教育王國
標題: 哈羅教師被揭學歷造假 [打印本頁]
作者: elbar 時間: 13-6-27 13:34 標題: 哈羅教師被揭學歷造假
http://www.singtao.com/yesterday/loc/a_index.html
對 於 發 生 錯 聘 假 學 歷 教 師 ， 哈 羅 香 港 發 言 人 承 認 並 無 察 覺 被 告 提 交 了 假 的 證 書 。
國際知名的哈羅公學於香港分校發生一名老師從網上購入虛假香港大學碩士畢業證書，成功獲得聘用，入職一個月才因為教育局揭發證書偽造，遭校方停職，港大後來亦確認從來沒有頒發該證書。該名前哈羅香港國際學校的外籍老師上周五向警方自首，昨於屯門裁判法院承認使用虛假文書罪，須還柙至下月十日以索取背景報告始判刑。
去年九月開校的哈羅香港國際學校，學費高達每年逾十萬元，教師幾乎皆從名校畢業，但卻錯聘虛假學歷教師，幸而事件迅速被揭發。
獲聘為臨時教師的被告Gutierrez Alvarado Nelson-Antonio（四十一歲）來自多米尼加共和國，持從屬簽證留港，被指於去年十二月某日，在哈羅國際學校使用虛假文書，即一張虛假的學歷證明，以誘使學校職員接受，以致對該校不利。
被告在警誡之下供出所持的假港大碩士畢業證書，是經網上途徑從外國購入，郵寄至被告位於愉景灣的住所；辯方透露被告與妻子及兩女於香港生活，其大女患有抑鬱症，因急需金錢持家而犯案，明白定罪後難再找尋工作，現職私人補習老師，月入五千元。
對於發生錯聘假學歷教師，哈羅香港發言人指，被告申請教職時，呈交了由香港學術及職業資歷評審局發出的學歷證明，並承認當時並無察覺被告提交了假的證書，並於去年十月二十九日聘用被告成為全職臨時教師，聘書為期八個月；到今年一月十一日，校方接獲教育局通知，指被告呈交虛假香港大學證書後，已即時暫停被告教務，並於今年三月五日正式解僱被告。
案情指，被告去年獲哈羅香港聘任，十二月初提交教師註冊申請時，聲稱自己持有香港大學碩士學位，並連同其港大碩士畢業證書及成績單，以及美國佛羅里達國際大學頒發的學位畢業證書連成績單，交予校方的人事部職員，該職員立即將證書副本寄往教育局。
今年一月教育局通知校方指港大從沒有頒發該證書，校方即時報警，並將被告停職，港大學術支援及招生部亦於六月確認此事。據悉，另一張由美國佛羅里達國際大學頒發的證書尚未能確認真偽。
上周五被告主動帶同涉案證書正本，到屯門警署自首，向警方和盤托出使用虛假證書的經過，又表示已深感悔疚。
作者: HKTHK 時間: 13-6-27 13:42
回復 elbar 的帖子
Interesting, does this mean it is the job of EDB, rather than the school itself, to verify education background of teachers?
作者: ANChan59 時間: 13-6-27 14:42 標題: 回覆:哈羅教師被揭學歷造假
Good question?
作者: fanfanbb 時間: 13-6-27 15:14
So more uncertainties of a new school?
作者: ANChan59 時間: 13-6-27 17:50
Is it a branch or licensee or franchise?
Some friends told me its not a branch school.
作者: flashingcat 時間: 13-6-27 18:27 標題: 回覆：ANChan59 的帖子
not branch, only franchise
作者: Littleho 時間: 13-6-27 19:22 標題: 回覆：哈羅教師被揭學歷造假
Education can be a quite profitable business .
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 13-6-27 19:56 標題: 引用：not+branch,+only+franchise
+
原帖由 flashingcat 於 13-06-27 發表
not branch, only franchise
作者: ANChan59 時間: 13-6-27 20:31 標題: 引用：Quote:原帖由+flashingcat+於+13-06-27+發
原帖由 shadeslayer 於 13-06-27 發表
But the principle is from English Harrow, I heard.
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 13-6-27 20:51 標題: 引用：Quote:原帖由+shadeslayer+於+13-06-27+發
原帖由 ANChan59 於 13-06-27 發表
According to my friends, the principal you mentioned is the actual principal of Harrow UK, he came t ...
作者: ANChan59 時間: 13-6-27 21:12
shadeslayer 發表於 13-6-27 20:51 
Oh, so the actual principal of HK Harrow is not the same principal of UK Harrow?
作者: flashingcat 時間: 13-6-27 21:40 標題: 回覆：ANChan59 的帖子
yes, its kind of package. Just like hotel groups, they may hold the same brand name but with different owners. Management company will sort of helping out. In Harrows case, UK Harrow sent the head to help out with the opening but rest will leave it to the local brand.
作者: HKTHK 時間: 13-6-27 22:02
回復 flashingcat 的帖子
Details on franchise here. Looks like 5% of revenue:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:I6hcNpf4p44J:www.scmp.com/article/705152/city ... hk10m-year-use-name
作者: ANChan59 時間: 13-6-27 22:15
回復 flashingcat 的帖子
Thanks for your further info.
If franchise, why HKSAR government provides the land for a profit making "Education Business". Surprise!
作者: flashingcat 時間: 13-6-27 22:39 標題: 回覆：ANChan59 的帖子
education = business = $$$$
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 13-6-27 23:49
回復 ANChan59 的帖子
I think Harrow International School Hong Kong is a non-profit making organisation. It's just that Harrow School UK (and probably others) who are making a profit. 
I guess it cost them a few thousand HK$ to set up a non-profit making company. They then paid HKSAR Government HK$1,000 for the piece of land then valued at HK$600M. HKSAR Government also granted them a HK$273M interest free loan to build the school. I don't think you can get a better deal than this anywhere, can you?
作者: ANChan59 時間: 13-6-27 23:53
回復 bobbycheung 的帖子
I can't , my dad don't wear bow tie.....
作者: HKTHK 時間: 13-6-27 23:55
本帖最後由 HKTHK 於 13-6-28 10:20 編輯
回復 bobbycheung 的帖子
We, i.e. HK taxpayers, are such generous people!
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 13-6-28 08:25 標題: 引用：回復+bobbycheung+的帖子
We,+i.e.+HK+tax
原帖由 HKTHK 於 13-06-27 發表
回復 bobbycheung 的帖子
We, i.e. HK taxpayers, are such generous people!
1. That is the same deal (in principle) that every other private or IS get. Premier site, interest free loan not exceeding the average cost of building a government school, etc. indelible other countries offer so etching similar or more to attract schools with an international name.
2. The school deal was made at a time when there were cries of IS shortage in HK affecting expats and business. IS in HK would be more difficult to get in if it wasn't for Harrow taking 1500 students.
作者: caa 時間: 13-6-28 10:14
bobbycheung 發表於 13-6-27 23:49
回復 ANChan59 的帖子
I think Harrow International School Hong Kong is a non-profit making organisat ...
作者: poonseelai 時間: 13-6-28 10:56
caa 發表於 13-6-28 10:14
The school (normally organized as a limited company) is definitely nonprofit making. But how about t ...
作者: caa 時間: 13-6-28 14:16
poonseelai 發表於 13-6-28 10:56
Franchise fee is paid to a private company owned by a son of Yau Tak Gun, if my memory is correct. ...
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 13-6-28 20:32
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-28 21:52 編輯
回復 shadeslayer 的帖子
Thanks for pointing it out. But I would like to raise 2 further points:-
1. I don't know if the land and the loan were granted on the basis that the school is a non-profit making organisation. If it is indeed the case, shouldn't the government take steps to ensure that the school is truly non-profit making (as opposed to "technically" non-profit making)? Shouldn't the government be under a duty to ensure that no money will be channeled elsewhere? For example, HKTHK said the school is paying 5% franchise fee. What if the school and Harrow School UK agree to increase the franchise fee to 30% so that no or little money will be left in the school coffers?
2. Let's say Hong Kong is in need of hospital beds (which I believe is the real situation). Now I propose to set up a non-profit making company and I come to an agreement with a famous hospital in UK by which I could use its name so long as I pay them a franchise fee. Applying the same principle, should the Government grant me a piece of land valued HK$600M for HK$1,000 and an interest-free loan of HK$273M for the construction cost of the hospital?
作者: Littleho 時間: 13-6-28 20:40 標題: 回覆：哈羅教師被揭學歷造假
Another cyber port
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 13-6-28 21:09 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+bobbycheung+於+13-6-28+20:44
原帖由 bobbycheung 於 13-06-28 發表
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-28 20:44 編輯
回復 shadeslayer 的帖子
1. I don't know the details but yes they should be monitored and controlled.
2. The key thing is to determine if Harrow HK gets preferential benefits from the HK government. I believe the answer is no, because other private schools or IS get the same, as far as I know.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 13-6-28 21:48
回復 shadeslayer 的帖子
To me, whether Harrow HK is getting the same benefits as other private schools or IS is not of the major importance. The key point is whether the government is using public funds (HK$873M in total value) to finance a scheme whereby somebody under the pretence of a non-profit-making company is making a huge profit at little costs. If there are other private schools or IS channeling off money, they too should be disallowed.
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 13-6-28 22:24
本帖最後由 shadeslayer 於 13-6-28 22:26 編輯
Bobbycheung
We have to look at things at different layers. The first question to ask is whether the HK SAR government is following its own rules in supporting schools. We need to establish that first. If the answer is no, the government is not following its own rules and give Harrow HK preferential benefits, then they have a lot to answer for. The problem is with government giving Harrow HK unfair privileges. All other schools will scream at the government.
If the answer to the first question is yes, the government is playing by the books and all other IS and private schools are getting the same treatment, then we are dealing with an entirely different problem. A policy problem. Is the policy fair? Does the policy have loopholes? What shall we do to plug the loopholes. See, this is an entirely different problem.
I am very concerned about the first questions because it may involve corruption, under-table deals, etc. If it is a policy issue, then it is a bigger but normal problem and it is ok. Because we always want to improve the policies and they are never perfect, right?
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 13-6-28 23:25
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-28 23:45 編輯
回復 shadeslayer 的帖子
shadeslayer,
I look at it differently. The HKSAR government granted the land and the loan to Harrow HK because Harrow HK claimed to be a non-profit-making organisation. But the question is this - Is Harrow HK (working with its "partners" in an arrangement like this) truly a non-profit-making organisation? I don't think so. As to whether Harrow HK is getting the same benefits as other private schools or IS, I don't think it really matters because to me, Harrow HK's scheme is a sham and Harrow HK should not be entitled to such a generous "support" from HKSAR Government in the first place. By the way, even if the answer to your first question is affirmative (ie. Harrow HK and all other IS and private schools are getting exactly the same benefits), there could still be corruption and under-table deals etc. involved because people who wouldn't otherwise be entitled to any benefit are getting the same benefit as those who run a genuine non-profit-making school.
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 13-6-29 06:38 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+bobbycheung+於+13-6-28+23:45
原帖由 bobbycheung 於 13-06-28 發表
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-28 23:45 編輯
回復 shadeslayer 的帖子
What I described above, was not invented by me. It is the way auditors work every time. They will "always" try to establish if there is any significant violation of important policies. They will look at policies, then look at data. if there are violations of policies, it is a significant or important audit point right away, we have no way to defend. If no violations are found they will start to challenge the policies themselves, around completeness , around principles, etc. Sometimes they have a case, sometime not.
If this approach works for auditors in a highly regulated industry, it has some truth in it, don't you think? I personally think it makes a lot of sense.
Back to public affairs, preferential treatment is always a big concern as it is a strong indicator of foul play. ICAC will be involved. Of course, like you said, even they play by the rule book, there could still be foul play, but there is no indicators of such.
Your issues around non profit-making company channelling money elsewhere is a much bigger policy problem. It is a potential loophole in the policy. It is an exploit of the policy but "on the surface" nobody is breaking the law. If you suspect Harrow HK channelling money, you have to suspect all other non profit making companies channelling money.
作者: ANChan59 時間: 13-6-29 08:54 標題: 回覆：shadeslayer 的帖子
As a newly established school, would they go through audit yet?
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 13-6-29 11:41
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-29 11:47 編輯
回復 shadeslayer 的帖子
Every profession or industry has its own (but different) approach. For instance, lawyers will first of all find out which side they are on. They will then look at the facts and then find laws that support his case or weaken his opponent's. This approach also makes a lot of sense for lawyers, but it probably won't work for auditors. The approach you described that work well for auditors probably won't work for lawyers either. So there is really no universal approach that fits all. To me, the best approach for a layman like me is the common sense approach.
Here we have Harrow HK paying a franchise fee to Harrow School UK. According to the article cited by HKTHK, the franchise fee could amount to HK$10M a year. The fee was described as "a royalty payment for the use of the school's name and the visits and support that Harrow gives". Now just off the top of my head, I have these questions and many more:-
1. Is this franchise fee necessary? As far as I know, ISF set up the school without payment of franchise fee and it's working well as a non-profit-making school. The same with many other IS schools in HK. In fact, is there any other school in HK that pays a franchise fee to a third party?
2. What if Harrow School HK and Harrow School UK come to an agreement to increase the franchise fee so that more money is flowing from Harrow School HK's pocket to Harrow School UK's pocket? Who is on the school board of Harrow School HK?
3. Last but not least, the article said Harrow School HK was set up by Hong Kong tycoon Daniel Chiu. What role is he playing? Is he doing all these for free?
All these would not have been much of a problem if no public fund had been involved. But there is a generous support of HK$873M given by the Government. Is the grant of the land and the interest-free loan a right decision? Further, what steps are taken by the Government to monitor how the school's money is used?
By the way, I have nothing against Harrow School HK. But I would urge parents there to monitor and follow closely how money is being used. It's meant to be a non-profit-making school and all money should be used for the benefit of the kids only.
作者: ANChan59 時間: 13-6-29 11:57
回復 bobbycheung 的帖子
Do you know the Board of Director list ?
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 13-6-29 12:10 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+bobbycheung+於+13-6-29+11:47
原帖由 bobbycheung 於 13-06-29 發表
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-29 11:47 編輯
回復 shadeslayer 的帖子
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 13-6-29 13:15
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-29 13:19 編輯
回復 ANChan59 的帖子
I have got no idea. The newspaper said 張震遠先生曾任哈羅香港國際學校校董會主席及哈羅國際學校（香港）有限公司及Harrow International School Foundation Limited之董事, 但已辭職。
By the way, when poonseelai said "franchise fee is paid to a private company owned by a son of Yau Tak Gun", perhaps she is referring to this newspaper report.
http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20120608/00174_001.html
作者: ANChan59 時間: 13-6-29 13:30 標題: 回覆：bobbycheung 的帖子
I heard about that one of the director is Donald's son. Just want to clarify.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 13-6-29 14:05
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-29 14:24 編輯
回復 ANChan59 的帖子
ANchan59,
To be honest, what really bugs me is that the Government is holding billions and billions of dollars in reserve. (see http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1153362/calls-government-limit-size-fiscal-reserve). Top Government official like 曾蔭權 and 湯顯明 are spending public funds like water on oversea trips and wines (see http://news.takungpao.com.hk/people/celeb/2012-06/335234.html). The newspaper report above said the land granted to Harrow HK was in fact worth HK$1,400M. If we add in HK273M interest-free loan, we are talking about HK$1,673M in total. Not a small change by any means. What is the school's target group of students? Those who can afford to pay at least HK$118,700 a year in school fee (not to mention the debenture etc). Let's not forget there are lots of people in Hong Kong making a meagre living and living in 劏房. What has the Government done for them?
作者: poonseelai 時間: 13-6-29 15:32
bobbycheung 發表於 13-6-29 14:05
回復 ANChan59 的帖子
ANchan59,
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 13-6-29 16:09 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+bobbycheung+於+13-6-29+14:24
原帖由 bobbycheung 於 13-06-29 發表
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-29 14:24 編輯
回復 ANChan59 的帖子
In fact, why single out Harrow? The government recently granted IMS, Kellette school, and some other IS with similar or more precious land in Kowloon. What about the HKIS, CIS. GSIS, ISF premier sites in HK island?
The list is endless. It becomes a policy issue. If the government did not have this policy, how many IS "less" than today would we have?
Harrow is not my cup of tea and I am not a government supporter, but accusations have to be reasonable.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 13-6-29 18:58
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-29 19:38 編輯
回復 shadeslayer 的帖子
I don't know. To me, doing something wrong is even worse than doing nothing. The huge demand of IS places is to a large extent a result of parents' dissatisfaction with the local education system. There is a mass exodus of students from local schools to IS and hence the lack of IS places. The thing for the government to do is to try to fix the local education problems. No matter how many more IS we build, the IS queue will continue to grow so long as the local education problems are not fixed.
Why single out Harrow? Harrow pays a huge franchise fee and (according to poonseelai) a management fee to a third party. This has the effect of channeling money out from a non-profit-making organisation. Does any of the schools you named do the same? If any of them do, please let us know as they should be condemned too.
The government's policy is aimed towards non-profit-making schools. We can't just say we need more IS and we will grant land and loans to any IS indiscriminately. As I said, I think Harrow' arrangement is a sham. It is not truly non-profit-making and should not be entitled to the generous benefits from the government.
I have stated my case. Whether my accusations are reasonable is for everyone to judge. I also welcome different views from you as they say "真理越辯越明".
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 13-6-29 20:47 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+bobbycheung+於+13-6-29+19:38
原帖由 bobbycheung 於 13-06-29 發表
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-29 19:38 編輯
回復 shadeslayer 的帖子
I want to know the facts before passing judgment on franchise fees or management fees of Harrow or any other private schools or IS.
What is clear to me is that if someone is not following rule book, someone may go to jail for the violations. If it is about changing the policy, it will take years.
作者: bobbycheung 時間: 13-6-29 21:14
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-29 21:28 編輯
回復 shadeslayer 的帖子
I googled and found these:-
http://www.singtao.com.hk/archive/fullstory.asp?andor=or&year1=2008&month1=3&day1=20&year2=2008&month2=3&day2=20&category=all&id=20080320a04&keyword1=&keyword2=
It says "申 請 用 地 或 空 置 校 舍 的 辦 學 團 體 ， 必 須 為 非 牟 利 團 體 "
http://www.budget.gov.hk/2013/chi/pdf/c-lnf.pdf
It says "給予非牟利國際學校的貸款".
I guess a profit-making school will get no land nor loans.
作者: shadeslayer 時間: 13-6-29 22:46 標題: 引用：+本帖最後由+bobbycheung+於+13-6-29+21:28
原帖由 bobbycheung 於 13-06-29 發表
本帖最後由 bobbycheung 於 13-6-29 21:28 編輯
回復 shadeslayer 的帖子
Again this seems to apply to all non profit making organizations which means if you don't like what happened to Harrow, you have to fight for the policy to change. A daunting task but I will support you if I too find it unreasonable.
作者: hs818 時間: 13-7-3 16:43
unbelievable!
| 歡迎光臨 教育王國 (/) |
Powered by Discuz! X1.5 |