly of the view that the current salary scale for deputy head does not adequately reflect the importance and complexity of their responsibilities in the present day circumstances. Also, the two pay-point salary scale could not give due incremental credit in recognition of experience and expertise. Furthermore, in cash value, the current difference between the maximum pay of SPSM and PSM ranks is only about $1,500, which renders the SPSM rank unattractive. The Task Force is of the view that there is a strong case for rationalizing their salary scale to provide reasonable incentives to encourage career progression.

4.38 The Task force finds the overlapping of salary scales of SPSM and HM II ranks undesirable as this could result in staff management problems arising from ranking relativity, for example, a deputy head at SPSM rank having the same pay as the school head at HM II rank. The Task Force is of the view that the overlap of salary scales should be rationalized.

4.39 For rationalizing the salaries for school heads and deputy heads in public sector primary schools (including special schools), the Task Force’s recommendations are as follows:

Recommendation 10: Improving the salaries for school heads and