As the new school year starts we are so delighted to see all the children and staff coming back refreshed and ready for the new start. We would also like to welcome all those who are joining this year. I am sure you will quickly find your feet and enjoy school life as much as our existing students.
Over the summer break the debate on ESF subvention has hardly cooled down. There has been a well-balanced discussion with different views on either side. Out of the 18 letters that supported the subvention and 8 others that viewed it differently, we think it is worthwhile highlighting a few of the key points for your information.
Some views support the view that government financial support for English-medium education contributes to the prosperity and competitiveness of Hong Kong. The South China Morning Post (SCMP) commented on 17 July that “Without school places, we lose out…if Hong Kong is to attract the best foreign talent, our city has to be ready to accommodate needs and expectations. Unless the government works more closely with our quality English-language schools, we will lose out to rivals.”
Bill Condon, CEO of Multitude Ltd and communications director of the Irish Chamber of Commerce said, “When determining a location one of the most important factors for an expatriate family is the quality of the education system and the ease of access to that system. In this instance Hong Kong is already seriously lagging behind other locations.” (SCMP, 22 July)
Many views pointed out that the subvention to ESF should be continued. Tom Holland wrote that “Scrapping the ESF subsidy would be a costly mistake…the public subsidy for Hong Kong’s English Schools Foundation provides the city with excellent value for money, ” (SCMP, 22 July). He thought that the fee increases triggered by scrapping the ESF subsidy (which is at HK$22,000 per pupil per year) would force many families to switch to government-run schools. The government would actually end up losing money, not saving it, since it costs HK$43,000 per pupil per year to educate a student in a local school.
Starry Lee, Chairman of the Legislative Council Education Panel, wrote in Sing Tao Daily News (14 July) that since 70% of ESF students are Hong Kong permanent residents, the government has no reason to take away their right to receive the subsidy. She thought that a monitoring mechanism should be in place when public money is concerned, but the uniqueness and the core values of ESF education must be retained. Otherwise, it would be a matter of “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”, as the English proverb says.
To quote a few more, Nancy Lee wrote “The ESF has functioned effectively to bridge the gap between local and international schools, by providing high-quality English education to many local families, and by helping to retain more expatriate families who contribute to the dynamism of Hong Kong’s economy,” (SCMP, 5 July). “Hong Kong is an international city and we need to have a pipeline of talent who has a high-level of English ability. I believe ESF students can definitely help Hong Kong’s long-term prosperity,” from Clara Fung (SCMP, 11 July). “It would be to the detriment of Hong Kong if the ESF were to be transformed into another avenue of exclusiveness where the sole criterion for admission was financial,” wrote Wynnse Yu Lau (SCMP, 16 July).
Of course, there were views from ESF parents who have made Hong Kong their home. “As a taxpayer, and a permanent resident of Hong Kong, I hope the government will recognise that families like mine deserve the same kind of help with their children’s education as do other Hong Kong parents…After more than 20 years’ contribution to Hong Kong, I hope the government will offer to my daughter’s school the same subsidy that local schools get. I hope it will recognise that non-selective quality English-medium education is worth supporting,” wrote Bradbury School parent Liz Gower (SCMP, 4 July).
On the other side, Kris Chui thought that ESF schools do not deserve a subsidy because “these schools do not implement the local bilingual curriculum…” (SCMP, 9 July). Some people thought that the government should allocate public money to improving local schools. “Instead, resources should be devoted to raise the standards of teaching in English as well as the facilities of all local schools to match those at ESF schools,” wrote Elizabeth Yong (SCMP, 11 July). Jody Leung said that overseas employees already enjoy a lot of benefits. “Those who threaten to leave Hong Kong if the government scraps its subsidy to the English Schools Foundation are taking an arrogant approach.” (SCMP, 23 Aug)
P. K. Lee thought that “the subsidy should be given to students on a case-by-case basis. Parents of students attending ESF and other international schools could apply for the subsidy and be subject to an appropriate means test.” (SCMP, 23 July) Moreover, C. Y. Leong argued “For local children who do not think that the local government or subsidised schools are good enough, should the government favour them compared to the rest of the population?” (SCMP, 18 August) His answer was that these children should pay higher tuition fees for something they consider “better”.
Finally, SCMP (22 August) urged the government to “Stop dragging feet on ESF funding...”
We believe these views have helped the government and lawmakers to understand the community's needs for more fruitful discussions in the coming months.
Printer-friendly version