 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| ||
|
November 29, 2004
You are on the invidual archive page of The ESF. Click Simon World weblog for the main page.
|
|
The ESF
Hong Kong is a city where the Government specialises in finding creative ways to waste money. But one is under severe threat. The ESF's taxpayer subsidy may finally disappear and force the ESF to compete on a level playing field with the other international schools in HK. Not before time. Hong Kong's education system has three major strands: the public system, the private "international" schools and the English Schools Foundation (ESF). Last week Hong Kong's Audit Commission wrote a damning report on the ESF. It criticised the poor financial condition and troubled governance of the foundation. The ESF has responded by defending itself and its subvention (government subsidy). The problem is the arguments don't stack up. The ESF is: Established by Ordinance in 1967 with just two schools to provide a "modern liberal education", the ESF now runs 19 schools - five secondary schools, ten primary schools, three kindergartens and a special school. There are over 55 different nationalities in the Foundation's schools...The curriculum, leading to the internationally recognised qualifications of GCSE and GCE "A" Level is adapted to Hong Kong and the Asia Pacific region. ESF's 680 teachers are highly qualified with experience of the U.K. and other international school systems.In other words it is a private foundation that teaches a slightly modified English curriculum to HK and expat students. All other international private schools lost their Government subsidies in 1995, but the ESF still receives almost 30% of its income from the subvention, a total of HK$300 million a year. This is equal to over HK$21,000 per primary and HK$29,000 per secondary student. An international school is one that follows a non-local curriculum and whose students do not sit local exams. This latest report has seen the ESF for what it really is and classified them as international schools. The ESF is fighting to retain its handout and disputes it runs international schools. The report details plenty of failings in the corporate governance. This report details the lack of records, generous allowances, poor financial managed and overpayment of remumeration. The amount of waste of taxpayer money and school fees is staggering and to its credit the new ESF management is already dealing with many of these issues. That things were allowed to get this bad almost borders on criminal. Any company with these kind of issues would be hauled over the coals. The ESF gets a "must try harder" wrap on the knuckles. That's the advantage of being in education - you can always use the "think of the children" defence even if it has nothing to do with it. The Audit Commission report was done at the behest of the ESF itself and was called a "value for money" audit. While the report has not said it in so many words, it is clear the ESF does not offer good value for the taxpayer dollars invested. The ESF has pleaded that it is a special case and has listed its reasons why it should continue to receive the subvention when its competition, the other international schools, do not receive a penny. The ESF already runs one primary school that receives no subvention money at all, which seems to belie many of its arguments. If they can run one without the subsidy, why will the world fall in if the others are weaned off the Government's teat as well? Before we look at the ESF's pleading it is important to consider another issue. The ESF actively competes against private international schools. The subvention allows the ESF to charge lower fees, pay higher wages and attract better teachers. It creates an uneven playing field and gives the ESF a huge advantage in the battle for resources and students. As a parent sending my children to international schools, I understand why the Government does not subsidise them. However from my anecdotal experience the education at ESF schools does not differ from the schools my children attend, with one difference. My school fees are much higher. The ESF's response to the report can be found here. The ESF disputes that changing its status to international schools should affect their subvention. This is because the ESF differs from international schools in a few ways, which include historical reasons, a special "Hong Kong context" in the curriculum, a non-selective approach, catering to students of all abilities and support for the Government school system. The ESF caters to many nationalities and has a majority of students who's families are "local". It upheld "excellence in English usage...by native English teachers". They warn of the costs of withdrawing the subsidy, which includes a potential decrease in quality and stability of teachers, lower enrolments, foreign families relocating outside of HK and (best of all): potential damage to Hong Kong's target to become Asia's World City. The ESF believed that it made an important contribution to HK's positioning as an international city, by attracting foreign capital and experitse.Yes, they used the World City argument! The list goes on, talking about how fees only went up once in the past 10 years...which is heroic except the subvention also rose until 1999, whereafter deflation did the trick. They even trot out the Basic Law's Article 144, which requires policies to support subvented organisations prior to 1997 be maintained. So it's a clutch of historical claims, some vague notions of public service and that companies wouldn't come to HK if the ESF lost its subvention. Not very compelling at all. It seems the Government is slowly moving towards dismantling the subvention and finally turning the ESF into the collective of international private schools it actually already is. It will mean fee rises, upset parents, more teacher pay cuts and resignations and political pressure. It will also mean that all the international schools start fighting on a level playing field. Hmmmm....free competition without Government interference and subsidies. What a great advertisement for Hong Kong as Asia's World City. posted by Simon on 11.29.04 at 02:47 PM in the
Trackbacks:
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/56460 Send a manual trackback ping to this post. Expecting some funds Excerpt: Simon has written about the ESF, something I have previously mentioned a few times myself. I won't repeat what he has written, which is a mostly fair summary of the history and more recent problems. Weblog: OrdinaryGweilo.com Tracked: November 29, 2004 09:58 PM Vouchers in Hong Kong Excerpt: The English Schools Foundation is continuing to pull out all stops to protect its Government subsidy, a topic I've covered previously. Yesterday in a Legco committee meeting Education Secretary Arthur Li continued the pressure, saying he was open-minde... Weblog: Simon World Tracked: January 12, 2005 09:22 AM
Comments:
Interesting post, Simon. I agree with you that government subsidies such as these distort the marketplace and lead to unfair competition and inefficient results. posted by: RP on 11.29.04 at 06:49 PM [permalink]I don't agree that "it is clear that the ESF does not offer good value for the tax dollar". Do you have any evidence for that statement? The logic behind the subvention is that the government has to provide education for all Hong Kong children and has chosen to outsource some of that to the ESF and other organizations. If the government is paying more to the ESF (per pupil) than it spends itself then it should certainly do something about it, but I've seen figures that suggest exactly the opposite, indicating that the ESF is good value for money. I think we all agree that the ESF has been badly run in the past, but we are not talking about a company that needs to be punished - the main losers if that happened would be the parents, rather than the management! If the ESF can become more efficient and improve its corporate governance, why shouldn't the government continue to allocate part of the education budget in that direction? However, I have to agree that the ESF is coming up with some very weak arguments to try to defend itself! posted by: Chris on 11.29.04 at 10:10 PM [permalink]Honestly, as someone who's attended and been schooled in 2 ESF institutions (and who's parents met at Island School) I have something of a soft spot for the ESF. But I have to agree with Chris, the ESF is one of the few examples where the Hong Kong government has spent money on private enterprises in place of taking matters into its own hands where it's done rather well. (Not to say that governmental pro-activity results in much good either) ESF schools are a major influence for expats and companies making the decision to move to Hong Kong. Apart from the obvious differences in staffing qualities and the fact that life in china sucks (subjective, I know) one of the most important factors in keeping companies tethered to Hong Kong instead of leaping over into Shenzen is the fact that the schooling there is nowhere near the standard attainable in Hong Kong via the ESF. The staff with children would likely complain and dig their heels in (listen to 'em whine about schooling within Hong Kong for pete's sake). ESF schools also have a distorted level of students who return to Hong Kong after higher education. I put this down to the fact that, instead of being a 'little Britain/France/America' an ESF school is actually rather naturalized and the ethos carried through the halls is one of being a part of Hong Kong. I've been to the French International, it's like stepping into Marseille for 9 and a half hours a day (The French education system is horrific). For most international schools Hong Kong is just treated as the rocky foundations the school imposes itself upon. What other schools have the names of Hong Kong islands as their houses (Bradbury Junior)? Or do the ridiculous amounts of charity work that ESF schools do (which I did my damnedest to skive). ESF schools are part of the community in a way which does make them more than just international schools . The deal the Hong Kong government gets in funding the foundation is actually a pretty great one. The ESF could probably do better in arguing the merits of its case. posted by: Johnlouis Swaine on 11.30.04 at 04:33 AM [permalink]Chris: I commented on your post but basically all I'm saying is there are other international schools that offer similar courses as the ESF without the subvention. It is not a level playing field and the ESF is not properly justifying their claim on taxpayer dollars. John: I agree HK schools in English are a reason people choose to live here. What I disagree with is that those schools should be treated differently. Why should my kids not get a subvention just because they go to a non-ESF school? I pay my taxes here. Your points on ESF kids coming back to HK is a good one, but I wonder if the same isn't true of other international schools as well. I grant that schools such as French International are deliberately seperate, but there are plenty of others that follow the ESF model. I accept your charity piece and that ESF makes an effort to have a HK twist on its courses. I just don't think it fair the ESF gets Government money when similar schools don't, especially as the ESF has been so wasteful. I think we all agree that one thing the ESF has done this time around is put up some crapola arguments. Maybe they should attend their own schools. posted by: Simon on 11.30.04 at 05:03 PM [permalink]I admire Simon for his principled stand against public education. Or at least I will when he pays Australia's taxpayers back the AU$100,000 that they spent on his education. posted by: wally on 12.03.04 at 08:17 PM [permalink]Wally, your name seems appropriate. In Australia all private schools are funded by the Government. We can argue about the merits of the funding formula, but all private schools get Government money. In HK the ESF does, but none of the other international schools do. The ESF has been classified as international schools. Either fund them all or don't fund the ESF. Pretty simple. This isn't about public education. It's not even remotely about it. The ESF is not a Government organisation, so how my views on this reflect my views on public education I find difficult to fathom. posted by: Simon on 12.06.04 at 11:54 AM [permalink] |
|