Project of “School Self-evaluation, External Review and Sustainability” The Chinese University of Hong Kong School Development and Evaluation Team Faculty

Project of “School Self-evaluation, External Review and Sustainability”

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

School Development and Evaluation Team

Faculty of Education

Data Report (05-06)(Restricted and for Internal Circulation

Only)

School code 64﹕

Wah Yan College, Kowloon

Areas of School Self-Evaluation I. Students’ Performance Indicators from CUHK:

II. Teachers’ Performance Indicators from CUHK :

PI 01: Students’ Quality of School Life

PI 02: Students’ Perception of School Climate

PI 03: Students’ Socio-Economic Status

PI 04: Students’ Perception of Parental Styles

PI 11: Teachers’ Feelings about School Life

PI 13: School Organizational Values

PI 14: Organizational Learning

III. Parents’ Performance Indicators from CUHK :

PI 32: Parents’ Perception of the School

I. Students’ Performance Indicators from CUHK:

PI 01: Students’ Quality of School Life

PI 02: Students’ Perception of School Climate

PI 03: Students’ Socio-Economic Status

PI 04: Students’ Perception of Parental Styles

3.08

2.66

1.83

2.08

2.952.90

3.10

2.99

2.73

2.54

3.16

2.922.99

2.68

1.00

2.00

3.00

Fig. 1a: Students’ Quality of School Life (1)School Mean

Note: The scale ranges from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree).

Mean for twenty-five secondary schools

Mean

(Agree)

(Disagree)

(Strongly Disagree)

(*Negative domain)

General Satisfaction

Negative Feeling*

Teacher -Pupil

Relation

Experience in School

Life

Personal Achieve-men

t

Future Oppor-tunities

Social Integration

Wah Yan College, KowloonProject of “School Self-evaluation, External Review and Sustainability”

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

Fig. 1b: Students’ Quality of School Life (2)

Student Distribution

(Agree)

(Disagree)

(Strongly Disagree)

(Strongly Agree)

(*Negative domain)


Negative Feeling*

Teacher -Pupil Relation

Experience in School Life

Personal Achieve-ment

Future Oppor-tunitie

s

Social Integration


3.10

3.003.04

3.25

3.033.06

1.71

1.851.90

1.76

1.901.86

3.08

2.882.88

3.09

2.85

2.91

3.17

3.09 3.113.12

2.99

3.17

2.88

2.752.68

2.80

2.54

2.76

3.26

3.183.163.22

2.99

3.14

3.022.982.99

3.10

2.86

2.98

1.00

2.00

3.00

Mean

(Agree)

(Disagree)

(Strongly Disagree)

(*Negative domain)


Negative Feeling*

Teacher -Pupil

Relation

Experience in School

Life

Personal Achieve-men

t

Future Oppor-tunities

Social Integration

Fig. 1c: Students’ Quality of School Life (3)Note: The scale ranges from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree).

Mean of S1 students

Mean of S2 students

Mean of S3 students

Mean of S4 students

Mean of S5 students

Mean of S6 students


3.04

2.79

3.11

2.912.85

2.76

3.06

2.69

2.86 2.88

3.19

2.92

2.00

3.00

School Mean


Fig. 2a: Students’ Perception of the Staff and Students (1)

(Agree)

(Disagree) Principal/

School HeadTeachers Classmates Clerical

StaffTechnicians / Teaching Assistants

Janitors


Mean


2.93

2.78

3.16

2.87

3.13

2.87

3.13

2.87

2.94

2.74

2.00

3.00

School Mean


Fig. 2b: Students’ Perception of Effectiveness of the School (1)

Mean

Learning per se

Teaching Extra-Curricular Activities

Moral & Civic

Education

Physical & Arts

Education



(Agree)

(Disagree)


4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

Fig. 2c: Students’ Perception of the Staff and Students (2)

(Agree)

(Disagree)

(Strongly Disagree

)

(Strongly Agree)

Principal/ School Head

Teachers Classmates Clerical Staff

Technicians / Teaching Assistants

Janitors



4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

Fig. 2d: Students’ Perception of Effectiveness of the School (2)

Learning per se


Moral & Civic

Education

Physical & Arts Education



(Agree)

(Disagree)

(Strongly Disagree

)

(Strongly Agree)


3.23

2.932.97

3.16

2.85

3.15

3.06

2.98

3.06

3.39

2.95

3.25

2.88

2.73

2.84

3.03

2.71

2.96

3.21

3.08 3.11 3.11

2.81

3.04

2.83

2.64

2.90

2.97

2.71

3.283.25

3.04

3.16

3.34

3.11

3.32

1.00

2.00

3.00

Principal/ School Head

Teachers Classmates Clerical Staff

Technicians / Teaching Assistants

Janitors


Mean of S1 students

Mean of S2 students

Mean of S3 studentsFig. 2e: Students’ Perception of

the Staff and Students (3)

Mean

Mean of S4 students

Mean of S5 students

Mean of S6 students

(Agree)

(Disagree)

(Strongly Disagree)


3.00

2.872.93

2.98

2.872.92

3.32

3.09 3.10

3.31

2.92

3.19 3.17

3.033.08

3.34

2.92

3.32

3.22

3.043.11

3.29

2.94

3.19

3.07

2.89

2.99

3.06

2.71

2.95

1.00

2.00

3.00

Fig. 2f: Students’ Perception of Effectiveness of the School (3)

Learning per se


Moral & Civic

Education

Physical & Arts

Education

Mean


Mean of S1 students

Mean of S2 students

Mean of S3 students

Mean of S4 students

Mean of S5 students

Mean of S6 students


(Agree)

(Disagree)

(Strongly Disagree)


19.8

7.4

15.0

7.2

25.0

13.8

8.86.7

13.0

30.3

11.615.1

4.6

11.4

0.0 0.82.4

7.1

15.6

5.58.2

4.47.6

5.2

24.7

18.0

0.2 1.5

11.8

20.0

2.14.7

2.1 3.6

27.5

37.2

Fig. 3a: Students’ Socio-Economic Status (1)

%

%

Profes-sionals

Managers/ Executives

Merchants/ Supervisors

Clerks/ Sales-

persons

Skilled workers/

Technicians

Unskilled workers

Farmers/ Fishermen/ Domestic Helpers

Unemployed/ Non-working

Public Service

Providers

Profes-sionals

Managers/ Executives

Merchants/ Supervisors

Clerks/ Sales-

persons

Skilled workers/

Technicians

Unskilled workers

Farmers/ Fishermen/ Domestic Helpers

Unemployed/ Non-working

Public Service

Providers

Father’s OccupationFather’s Occupation

Mother’s OccupationMother’s Occupation

% for the School% for twenty-five secondary schools


0.42.2 2.3

7.6 6.4

15.718.6

31.1 29.927.2

10.0

6.1 6.33.1

26.2

6.9

1.03.7 2.9

8.1 7.0

16.7 18.4

29.5

40.0

30.0

11.4

5.7 6.82.8

12.6

3.6

Fig. 3b: Students’ Socio-Economic Status (2)% for the School% for twenty-five secondary schools

%

%

Below Primary

Junior Primary

Upper Primary

Junior Secondary

Senior Secondary

Matricu-lation

University Level

Post-Secondary

Below Primary

Junior Primary

Upper Primary

Junior Secondary

Senior Secondary

Matricu-lation

University Level

Post-Secondary

Father’s Education LevelFather’s Education Level

Mother’s Education LevelMother’s Education Level


2.1

6.9

11.7

26.1

15.4

24.6

12.715.3

13.612.0 12.1

5.88.6

3.4

11.1

2.7

12.7

3.2

ReceivingCSSA21.3%

Not receivingCSSA78.7%

ReceivingCSSA12.0%

Not receivingCSSA88.0%

Fig. 3c: Students’ Socio-Economic Status (3)% for the School% for twenty-five secondary schools

%

< $ 5K $10-15K

$15-20K

$20-30K

$30-40K

>70K$40-50K

$50-70K$ 5-10K

Family’s Total Monthly IncomeFamily’s Total Monthly Income

Receiving Government Financial Assistance (CSSA Scheme)Receiving Government Financial Assistance (CSSA Scheme)


66.1

32.8

8.7 11.7 10.1 8.0

0.2 2.2

14.9

44.1

0.0 1.1

94.086.6

0.4 2.4 4.4 8.41.2 2.7

Fig. 3d: Students’ Socio-Economic Status (4)% for the School% for twenty-five secondary schools

%

%

Private Housing (owned)

Home Ownership

Scheme

Private Housing(rental)

Share Flat (rental)

Public Housing

Temporary Housing

Living with Father, Mother, Brother(s)

and Sister(s)

Living with Father, Brother(s)

and Sister(s)

Living with Mother, Brother(s)

and Sister(s)

Living with other relatives

Residential TypeResidential Type

Family CompositionFamily Composition


2.0 2.4

22.3

15.5

51.7

45.3

16.4

24.4

4.58.4

2.3 2.8 0.8 1.3

0.0 1.2 0.0 1.6 1.3 2.1 2.4 3.6

96.391.6

Fig. 3e: Students’ Socio-Economic Status (5)% for the School% for twenty-five secondary schools

%

%

1 year or below

2-3 years

4-5 years

6-7 years

Others

No. of Family Members (incl. student)No. of Family Members (incl. student)

Students Newly Arrived from ChinaStudents Newly Arrived from China

2 or below

3 4 5 6 7 8 or above


3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

-1.00

-2.00

-3.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

-1.00

-2.00

-3.00

SES Index Distribution of our school

SES Index Distribution of 40 schools

Fig. 3f: Students’ Socio-Economic Status (6)


Degree of T

ightnessD

egree of Tightness

Degree of AcceptanceDegree of Acceptance

Indulgent

Authoritarian (Power-assertive)

Authoritative-reciprocal (High in bi-

directional communication)

Neglecting

(Ignoring & Uninvolved)

Fig. 4a: Students’ Perception of Parental Styles (1)

High

Low

Low High


25.4

33.030.5

21.1 20.3 20.723.9 25.1 %

Fig. 4b: Students’ Perception of Parental Styles (2)

% for the school

% for twenty-five secondary schools

Neglecting (Ignoring & Uninvolved

Indulgent Authoritarian (Power-assertive)

Authoritative-reciprocal

(High in bi-directional communication)


1.5

23.9

1.7

28.8

1.5

18.8

1.7

22.2 %

Fig. 4c: Students’ Perception of Parental Styles (3)

% of outliers% of others

Note: Outliers at 2 s.d. or more






2.63.6 3.6

5.8 6.0

3.8

7.5

5.35.8 5.5

4.5

1.9 1.9

3.0

5.54.7

3.9

1.3

5.56.2

4.13.2

4.3

0.6

%





% of S1 students

% of S2 students% of S3 students

Fig. 4d: Students’ Perception of Parental Styles (4)

% of S4 students

% of S5 students

% of S6 students


II. Teachers’ Performance Indicators from CUHK:

PI 11: Teachers’ Feelings about School Life

PI 13: School Organizational Values

PI 14: Organizational Learning

4.65

4.50

5.06

4.08

4.57

3.92

4.23

3.63

2.82

3.57

3.91

4.52

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Teacher Commitment

Job Satisfaction

Sense of Community

Students’ Order and Discipline

Job Pressure

Workload

Fig. 11a: Teachers’ Feelings about School Life (1)

(Agree)

(Slightly Disagree)

(Slightly Agree)

(Disagree)

School Mean



Mean


6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

Fig. 11b: Teachers’ Feelings about School Life (2)

(Agree)

(Disagree)

(Strongly Disagree)

(Strongly Agree)

Job Satisfaction

Sense of Community


Job Pressure

Workload

(Slightly Disagree)

(Slightly Agree)

Teacher Distribution

Teacher Commitment


4.75

4.35

5.05 5.08

4.594.49

4.29

4.06

2.792.92

3.84

4.15

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Teacher Commitment

Job Satisfaction

Sense of Community


Job Pressure

Workload

Fig. 11c: Teachers’ Feelings about School Life (3)

(Agree)

(Slightly Disagree)

(Slightly Agree)

(Disagree)

Mean of Male


Mean of Female

Mean


3.00

4.00

5.00

Teachers' Personal Values (TPV) 3.72 3.01 4.97 4.62 4.72 4.81 4.86 5.07

School's Espoused Values (SEV) 3.89 3.15 4.48 4.32 4.58 4.41 4.72 4.93

FormalityBureaucratic

Control

Participationand

CollaborationCollegiality Clarity of Goals

Communicationand Consensus

ProfessonalOrientaton

TeacherAutonomy

Fig. 13a : School Organizational Values (1)

(Agree)

(Slightly Disagree)

(Slightly Agree)

Mean



3.00

4.00

5.00

TPV (My School) 3.72 3.01 4.97 4.62 4.72 4.81 4.86 5.07

SEV (My School) 3.89 3.15 4.48 4.32 4.58 4.41 4.72 4.93

TPV (All Sec Sch) 4.33 3.97 5.07 4.94 5.08 5.09 5.04 4.93

SEV (All Sec Sch) 4.31 4.08 3.90 4.06 4.25 4.01 4.36 4.19


ControlParticipation and




TeacherAutonomy

(Agree)

(Slightly Disagree)

(Slightly Agree)

Fig. 13b : School Organizational Values (2)

Mean



2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

TPV (Male) 3.69 3.03 4.95 4.68 4.69 4.81 4.89 5.01

SEV (Male) 3.88 3.14 4.54 4.38 4.62 4.51 4.80 4.98

TPV (Female) 3.80 2.95 5.05 4.46 4.82 4.78 4.79 5.24

SEV (Female) 3.91 3.18 4.29 4.13 4.43 4.10 4.44 4.75


ControlParticipation and




TeacherAutonomy

(Agree)

(Slightly Disagree)

(Slightly Agree)

Fig. 13c : School Organizational Values (3)


Mean

(Disagree)


4.24 4.184.28

3.80

4.44

4.04

4.254.13

4.26

3.93

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

School Mean

Note: The scale ranges from 1 (Never) to 6 (Often).

Fig. 14a: Organizational Learning (1) Mean for twenty-five secondary schools

Personal Mastery

Mental Model

Shared Vision

Team Learning

Systems Thinking

(Frequent)

(Sometimes)

(Few)

(Rare)

Mean


6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

Fig. 14b: Organizational Learning (2)

(Never)

(Often)

(Frequent)

(Sometimes)

(Few)

(Rare)

Personal Mastery

Mental Model

Shared Vision

Team Learning

Systems Thinking

Teacher Distribution


4.244.32 4.37

4.30

4.54

4.374.30 4.26 4.31 4.27

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Mean of Male

Note: The scale ranges from 1 (Never) to 6 (Often).

Fig. 14c: Organizational Learning (3) Mean of Female

Personal Mastery

Mental Model

Shared Vision

Team Learning

Systems Thinking

(Frequent)

(Sometimes)

(Few)

(Rare)

Mean


PI 32: Parents’ Perception of the School

III. Parents’ Performance Indicators from CUHK:

4.57

4.08

2.34

3.27

4.90

4.28

3.994.11

4.30

4.17

4.99

4.10

4.44

3.94

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Fig. 32a: Parents’ Perception of the School (1)

Mean

School Mean


(Slightly Agree)

(Agree)

(Slightly Disagree)

(Disagree)

(*Negative Domain)

School Effectiveness

Study Pressure*

School Ethos

Parent-School Collaboration

Student Care

School Facilities

Students’ Sense of

Belonging



6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

Parents’ Distribution

(Agree)

(Disagree)

(Strongly Disagree

)

(Strongly Agree)

(Slightly Agree)

(Slightly Disagree)

Fig. 32b: Parents’ Perception of the School (2)

(*Negative Domain)


School Effective

-ness

Study Pressure*

School Ethos

Parent -School

Collaboration

Student Care School Facilities

Students’ Sense of Belonging


4.69

4.47

4.56

4.63

4.47

4.64

2.22

2.39

2.32

2.24

2.57

2.34

5.08

4.82

4.96

4.84

4.69

5.04

4.29

3.92

4.07

3.883.84 3.85

4.38

4.19

4.40

4.29

4.22

4.32

5.10

4.98 4.98

5.06

4.86

4.95

4.49

4.36 4.38

4.55

4.41

4.47

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Mean of Parents of S1Mean of Parents of S2

Mean of Parents of S3




Fig. 32c: Parents’ Perception of the School (3)


Mean

(Slightly Agree)

(Agree)

(Slightly Disagree)

(Disagree)

(*Negative Domain)

School Effectiveness

Study Pressure*

School Ethos

Parent-School Collaboration

Student Care

School Facilities

Students’ Sense of

Belonging


PI No. Title Area Count

01 Quality of School Life S1-S6 Students 544

02 Students' Perception of School Climate S1-S6 Students 554

03 Social Economic Status S1-S6 Students 539

04 Parental Styles S1-S6 Students 539

11 Teachers’ Feelings about School Life All Teachers 49

13 School Values Inventory All Teachers 49

14 School Organizational Learning All Teachers 49

32 Parents’ Perception of the School All Parents 516

Appendix: “Performance Indicators” Survey Record


Documents

Project of “School Self-evaluation, External Review and Sustainability” The Chinese University of Hong Kong School Development and Evaluation Team Faculty