A school representative said that the Primary 3 TSA issue has been politicised and there are concerns that EDB may postpone or even hold back its

implementation. EDB representatives affirmed TSA’s feedback to learning and teaching and undertook to explore, in a professional manner, the feasibility and implementation modes of Primary 3 TSA for the current school year. EDB would maintain communication with the education sector and inform schools of the decision as soon as possible.

Annex 4

Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority 2016 Tryout Study (Primary 3)

Focus Group Meeting for Principals of Hong Kong Primary Schools

Date: 13 October 2016 (Thursday) Time: 9:30 am-12:00 noon

Venue: Room 102, San Po Kong Office, Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority

Participants: School representatives (136), Members of the Coordinating Committee on Basic Competency Assessment and Assessment Literacy (4), EDB representatives (6) and HKEAA representatives (4)

Organiser: Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority

Summary

Development of Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA)

 EDB representatives pointed out that the Tryout Study was still in progress, including report formats, support measures and questionnaire survey, etc. so the schedule was tight. The Coordinating Committee on Basic Competency Assessment and Assessment Literacy (Committee) was still reviewing relevant issues discussed and would consider the plan without any presuppositions.

According to the experience and feedback gained from the Tryout Study, the Committee would announce the arrangements as soon as possible.

Question design

 A principal expressed that the whole school supports TSA. Students and teachers reflected that the items were easier and students had enough time to answer the questions. If using easy items could still achieve the purpose of the assessment, this approach should continue.

 A principal stated that as long as the items aligned with Basic Competencies, students did not need to practise.

 A principal said that students could handle TSA with a little preparation beforehand.

 A principal mentioned that ‘diagnostic information’ be considered when items were developed. The information should list on the rationale of proposed answer and options for multiple choice items.

 A principal admitted the professionalism of HKEAA and EDB in evaluating the items.

 A participant wished to know if the 2017 TSA papers had been prepared and pointed out giving thoughts on the appropriateness of the level of difficulty when setting question items. HKEAA responded that the comments are still being collected and would take into account the recommendations.

School reports

 EDB representatives stated that TSA results and reports were usually released in November and the Tryout Study will follow this schedule.

 A principal expressed their strong support for TSA and appreciated the

"diagnostic report" and the school-based support services provided by EDB.

 A principal cum Committee member indicated that schools participating in the Tryout Study could select different types of reports. The diagnostic report not only reveals analysis of the wrong answers, but also the right answers, in great details.

 A principal did not mind when schools could receive reports. The most important thing was whether the contents of the report can help students.

 A principal commented that schools should not be allowed to choose report formats because this would result in variations. Making choice would bring pressure to schools because schools had to communicate with various stakeholders, e.g. school supervisor, parents before making the choice.

 A school representative thought that the simplified version has little effect.

 HKEAA representative responded that schools can select the appropriate report according to the school context. Moreover, HKEAA representative also pointed out that the response rate is not equal to the Basic Competency attainment rate.

Use of data

 One principal raised the suggestion that school reports could be ‘blurred’ so as to deter school management board putting pressure on schools for better TSA results. Actually, the pressure felt by schools was not from the data but from the way how EDB used the data. It was suggested that the data should only be given to schools, not to EDB.

 Another principal was concerned about which ‘ranks’ and which ‘divisions’ with the EDB could obtain TSA data.

 Yet another principal stated that the EDB should handle and use the TSA data properly. He also agreed that the more data that schools received, the better it was.

 A principal said that TSA is student-oriented and will not put pressure on students. The most important thing is to let students know the level of students.

 A principal was concerned about the part describing students’ performance in Chinese, English and Mathematics in the ESR report. He wondered what the ESR team would base their views on judging students’ performance if they did not have the TSA data for reference.

 A principal mentioned that in school year 2004/2005 when he was the school head at the time, the ESR (External School Review) put pressure to the school.

Students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) / Non-Chinese Speaking (NCS) Students

 A school representative stated that the Chinese proficiency level of non-Chinese speaking (NCS) students did not enable them to take TSA. The Chinese proficiency level of the Secondary 3 NCS students in his school was equivalent to Chinese speaking students at Primary 3 level. Thus, he felt that they should not take part in the assessment.

 A principal from a special school mentioned that the TSA data could identify their students’ strengths and weaknesses objectively.

 EDB representatives indicated that there were two supplementary reports in which data of NCS and SEN were removed.

 HKEAA representatives supplemented that starting from 2015, schools with 5 or more than 5 NCS students taking the Chinese Assessment would receive a report.

The report shows the performance of NCS students in the school and that of the NCS Cohort territory-wide.

School-based support measures

 A representative from a non-tryout school mentioned that many schools were attracted to the Tryout Study because of the extra support measures provided to tryout schools. The tryout schools got priority in terms of support services.

Other schools found this unfair. Moreover, if the Tryout Study is good in itself, it is not necessary to solicit schools to take part by offering them extra support.

 A principal cum Committee member pointed out that extra provision of school-based support was given to the tryout schools. Therefore, this would not affect the support to non-tryout schools.

Directions and arrangements of 2017 TSA

 A principal cum Committee member opined that the views from Committee’s members were very professional. The direction of 2017 was not yet announced up till today because varied views were found within the Committee. According to the findings from the questionnaire completed in the tryout schools, about 90%

of stakeholders were positive about the Tryout Study.

 A principal mentioned that 2017 was a critical year and the future implementation should be announced as soon as possible. Otherwise, if the tryout mode in 2016 was adopted for the full cohort, provision of support services could not be that intensive.

 A principal pointed out that suspension could be considered in 2017. This allowed EDB to review the content and experience learned from the 2016 Tryout

Study and to properly handle the matter of 2017 TSA.

 A principal opined that tracking studies must be continuous, it is necessary to conduct the assessment every year. In addition, conducting it in alternate years might cause dissatisfaction from parents of participating schools.

Others

1. Views from participating principals and school representatives:

 Supported TSA and suggested considering the method used by PISA. It is conducted on a sampling basis and not all students will take the assessment.

Items are not released and the results are only disclosed to EDB.

 There was no problem having TSA assessed every year. The greatest pressure felt by the schools was from Pre S1 Attainment Test.

 Hoped EDB could openly clarify objectives of TSA.

 TSA might not be able to enable schools to understand students’ inadequacy. This was because there were different students in each year and that the problems encountered by students this year might not occur the following year.

 A school received unanimous agreement and support from the Parent-Teacher Association, School Management Committee and all teachers in joining the Tryout Study.

 Schools are supported by public money and so the government has the responsibility to know the learning status of the schools. EDB is required to consider how TSA has been developed.

 It was normal that pressure was felt in learning or implementing a policy. We should not give up under pressure.

 It was suggested that the dates for TSA be postponed for two weeks since the current dates crashed with the internal school examination.

 It was proposed to replace TSA with internal school examination and then do analysis. It was also pointed out that parents’ academic qualifications and support constitute 30% of students’ academic results.

 Student Assessment (SA) was very useful and expected that the STAR platform would be even better.

 HKEAA is only responsible for devising questions and conducting the assessment and that the allegations against HKEAA are inappropriate

 Consideration had to be taken into whether the resources have addressed the issue, and has TSA addressed learning diversity.

2. Response from EDB representatives:

 On the whole the stakeholders from the Education sector agreed with the direction of ‘assessment for learning’.

 TSA is a low-stakes assessment. There are no individual students’ results and

therefore students would not have great pressure from it. Schools can contact EDB for support services based on their needs. EDB would also enhance the support measures.

 Regarding the use of ‘students’ non-academic data’, schools were required to obtain parents’ consent in order to arrange their students to complete the questionnaire. The findings of the questionnaire enabled schools to understand their students’ habits so that schools could find out why students could do / could not do in learning.

Annex 5 Meeting with TSA Concern Group

Date: 10 November 2016 (Thursday)

Time: 6:00-8:00 pm

Venue: W425, West Block, EDB Kowloon Tong Education Services Centre

19 Suffolk Road, Kowloon Tong

Participants: Representatives of TSA Concern Group (7), EDB representatives (3), Representative of Committee on Home-School Co-operation (1)

Organiser: Education Bureau Summary