***********************************************************
Following is a question by the Dr Hon Lam Tai-fai and a written reply by the Secretary for Education, Mr Eddie Ng Hak-kim, in the Legislative Council today (December 11):
Question:
According to the 2012 Hong Kong Population Projections released by the Census and Statistics Department, the Education Bureau (EDB) anticipates a continuous decline in the annual intake of Secondary One (S1) students from
64 900 in the 2012-2013 school year to 54 000 in the 2016-2017 school year, and then the number will rebound steadily and annually from the 2017-2018 school year onwards, surpassing the level of this school year. Last year, EDB proposed a progressive reduction of the number of students allocated to each S1 class under the "2-1-1" and "1-1-1" options (i.e. the number of students allocated to each S1 class will be reduced by two, one and one progressively or by one student each year in three school years) as an interim measure to address the problem. Yet, the education sector is very concerned about how the authorities will ensure the teaching quality of secondary schools in the long run. Some members of the education sector have pointed out that as the plunge in the number of S1 students and the imminent implementation of "reduction of classes" and "closure of schools" have sapped the morale of quite a number of teachers and deterred aspiring graduates from joining the teaching profession, the authorities have to introduce measures to enable secondary schools to maintain stability and have sustainable development. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the annual supply of S1 places from the 2014-2015 to 2018-2019 school years in various District Council (DC) districts;
(b) whether it has assessed the annual demand for secondary school places in various DC districts in the next five school years; if it has, of the figures; if not, the reasons for that;
(c) as some members of the education sector have pointed out that certain secondary schools currently operate only one S1 class while some others have only a dozen or so students studying at S1 level, whether the authorities have assessed the number of secondary schools which will encounter such situations in the next five school years and the impact of such situations on teaching quality; if they have, of the numbers of such schools and the relevant impact; if not, the reasons for that;
(d) given the varied decline rate of S1 students in various DC districts in the next several years, whether EDB has assessed which districts will face an imbalance of supply and demand of S1 places; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(e) of the detailed reasons for EDB proposing the "2-1-1" and "1-1-1" options for the reduction of the number of students allocated to each S1 class instead of adopting the "3-2-1" option (i.e. the number of students allocated to each S1 class will be reduced by three, two and one progressively in three school years) put forth by the education sector; whether the authorities have assessed the pros and cons of the aforesaid three proposals; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(f) whether EDB will further reduce the number of S1 students per class for those DC districts with a higher decline rate of S1 students; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(g) as the Secretary for Education said in 2012 that it would hold discussions with stakeholders again if the reduction of the number of students per class under the "2-1-1" and "1-1-1" options was considered not sufficiently effective, whether EDB will review the effectiveness of the reduction of the number of students per class in individual DC districts; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(h) given the sharp increase in the number of cross-boundary students in recent years, causing keen competition for kindergarten and primary school places in certain districts, whether EDB has assessed if a similar situation will emerge in S1 classes; if it has, of the authorities' measures to address such situation; if not, the reasons for that;
(i) given that the education sector has proposed that a certain number of S1 places should be reserved for students from other schools, efforts should be stepped up to further reduce the number of students allocated to each S1 class by one student across the board, and consideration should be given to allowing those districts with an over-supply of S1 places to adopt a district-based approach to reduce the number of students per class, whether EDB has carefully considered the feasibility of the aforesaid proposals; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(j) whether EDB will meet with members and organisations of the education sector before the end of this year to have in-depth communication on and to explore solutions for issues concerning the reduction of the number of classes and the number of students allocated to each S1 class; if it will, of the schedule of such meetings; if not, the reasons for that;
(k) given that last year EDB proposed measures for "preserving our schools, the teaching force and the strengths of our education sector" ("three-fold preservation policy") so as to stabilise the teaching force and preserve the strength of the sector, whether the authorities have assessed the pros and cons of those measures and their impact on education development and teaching quality; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(l) given that the "three-fold preservation policy" will be implemented for three years only, whether EDB has formulated corresponding plans to deal with the continuous decline or reversal of the decline in the number of S1 students;
(m) whether it has assessed the number of new teachers in secondary schools in each of the next five school years; if it has, of the figures; if not, the reasons for that;
(n) notwithstanding that the retention period for surplus secondary school teachers has been extended from one year to three years so that some serving teachers can retain their teaching posts in the short term, whether the authorities have assessed if the reduction of classes will affect the morale of serving teachers and hinder new teachers from joining their ranks; if they have, of the details and the specific measures for attracting new teachers to join the profession; if not, the reasons for that; and
(o) of the specific blueprint for development drawn up by EDB in respect of its policy on secondary schools to ensure that the quality of education will not be affected by the fluctuations in secondary school student population and issues such as reduction of classes and closure of schools?
Reply:
President,
To alleviate the impact of the temporary decline in Secondary One (S1) student population in the next few years on public sector secondary schools, the Education Bureau (EDB) announced last year (2012) a series of targeted relief measures aiming at maintaining the stability and strengths of the schools as well as teaching force. Among the relief measures (Note 1) is the progressive reduction of the number of students allocated per S1 class under the "2-1-1" / "1-1-1" scenario in which the number of students allocated to each S1 class in public sector secondary schools will be reduced accordingly on a year-on-year basis from 2013 to 2015 under the Secondary School Place Allocation (SSPA) System. We reported to the Panel on Education of the Legislative Council on July 9, 2013 the overall situation of public sector secondary schools under the relief measures (including the reduction of the number of students allocated per S1 class) upon the release of the SSPA 2013 allocation results (Note 2).
My reply to Dr Hon Lam's question is as follows:
(a) The estimated supply of S1 places from 2014 to 2018 is at Annex 1.
(b) The projected school-age population aged 12 is considered appropriate for admission to S1. Reference of the projected demand for S1 places by district in the next five school years (2014/15 to 2018/19) can be made to the projected school-age population aged 12. Please see Annex 2 for details.
(c) In the first year (2013/14 school year) of the implementation of the relief measures, the number of S1 classes to be reduced in public sector schools is 30 (Note 2) upon the release of allocation results. However, some students as usual applied for S1 admission to individual schools for various reasons during the summer holiday. In the 2013/14 school year and based on the mid-September student headcount, only 12 public sector secondary schools have packed one S1 class each eventually (i.e. reduction of a total of 12 classes). Besides, among the 388 public sector secondary schools participating in the SSPA, only one school continues to operate with one S1 class according to its development plan and is the only school with an intake of less than 25 students (which is the criterion for approving S1 classes mentioned below).
As the actual S1 intake of schools is subject to student movement during the summer holiday after the release of allocation results, no projection can realistically predict the number of schools admitting less than 25 S1 students and operating only one S1 class, not to mention having only 10-odd students at S1.
It is worth to note that the relief measures are specifically designed to facilitate the sustainability of those schools being affected by the decline in student population and stabilise their teaching force. These schools may make better deployment of their surplus teachers to enhance the professional capability of their teaching force, which will in turn bring about positive impact to the secondary education ecosystem and teaching quality. Besides, the objective of requiring schools with only one S1 class to submit a school development plan for continual operation is to ensure quality teaching.
(d) Based on past experiences, projections of districts with mismatch of supply and demand of S1 places leading to number of classes to be reduced cannot rely solely on the estimated decrease of S1 students in the districts concerned. Generally speaking, the impact of the temporary decline of S1 students on individual schools and districts varies due to a number of factors. Besides, as mentioned above, schools may admit students during the summer holiday and the actual impact arising from the decline in S1 student population on individual districts or schools cannot be fully realised until the mid-September student headcount of the school year.
(e) To cope with the anticipated transient decline in S1 student population from 2013 to 2015, we cannot, and should not, regard the progressive reduction of the number of students allocated per S1 class as the only relief measure, nor can we ignore the concerns of other stakeholders (e.g. parents). The EDB has implemented a series of targeted relief measures with a view to maintaining the stability and strengths of the schools as well as teaching force, and addressing the different concerns / needs of schools. When mapping out these relief measures, the EDB has met with the sector and different stakeholders to seek their views. Only having considered and balanced views of different parties have we finalised details of the relief measures, including reduction of the number of students allocated per S1 class.
(f) and (g) According to the September student headcount this school year, the relief measures have achieved the desired targets of maintaining the stability and strengths of the schools as well as teaching force.
Only 12 S1 classes (involving 12 schools) were reduced due to under-enrollment, which is far less than the projected over 100 classes by some stakeholders in the sector based on the supply and demand of S1 places by district. Under the relief measures, surplus regular teachers of the schools concerned will be retained for three school years and will not be laid off as a result of reduction of classes.
Besides, upon the relaxation of the "not less than three classes" requirement starting from the 2013/14 school year, schools are allowed to continue operation with two S1 classes. With the relief measures, no new schools are required to apply for development options for continual operation this school year.
We believe that the relief measures of progressive reduction of the number of students allocated per S1 class on a year-on-year basis and having 25 students as the criterion for approving S1 classes, coupled with retaining the surplus teachers for three years, have helped stabilise the school sector. We will continue to engage the sector to explore feasible options to cope with the challenges arising from the temporary decline in S1 student population encountered by some of the schools.
(h) Provision of public sector S1 places is planned on a territory-wide basis and has taken into account the actual number of existing students (including cross-boundary students) at primary levels. According to the current projections, even if the S1 student population rebounds a few years later, the provision of school places over the territory is adequate to meet the demand. It is worth to note that, upon the introduction of the progressive reduction of the number of students allocated per S1 class, public sector secondary schools have undertaken unconditionally to continue with the netting arrangements for the central allocation stage according to the prevailing principles and established practices to cope with the year-on-year changes in the demand and supply of S1 places in individual districts. In the event that the neighbouring districts cannot meet the demand for school places, more S1 students will be allocated to each class. In addition, schools have pledged that when the S1 student population rebounds, the number of students per S1 class will be progressively reverted to the level of 2012 (i.e. 34 students per class). We will continue to monitor closely the changes in the demand and supply of school places by district and adopt timely measures where appropriate.
(i) At present, there are two repeater quotas in each S1 class. Some secondary school principals have proposed that schools, in the coming few years, should be required to reserve these places solely for their own repeaters rather than admitting students who have been allocated a S1 place in other schools. We are consulting stakeholders, including school sponsoring bodies and parents, on this proposal. We will take their views into consideration and address their concerns before pursuing further with the sector.
We have considered the sector's proposals on further progressive reduction of the number of students allocated per S1 class. The sector generally appreciates that the number of S1 classes in individual public sector secondary schools would inevitably be affected by the decline in the S1 student population. When mapping out the relief measures, we have given due consideration to the estimated decrease in the number of S1 students during the period (2013 to 2015). As such, we will continue to implement the relief measures, including the progressive reduction of the number of students allocated per S1 class on a year-on-year basis by "2-1-1" and "1-1-1", in line with the consensus reached with the sector in the 2013/14 school year. In other words, the number of students allocated per S1 class will be reduced by one student in the schools concerned in the 2014/15 school year.
(j) and (k) The EDB has been maintaining dialogue with the sector on matters relating to the transient decline in S1 student population. The relief measures devised in the previous year for maintaining the stability and strengths of the schools as well as teaching force have realised the effect. With the relief measures in place, only 12 S1 classes were reduced due to under-enrollment in the 2013/14 school year, which is far less than the projected over 100 classes by some stakeholders of the sector. To stabilise the teaching force, the period for retaining surplus regular teachers of the schools concerned has also been extended to three years. Schools with less than three S1 classes are allowed to participate in the following SSPA cycle with a cap of three S1 classes. As such, the relief measures have achieved the desired objectives.
We will continue to liaise closely with the sector and relevant organisations to exchange views through different platforms.
(l) According to the 2012 Hong Kong Population Projections released by the Census and Statistics Department, it is anticipated that the number of S1 students will rebound steadily and annually from the 2017/18 school year onwards, surpassing the level of the 2012/13 school year. By then, schools having progressive reduction of the number of students allocated per S1 class are expected to gradually revert to the level of the 2012/13 school year (i.e. 34 students per class) to meet the demand from the increasing number of S1 students.
(m) We have all along taken into account the changes of student population in planning for the allocation of teacher education places with a view to balancing and stabilising the supply and demand of teachers. Based on past experiences, there are on average more than a thousand secondary school teachers leaving the profession each year due to retirement or other personal reasons. A similar trend is anticipated in the coming five years. Each year, the 1000-odd teaching vacancies arising from natural wastage are available for new teachers. As serving teachers of other schools and teachers who have already left the profession can also apply for the vacant teaching posts, we are not able to project the number of secondary school teachers newly joining the profession each year.
(n) The sector generally appreciates that the number of S1 classes of individual public sector secondary schools would inevitably be affected by the temporary decline in S1 student population. To address the transient decline in S1 student population in the coming few years, the EDB has implemented a series of targeted relief measures since the 2013/14 school year, including adopting the district-/school-based approach to reduce the number of students allocated per S1 class over three school years; relaxing the "not less than three classes" requirement for S1 level; allowing schools with one or two S1 classes to participate in the SSPA with a cap of three S1 classes; and extending the retention period to three years for surplus teachers arising from the reduction in the number of S1 classes. We hold the view that the aforesaid measures can help stabilise the schools and teaching force, as well as maintain the morale of serving teachers. As the number of surplus teachers reduces, the chance for new teachers to get employed would increase correspondingly in the application for teaching posts.
(o) Our education system (including secondary school policy) aims to facilitate whole-person development of students. Students with different strengths and aptitudes are provided with appropriate learning opportunities and experiences so that they can become active, responsible and contributing members of society, the nation and the world. The basic education in Hong Kong is heading towards quality and equality. The EDB will continue to support schools and teachers in enhancing teaching quality and learning outcomes. We are fully aware of the challenges to some schools amidst the transient decline in S1 student population and have implemented a series of relief measures to facilitate sustained development of schools and stabilise the teaching force. We trust that schools would be in a better position to re-focus their efforts on enhancing learning and teaching (including professional development of teachers) with a steady rebound of S1 student population.
Note 1:
The relief measures include:
*relaxing the "not less than three S1 classes" requirement;
*on the basis of the relaxation of the criterion for approving S1 classes to 25 students per class, allowing secondary schools to operate two S1 classes with a minimum intake of 26 students, i.e. 13 students per class on average;
*allowing schools operating only one S1 class to continue operation through various school development options;
*allowing schools operating two S1 classes or less to participate in the following SSPA cycle with a cap of three S1 classes;
*extending the retention period for surplus teachers arising from any packing of S1 classes from one year to three years; and
*adopting a district-/school-based approach to adjust the number of students allocated to each S1 class from SSPA 2013 to SSPA 2015 to cater for the differences among districts and schools as well as the demand and supply of different districts.
Note 2: For details, please refer to the paper "Secondary School Places Allocation System 2013 - Overall Situation of Public Sector Secondary Schools upon Release of Allocation Results" [LC Paper No CB(4)888/12-13(01)].
Ends/Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Issued at HKT 17:52
NNNN