**************************
Following is a question by the Hon Pan Pey-chyou and a written reply by the Secretary for Education, Mr Michael Suen, in the Legislative Council today (February 23):
Question:
According to the guidelines of the Education Bureau, an annual recurrent cash grant under the Teacher Relief Grant ("TRG") is provided to each school with an incorporated management committee ("IMC") to appoint supply teachers to cover approved leave of eligible teachers. It was intended to give greater financial support and autonomy to schools, but some teachers have relayed to me that the actual implementation of the arrangement makes some teachers feel stressful and discontented. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the respective numbers and percentages of aided schools that have and have not established an IMC; whether the authorities know the reason why some aided schools have not yet established an IMC;
(b) of the amount of TRG used by each aided school to appoint temporary supply teachers in the past three school years, and the percentage of such amount in TRG (broken down by the type and name of school);
(c) how many schools needed, in the past three school years, to meet the shortfall themselves because TRG was not sufficient to meet the actual demand, and of the amount of the shortfall;
(d) whether the authorities know that some schools were unable to hire supply teachers from outside because TRG was not sufficient and they had to arrange for other teachers in the school to cover the classes or allow teachers to take only 2.5 man-days of sick leave a year in order to cut expenditure, resulting in some teachers being afraid to take sick leave even when they were sick, how the authorities deal with such situations; and whether they have established a relevant regulatory mechanism to safeguard the legitimate interests of teachers;
(e) given that under certain circumstances, e.g. during the peak of the influenza season, the chances of teachers taking sick leave are substantially higher, which directly aggravates the financial burden of hiring supply teachers on schools, whether the authorities will consider providing additional TRG temporarily in response to such special circumstances so as to alleviate the pressure on schools in using TRG; and
(f) whether the authorities have any plan to review the actual implementation of TRG, including reviewing the applicability of calculating the amount of TRG on the basis of 2.5 man-days a year, and allow schools themselves to choose to hire supply teachers on a reimbursement basis or by means of TRG so as to highlight the spirit of autonomy in school-based management?
Reply:
President,
(a) As at February 2011, of the 845 aided schools in Hong Kong, 441 have already established an incorporated management committee (IMC) and 32 have submitted their draft IMC constitutions, accounting for 56% of all aided schools.
The main reasons why some schools have yet to establish an IMC are as follows:
* As the appeal by the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong against the establishment of an IMC is still underway, some schools adopt a wait-and-see attitude.
ιΏ°
* Some sponsoring bodies are having a greater number of schools, and they would need to, taking into account their own circumstances, set up IMCs for their schools by phases.
* Individual schools have certain special circumstances, such as having major changes in their managing staff, change of sponsoring bodies, etc. Thus, they would need longer time for establishing an IMC.
* Some schools will cease operation soon, so they will not consider setting up an IMC.
(b) The provision of the Teacher Relief Grant (TRG) by the Education Bureau (EDB) to aided schools with an IMC aims to provide schools with flexibility in deploying their resources and to simplify the administrative procedures for appointing supply teachers, so that schools will have greater funding flexibility and autonomy to enhance the quality of education more effectively.
The TRG includes two components, namely, an annual recurrent cash grant (Note 1) and an optional cash grant (Note 2). While the former is for schools to appoint supply teachers to replace temporarily teachers on approved leave lasting less than 30 days, the latter is for schools which opt to freeze up to 10% of their teaching establishment permanently or temporarily in order to employ teachers, provide staff training, procure education-related services or employ other staff like social workers, educational psychologists, professional instructors, etc. according to their school needs.
Regarding individual schools' actual usage of the TRG for appointing temporary supply teachers, since schools may integrate and use the two components of the TRG according to school needs and are not required to report to the EDB, we possess no information on this aspect.
(c) and (d) Under the existing mechanism, schools may retain the TRG surplus up to three times the annual provision in the relevant year. In case of deficit, they may use the Expanded Operating Expenses Block Grant (EOEBG) or their own funds to top up the TRG. The EDB does not collect or analyse information on schools meeting the shortfall themselves due to insufficient TRG. Nevertheless, we have noticed from the latest (i.e. 2008/09 school year) financial statements submitted by schools that among the IMC schools, nine (about 2.5% of all IMC schools) ran into deficits (amount ranging from $900 to $50,000) with respect to their TRG accounts. These schools are able to make use of the funding flexibility by deploying the EOEBG to cover the related expenses.
We must reiterate that the 2.5 days is absolutely not the ceiling of the sick leave entitlement of a teacher per year, but just the basis for calculating the TRG. All aided schools must grant leave to teachers according to the Code of Aid and the Employment Ordinance. The provision of TRG will not affect teachers' entitlement to sick leave and other approved leave. Apart from that, under the existing mechanism, if a teacher needs to take approved leave for 30 days or more, the school concerned can still apply to the EDB for reimbursement of the expenses of appointing a supply teacher.
According to the views collected from regular school visits conducted by School Development Officers of the Regional Education Offices (REOs), most secondary schools do not have any adverse comments on the TRG. Some secondary schools welcome the arrangement for schools to opt for a "cash grant" by freezing their teaching establishment as they consider such conducive to their flexible deployment of resources. In respect of the concern of some primary schools about the adequacy or otherwise of their TRG to cover the expenses of appointing supply teachers in the whole school year and the use of 2.5 man-days of daily-rated supply teachers as the basis for calculating the annual recurrent cash grant, the EDB has already explained to the schools concerned the relevant provisions of the Code of Aid and the Employment Ordinance for handling teachers' sick leave. If necessary, the EDB will continue to provide assistance in respect of the above matters to ensure that schools would handle the situations properly.
In addition, through different occasions and channels, such as meetings with schools councils and teachers' associations, workshops and briefing sessions, etc., the EDB will continue to explain to and advise schools on the funding principles and use of the TRG, and how to effectively exercise the funding flexibility and use the surplus of the grant.
(e) Under special circumstances (such as influenza epidemic peak season), if individual schools encounter financial difficulties because of having to employ more supply teachers substituting a great number of teachers taking leave, they may contact their respective School Development Officers of REO to work out a solution. The EDB will consider the school needs so reflected and take appropriate contingency measures.
(f) The EDB has been keeping in view the implementation of the TRG since its introduction in the 2005/06 school year. In 2008, we examined the method of calculating the annual recurrent cash grant under the TRG and found that the basis of the calculation and its implementation arrangements were appropriate. The EDB will continue to monitor the actual implementation of the TRG so as to consider whether there is a need to conduct a review.
Note 1: The basis for calculating the annual recurrent cash grant is 2.5 man-days per teacher on the establishment.
Note 2: For the optional cash grant, the starting salary point/mid-point salary/daily rates/average monthly salary point of temporary teachers (depending on the length and nature of the frozen period) of respective teaching posts is to be frozen as the basis for calculation.
Ends/Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Issued at HKT 14:53
NNNN
