Esf island school decant report 100614

Parent Survey – Island School Decant 10th June 2014 J3741: Chris Farquhar, Julia Nowell

2

Survey Overview Background & ObjecGves •  The English Schools Founda:on (ESF) is planning the complete redevelopment of the Island School on the same site with the aim to start demoli:on and reconstruc:on in the Summer of 2017. In order to undertake this redevelopment, students need to be decanted to other school loca:ons in Hong Kong. A group of dedicated parents and faculty wished to understand parent’s views of the decant and therefore conducted an online survey to gauge opinion.

•  The main objec:ves of the survey included: •  Raise parent’s awareness of all the main issues concerning ESF as they plan to temporarily relocate in 2017;

•  Collect data to inform the decisions ESF needs to make along the way and gauge the level of parent concern about the move; and

•  Communicate the sense that ESF wants to work in partnership with the parent body to secure the welfare of the students and con:nuity of school ethos and excellence in teaching and learning.

Data CollecGon •  Online survey amongst parents of children at ESF Senior and Primary schools

•  N=199 responses were gathered.

Survey Period •  Fieldwork undertaken in May 2014.

Key findings

4

Execu:ve Summary

Level of Student Movement •  The majority of parents prefer very liZle movement for students throughout the day, with over half (57%) recommending zero or limited movement. Those residing in the Mid Levels are the most resistant to student movement.

Important Factors of School Decant • Again, minimizing student movement between campuses was of the utmost importance (6-‐in-‐10 parents considered it the most important factor), closely followed by securing breadth of curriculum op:ons.

• Minimizing staff movement and securing House ethos was felt to be less important overall.

Which Model is Preferred • Model 1 (splibng the school by Year group 7, 8, 12, 13 and 9, 10, 11) was the most preferred by a large margin, whereas splibng the school by House was met with considerable resistance.

• However, many parents commented they would prefer the school to be split into a middle and high school, i.e. Years 7-‐9 and 10-‐13 for various reasons rela:ng to peer group and maturity level.

Most Important Concerns •  Travel :me and logis:cs were considered to be the most important factor by a large distance. Alloca:on of resources and staff reten:on are also high in the order or priority.

•  Travel costs and transport to/from ac:vi:es are considered to be less important overall.

Other Comments • Parents are generally concerned about the unknown transi:on, par:cularly the :me taken and travel :me for children. Some have offered sugges:ons and messages of support that will be of interest to the ESF.

5

Execu:ve Summary – By Student Year Level Primary School Age (Year 1-‐6) •  The most important factor of the decant for parents of children Years 1-‐6 was minimizing student movement (the majority find zero to limited movement acceptable) and securing breadth of curriculum op:ons.

•  Their biggest concerns were travel :me and logis:cs, alloca:on of resources, staff reten:on and transport to and from ac:vi:es.

Year 7-‐8 •  Year 7-‐8 parents had the strongest opinions in terms of important factors and concerns. •  Like Years 1-‐6, minimizing student movement between campuses was of the utmost importance in the decant, very closely followed by securing breadth of curriculum op:ons (the highest of all parents). Responding to parent and student views was the most important factor to a quarter of these parents (also the highest of all groups).

•  The most important concern was also length of travel :me and logis:cs. Alloca:on of resources, staff reten:on and con:nua:on of school ethos followed (this was also highest of all Year groups).

Year 9-‐10 •  Year 9-‐10 parents were the biggest advocates of Model 1 (splibng school by Year group 7, 8, 12, 13 & 9, 10, 11). •  Like the other groups, minimizing student movement was the most important factor (although a quarter would find 1-‐2 moves per week for those Year 9+ acceptable). Securing breadth of curriculum op:ons was considered the most important factor by half (though 10% lower than Year 7-‐8). Minimizing staff movement was the next most important factor for this group.

•  Concerns also centred around length of travel :me, alloca:on of resources and staff reten:on.

Year 11-‐13 •  Strength of opinion drops for this group (considering their children may not be affected by the decant), however similar themes emerged – half considered minimizing student movement and securing breadth of curriculum as the most important

•  Travel :me and logis:cs was their biggest concern (although the lowest score of all Year groups). •  4-‐in-‐10 were advocates of Model 2 (School split by House) – the largest propor:on of all subgroups.

6

Execu:ve Summary – By Residen:al Area Mid Levels •  The most important factor of the decant for parents in the Mid Levels was minimizing student movement (the vast majority find zero to limited movement acceptable), followed by securing breadth of curriculum op:ons.

•  Three quarters of this group rated their biggest concern as travel :me and logis:cs. Alloca:on of resources, staff reten:on and the length of school day also rated highly (yet a distance from travel :me).

• Model 1 (splibng school by year group) was the most preferred by 7-‐in-‐10.

Other HK Island •  Like those in the Mid Levels, minimizing student movement between campuses was of the utmost importance in the decant, followed by securing breadth of curriculum op:ons. Minimizing staff movement was the most important factor to a third of these parents (one of the highest of all groups).

•  The most important concern was also length of travel :me and logis:cs, although alloca:on of resources and staff reten:on were also very important to almost half of these parents.

Kowloon (low base size) •  Securing curriculum was the most important factor to this group, followed by minimizing student movement. •  Travel :me and logis:cs fell behind the alloca:on of resources as the biggest concern. A third were also highly concerned about staff reten:on, length of school day and con:nua:on of school ethos.

New Territories •  Parents in the New Territories were more open to student movement, with 4-‐in-‐10 accep:ng limited movement during the decant (and only 1-‐in-‐10 finding zero movement acceptable). Nevertheless, half considered minimizing student movement and securing breadth of curriculum as the most important factors.

•  The alloca:on of resources was the biggest concern to this group, as well as travel :me and staff reten:on. Lantau •  7-‐in-‐10 Lantau parents considered minimizing student movement and securing breadth of curriculum as the most important, much more so than other factors (and highest of all areas). Travel :me and logis:cs was also the biggest concern for almost 8-‐in-‐10, followed by half claiming alloca:on of resources as the most important.

Level of student movement

Assuming a 5-‐10 minute travel 3me between school sites choose what you think is an acceptable level of student movement during the day

Acceptable Level of Student Movement

Zero movement for all age groups, 26

Limited movement for students,

31

No more than 1-‐2 moves

between sites p/wk, 15 1-‐2 moves p/

wk for students in Year 9 and above, 20

One move a day for students in Yr 9+, 9

Base: All respondents 199 Unit = %

• The majority of parents prefer very lible movement for students throughout the day, with over half (57%) recommending zero or limited movement.

We wish to have a model to be able to house the students and teachers together to minimize travel 3me or running between campus, efficiency will be lost if they are split. Kids are also carrying very heavy bags and

books, difficult for them to travel between places.

(New Territories, Year 8&10 Island School)

[We want] siblings to be together and zero movement

between campus. (Mid Levels, Year 8&11 Island School, Year 1&5 Primary)

The shortest distance between the two schools sites to shorten the travelling 3me of the students

and teachers when moving between sites. Max one

movement between sites for the teacher/student per week

is appreciated. (New Territories, Year 8&10

Island School)

9


Base: All respondents 199

•  ‘Limited movement’ increases as year level increases, with closer to a third of Year 11-‐13 parents preferring this op:on.

31

26

20

15

9

%

Child Year Level at Island School

Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

27 29 31

25 26 26

21 24 14

18 12 14

8 9 14

Limited movement for students

Zero movement for all age groups

1-‐2 moves p/wk for students in Year 9 and above

No more than 1-‐2 moves between sites p/wk

One move a day for students in Year 9 and above


10



• For those with Primary School children, limited movement was also desired, par:cularly by those aZending Beacon Hill.

/ Significantly higher/ lower than the total at 95% confidence level

%

Child Year Level at Primary School Primary School Abending

Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

33 38 64 38 25 30

25 22 21 23 25 17

18 17 21 19 26

23 21 14 17 31 17

3 2 2 9


31

26

20

15

9






*Cau3on: Low Base

11



•  In terms of residen:al area, those residing in the Mid-‐Levels are the most resistant to student movement.

%

ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)

Other HK Island (n=33)

Kowloon (n=17*)

New Territories (n=29)

Lantau (n=23)

32 30 29 41 17

30 21 29 10 30

16 24 24 24 22

14 12 12 17 17

7 12 6 7 13


31

26

20

15

9






*Cau3on: Low Base

Important factors for school decant

13

How to split the School Decant – Factor Importance

1 0 3 1 8 9 1 1 6 3

9 12

6 10

22 32 25

31

30 39

50 44 36 35 62

51

20 21 22 14

Most Important Factor

Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Minimizing student movement between campuses was of the utmost importance, closely followed by securing breadth of curriculum op:ons.

• Minimizing staff movement and securing House ethos was felt to be less important overall.

Minimizing staff

movement between

campuses %

Minimizing student

movement between

campuses %

Securing breadth of curriculum

options %

Guidance and Pastoral

Care %

Responding to parent and

student views

%

Securing House ethos

%

Base: All respondents 199 Please rank the following factors on deciding how to split the school during decant according to their importance

Top 2 Box 92% 90% 69% 65% 58% 48%

14


1 1 6

30

62


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Minimizing student movement was the most important factor for the majority. Those with children in Years 11-‐13 had less strength of opinion, perhaps due to their children being out of the school by :me of decant.

Minimizing student

movement between

campuses %


Top 2 Box 92%


Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

63 63 50

29 31 38

4 3 10

2 1

1 1 2

Minimizing student movement between campuses

15

How to split the School Decant – Factor Importance • For those with primary children at Beacon Hill, minimizing student movement was par:cularly important.


Top 2 Box 92%


Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

65 64 79 63 69 65

28 29 21 31 19 30

5 3 6 6

3 2 6

2 4 Minimizing student

movement between

campuses %

1 1 6

30

62


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


*Cau3on: Low Base

16

How to split the School Decant – Factor Importance • Those residing in Lantau found minimizing student movement par:cularly important (7-‐in-‐10 said it was the most important factor).


Top 2 Box 92%

ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

64 61 53 55 70

30 24 41 38 22

4 15 3 9

2

6 3

Minimizing student

movement between

campuses %

1 1 6

30

62


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


*Cau3on: Low Base

17


0 1 10

39

51


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Securing breadth of curriculum op:ons was most important for those in the earlier year levels. It was the second most important factor overall.


options %


Top 2 Box 90%


Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

61 51 48

32 38 40

6 10 12

1

Securing breadth of curriculum options

18

How to split the School Decant – Factor Importance • Earlier levels of Primary school also found the breadth of curriculum op:ons important (98% overall). There was less strength of opinion amongst those aZending Peak School.



Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

50 53 36 52 25 65

48 36 57 38 75 30

3 10 7 10 4


options %

Top 2 Box 90%

0 1 10

39

51


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


/ Significantly higher/ lower than the total at 95% confidence level *Cau3on: Low Base

19

How to split the School Decant – Factor Importance • Lantau and Kowloon residents felt securing the breadth of curriculum par:cularly important, more so than other areas.


ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

48 42 65 48 70

38 42 35 48 26

12 15 3 4

1

1


options %

Top 2 Box 90%

0 1 10

39

51


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


*Cau3on: Low Base

20


3 6

22

50

20 Most Important Factor

Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Seven-‐in-‐ten parents believed the Guidance and Pastoral care important overall. There was liZle difference by Year level.

Guidance and Pastoral Care

%


Top 2 Box 69%


Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

19 16 19

49 49 45

23 24 29

6 6 7

3 2 6


21

How to split the School Decant – Factor Importance • By overall importance, Peak primary was slightly higher than average (82%)


Top 2 Box 69%


Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

23 16 14 19 19 22

48 57 50 52 63 48

18 19 36 24 6 22

5 3 4 6 4

8 5 4 6 4 3 6

22

50


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


%


*Cau3on: Low Base

22

How to split the School Decant – Factor Importance • By residen:al area, the New Territories residents felt Guidance and Pastoral care more important overall.


Top 2 Box 69%

ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

22 12 18 24 17

48 52 53 52 48

21 30 24 17 22

6 3 3 13

3 3 6 3 3 6

22

50


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


%


*Cau3on: Low Base

23


1 3

32

44


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Responding to parent and student views was the 4th most important factor overall. Those with children in Year 7-‐8 felt it slightly more important than others (70%).


student views %


Top 2 Box 65%


Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

25 16 19

45 44 48

26 35 33

2 4

1

Responding to parent and student views

24

How to split the School Decant – Factor Importance • Few parents with children in Years 1-‐3 found responding to parent and student views the most important factor, nevertheless, they s:ll rated it strongly overall (76%) – significantly higher than the total.



Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

13 28 36 15 31 26

63 40 36 48 56 43

23 31 29 35 13 30

3 2 2

3 2 2 1 3

32

44


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


student views %

Top 2 Box 65%



25

How to split the School Decant – Factor Importance • More New Territories residents considered responding to parent and student views most important, much more so than those residing in Kowloon


ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

22 21 12 31 13

42 55 41 38 48

33 21 41 31 35

2 3 6 4

1 1 3

32

44


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


student views %

Top 2 Box 65%


*Cau3on: Low Base

26


8 9

25

36


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• The importance of minimizing staff movement increased slightly with Year Groups.

Minimizing staff

movement between

campuses % Base: All respondents 199

Please rank the following factors on deciding how to split the school during decant according to their importance

Top 2 Box 58%


Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

22 25 29

38 37 36

24 22 21

8 9 7

7 7 7

Minimizing staff movement between campuses

27


8 9

25

36


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Minimizing staff movements was found to be less important for those with Primary school children, par:cularly by those aZending Glenealy school.

Minimizing staff

movement between



Top 2 Box 58%


Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

23 22 36 15 31 30

35 33 36 38 31 26

25 28 29 23 19 35

15 10 19 13 9

3 7 6 6



28


8 9

25

36


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Those residing in the Mid-‐Levels considered minimizing staff movement between campuses less important than those residing in other areas.

Minimizing staff

movement between



Top 2 Box 58%

ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

14 33 24 34 22

42 30 29 28 35

21 27 35 24 35

14 12 3 4

8 9 10 4


*Cau3on: Low Base

29


9

12

31

35


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Securing House ethos was the least important factor overall, par:cularly to those with children in Years 7-‐10.


%


Top 2 Box 48%


Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

14 12 19

37 43 36

31 26 33

12 13 2

7 6 10


30

How to split the School Decant – Factor Importance • Parents with children in the earliest years of Primary school rated the importance of House ethos par:cularly low.



Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

8 16 14 10 6 26

30 36 43 29 50 22

33 26 29 35 31 30

13 14 14 13 6 13

18 9 13 6 9 9

12

31

35


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


%

Top 2 Box 48%


*Cau3on: Low Base

31

How to split the School Decant – Factor Importance • Residents of the Mid Levels felt House ethos the least important factor overall.


ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

8 21 18 17 17

34 33 24 45 35

31 24 41 31 30

15 12 12 3 9

11 9 6 3 9 9

12

31

35


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


%

Top 2 Box 48%


*Cau3on: Low Base

Which model is preferred

33

Model Preference

Model 1: School is split by years. 7,8,12 & 13 in one campus, Years 9,10 & 11 in the other

Model 2: School is split by House. Da Vinci, Einstein and Fleming in

one campus; Nansen, Rutherford & Wilberforce in the other

Another model:

34

Model Preference

7

26 23 7

27

2 9

18 58

39

19 9

38

11 8 Totally comfortable

Comfortable

Neutral

Not comfortable

Do not like

• Model 1 was the most preferred by a large margin, whereas splibng the school by House was met with considerable resistance.

Model 1: School is split by years. 7,8,12 & 13 in one campus, Years 9,10

& 11 in the other %

Model 2: School is split by House. Da Vinci, Einstein

and Fleming in one campus; Nansen, Rutherford &

Wilberforce in the other %

Another model

%

Base: All respondents 199 If you could personally decide the way to split the school during decant which model would you choose?

Top 2 Box 77% 30% 17%

Include a slide prior to this with descriptions of the 3 models (and some pictures)

35

Model Preference – Model 1 • Model 1 was met by slightly more discomfort from those with children in Year 11-‐13, perhaps as this model splits those two year groups apart.



Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

35 41 38

42 40 38

12 7 5

6 7 10

5 4 10 7 7 9

39

38 Totally comfortable

Comfortable

Neutral

Not comfortable

Do not like


& 11 in the other %

Top 2 Box 77%

Model 1: School is split by years

If you could personally decide the way to split the school during decant which model would you choose?

36

Model Preference – Model 1 • Very liZle difference across Primary School age groups. • Peak Primary school aZendees liked this model the least out of all groups



Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

38 31 50 40 25 26

35 40 36 40 38 48

8 10 7 10 6 9

13 9 7 6 13 4

8 10 4 19 13 7 7 9

39


Comfortable

Neutral

Not comfortable

Do not like


& 11 in the other %

Top 2 Box 77%



*Cau3on: Low Base

37

Model Preference – Model 1 • Half of those residing in the New Territories and Lantau were totally comfortable with splibng the school by year group


ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

31 42 35 52 48

41 24 53 38 43

10 12 6 7 4

10 9 6

7 12 3 4 7 7 9

39


Comfortable

Neutral

Not comfortable

Do not like


& 11 in the other %

Top 2 Box 77%



*Cau3on: Low Base

38

Model Preference – Model 2 • Over half of parents were either not comfortable or did not like Model 2. Slightly more Year 11-‐13 parents were more agreeable to this model, although overall this model was not advised.



Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

12 12 19

24 16 21

17 19 12

31 25 19

17 28 29 26

27

18

19


Comfortable

Neutral

Not comfortable

Do not like




Top 2 Box 30%

Model 2: School is split by House


39

Model Preference – Model 2 • Primary school parents were also not in favour of Model 2, par:cularly those with children aZending Peak school.



Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

3 12 14 13 9

20 19 14 21 19 22

23 17 29 15 13 35

20 28 21 23 38 22

35 24 21 29 31 22 26

27

18

19


Comfortable

Neutral

Not comfortable

Do not like




Top 2 Box 30%



*Cau3on: Low Base

40

Model Preference – Model 2 • Kowloon residents were slightly more in favour of Model 2 than other areas.


ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

10 6 18 14 9

19 13 22 12 18

12 24 29 24 13

28 27 18 24 35

28 30 18 21 22 26

27

18

19


Comfortable

Neutral

Not comfortable

Do not like




Top 2 Box 30%



*Cau3on: Low Base

41

Model Preference – Another Model

23

2

58

9 8

Totally comfortable

Comfortable

Neutral

Not comfortable

Do not like

• The majority of parents were neutral towards ‘another model’, however, there seemed to be some interest in keeping par:cular Year groups together.

Another model

%


Top 2 Box 17%

Model 3: Another Model “Please give more details in the space provided at Q11”

We wish to have a model to be able to house the students and teachers together to minimize 3me travel or running between

campus, efficiency will be lost if they are split. Kids are also carrying very heavy bags and books, difficult for them to travel between places.

(New Territories, Year 8&10 Island School)

Is it possible to have the two campuses divided by faculty? One for Sciences, one for the rest for example? Or to divide the younger years 7 and 8 by house, then senior years by faculty. Pupils are used to moving

from class to class for lessons, so is it really too much to ask senior students to transi3on from 3me to 3me? (Lantau, Year 7&10 Island School)

Think it should be split between junior and senior high. Years 7-‐9 in one campus and 10-‐13 in the other. The split is based on maturity level.

(Wan Chai, Year 7&11 Island School)

I would personally have chosen years 7 to 10 in 1 campus and Years 11 to 13 in another, but assume you have reasons why this is not feasible.

(Lantau, No Children at Island School)

The Upper Years are almost a separate school. And the Middle Years Programme are a unique school as well. Keeping the Years

9,10,11 together is best. (Mid Levels, No Children at Island School)

House split is random. Kids want to be in same year. It may have some unexpected benefits of reducing 'subtle' bullying because of the smaller numbers in each loca3on.

(Mid Levels, No Children at Island School)


42

Model Preference – Other Model Ideas • Many of the sugges:ons indicated grouping consecu:ve year groups together (Years 7-‐9 and 10-‐13).

“Please give more details in the space provided at Q11”

A split of years 7, 8, 9 and 10, 11, 12, 13 so you have a middle and upper school.

(Wan Chai, Year 10 Island School)

I think the best split should be by age group: Middle school: Year 7, 8, 9 and High School:

Years 10, 11, 12, 13. One may argue that Year 10 may s3ll be under middle school but I s3ll think that due to GCSE program it is beaer to be under the High School.

(Mid-‐Levels, Year 10 Island School)

We think the older age group should be grouped together since between years 7, 8 children will not communicate much with the older year 12-‐13 children. There is just too big of an age gap.

Group by house is not ideal since most older children will have classes that are mostly mixed with students from other houses. And it will feel as there are two "schools“. Hence, our third choice which we think is the best, to group year 7-‐9 in one campus and years 10-‐13

in another campus. (Kowloon, Year 11 Island School)

Hybrid proposal, Years 7, 8 in Campus A and Years 12, 13 in Campus B; Years 9,10, 11 split by House, with possible

plans to rotate Houses semi-‐annually or yearly. (Mid-‐Levels, Year 9 Island School)

If the site can't allocated all years groups, at least Y7, 8 and 9 have to be in the same campus, and

older year groups in another campus. (Lantau, Year 10 Island School)

The most acceptable plan I suggest would be sending students of Island school to ESF secondary schools either in Hong Kong Island or in Kowloon side. Island school students should have the highest priority to get into these ESF secondary schools.

(Mid-‐Levels, Year 7 Island School)

The best would be to relocate the children who live in Mid-‐levels in other ESF schools on the Island (West Island and/or South Island). For families who currently live in Kowloon or the NT or Discovery Bay, Tai Wai may be acceptable. But not when

you live close to Island School. (Mid-‐Levels)

Most Important Concerns

44


1 1 4 3 7 2 1 5 6 7 8

14 11 4

15 21 24 31

21 30 25

37 40

41 35 40 40 70

43 34

24 24 19 19 Most Important Factor

Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Travel :me and logis:cs were considered to be the most important factor by a large margin. Alloca:on of resources and staff reten:on were also high in the order or priority.

• Travel costs and transport to/from ac:vi:es were felt to be less important overall.

Length of travel time and

logistics %

Transport Costs

%

Transport to and from activities

%

Length of school day

etc. %

Continuation of school

ethos %

Teachers staying at

Island School/staff

retention % Base: All respondents 199

Please rank the following maaers about decant according to your level of concern

Top 2 Box 94% 79% 74% 65% 59% 58% 58%

Allocation of resources (including teachers)

%

45


1 1 4

25

70


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Travel :me and logis:cs was regarded as the most important factor by 7-‐in-‐10 parents with children in Year 7-‐8. It wasn’t as strongly considered by those in Year 11-‐13, however, it was s:ll important overall (95%).


logistics %

Base: All respondents 199 Please rank the following maaers about decant according to your level of concern

Top 2 Box 94%


Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

69 66 57

21 31 38

7 5

1 1

1 1

Length of travel time and logistics

46


1 1 4

25

70


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Those with children at Primary school considered travel :me and logis:cs as very important – more strongly than those with children at Island school.

• 100% of parents with children in Years 1-‐3 felt it was an important factor.


logistics % Base: All respondents 199

Please rank the following maaers about decant according to your level of concern

Top 2 Box 94%


Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

78 76 57 79 81 87

23 22 36 21 19 4

2 7 9



47


1 1 4

25

70


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Those residing in Kowloon and the New Territories were less likely to rate ‘Length of travel :me and logis:cs’ as the most important factor (instead ranking ‘Alloca:on of resources’ higher).


logistics %


Top 2 Box 94%

ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

76 70 59 48 78

21 27 29 34 22

1 3 12 14

1 3

1



48


1 5

15

37


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Alloca:on of resources was highly considered overall, with 4-‐in-‐10 ra:ng it as the most important factor.


% Base: All respondents 199 Please rank the following maaers about decant according to your level of concern

Top 2 Box 79%


Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

45 43 40

34 41 33

18 10 17

3 4 10

1


49

Most Important Concerns • Beacon Hill primary school aZendees felt this factor was par:cularly important.



Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

43 40 71 29 44 61

30 38 14 38 50 30

23 16 14 23 6 9

5 7 10

1 5

15

37


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


%

Top 2 Box 79%



50

Most Important Concerns • Those residing in Kowloon and the New Territories felt the alloca:on of resources was their most important factor overall, however, this was significantly less important to those residing in the Mid Levels.


ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

30 48 65 59 52

42 36 24 24 39

19 9 12 17 9

8 6

1 1 5

15

37


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


%

Top 2 Box 79%



51


6

21

40


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Staff reten:on was considered an important factor by three quarters of parents, with all Year levels recording similar levels of agreement.

Teachers staying at

Island School/staff retention

% Base: All respondents 199 Please rank the following maaers about decant according to your level of concern

Top 2 Box 74%


Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

34 35 36

38 40 26

23 21 31

5 4 7

Teachers staying at Island School/staff retention

52

Most Important Concerns • Half of Beacon Hill Primary parents felt that staff reten:on was the most important factor, whereas 1-‐in-‐8 aZending the Peak or Other primary schools believed it was not as important.



Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

38 38 50 33 38 43

38 41 21 44 44 35

20 16 29 21 6 9

5 5 2 13 13

6

21

40


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

Teachers staying at Island School/staff

retention %

Top 2 Box 74%


*Cau3on: Low Base

53

Most Important Concerns • Those residing on HK Island outside of the Mid Levels were split in their views about staff reten:on – 6-‐in-‐10 considered it important, however, close to 4-‐in-‐10 were less concerned.


ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

27 45 35 45 30

48 18 35 38 43

21 18 29 17 22

4 18 4

6

21

40


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

Teachers staying at

Island School/staff retention

%

Top 2 Box 74%



54


4 7

24

41


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• A quarter of parents rated ‘Length of the school day’ as the most important factor when it comes to the decant. Although Years 11-‐13 were less strongly opinionated, 7-‐in-‐10 s:ll considered it as important overall.

Length of school day etc.

%


Top 2 Box 65%


Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

26 28 21

42 34 48

25 24 19

5 10 7

1 4 5

Length of school day, etc.

55

Most Important Concerns • Those with children at Primary School generally showed similar levels of opinion.



Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

20 22 21 19 25 26

53 45 50 52 50 35

20 24 21 23 19 26

5 7 7 4 6 9

3 2 2 4 4 7

24

41


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


%

Top 2 Box 65%


*Cau3on: Low Base

56

Most Important Concerns • Those residing in Kowloon felt the length of the school day was slightly more important than those in other areas. Those in New Territories were significantly more likely to rate it as the least important factor.


ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

23 24 35 24 22

43 39 41 34 43

26 21 18 21 30

7 12 6 7

1 3 14 4 4 7

24

41


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


%

Top 2 Box 65%



57


3 8

31

35


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Similar to the length of school day, con:nua:on of school ethos was considered the most important factor by a quarter of parents, and closer to a third of those with children in Year 7-‐8.

Continuation of School

Ethos %


Top 2 Box 59%


Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

32 25 26

38 37 31

24 29 29

4 6 7

2 3 7

Continuation of School Ethos

58

Most Important Concerns • Those with Primary school children saw school ethos as less important at the top box level.



Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

13 21 21 23 6 22

40 45 50 27 63 39

35 17 21 38 25 13

10 14 7 13 17

3 3 6 9 3 8

31

35


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


Ethos %

Top 2 Box 59%



59

Most Important Concerns • Over a third of Kowloon residents rated ‘Con:nua:on of School Ethos’ as the most important factor


ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

22 21 35 31 17

34 27 29 41 48

33 36 24 21 30

10 6 6 3 4

1 9 6 3 3 8

31

35


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


Ethos %

Top 2 Box 59%


*Cau3on: Low Base

60


7

14

21

40


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Four-‐in-‐ten scored ‘Transport Costs’ as an important factor in the decant, with the different Year groups ra:ng this factor similarly overall.

Transport Costs

%


Top 2 Box 58%


Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

21 16 21

44 46 45

19 25 14

11 9 17

5 4 2

Transport Costs

61

Most Important Concerns • One-‐in-‐eight parents with Year1-‐3 Primary school children felt transporta:on costs to be the least important factor.



Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

15 21 21 17 25 35

45 36 57 38 38 30

18 21 7 21 25 17

10 14 14 15 6 9

13 9 10 6 9 7

14

21

40


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

Transport Costs

%

Top 2 Box 58%

Transport Costs

*Cau3on: Low Base

62

Most Important Concerns • Those residing on HK Island outside Mid Levels and on Lantau rated transport with higher importance than other areas.


ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

14 27 12 21 26

35 42 59 41 39

27 15 18 17 13

15 9 6 14 22

8 6 6 7 7

14

21

40


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

Transport Costs

%

Top 2 Box 58%

Transport Costs

*Cau3on: Low Base

63


2 11

30

40


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important

• Over half considered transport to/from ac:vi:es as important, although parents with Year 9-‐10 children did not feel it was strongly important.


%


Top 2 Box 58%


Year 7-‐8 (n=95)

Year 9-‐10 (n=68)

Year 11-‐13 (n=42)

21 13 17

39 43 40

26 32 31

12 12 7

2 5


64

Most Important Concerns • The younger levels of Primary School were split in opinion with a quarter ra:ng it as the most important factor, yet a number of this group scored it the least important factor -‐ significantly more than the total.



Year 1-‐3 (n=40)

Year 4-‐6 (n=58)

Beacon Hill

(n=14*)

Glenealy (n=48)

Peak (n=16*)

Other (n=23)

25 17 14 19 25 26

45 41 57 35 50 26

23 36 21 35 13 39

8 5 7 10 13

8 5 7 10 13 9 2 11

30

40


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


%

Top 2 Box 58%



65

Most Important Concerns • New Territories residents considered the transport factor to be important, they were significantly less neutral than other groups.


ResidenGal Area

Mid Levels (n=97)


Kowloon (n=17*)


Lantau (n=23)

20 12 18 28 13

37 45 47 48 26

33 30 24 10 43

9 9 6 14 17

1 3 6 2 11

30

40


Important Factor

Neutral

Not as Important

Least Important


%

Top 2 Box 58%



Other comments

Other Comments Do you have any creative ideas of how we can turn this temporary situation into something positive?

Can you consider doing extensive work during summer

holidays? (Mid Levels, Year 10 Island

School)

Scrap the development plan as the current site is fine. It would be difficult to find a site to accomodate the whole school and site close to our zone. Therefore, spliing the school into different years in different sites is an op3on. School starts at 9:00am or 9:30am for students who are distant from the school site. (Mid Levels, Year 8 Island School)

Retain concrete slabs/pieces of the original building that would be decorated (design compe33ons) by the students for inclusion in the new school. Increase the number of athle3c compe33ons in the year that the en3re school will be able to aaend. Look to outside venues -‐ like the Wan Chai

theatre -‐ for holding drama produc3ons/SITE during the decant. Use media to keep the two campuses linked -‐ live feeds, shared assemblies (via video),

a student paper/video channel. (Mid Levels, Year 7 Island School)

Find some fantas3c sports and arts facili3es in the region near the decant sites and make extensive use of these in the period of the decant. (Lantau, No Children at Island School)

I heard there may be an opportunity for educa3on exchanges with other schools in other ci3es, perhaps this transi3on 3me is a good opportunity for using the resources of other schools.

(Mid Levels, No Children at Island School)

Since this decant will affect the students directly, why not ask their opinion. I’ve always felt

that gathering informa3on from those closest to a situa3on yields

the most crea3ve solu3ons. (Lantau, Yr 8&11 Island School)

Proper/frequent communica3on to parent and students, pre-‐visit to those sites to make us feel comfortable.

(Kowloon, Yr 7&11)

Could school buses on HK Island deliver them to the MTR rather than going all the way to the school? Or could the school buses deliver the students to the school in the morning (a faster 3me of travel) and then students have the op3on of taking the MTR home. This

could help with cost and 3me of travel. (Wan Chai, Year 8

& 11 Island School)

68

Other Comments Any questions, concerns or comments that you have about the decant process

Most worried about transport 3me to new school. Lower years should be the easiest to reach. Reten3on of teachers is very important to maintain the feel and ethos of the school.

(Lantau, Year 7 Island School)

One of my daughters will be in grade 12 when IS has to be moved out to the temp site, we are very worried during her cri3cal exam years if teachers and schools are not being allocated fairly and organized, her learning and grades will be impacted; hence, not having a smooth transi3on into her University. (New Territories, Year 8&10 Island School)

I have worked at a split campus before and it was heartbreaking to see how it affects the morale of the teachers. It’s important that they feel supported and not being ignored just because they are on a different campus. Every teacher needs a home base -‐ switching between schools can make them feel lonely -‐ like they are visitors on both sites. For students changing sites increases the risk of feeling insecure and requires a high degree of organiza3on which they struggle with anyway. This can all lead to iden3ty issues. The con3nuity of the island school spirit must be guarded. It is what makes it special to the children and teachers alike. The ease of communica3on between the students across

the year groups and to see how the younger students look up to the older ones as role models is very nice to see. The pastoral care and the house system are working perfectly this is why I would prefer to see the split by houses.

(New Territories Year 9 Island School)

If the decant op3on does not bode well, I along with a number we network with have already begun exploring op3ons to transfer to other schools. You may want to consider how alloca3ons of the school placements can be amended for the 3 year period to allow a migra3on op3on for parents who may have relocated across the Island catchment or Kowloon territories anyway.

(Mid Levels, Year 7 Island School)

Education

Esf island school decant report 100614