on 30 June 2008

(1)

Report on

The Survey and Review of Expenditure on IT in Education Related Activities in Public Sector

Schools

By

Dudley Surveyors Limited

Address: 9/F., Siu Ying Commercial Building, 153 Queen’s Road Central, H.K

on

30 June 2008

(2)

Report on The Survey and Review of Expenditure on IT in Education Related Activities in Public Sector Schools 1

Table of Contents List of Annexes List of Tables

List of Symbols and Abbreviations Executive Summary

Contents

1 Background and Objectives of the Survey ... 6

1.1 Introduction... 6

1.2 Objectives of the Survey ... 6

2. Scope and Methodology ... 8

2.1 Target Population and Scope of the Survey ... 8

2.2 Methodology ... 8

2.3 Confidentiality and School Identity ... 8

3. Survey Design, Sampling and Response Rates ... 10

3.1 Design of the Questionnaire ... 10

3.2 Sample Target and Size ... 13

3.3 Response Rates ... 13

3.4 Data Quality Check ... 14

4. Data Observations and Analysis ... 15

4.1 Quantitative Analysis ... 15

4.2 Qualitative Analysis... 17

5. Findings and Review ... 21

5.1 Quantitative Data ... 21

5.2 Qualitative Data ... 22

6. Recommendations ... 25

6.1 Purchase of IT Consumables ... 25

6.2 Internet Connectivity ... 25

6.3 Employment of TSS ... 25

6.4 Extension of Schools’ IT Facilities ... 26

6.5 Provision for Replacement/Upgrading of IT Facilities ... 27

6.6 Maintenance of School IT Facilities ... 27

6.7 Special Schools, Special Needs ... 27

6.8 Composite Consumer Price Index (“CCPI”) Reference of the CITG ... 27

6.9 Maximizing the Effectiveness of the CITG ... 28

6.10 Increase for the CITG Provision ... 28

(3)

List of Annexes

Annex I Grant Rates of Composite IT Grant (CITG) from 2004/05 to 2007/08 School Years

Annex II Distribution of School Categories and Sizes in the 2007/08 School Year Annex III a Questionnaire (English Version)

Annex III b Questionnaire (Chinese Version)

List of Tables

Table 1 Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collected Via the Use of Questionnaire and the Rationales for Collecting Such Data

Table 2 Return of Sample Schools

Table 3 Composite Information Technology Grant Expenditure Analysis Table 4a CITG Vs non-CITG Funds Schools deployed for ITEd related Activities

(2006/07 School Year) – Overall

Table 4b CITG Vs non-CITG Funds Schools deployed for ITEd related Activities (2006/07 School Year) – Secondary, Primary, Special

Table 5a Percentage of non-CITG Funds Deployed Vs CITG & non-CITG Funds Total Amount Spent on ITEd related Activities by Schools

Table 5b Percentage of non-CITG Funds Deployed Vs CITG Funds Spent on ITEd related Activities by Schools

Table 6 No. of Schools which had deployed non-CITG Funds for ITEd related Activities

Table 7 Application and Amount of non-CITG Funds Deployed by Schools in the 2006/07 School Year

Table 8 Spending of CITG by Schools

Table 9 Academic Achievement of Schools’ TSS and Comparative Market Rate Table 10 Actual Monthly Average of TSS’s Salary at Schools (2006/07 School Year)

(4)

List of Symbols and Abbreviations

In this Report, the following symbols, abbreviations, words and expressions will have the respective meanings ascribed to them unless the context otherwise requires: -

“CCPI” : Composite Consumer Price Index

“CITG” : Composite Information Technology Grant

“Dudley” : Dudley Surveyors Limited

“EDB” : The Education Bureau

“Government” : The Hong Kong government

“Hong Kong” : The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples’

Republic of China

“IL” : Information Literacy

“ISPs” : Internet service providers

“IT” : Information Technology

“IT Skills” : The ability to use digital technology like computers at work

“ITEd” : Information Technology in Education

“Questionnaire ” : The questionnaire specifically designed by Dudley for the purpose of carrying out the Survey

“Sample Schools” : Schools randomly selected by Dudley for the Survey to cover different school sizes in all school Categories operated in the 2007/08 School Year

“School(s)” : Public Sector Schools in Hong Kong, including government, aided and special schools at both primary and secondary levels

“School Categories” : Government, aided and special schools in Hong Kong at both primary and secondary levels

“SEN” : Special educational needs

(5)

“Six Expenditure Areas” : Expenditure areas confined by the CITG, namely:

a) Purchase of IT-related Consumables,

b) Purchase of Digital Resource Materials for Learning and Teaching,

c) Internet Connectivity and Internet Security,

d) Employment of Technical Support Personnel and/or Hiring of Technical Support Services,

e) Extension of Schools’ IT Facilities Beyond School Hours, and

f) Maintenance of Schools’ IT Facilities

“Survey” : This Survey conducted by Dudley on the expenditure on ITEd related activities in public sector schools for the review of the ambit and provision of the CITG for enhancing Schools’

effectiveness in implementation of ITEd

“Surveyed Period” : School Years 2004/05, 2005/06, 2006/07 and the period from Sep2007 to Feb2008

“TSS” : Technical Support Services through direct employment of personnel by Schools and/or hire of services from service providers

(6)

Executive Summary Aim and Independency

Dudley Surveyors Limited (“Dudley”) was commissioned, as an independent party, by the Education Bureau (“EDB”) to conduct this Survey on the expenditure on Information Technology in Education (“ITEd”) related activities in public sector schools (“Schools”) for the review of the ambit and provision of the Composite Information Technology Grant (“CITG”) for enhancing Schools’ effectiveness in implementation of ITEd.

Creditability of the Survey

Of the total population of 1 005 Schools in the 2007/08 school year, 300 schools were randomly selected as Sample Schools for the Survey, covering the entire distribution of school categories and sizes. With a 90% of valid return of the Questionnaire, the result of this Survey achieved a Confidence Level of 95% and a Confidence Interval of 5.11%.

Major Recommendations

1. Increase Support for the CITG

EDB could consider an appropriate increase in the support of CITG. Such increase could allow Schools to deploy their resources flexibly to cover all expenditure areas of the CITG according to their needs for implementation of ITEd.

2. Technical Support Services (“TSS”) Personnel

The position of TSS itself is vibrant by nature and market force driven. To offer them a more attractive salary competitive to the market and to eliminate those work which is non-technical in nature are a more realistic way to retain the personnel. It is more practicable to have this recurrent provision committed rather than to have the title of the position as “permanent”.

3. Internet Connectivity & Security

Bulk discount may be achieved if collective negotiations of Schools by region could be arranged with Internet service providers (“ISPs”). This would optimize respective administrative efforts of the Schools.

4. Special Schools

Usually, suitable digital resources and IT facilities have to be tailor-made for students with special educational needs (“SEN”). Staff at these schools have already had certain digital resources made suitable for current use. It is more effective for special schools to share any digital resources that have been developed for the use of SEN students. However, certain assistance in a practical form could be considered to aim for tailoring schools’ IT facilities to cope with the SEN students.

(7)

1 Background and Objectives of the Survey 1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 The Government launched the first IT in education (“ITEd”) strategy in 1998 with a long term vision to turn Schools in Hong Kong into dynamic and innovative learning institutions where students will become more motivated, inquisitive and creative learners. To achieve this, the then Education Department (now the EDB), in addition to a succession of capital investments, has disbursed various recurrent grants to support schools to integrate IT into learning and teaching and to cope with Schools’

differing operational needs.

1.1.2 To allow Schools with greater flexibility in managing their own resources according to their needs and priorities, the EDB implemented a block IT grant, viz. CITG, by merging various IT-related grants beginning from the 2004/05 school year to meet schools’ operational needs. Basically, provision of CITG to each School is mainly determined by the school category and its number of operating classes. A list of CITG rates from the 2004/05 to 2007/08 school years is at Annex I. In addition to the CITG, Schools can flexibly reallocate their available resources under various recurrent and non-recurrent funds to facilitate the implementation of their ITEd development plans.

1.1.3 Having implemented CITG for over three school years, EDB commissioned Dudley as an independent third party to review the existing arrangement, viz. its ambit and provision of CITG, for enhancing Schools’ effectiveness in implementing ITEd.

1.2 Objectives of the Survey

1.2.1 This Survey was conducted to analyze the actual expenditures on ITEd related activities in Schools with an aim to review the ambit and provision of the CITG for enhancing Schools’ effectiveness in implementing ITEd.

1.2.2 This Survey was conducted on two major fronts:

(1) To collect data on Schools’ expenditures in the following areas- (a) Purchase of IT-related consumables;

(b) Purchase of digital resource materials for learning and teaching;

(c) Internet connectivity and Internet security;

(d) Employment of TSS and/or hiring of TSS;

(e) Extension of Schools’ IT facilities beyond school hours;

(f) Maintenance of schools’ IT facilities; and

(g) Any other expenditure that the Schools management perceived to be ITEd related.

(2) To review the current funding mechanism, ambit and provision of the CITG and to suggest ways to enhance Schools’ effectiveness in resources

(8)

management for the implementation of their school-based ITEd development plans.

(9)

2. Scope and Methodology

2.1 Target Population and Scope of the Survey

2.1.1 This Survey targeted a total population of 1,005 Schools with various school categories and sizes operating in the 2007/08 school year - Annex II.

2.1.2 Data of the actual ITEd-related expenditures and their major components since the implementation of the CITG until present (from 1 September 2004 to 29 February 2008) were collected from Schools.

2.1.3 In addition to the CITG, this Survey also explored other available resources and/or government funds/grants at the disposal of Sample Schools to finance their activities related to ITEd.

2.1.4 Views and/or expectations on the ambit and provision of the CITG were also collected from the Sample Schools based on their front line experiences in the implementation of ITEd.

2.1.5 Data samples were selected to cover various school sizes in all school categories i.e.

government, aided and special schools at both primary and secondary levels operated in current school year of 2007/08.

2.2 Methodology

2.2.1 Questionnaires in both English and Chinese versions (Annex III a / Annex III b) were dispatched to the Sample Schools for completion and returned to Dudley.

2.2.2 Alternatively, the Sample Schools could download the same Questionnaire from Dudley’s designated webpage file for completion and return to Dudley via e-mail.

2.2.3 A Questionnaire Filling Forum was held to explain to the Sample Schools the rationale behind the Survey and how to complete the Questionnaire and to answer any questions the Sample Schools might encounter when doing so. Representatives from 128 of the 300 Sample Schools attended the Forum.

2.2.4 A telephone hotline was also set up by Dudley to offer guidance to the Sample Schools for completing the Questionnaire.

2.3 Confidentiality and School Identity

2.3.1 It was emphasized to the Sample Schools that this Survey was not an audit of any kind nor for accounting purposes; instead, it was purely a collection of data from

“true life” situations on deployment of the CITG at Schools for the purpose described in Section 1.2 – Objectives of the Survey above. Consequently, all data so collected

(10)

would be strictly and solely for the use of this Survey and would be put to no other use.

2.3.2 To ensure that the Sample Schools would have no reservations when completing the Questionnaire, so as to provide a true picture of how the CITG had been employed and that they would present their views and expectations of the CITG accurately, the Schools were assured that information regarding the Schools’ identities would be deleted after the data integrity check.

2.3.3 At no time would any of the collected data be passed to any third party during the Survey. Before forwarding such data to EDB, all information about the identity of the Sample Schools would be deleted. In other words, not even the EDB would know the Schools’ identity of any individual Questionnaire in their possession.

(11)

3. Survey Design, Sampling and Response Rates 3.1 Design of the Questionnaire

The Questionnaire (Annex III a – English Version / Annex III b – Chinese Version) including the following four Sections was designed and sent to the Sample Schools for completion:

3.1.1 Section A & B

In order to obtain a true picture of how the CITG had been deployed by the Schools for the past three and a half school years, the data gathered in Section A of the Questionnaire were basically historical records referenced with respective Sample School’s audited or ledger accounts on the Six Expenditure Areas of the CITG for the 2004/05, 2005/06 and 2006/07 school years and the period from Sep 2007 to Feb 2008. Moreover, in this Section, Schools’ spending on any other ITEd-related areas and their sources of funds were also collated. Schools’ expectations and wishes regarding the total annual CITG provision and the amount for each of the expenditure areas were also collected in this Section so that any review of the CITG would take into account the Schools’ actual thoughts and expectations.

In order to determine the major components of each of the Six Expenditure Areas, Section B required the Sample Schools to name therein one or two major items that comprised each of the expenditure areas of the CITG during the surveyed period.

Information collected in this Section would suggest which areas should be the focus of attention for each of the expenditure areas.

3.1.2 Section C

Besides the Six Expenditure Areas and other ITEd related expenditure, this Section included other ITEd related information from Schools. Information and data collected in this Section helped to explore how Schools could exercise the funding flexibility of the CITG to achieve better efficiency and effectiveness in resources management.

3.1.3 Section D

Schools were free to offer any views related to the CITG and share their successful experiences on ITEd, which would provide an indication of how the CITG could be deployed as a whole to achieve effectiveness in the implementation of ITEd.

3.1.4 Table 1 below summarizes why such Quantitative and Qualitative data and information were collected for the purpose of this Survey.

(12)

Table 1 Quantitative and Qualitative Data Collected Via the Use of Questionnaire and the Rationales for Collecting Such Data

Data to be Collected Reasons for

Collecting such Data (i) Quantitative Data

1. Amount of CITG received for 2004/05, 2005/06, 2006/07 school years and the period of Sept 2007-Feb 2008.

The primary reference of the CITG provision in respective school year.

2. Actual IT-related expenditures of the Sample Schools in 2004/05, 2005/06, 2006/07, and period Sept 2007-Feb 2008 with respect to the following expenditure items:

- Purchase of IT-related consumables - Purchase of digital resource

materials for learning and teaching - Internet connectivity and Internet

security

- Employment of TSS and/or hire of TSS

- Extension of Schools’ IT facilities beyond school hours

- Maintenance for School’s IT facilities - Any other expenditures that the

school management perceived to be ITEd related

Two major components (if any) of each of these 7 actual ITEd-related

expenditure items to be filled up.

To identify major components of each expenditure item and from there to determine the possibility of achieving effectiveness in each of the expenditure items.

3. Schools’ expectations of/wishes for the total CITG provision and the amount individual expenditure item.

To collect thoughts of the Schools regarding their expectations of CITG so as to understand the needs of the Schools more.

4. Total number of computers (desktop and portable) currently in use in the Schools.

The CITG amount given divided by the number of in-house computers would produce a rate to indicate the comparative economy of scale of the deployment of the CITG in each School.

(13)

Collecting such Data 5. Percentage of teaching staff and

administrative staff who would use e- mail.

This gave a certain inference of Information Literacy (“IL”) among the teaching staff and administrative staff at Schools.

6. Time share of TSS‘s work between technical support and administrative duties.

To analyze the percentage of

technical work versus administrative work carried out by the TSS showing whether the TSS’s function on

“technical” matters was effectively served.

7. Average number of times of

computer/system breakdown per month.

To determine the workload of the TSS on technical support work.

8. Average number of times for Schools to call for outside hardware maintenance services per month.

To analyze the portion which the TSS performed this semi-technical function instead of the initial intention of the provision of the position to perform hands-on technical function.

(ii) Qualitative Data

1. Sample Schools’ views on existing CITG arrangement, i.e. its ambit and provision, for enhancing School’s effectiveness in the implementation of ITEd.

Schools’ identities were discarded when data integrity had been verified. This provided a worry-free platform for the Sample Schools to express their views on CITG freely, and they were more willing to offer their comments (whether positive or negative) on the CITG.

2. The TSS’s academic achievements. A reference of the market’s monthly salary of technical personnel with similar background would be made.

3. Whether the TSS is employed directly by Schools or TSS services are hired from outside contractors.

To find out the preference of Schools between employing an in-house TSS personnel or contracting-out the service from outside contractors.

(14)

Collecting such Data 4. Whether there is a students’ Computer

Club at Schools.

This would provide an opportunity for Club members to learn more about the technical aspects of computer equipment and allow them to learn more about daily care of computer hardware.

5. Whether there is a flexi-time working scheme for office staff.

To examine if the extension of School’s IT facilities beyond school hours could save costs through more flexible use of the School’s in-house resources.

3.2 Sample Target and Size

3.2.1 A sample size of 300 Schools was drawn from the total population of 1 005 Schools.

3.2.2 Taking the confidence level of 95% and confidence interval (i.e. error margin) of 5%

for each of the school categories (namely aided primary, government primary, aided secondary, government secondary and special), the respective weighted percentage was calculated to determine the categorical distribution for the sample size of 300 Schools to be selected for the Survey.

3.2.3 With reference to the weighted distribution of the number for each school category as determined in Section 3.2.2 above, a lottery was conducted for every relevant operating class size to add up to the same weighted distribution number for that school category.

3.2.4 Both a hard copy (in both English and Chinese versions) and a soft copy (in the form of excel spreadsheet file) of the Questionnaire were provided to the Sample Schools, which could return the completed questionnaire by post or by e-mail.

3.2.5 A forum with a Question-and-Answer Session was held to explain (with a mocked up Questionnaire) how the Questionnaire should be completed.

3.2.6 A telephone hotline was also set up by Dudley to offer guidance to the Sample Schools in filling out the Questionnaire.

3.3 Response Rates

3.3.1 Of the 300 Questionnaires sent out, 272 were returned. Of which, 269 were verified valid; 1 was invalidated as the School was a merger of 2 separate Schools only since the 2007/08 school year and 2 were returned anonymously with incomplete

(15)

information. Consequently, these 3 returns were not included in the data analysis process. The following analysis was based on the 269 valid returns.

Table 2 Return of Sample Schools

School Category No. of Sample School No. of Valid Return % of Return

Primary 158 141 89

Secondary 115 101 88

Special 27 27 100

Total 300 269 90%

3.3.2 A survey population of 1 005 Schools and a successful valid return of 269 (out of the Sample of 300) produced a 90% return rate with result as follows:

Confidence Level : 95%

Confidence Interval : 5.11%

3.3.3 It is our view that as the Survey result achieved Confidence Level of 95% and Confidence Interval of 5.11%, the Survey results have attained a generally accepted credible level of representation of the entire population in question.

3.4 Data Quality Check

3.4.1 The balance of each of the returned Questionnaire was manually checked as a measure of data integrity. Any discrepancy found was followed up with the concerned Schools for verification and necessary moderations.

3.4.2 There were two instances of our staff being dispatched to Sample Schools to assist respondents in completing the Questionnaires.

3.4.3 There were seven instances of our staff being dispatched to the Sample Schools to verify the data submitted and assisted them in making necessary corrections to the returned data.

3.4.4 For data used for the purpose of quantitative analysis, a cross checking mechanism was deployed to ensure the accuracy of the inputted data.

(16)

4. Data Observations and Analysis

This Survey covered a period of three and a half years since the introduction of the CITG and found close correlation in the data over the Surveyed Period. For the purpose of conducting the analysis, this Survey took the data from the nearest full School Year from September 2006 to August 2007.

4.1 Quantitative Analysis

Table 3 “CITG Expenditure Analysis” below gives a calculated summary of the quantitative data collected for the Survey.

4.1.1 Economy of Scale of CITG Fund Deployed

This was derived from the total CITG provision given to a School divided by the total number of computers (both desk top and lap top) served at that School. It should be noted that this rate did not represent the cost of serving or maintaining a computer at School; instead, it only gave an indication of the relative economy of scale of the deployment of the CITG among various school categories and sizes.

4.1.2 Costs

The percentage of each of the Six Expenditure Areas of the CITG was calculated to give the respective expenditure weighting of the CITG.

4.1.3 Average Frequency of Computer Breakdown per Month

This indicated the number of instances of computer breakdown at Schools per month.

4.1.4 Average Number of Times Schools called for Outside Technical Support per Month This indicated the number of times per month Schools called for outside technical support services for the repair of IT equipment.

4.1.5 TSS’s Academic Achievement

This gave the percentage of various levels of academic achievement of TSS serving at the Schools.

4.1.6 TSS’s Work

This indicated the relative percentage of technical and non-technical work performed by the TSS at Schools.

4.1.7 IT Skills

For the purpose of this Survey, IT Skills referred to “the ability of the Schools’

administrative and teaching staff to use digital technology like computers at work”.

This indicated the ability of the Schools’ administrative and teaching staff to handle the “non-technical” work in implementing ITEd.

(17)

Table 3

High Low Avg High Low Avg High Low Avg High Low Avg High Low Avg High Low Avg High Low Avg High Low Avg High Low Avg

1. Economy of Scale of Fund Employed (CITG Per Computer) 3,602.79 560.75 1,154.14 6,191.91 999.81 2,602.05 8,060.37 1,209.06 2,523.22 4,236.72 0.00 1,815.73 6,005.74 964.68 2,495.47 6,191.91 756.03 1,850.38 8,060.37 778.54 1,850.38 4,236.72 0.00 1,850.38 8060.37 0.00 1850.38

2. Costs

a. Purchase of IT Consumables 66.9% 0.0% 14.2% 27.0% 0.0% 13.0% 39.7% 2.5% 17.2% 41.7% 1.3% 17.7% 43.4% 0.0% 14.8% 43.4% 0.0% 15.0% 66.1% 2.5% 15.0% 66.9% 0.0% 15.0% 66.9% 0.0% 15.0%

b. Purchase of Digital Resources 58.5% 0.0% 8.3% 27.1% 0.0% 3.9% 30.2% 0.0% 5.8% 33.9% 0.0% 5.8% 67.2% 0.0% 5.5% 67.2% 0.0% 4.5% 30.2% 0.0% 4.5% 58.5% 0.0% 7.0% 67.2% 0.0% 6.9%

c. Internet Connect & Security 59.0% 3.8% 15.9% 30.2% 2.6% 16.5% 27.4% 3.6% 18.3% 34.2% 0.8% 16.3% 39.3% 7.3% 15.8% 39.3% 2.6% 16.5% 53.2% 3.6% 19.1% 59.0% 0.8% 16.8% 59.0% 0.8% 16.1%

d. Employment of TSS 80.4% 0.0% 48.5% 89.8% 40.6% 57.3% 62.3% 30.2% 48.9% 78.5% 0.0% 49.7% 80.7% 11.0% 56.2% 89.8% 8.8% 56.5% 62.3% 0.0% 44.7% 80.4% 0.0% 49.5% 89.8% 0.0% 50.8%

e. Extension of School IT Facilities 22.8% 0.0% 1.3% 4.5% 0.0% 0.6% 8.9% 0.0% 0.8% 12.1% 0.0% 0.8% 4.5% 0.0% 0.3% 4.5% 0.0% 0.6% 8.9% 0.0% 0.6% 22.8% 0.0% 1.3% 22.8% 0.0% 1.0%

f. Maintenance for School IT Facilities 45.0% 0.0% 11.8% 30.6% 0.0% 8.7% 28.4% 0.0% 9.1% 57.4% 0.0% 9.7% 20.4% 0.0% 7.4% 35.7% 0.0% 8.9% 45.0% 0.0% 10.4% 57.4% 0.0% 10.6% 57.4% 0.0% 10.2%

2. Costs (Actual)

a. Purchase of IT Consumables 265,299.00 0.00 37,216.38 51,252.00 0.00 23,826.27 80,637.00 5,851.00 33,008.38 140,848.00 1,980.00 36,710.38 126,285.00 0.00 29,312.07 126,285.00 0.00 33,371.02 185,081.00 5,851.00 33,371.02 265,299.00 0.00 33,371.02 265,299.00 0.00 33,371.02 b. Purchase of Digital Resources 331,850.00 0.00 21,676.71 59,067.00 0.00 8,200.94 120,000.00 0.00 14,798.80 89,844.00 0.00 13,567.85 154,184.00 0.00 10,815.44 154,184.00 0.00 9,187.96 120,000.00 0.00 11,484.94 331,850.00 0.00 19,851.54 331,850.00 0.00 15,433.06 c. Internet Connect & Security 78,106.00 8,097.00 41,852.36 63,276.00 1,900.00 29,874.06 71,050.00 5,720.00 34,813.32 64,570.00 2,180.00 33,786.22 60,972.00 13,440.00 31,158.19 63,276.00 1,900.00 30,128.74 78,106.00 5,720.00 36,202.14 68,000.00 2,180.00 39,069.89 78,106.00 1,900.00 35,904.73 d. Employment of TSS 480,000.00 0.00 127,247.69 193,280.00 53,550.00 102,029.29 146,905.00 46,691.00 95,160.16 281,883.00 0.00 108,078.02 198,300.00 25,200.00 111,036.15 198,300.00 11,340.00 102,810.96 165,321.00 0.00 91,402.34 480,000.00 0.00 124,149.06 480,000.00 0.00 113,225.14

e. Extension of School IT Facilities 25,682.00 0.00 3,526.39 9,341.00 0.00 1,147.22 20,812.50 0.00 1,471.18 27,627.00 0.00 1,869.80 9,450.00 0.00 663.37 9,450.00 0.00 1,124.37 20,812.50 0.00 1,335.24 27,627.00 0.00 3,005.70 27,627.00 0.00 2,189.70

f. Maintenance for School IT Facilities 105,898.00 0.00 31,106.90 103,197.00 0.00 16,586.63 53,643.00 0.00 18,014.84 97,091.20 0.00 19,672.48 49,403.00 0.00 14,525.56 103,197.00 0.00 17,083.74 75,792.00 0.00 20,576.94 105,898.00 0.00 26,358.40 105,898.00 0.00 22,709.99

*Pie Chart Summary 0.16

0.14 0.13 0.17 0.18 0.05 0.14 0.17

0.07 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.17 0.05 0.06

0.18 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.52 0.16 0.17

0.48 0.57 0.49 0.50 0.01 0.57 0.50

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00

0.12 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.10

3. Average Frequency of Computer Breakdown Per Month 300.00 0.00 42.22 150.00 0.00 25.25 100.00 1.00 12.56 150.00 0.00 20.65 125.00 1.00 29.00 150.00 0.00 26.24 210.00 1.00 24.00 300.00 0.00 32.98 300.00 0 29.71

4. Average No. of Times School Call Up Support Per Month 60.00 0.00 6.89 15.00 0.00 3.33 10.00 1.00 3.32 30.00 0.00 3.72 50.00 1.00 5.89 50.00 0.00 4.19 60.00 1.00 5.17 60.00 0.00 5.45 60 0 5.02

<F.5 F.5-F.7 >F.7 <F.5 F.5-F.7 >F.7 <F.5 F.5-F.7 >F.7 <F.5 F.5-F.7 >F.7 <F.5 F.5-F.7 >F.7 <F.5 F.5-F.7 >F.7 <F.5 F.5-F.7 >F.7 <F.5 F.5-F.7 >F.7 <F.5 F.5-F.7 >F.7 <F.5 F.5-F.7 >F.7

5. TSS's Academic Achievement(%) 9.90 36.63 53.47 9.80 47.06 43.14 4.00 44.00 52.00 7.69 36.92 55.38 7.17 42.66 50.17 18.52 40.74 40.74 13.10 45.24 41.67 2.86 42.86 54.29 9.33 36.00 54.67 9.67 39.78 50.56

Technical Admin Technical Admin Technical Admin Technical Admin Technical Admin Technical Admin Technical Admin Technical Admin Technical Admin Technical Admin

6. TSS work Share(%) 75.35 24.65 74.71 25.29 77.92 22.08 79.89 20.11 77.51 22.49 76.30 23.70 76.01 23.99 77.94 22.06 76.72 23.28 76.66 23.34

Admin Teaching Admin Teaching Admin Teaching Admin Teaching Admin Teaching Admin Teaching Admin Teaching Admin Teaching Admin Teaching Admin Teaching

7. IT Skills(%) 77.42 67.17 72.24 66.78 77.20 61.80 73.20 62.74 74.21 63.77 80.93 72.59 74.10 68.77 76.86 65.14 76.41 64.77 75.75 66.07

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

8. Flexi Time(%) 44.55 55.45 45.10 54.90 44.00 56.00 49.23 50.77 46.11 53.89 25.93 74.07 35.71 64.29 48.57 51.43 47.33 52.67 43.87 56.13

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

9. Establishment of Computer Club(%) 86.14 13.86 17.65 82.35 36.00 64.00 26.15 73.85 26.60 73.40 0.00 100.00 16.67 83.33 40.00 60.00 62.67 37.33 45.35 54.65

*¹: For Secondary Schools, 81% of them are of Class Size between 19-23, Class Size segregation has no represention significance.

*²: For Special Schools, all of them are of Class Size between 1-18, no size segregation is needed

19-23 24 or more

Overall

Secondary School *¹ Primary Average

Composite Information Technology Grant Expenditure Analysis (on the returned 269 Public Sector Schools for the 2006/07 School Year)

1-18 19-23 24 or more

Primary School Class Size

Special Schools *² Overall

Class Size 1-18

52.0%

0.7%

9.2%

31,181.68 2,313.66

15.9%

5.2%

17.0%

18,091.32

19.49 3.46 12,189.20 32,824.53 101,755.82 1,496.06

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

(18)

4.1.8 Flexi-time Working Scheme

This indicated the percentage of Schools whose general office staff had flexible working hours. This helped provide the manpower needed for the “Extension of Schools’ IT Facilities” without having to incur costs for the hiring of additional manpower.

4.1.9 Establishment of Students’ Computer Club

This indicated the percentage of Schools which had established students’ Computer Clubs. For the students who joined the Club, it was an indication of a positive attitude and interest in acquiring additional knowledge related to digital technology.

4.1.10 Special Schools

It was noted that special schools had to spend 12% more on the employment of TSS compared with the average spending of primary and secondary schools combined.

However, thanks to the flexibility of deployment of the CITG among the Six Expenditure Areas, their relatively higher spending on TSS was offset by savings from the other Expenditure Areas.

4.1.11 Table 4a “CITG Vs non-CITG Funds Schools deployed for ITEd related Activities (2006/07 School Year)” shows the actual and percentage of CITG vs non-CITG Funds deployed by Schools on ITEd related activities for the 2006/07 school year. The findings showed that, out of the total amount of funds Schools deployed on ITEd expenditures, approximately 30% came from non-CITG funds.

Table 4b “CITG Vs non-CITG Funds Schools deployed for ITEd related Activities (2006/07 School Year) – Secondary, Primary, Special” provides similar expenditure analysis at Schools with breakdown by school categories, viz. secondary, primary and special Schools.

Breakdown of the non-CITG expenses in relation to the total amount (including CITG and non-CITG Funds) Schools spent on ITEd related activities is also listed in Table 5a below:

Table 5a Percentage of non-CITG Funds Deployed Vs. CITG & non-CITG Funds Total Amount Spent on ITEd related Activities by Schools

a. Purchase of IT Consumables : 1.0%

b. Purchase of Digital Resources : 4.0%

c. Internet Connectivity & Security : 1.7%

d. Employment of TSS and/or hire of services from service providers

: 4.5%

e. Extension of Schools’ IT Facilities : 0.0%

f. Maintenance for Schools’ IT Facilities : 1.6%

g. Others (Main component: over 90% related to Replacement/Upgrading of Schools’ IT

Facilities)

: 17.2%

Total : 30.0%

Table 5b shows the non-CITG expenditure in relation to CITG expenditure on ITEd

(19)

related activities.

Table 5b Percentage of non-CITG Funds Deployed Vs. CITG Funds Spent on ITEd related Activities by Schools

a. Purchase of IT Consumables : 9.2%

b. Purchase of Digital Resources : 82.5%

c. Internet Connectivity & Security : 15.1%

d. Employment of TSS and/or hire of services from service providers

: 12.5%

e. Extension of Schools’ IT Facilities : 0.0%

f. Maintenance for Schools’ IT Facilities : 21.9%

g. Others (Main component: over 90% related to Replacement/Upgrading of Schools’ IT

Facilities)

: 0.0%

Total : 42.7%

4.2 Qualitative Analysis 4.2.1 Non-CITG Funds Deployed

Table 6 below gives a summary of the number of Schools which had deployed non- CITG funds for ITEd related activities in the 2006/07 school year.

Table 6 No. of Schools deploying non-CITG Funds for ITEd related Activities No. of

returned Sample Schools

No. of Schools deploying non-CITG funds in the 2006/07

school year

%

No. of Schools deploying non-CITG

funds since the 2004/05 school year

%

Primary

Schools 141 88 62 102 72

Secondary

Schools 101 54 53 55 54

Special

Schools 27 17 63 24 89

Overall 269 159 59 181 67

It is noted that 59% of the returned Sample Schools had used non-CITG funds for ITEd related purposes in the 2006/07 school year. And, in fact, 67% of the returned Sample Schools had deployed non-CITG funds for ITEd related purposes since the first introduction of the CITG in the 2004/05 school year.

Table 7 gives the application and amount of various non-CITG funds deployed by Schools in the 2006/07 school year.

4.2.2 TSS Personnel

124 (46%) of the 269 valid returns from Sample Schools requested more resources to be allocated to help retain their TSS by offering them with higher salary or providing them with career advancement opportunity, such as to “permanently” employ them at Schools with a “point scale” salary system.

(20)

Table 4a CITG Vs Non-CITG Funds Schools depolyed for ITEd related Activities (2006/07 School Year) - Overall

Actuals Funding Type a. Purchase of IT Consumables

b. Purchase of Digital Resources

c. Internet Connect

& Security

d. Employment of TSS

e. Extension of School IT Facilities

f. Maintenance for School IT Facilities

g. Others (Main Component:

Replacement / Upgrading of IT

Facilities)

Total

Total CITG Funding 8,976,804.50 4,151,493.00 9,658,373.00 30,457,562.00 589,030.50 6,108,987.20 59,942,250.20

Total non-CITG Funding 824,159.50 3,423,673.28 1,462,466.20 3,816,402.18 0.00 1,337,205.08 14,730,783.36 25,594,689.60

Total 9,800,964.00 7,575,166.28 11,120,839.20 34,273,964.18 589,030.50 7,446,192.28 14,730,783.36 85,536,939.80

% Funding Type a. Purchase of IT Consumables

b. Purchase of Digital Resources

c. Internet Connect

& Security

d. Employment of TSS

e. Extension of School IT Facilities

f. Maintenance for School IT Facilities

g. Others (Main Component:

Replacement / Upgrading of IT

Facilities)

Total

% of CITG Funding 91.59% 54.80% 86.85% 88.87% 99.58% 82.04% 0.00% 70.08%

% of non-CITG Funding 8.41% 45.20% 13.15% 11.13% 0.42% 17.96% 100.00% 29.92%

Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

% of Funding by Funding Type

Expenditure Category

Funding Type (Percentage) Distribution

% of non-CITG Funding

% of CITG Funding 0.00

5,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 30,000,000.00 35,000,000.00 40,000,000.00

a. Purchase of IT Consumables

b. Purchase of Digital Resources

c. Internet Connect

& Security

d. Employment of TSS e. Extension of School IT Facilities

f. Maintenance for School IT Facilities

g. Others (Main Component:

Replacement / Upgrading of IT Facilities)

Actual Funding by Funding Type

Expenditure Category

Funding Type (Actual) Distribution

Total non-CITG Funding Total CITG Funding

(21)

(22)

4.2.3 Scope and Ambit of CITG

47 (17%) of the 269 valid returns from Sample Schools expressed that they would like to see the scope of the CITG expanded and be more flexible to accommodate different aspects of ITEd expenses at Schools.

4.2.4 Replacement of IT Equipment

178 (67%) of the 269 valid returns from Sample Schools expressed that either their IT equipment was getting old and needed to be replaced or that they wanted recurrent funding to be subsumed into the CITG for purchase of new IT equipment or upgrade of existing facilities.

4.2.5 Other Comments

The following is a list of comments raised by less than 5% of the returns from Sample Schools:

(a) Too much administrative work for Schools’ TSS;

(b) Schools would like to have a central tendering mechanism for sourcing the suppliers in order to reduce administrative work. In particular, they would like EDB to help in the negotiation process for subscription of Internet connectivity, hire of TSS and the arrangement of maintenance services;

(c) Each member of the teaching staff to have his/her own desktop computer;

and

(d) Some “permanent” e-teaching materials (endorsed by certain educational authorities) in place online, e.g. EDB website.

Table 7 Application and Amount of non-CITG Funds Deployed by Schools in the 2006/07 School Year

S/N non-CITG Funds Application / Usage

Amount of non-CITG Funds Deployed

for the 2006/07 School Year 1. Quality Education

Fund (QEF)

Enhancement of IT infrastructure, purchase of equipment, hardware, workstations, servers and software

$5,404,913

2. Enhancement of IT Infrastructure Matching Grant (Matching Grant)

Enhancement of IT infrastructure, facilities enhancement, Internet charges, maintenance charges, setting up of e-learning platform, intranet sharing scheme, purchase of projects and visual aided products

$5,286,474

3. Capacity Enhancement Grant (CEG)

Employment of computer technician,

enhancement Plan, IT support, hire of TSS, IT Seed Scheme

$4,566,168

4. Electronic Learning Credits (eLC)

Software for various subjects, e-learning platform, “Chapter Daily”, and e-learning supporting kits

$526,410

(23)

for the 2006/07 School Year 5. School and Class

Grant (SCG)

Maintenance, purchase of software,

hardware, IT equipment, projection systems, and consumables

$1,829,287

6. Composite Furniture and Equipment Grant (CFEG) /

Departmental Expense (DE)

Purchase of IT equipment, USB drivers, notebook LAN card, IT consumables, and software for various subjects, maintenance expenses

$1,443,409

7. Operating Expenses Block Grant (OEBG) / Expanded Operating Expenses Block Grant

(EOEBG)

Computer subject related expenses, Internet charges, purchase of computer hardware, software, servers & printers, coverage of deficiency of CITG, repairs and maintenance, consumables & other inventory items, and MMLC maintenance

$2,601,597

8. Donations and Funds Raised by Schools

Purchase of wireless network and teaching facilities

$736,462

9. School

Sponsoring Body (SSB) / School Management Committee (SMC)

Enhancement of software for educational use, and purchase of computers

$463,544

10. Other Government Subsidies (not specified)

Purchase of computers, projector

maintenance, IT equipment and consumables

$597,337

11. School Improvement Programme (SIP)

Purchase of personal computer network, digital resources and materials for learning and teaching

$162,744

12. School Management Initiative (SMI)

Purchase of equipment $100,052

13. Revised Administration Grant

Hire of technical staff $225,563

(24)

for the 2006/07 School Year 14. Fund raised by

Committee for the Home-School Co-operation (CHSC)

Maintenance charges, purchase of projectors’ light bulbs and computer equipment

$115,250

15. Money

contributed by students (not specified)

For colour computer printouts, purchase of projectors, and maintenance expenses

$185,400

16. New Senior Secondary Curriculum Migration Grant (NSSCMG)

Not specified $79,200

17. Teacher Professional Preparation Grant (TPPG)

18. IT Fee (not specified)

Total: $25,594,690