2011 / 2012
2011/2012 1. ------------------------------------------------------P.2 2. ---------------------------------------P.11 3. ---------------------------------------------------P.16 4. ---------------------------------------P.19 5. ---------------------------------------------------------P.21 6. ---------------------------------------------------------P.29 7. ------------------------------------------------------P.30 8. ---------------------------------------------------------------P.31 1
2
Ms. CHENG Ka-lee (Supervisor) The Revd. FAN Chun-ho Samson Jeremiah Mr. LO Kwok-ki Titus Ms. SO Shuk-ling Cecila Mr. CHIN Kan-yuen Ms. NG Nga-ling Mr. TO Cheuk-wah Ms. CHAN Man-luen 3
() 4
() 4 4 3 4 4 4 23 71 66 54 63 72 78 404 60 58 38 66 64 62 348 131 124 92 129 136 140 752 5
1 5 5 5 0 0 3 7 1 3 2 0 6
8 19% 31 72% 4 9% 7
43 100% 16 100% 22 100% 12 71% 5 12% 16 100% 7 100% 8
0 4 5 9 10 0 8 35 0% 19% 81% 9
10
11
12
13
2011 TSA (Guided Reading) 14
15
月 Primary Literacy Programme Reading / Writing (PLP-R/W) 16
Guided Reading Process Writing Wordbank My Picture Dictionary Guided Reading 17
角 ICT 2011 TSA 18
4. 4.1. () 4.2 19
/ ---- 角 4.3 良 良 良 兩 練 聯 ; 20
2011 139 21
1 1 8 3 1 1 1 1 15 3 2011-2012 1 6 2012 2012 4 4 2011-2012 1 1 3 1 2012 4 9 21 2012 HKMO Open 1 4 10 1 1 2012 1 1 1 1 22
1 1 3 1 12 T 5 2012 1 2011-12 1 2 2 1 2011 1 2011Scratch 6 1 5 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 23
2 (2 ) 3 (3 ) 1 (5 ) 1 (2 ) 1 60 100 100 100 4 100 ( 2011 20112)1 4 100 4 100 4 100 400 6 200 200 5 200 8 1 1 2012 48 26 2012 3 3 1 24
() 17 1 3 3 2012 1 100 1 1 25
26
月 月 27
月 月 28
6. ($) ($) ( ) I. (1) ( ) ( ( ) ( ) ( ) (2) II. 2011/2012 年度 29
7. 2009-2012 30
(2011-2012) ( ) (510947) 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 () $59,760 $58,608 $1,152 ( ) ( ) 19 47 0 66 18 41 0 59 12 25 0 37 18 34 0 52 13 39 0 52 13 34 0 47 93 220 0 313 ( ) ( ) () 1 * $ 5,220 261 2 $ 12,520 313 3 $ 8,568 690 4 $ 10,340 47 5 $ 5,940 66 6 ** $ 16,020 89 $ 58,608 1466 * () ** 31
( ) 7 3 2 4 0 0 2011/2012 $ 142,174.90 - $ 33,668.00-1. $ 36,120.00 2. $ 20,000.00 3. $ 1,533.70 $ 175,842.90 $ 57,653.70 2011/2012 $ 118,189.20 16 15 90 % 90% 70% 14 月 月 15 16 32
( ) 2011-2012 / 1. 2. 3. 1. / : 170 : 80.2% - 88% - 95% - 85% - 90% - 85% 2. / : 36 : 94.4% - 90% - 85% - 95% - 90% - 90% :36 : 86.5% - 90% - 85% - 95% - 90% 33
/ :15 : 97.5% - 90% - 80% - 70% - 85% - 80% :30 : 90% - 85% - 90% - 90% - 100% - 85% () : 15 : 93.6% - 80% - 75% - 85% - 90% - 85% () : 15 : 85.6% - 100% - 75% - 75% - 100% - 85% 34
3. / CEO : 10 : 83.3% - 95% - 85% - 95% - 90% - 90% :20 : 94.1% - 95% - 100% - 90% - 80% - 95% :36 : 88.9% - 100% - 95% - 100% - 95% - 85% :12 : 79.2% - 100% - 95% - 100% - 100% - 100% :15 : 87.6% - 80% - 100% - 80% - 100% - 70% 35
( / 36
23 / 2011/2012 1. 2011 10 2012 6 $14,200 $14,200 9 $127,800 NET 37
2011/2012 23 / 2. 2011 9 $13,400 2012 8 1-9-2011 31-8-2012 5% $13,400 12 1.05 2 =$337,680 $8,800 1-9-2011 31-8-2012 5% $8,800 2 1.05=$110,880 ( )2010/2011 $261,908.41 ( )2011/2012 $584,859.00 ( )2011/2012 $127,800+$337,680+$110,880+*$28,880=$605,240 ( )2011/2012 $261,908.41+$584,859 $605,240=$241,527.41 38 *EEG 2011/12 pt.15 $22,240 12+12,000 MPF =$278,880 EDB $250,000-$278,880$28,880
English Enhancement Grant Scheme for Primary Schools () Progress Report School Name: S.K.H. Kei Wing Primary School File number: B183 A Implementation Progress Tasks scheduled for completion after the first year of implementation To enhance a smooth curriculum continuity through making holistic planning of KS1 and 2 curriculum on vocabulary teaching Completed as scheduled (Please tick ) Yes No Reasons for not completing the tasks as scheduled Resultant change of the implementation plan B Benefits Obtained Evaluation Focus Enhancing students performance in English language Areas with improvement found Confidence & motivation Grade level Supporting evidence 1 Teachers observed that students were more eager to learn vocabulary during English lessons. Have the effects of the measures met the school s expectation? (Please tick ) Yes Partly No If the effects of the measures have not/ partly achieved the expected outcomes, what further actions would the school take? 1 Findings obtained from surveys/ questionnaires, analysis of students work, observation of their daily performance and review of their performance in formal assessments etc. 39
Evaluation Focus Areas with improvement found Grade level Supporting evidence 1 Have the effects of the measures met the school s expectation? (Please tick ) Yes Partly No If the effects of the measures have not/ partly achieved the expected outcomes, what further actions would the school take? Writing Students were more willing to apply the learnt vocabulary in their writing. Students performed better in writing in the school internal assessment. They used more vocabulary in their lessons. Professional development of teachers Teaching methods Curriculum planning & development Teachers include vocabulary teaching in their daily practice. Core members prepared vocabulary banks for students. Students were encouraged to organise the learnt vocabulary items and use them in their writing. 40
Evaluation Focus Areas with improvement found Grade level Supporting evidence 1 Teaching materials of different themes were produced. Have the effects of the measures met the school s expectation? (Please tick ) Yes Partly No If the effects of the measures have not/ partly achieved the expected outcomes, what further actions would the school take? Internal sharing improved effectiveness of collaboration among English teachers and brought a better understanding on co-planning and lesson observation practice. 41