Abstract
The policy of the registration of School Management Committees (SMCs) as Incorporated Management Committees (IMCs) has led to a dispute between the School Sponsoring Bodies (SSBs) and the Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB, renamed Education Bureau, EDB in July 2007) and has caused great tension between the two parties. However, in this heated debate, little has been heard about teachers’ opinions on this important issue. Therefore, this study aims at finding out teachers’ perceptions of the newly proposed school management system and whether they are willing to participate in IMCs. In this study, 585 questionnaires were collected from a total of 652 which had been distributed to 25 schools (19 secondary schools and 9 primary schools), and five teacher representatives from five schools were involved in post-survey interviews. Findings from this study show that while the teachers were generally in favour of working hand in hand with the public (e.g. parents, alumni and members of the local community) for the betterment of schools, they had reservations about the registration of SMCs as IMCs because there would be legal implications of the Committees. Second, the teachers saw the IMCs as an administrative tool to improve school management, rather than as a means of enhancing students’ learning outcomes. Third, teachers were hesitant about taking up the posts of teacher managers due to the unpredictable workload and legal liability involved. Finally, teachers from Christian schools were generally much less in favour of including representatives from the public and the registration of the SMCs as IMCs. The findings imply that the EMB has a responsibility to clarify the legal implications of IMCs and the ways in which school representatives’ interests can be safeguarded. At the same time, SSBs need to regulate their management pattern and allow more transparency and accountability in managing their schools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Previously, the composition of the SMCs was decided by SSBs, who could preclude any members of the public from joining them.
Li, Y. T, ex-Director of Education, talked at the University of Hong Kong, 30 April and 28 May 2004.
Secondary schools in Hong Kong are divided into three bandings according to the academic achievements of students, and band one comprises the highest achievers.
References
Advisory Committee on School-based Management. (2000). Transforming schools into dynamic and accountable professional learning communities: School-based management consultation document. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
Cheng, Y. C. (2000). The characteristics of Hong Kong school principals’ leadership: The influence of societal culture. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 20(2), 68–86.
Dempster, N. (2000). Guilty or not: The impact and effects of site-based management on schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(1), 47–59. doi:10.1108/09578230010310975.
Education and Manpower Bureau. (2004a). Education (amendment) ordinance 2004. Retrieved December 19, 2004, from http://www.emb.gov.hk.
Education and Manpower Bureau. (2004b). School-based management. Retrieved December 19, 2004, from http://www.emb.gov.hk.
Education and Manpower Bureau. (2004c). A summary of the education (amendment) ordinance 2004: Q & A session of briefing sessions. Retrieved July 19, 2005, from http://www.emb.gov.hk.
Education and Manpower Bureau. (2005). Protection and flexibilities enjoyed by IMC schools. Retrieved August 8, 2005, from http://www.emb.gov.hk.
Education Commission Report No. 7. (1997). Quality school education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
Education Department. (1991). The school management initiative: Setting the framework for quality in Hong Kong schools. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.
Gammage, D. T., Sipple, P., & Partridge, P. (1996). Research on school-based management in Victoria. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(1), 24–40. doi:10.1108/09578239610107147.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in post-modern age. London: Cassell.
Incorporated Management Committees. (2003, December 15). The Standard.
Incorporated Management Committees (2004a, December 1). Ming Pao Daily News.
Incorporated Management Committees. (2004b, June 3). Ming Pao Daily News.
Incorporated Management Committees. (2004c, June 8). Ming Pao Daily News.
Incorporated Management Committees. (2004d, June 21). Ming Pao Daily News.
Incorporated Management Committees. (2004e, June 9). Ming Pao Daily News.
Incorporated Management Committees. (2004f, November 25). Ming Pao Daily News.
Legislative Council Panel on Education, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. (2001). Discussion paper, February 19, 2001.
Leung, Y. H. (2003). The politics of decentralization: a case study of school management reform in Hong Kong. In K. H. Mok (Ed.), Centralization and decentralization: Educational reforms and changing governance in Chinese societies (pp. 21–38). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Logan, L., Sachs, j., & Dempster, N. (1994). Who said planning was good for us? School development planning in Australian primary schools. Report to the Schools Council of the Primary School Planning Project.
Murphy, J., & Beck, L. (1995). School-based management as school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Newcombe, G., & McCormick, J. (2001). Trust and teacher participation in school-based financial decision making. Educational Management and Administration, 29(2), 181–195. doi:10.1177/0263211X010292004.
Ng, H. M. (1999). School-based management as the panacea for effective school: The Hong Kong experience. Journal of Educational Administration, 17(3), 39–71.
O, S.F. (2004). School based management: A way to improve teacher performance in Hong Kong government schools. Unpublished dissertation, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Pang, N. S. K. (1997). The school management reform in Hong Kong: Restructuring the accountability system. Education Journal, 25(1), 27–44.
Pang, N. S. K. (1998). Should quality school education be a kaizen (improvement) or an innovation? International Journal of Educational Reform, 7(1), 2–12.
Rodriguez, T. A., & Slate, J. R. (2001, December). Principals’ and teachers’ views of site-based management in Texas. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Shen, S. M. (1995). Models and development of home-school cooperation in Hong Kong. Education Journal, 23(1), 1–16.
Summers, A. A., & Johnson, A. W. (1996). The effects of school-based management plans. In E. A. Hanushek & D. W. Jorgenson (Eds.), Improving America’s schools: The role of incentives (pp. 75–96). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Tong, M. F. (2000). Teachers’ involvement in the implementation of school-based management: A case study in a government primary school. Unpublished dissertation, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Wood, G. (1994). The institute for democracy in education: Supporting democratic teachers. In J. Novak (Ed.), Democratic teacher education: Programs, processes, problems and prospects (pp. 11–19). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Wylie, C. (1996). Finessing site-based management with balancing acts. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 54–59.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mr. Teddy K. K. So for his advice on statistical analysis, and the reviewers for their useful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cheung, S.M.C., Kan, F.L.F. Teachers’ perceptions of Incorporated Management Committees as a form of school-based management in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 10, 139–148 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9012-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9012-5