quality education fund briefing on application
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Quality Education Fund Briefing on Application

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 19

Quality Education Fund Briefing on Application - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 119 Views
  • Uploaded on

Quality Education Fund Briefing on Application. 8 May 2013. Programme. Education Landscape of Hong Kong and Tips on Application. Dr Catherine K K Chan. Quality Education Fund Background Information.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Quality Education Fund Briefing on Application' - azriel


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
programme
Programme

申請簡介

quality education fund background information
Quality Education FundBackground Information
  • The Quality Education Fund (QEF) was set up in January 1998 with an allocation of $5 billion under the recommendation of the Education Commission Report No. 7 (ECR7).
  • The QEF sponsors worthwhile projects that benefit kindergarten, primary, secondary and special education . They should be non-profit making and aim to further enhance the quality of education in line with the prevailing education policies in Hong Kong.
approval statistics
Approval Statistics
  • Since its establishment in 1998, the QEF has supported over 8 200 projects at around $4 billion.
  • The QEF processed about 383 applications in the 2011/12 school year, among which 135 applications were approved involving a total grant amounting to around $65.8 million.
  • In the past five school years, the QEF has approved about 1300 projects. Among these, about 500 projects were targeted at secondary schools as beneficiary.
slide6
QEF Funded Projects with Secondary Schools as Beneficiary By Project Categoriesfrom 2007/08 to 2011/12 school year (489)
learning and teaching 166

By Priority Themes

Learning and Teaching(166)

Management and Organisation (207)

others 74

By Priority Themes

Others (74)

Student Support & School Ethos (42)

new and revised measures in 2013 14
New and Revised Measures in 2013/14

Priority Themes

  • The QEF has renewed the priority themes on 17 April 2013.

Processing Time

  • Applications with grant sought not exceeding $600,000 will be processed normally within three months.
  • There is no change in the processing time for those above $600,000, i.e. within six months.

School-based Innovation

  • The QEFencourages school-based innovative projects which would cover those with new ideas or practices (e.g. enhancement, adaptation) which serve to supplement or complement the existing practices in individual schools to bring about positive capacity and / or impact on learning and teaching.
paradigm shift on senior secondary
Paradigm Shift on Senior Secondary
  • NSS has been implemented since September 2009, as a continuation of education reform on basic education.
    • New paradigm on senior secondary education:
      • education for ALL up to S6
      • teachers become more and more familiar with the NSS Curriculum and Assessment
      • schools try their best to cater for students’ diversity
      • schools pay much more attention to education on career and life planning to prepare students with new paradigm on multiple pathways
impact on junior secondary
Impact on Junior Secondary
  • Schools generally attempt to revise their planning on junior secondary curriculum and assessment to ensure smooth articulation from junior forms to senior forms under NAS
    • pay more attention to interface between junior forms and senior forms
    • start training of high order thinking from junior forms
    • further emphasis on assessment for learning
whole school planning
Whole-school Planning
  • New paradigm on whole-school planning on curriculum and assessment
    • vertical (from S1 to S6) and horizontal (different learning areas) planning
    • evolving pedagogical changes
    • extended L&T (e.g. OLE) and reflection (SLP as a tool)  assessment as learning

Effective learning & teaching is the only way for long-term school development, but “learning & teaching” is no longer restricted in classrooms

good project proposal
Good Project Proposal
  • The project proposals must demonstrate an innovative element and strive to meet the criteria in the three areas of “Project Needs”, “Project Feasibility” and “Expected Project Outcomes”.
  • Project Needs-Addressing the needs of schools / education sector; with innovation / school-based innovation;the needs assessment for the project being evidence-based; with realistic project scope, objectives and long-term impact
  • Project Feasibility –With sound conceptual framework and comprehensive project design; with teachers’ involvement to enhance teachers’ and principals’ professionalism; making full use of the existing facilities, equipment and resources; budget commensurate with the goals, project scope, activities, number of direct beneficiaries and end products to be delivered
  • Expected Project Outcomes – Using evidence-based measures to evaluate the expected project outcomes and its effectiveness; its project outcomes/impacts being sustainable; projects / experiences generated / its expected outcomes with good value and potential for wide dissemination or knowledge transfer in the school sector
reasons for being unsuccessful
Reasons for Being Unsuccessful
  • Lack of clear goals, concrete/comprehensive/feasible project design
    • No elaboration on the conceptual framework ; or how to actualize it with realistic implementation plan
  • Failing to integrate or align with the school’s development plan
    • Projects not aligned with the priorities set by schools
  • Failing to demonstrate the innovative elements in project aims, conceptual framework and project design
    • The nature and type of activities are commonly adopted in schools; no elaboration on the specific needs and innovative elements
  • Being not cost-effective with insufficient justifications for the expenditure items
    • Items requested not commensurate with the project implementation/activities; with limited targeted beneficiaries
  • Lack of sustainability and dissemination plan
    • Project activities one-off in nature without elaboration on its impact
    • Without reference/dissemination value to sustain the project impacts/practices
ad