Research Question Six: What progress has been made on the key recommendations of the 2007 evaluation report and how might the PNET Scheme

and the deployment of NETs be improved in light of economic, demographic, social, and political changes?

The 2007 evaluation report recommended changes to the organisation and membership of English Panel Meetings including the recommendation that they should be conducted in English, that NETs should be active members, reporting on their activities and engaging in discussion of pedagogical issues, and that professional development should be provided to ensure that participants were able to adopt evidence-based approaches to evaluation of activities.

Some of the NET Section interviewees were keenly aware of the recommendations of the previous evaluation and were able to articulate ways in which the Scheme has been adapted to respond to them. These include placing emphasis on collaboration by structuring it into programmes, promoting more individualised instruction (especially Guided Reading), and putting appropriate emphasis on developing oral skills.

CF33. The majority of NETs attended English Panel Meetings and reported on their activities.

The changes recommended to English Panel Meetings in the 2007 evaluation report, had met with some success, as indicated in the quantitative findings, with 90% of NETs attending the meetings. However, one local teacher, formerly a Panel Chair, described her experience of organising the Panel Meeting as a ‘disaster’ largely because teachers were reluctant to participate. She complained that teachers had the attitude ‘just tell me what the school wants me to do, then I will do it. Just tell me what to do. Don't ask me why, don't ask me what I think’.

The English Panel Chair of another school discussed her long term goal of promoting a sharing

culture in which local teachers would be willing to contribute openly to discussions in the panel meetings:

I think still the issue of culture, the sharing culture ... we opened our panel meetings for teachers to share their ideas, and let us know their concern before the meeting so that we can better prepared, but it takes a lot of time and a long period of time to, to have teachers really willing to share their concerns.

(EPC Interview) Local teachers felt that Panel Meetings had been improved by inviting the NET to participate and by the inclusion of a sharing session:

In the recent years, our panel meeting has been changed. Not just report, discussion, we have one more part - sharing. That makes the panel meeting more interesting ... the sharing time during the panel meeting we would spend 30 minutes on experience sharing on teaching experience or methodology sharing ... we invited the NET to share and teach the local teachers something, some new plan, some new idea, which I think was very helpful. Now, all teachers have to share something ... we invited the NET to sit in the panel meeting, so everybody has to speak English. That’s the change

(LET focus group) The NET in the one school spoke of the value of such sharing in terms of Professional Development.

I might do a 20-minute presentation on something like poetry or shared writing or shared reading or using games in the programme or just something or presenting the plan for English Day or English Week, depending on what we're having that year, or reporting on something if I'd been to professional development or just something like that. In the early days of PLP-R/W, I made up some little [video] clips of the programme and explained to teachers what was happening and how we were doing that programme; that was new because no one knew about it.

(NET Interview) The NET in another school described an approach to English Panel Meeting that injected a more pedagogical focus, in contrast to the majority of panel meetings that tended to focus on administrative matters.

We are given the topic and we can talk about it in groups. It may be something like, how could we promote the students’ learning. The last one I attended we got all the teachers to bring ... some piece of work that the students had done and we analysed, looked at the work, said what’s good and bad about the work what can be improved [we discussed] the way forward for teaching and learning. Should we use ICT? Should we use more computer technology?

(NET Interview) CF34. English panel meetings conducted only in one language discourage inclusivity and equal participation of all panel members. While English should be the main medium of

is a need to make a spontaneous contribution, a LET could choose to express views in Cantonese and others facilitate the discussion by helping with the translation.

But LETs will feel more comfortable with having the meeting in Cantonese. I understand the feeling. Actually LETs do not want the NET to come, because once he comes everybody has to speak in English to respect him. If our meeting is not limited to making announcement, but also discussions on something, then we all want to express our views fully, so that the meeting is meaningful. Therefore, I normally have the NET talk about his things in English, and then explain to him that we are going to discuss other matters in Cantonese. He could stay or leave then. If he chooses to stay, I will translate the Cantonese discussions for him…LETs don’t want the NET to be present, not because of not liking him, but because of not being able to spell out. After all, we only have several English Panel Meetings each school year.

(EPC interview) One LET thought that the English Panel meetings were effective in that all teachers could discuss the important issues together to gather opinions and suggestions. But another LET said that while the meetings were effective, the fact that they needed to be conducted in English due to the presence of the NET meant that sometimes the LETs could not communicate as smoothly as when using Cantonese.

(LET focus group) The LETs might feel very embarrassed, because Chinese [people are] very ashamed to speak English even though they are English teachers. They were really shy and feared grammatical mistakes. They were afraid of being laughed at [by] their colleagues, afraid of being laughed by colleagues.

(SH Interview) [English Panel Meetings can be more effective if conducted in Cantonese]. Because sometimes the situation is quite difficult to express [in English].

(LET focus group)

CF35. The ability of the Scheme to keep up with the education reform in Hong Kong was noted, but there were suggestions for PD to be digitalised for remote access and that it be directed to collaborative teams rather than just NETs or LETs.

As for economic profile change, I think it is not limited to the Scheme, but the revolution of the education system on the whole. We now have to teach students how to learn. This is why we focus on reading, which is an important area of learning to learn. We are making progress aligning with the revolution of the education system in Hong Kong.

(SH interview) I attended a sharing session provided by the NET Section before. That’s a celebration of the tenth anniversary of the PLP-R/W. The NET Section shared about the fact that they would integrate e-learning into the programme. Many schools are working on it. I think that’s good. Before our school use e-learning completely they have tested and piloted it. They have gained experience and material in advance. If we are interested, we can join in. Thus I think there is still space for development of the Scheme. … [If] e-learning

interactive and students more proactive in several ways. I think now P3 students can have a try on it, to have the PLPR lesson a little differently. Then I think the NET Section is important. If you asked me to develop e-learning alone, I wouldn’t know how many years would be used. I think the NET Section is a forerunner who can inspire many schools on the aspect of development and practice.

(LET focus group) I know that the NET Section will organise sharing sessions for the NETs irregularly. They seem exclusively to NETs. If possible, a LET could go with the NET, so that LETs will understand more about what is happening in the NET Scheme immediately, accompany the NET to these sharing activities…

(LET focus group).

Well, I feel strongly about, and of course, I’m sure you do too, using technology and the new media. I think, really, the PNET Scheme needs to get more into providing videos of, for example, the professional development session, I think they should videotape those sessions and allow others to view the session. For example, I can’t always make it, maybe there’s a very interesting topic but I just can’t make it that Thursday, for example, I’m too busy. It would be great if I could sign up and see it online. I really feel the NET Scheme should move forward and allow the professional development sessions to be captured and streamed online, or if not streamed then maybe downloaded or something. … the NET section could put together you know, a brief introduction to the different forms of teaching because of course, there are different ways to [do] co-teaching. And maybe visit the school, something like this. I think it would be a great value because you know, everyone is so busy and we’re so used to using technology, we’ll be for me, it would be at least an hour to travel and then back so that’s 2 ½ hours out of your day.

(NET interview) I think it can be enhanced as I mentioned with um, the digitising of professional development resources, whether it is a seminar or a session or a conference, or even some documents. I think there should be a centralised database and a NET can log in, oh, I heard about a great session on guided reading or something like this, and you can watch it at lunch or maybe from the comfort of your home and not necessarily get a credit for it but just to learn. I think a central database is missing but otherwise my personal um, regret, I guess is the word, my personal regret is that I cannot attend more because I am so busy. And so that would really help me to access something digitally.

(NET interview) CF36. The request that LETs, English Panel Chairs, and School Heads made most often was

“more NETs”.

We want one more NET to help... it will... One person, more than two. So that will do...

do more... more comprehensive. It can cover... a wide range of covering... Not only...

when we focus on the KS-1. The Key stage 1. When we focus on the Key stage 2, and also they can help to do some... designing and planning of the curriculum things. And... also when organise the activities, for example, if we have one more NET, we can ask him/her to ... maybe to organise a drama club. I think drama is a very good way to help students

make it more... even better... to make it even better. To our teaching and learning environment. And make the teaching and learning more effective.

(EPC interview) I think the Scheme is important. English is our second language after all. It is important to get professional support from a NET directly, especially anytime. Other than the NET, the AT is also helpful these years as we see. When the NET was changed, we also saw how the AT helped the new NET socialise into the school environment and teaching. I think we can’t, if the government wants to cut the Scheme, I think it is difficult for schools because the Scheme has been running at school for many years. In fact, one EDB NET is not sufficient to serve all students. I said before, higher primary students only have one lesson to see the NET.

(LET focus group) I said we need to have more NETs. Nowadays all parents want children to have biliteracy and trilingual skills. They even look for the same in the kindergarten stage. Of course this belief is immature. Having a NET there doesn’t guarantee good English to be learnt.

But having a NET can lead to a better English environment. Additionally, only one NET cannot be used equally at different levels. If we have two, one for the upper primary another for the lower, we can be more flexible…Maybe we can use the multiple of six as we have six levels. For example, 1 NET for 12 classes, 2 NETs for 24, 2.5 NETs for 30.

(SH interview) There is only one NET for each school, whether it contains 36, 30, or 10 classes. Should we decide the number on proportion? If we have at least 2 NETs, they could be less lonely. Now not every student can be taught by the NET. Sometimes parents ask us why.

It is difficult for us to give them a satisfactory answer. Why those students can be taught by the NET, but not these? Things like these are troublesome. I think one is not enough.

It may be difficult to say how many are enough. But I think at least two for each school, so that they have a partner and that all students can be benefited.

(EPC interview) What I would like to suggest for the future development of the PNET Scheme, I would say would that be possible to increase the number of NETs, according to the size of the school, because our school is thirty-six classes we only got one NET and then we have to spend our money to recruit another one, but the we don’t, we still have difficulties, so we still have difficulties fixing that out, so the most important thing we’d like to have is… but I don’t know this is not possible.

(EPC Interview) Challenges …we do not have enough NET err, only one NET is not enough to our school I think. Because compared with last year, eighteen classes one NET and now thirty-six classes one NET so it is, the student, the chance for them to communicate with NET, for the chance for the NET to teach in the classroom is less in this year.

(SH interview) In my opinion, I have mentioned a lot of times it should be enhanced according to the number of classes of the school, I think it is not fair for a twelve-class school to have

one NET but a thirty-six class school to also have only one NET. It is not fair to our student, I think.

(SH interview) I would like to see more NETs in the schools.

(NET Interview) CF37. The support of colleagues emerged as a recurring factor for success.

The open-ended responses of NETs to the question “what has helped you the most in fulfilling your role as a NET” in a majority of cases, they mentioned supportive colleagues including LETs, EPC, ATs, and various School Heads (see Figure 30). This importance of the support of colleagues was also mentioned in the interviews.

The English panel head, the headmistress and the staff have been accommodating and supportive.

(NET Interview) Supportive staff room environment.

(NET Interview)

Figure 30. Concept map of the importance of colleagues.

Figure 30 reveals that the concept “colleagues” co-occurs with academic/students very often, and the second strongest link is support. This implies the perceived importance of academic goals and support for collaboration.

CF38. Although this is not an issue limited to just NETs in the Scheme, lack of time and being spread too thin were key hindrances for NETs.

The NETs’ responses to the open-ended question about what has hindered them in fulfilling their roles, mentioned colleagues less frequently although some mentions of tensions and unsupportive colleagues and supervisors were noted. Lack of time, difficult teaching circumstances such as being spread too thin, were more often mentioned as hindrances instead

relationships shown in the concept map is between time and learner diversity, implying that diversity is a time-consuming issue.

Figure 31. Concept map of NETs’ view of time as hindrance.

Time was a more significant factor for LETs as well. ATs supported this in the NET Section interviews when discussing the difficulty of arranging school visits, time was always a constraint. Local teachers complained to one AT frequently about the lack of time. These LETs always had so much administrative work to do after lessons that meetings could be scheduled for 5 o'clock in the evening. As noted in relation to LETs’ ability to respond to Professional Development (See CF13 above where a LET cited the tight schedule and amount of administrative work LETs have to do leaving little space to think about self-improvement) lack of time is perceived to be an issue for LETs which could be addressed by schools offering more encouragement to LETs to attend PD events and facilitating such PD within their schools.

CF39. Analysis of the qualitative data provides only some insight to the response in the surveys that ‘Funds might be better spent elsewhere’. While a few made comments about the perceived large salary or extra benefits of NETs, most stakeholders suggested that an overall funding increase for the Scheme would support English learning in Hong Kong and allow for more NETs.

Although the majority of respondents in the surveys did not agree with the comment “PNET funds might be better spent elsewhere”, there was a wide disparity between NETs and LETs on this response. Only 2% of NETs agreed with this statement, compared to 43% of LETs. At first glance this is incompatible with the finding that the majority of stakeholders, including LETs, supported continuation of the PNET Scheme. However, the preceding statement (PNET should be continued…) pertains to the PNET Scheme alone while the current statement (The funds might be better spent elsewhere) does not identify where the respondents felt funding could be better spent. We searched the qualitative data to see what might account for this difference in perception and where, specifically, the LETs might think the funds might be better spent.

It is logical to assume that if two groups of workers perceive themselves to be remunerated differently, and you asked them if “funds might be better spent elsewhere”, that more people

redistribution, and more people in the group which perceived themselves to have a lower level of remuneration would agree. A few responses from LETs to the open-ended survey items support this assumption. One suggestion was to “lower the salary and allowances for the NET.”

Another LET commented “it is better to provide funding for school[s] in order to find substitute teachers [so LETs can attend more professional development workshops]” which would increase indirect benefits to LETs¹⁶. Other LETs suggested that more resources and materials be provided, although without any direct reference to a redistribution of funds, so this might be another possible place where they might like more funding.

One EPC commented that “PNETs should not be paid so handsomely as status quo. Local teachers do not have a housing allowance (but everyone has to suffer under the exorbitant price of housing in HK). It seems to be positively discriminating against local teachers.”

However, this same EPC in another comment did not ask for the benefits to be given to LETs, but instead be used to hire more NETs as stated here, “Giv[en] current poor economic situation in Europe, Hong Kong does not need to provide so much housing allowance and such handsome pay to PNETs. The extra money saved can be spent on employing more PNETS instead.” When asked in the interviews to comment on the survey item ‘funds might be better spent elsewhere’, two EPCs mentioned that what they characterised as the ‘housing allowance’

granted to NETs might be redirected to the hiring of an increased number of NETs, or perhaps less well-qualified teachers similar to ELTAs.

Most of the comments on funding, however, suggested that an overall increase of funds be provided by the government to the NET Scheme without the stipulation that NETs be compensated differently. Of the 429 LETs who submitted surveys, only three (which are all quoted above) mentioned in their open-ended responses that they felt NETs were over-compensated. In contrast, there were over 100 LET responses requesting additional NETs. This explains how it is possible for LETs to hold the view that they want to expand the Scheme and hire more NETs, which is found repeatedly and in multiple places in the data, while at the same time holding the view the funds be spent “elsewhere,” possibly even within the Scheme, but in different ways such as rethinking NET allowances, supporting substitute teachers for LET professional development, and hiring more PNETs.

The following concept map of more funding (Figure 32) is the response of LETs to the open-ended question: “What would create more support for the PNET Scheme?” Not surprisingly, the idea “more funding” is strongly associated with more NETs and school, whereas school and more NETS also have a strong correlation. This might imply a major concern is finding ways to receive more funding to hire more NETs.

More funding to employ more NETs for each school.

(LET survey response) More financial support from the EDB to increase the teaching resources, such as story books or educational toys.

(LET survey response)

16 It is worth noting that funding is available for the hire of substitute teachers to enable teachers to participate in professional development activities, depending on the length of the PD programme. To avoid having to apply for the funding however, it is more common for teachers to simply swap lessons with another teacher, so that