ESF 英基資助

alpham0m

Why get rid of somthing old and good? In order to be fair, we should make everything the same so no one enjoys a "special" treat? If you want a special treat, then pay dearly because the poor or the less previllaged don't deserve a good education just like the richies? But we are talking about education here.

In that same mentality, we shall tear down all the heritage buildings in the city to make room for more residential buildings since the price of housing is going through the roof simply because it isn't fair?

shadeslayer

alpham0m  If we are talking about fairness here, I am for the voucher system.  發表於 8 分鐘前

I agree.  But before we have a form of voucher system, what do we do with ESF?  Do we have to tie the question of ESF subvention with voucher system?

Mighty,

Whether a DSS has less than 100% HK residents does not change my argument.  98% of DSS schools has 100% local students anyway (you may argue it is not 98% it is 95% but it does not change the argument): Whatever applies to ESF must also apply to other schools, bear in mind it has been 15 years after British administration ended.  Nobody can tell me why ESF should continue to receive tax payers money without obligations and why don't we apply the "good thing" left by the colonial government to CIS, HKIS, KIS or Tutortime.

If I am the principal or a parent of CIS, and we asked for the same ESF treatment from tax payers, what can you say to us?  Because it was colonial "good things" and should be left alone?  That's it?  How many more years?  15 years, 150 years? Eternity?

I am not attacking ESF, as I said, ESF are good schools.  The subvention needs to be reviewed and it has to end at some point.  And I agree all registered students should not be affected.  I have friends and family enjoying the special status but it is about fairness.

alpham0m

回復 shadeslayer 的帖子

I guess we will see what surprises our law makers will bring us in December then. I might write a letter to the one I helped sent into office and express my view and suggest the voucher system. I doubt it will change anything they will decide to do but at least I do what I could. Concerned parents, I think you should do the same too.

FattyDaddy

shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-3 18:20
All DSS have _100%_ HK students and they receive funding from the government, yet they all have to be bound by rules, eg, they all have to deliver HK DSE program....

Haha, this is very Confucian isn't it? (please take that as a compliment). "If you take money from the government, then you ought to be bound by their rules". Sounds so right doesn't it, but have you ever questioned why? Few people brought up the Confucian or "Asian" way would.

Say there are 2 countries A and B, in country A the government subsidize their schools on condition that their curriculum strictly follow government rules, in country B the government subsidize their schools but give them a free hand on how they design their curriculum. I don't know about you but I sure know which government I prefer to have.

So what if ESF has the best of both worlds? If you are really advocating for fairness, you should fight for all schools in Hongkong to have the same freedom as ESF, instead of fighting against ESF to have either their money or freedom taken away to achieve a "lowest common denominator" kind of equality.

Maoku

原帖由 alpham0m 於 12-11-03 發表
本帖最後由 alpham0m 於 12-11-3 20:53 編輯

We all have our personal believes, just like there is a ...

Cannot agree more.  That's exactly my situation thou my kid studies at ESF PIS where no subsidy from the government. I truly believe the Voucher system is needed to restore the right of parents in deciding where should the money and the kid go.  

BTW, the majority of Legco member were not sent by us. Can't expect they support any initiative that allows even more local students to escape from the local school system.

siulumjing

I'm curious that what obligations are we talking about here? ESF is providing a really good education standard to the local community. Isn't that already fulfilling it's obligation as an education institute? How about the ones that provide crap standards but following the government rules, they are meeting the obligations, not the standards but still ok?

shadeslayer

FattyDaddy 發表於 12-11-3 22:30
Haha, this is very Confucian isn't it? (please take that as a compliment). "If you take money from t ...

If we still have our senses, we know turning all local schools in HK into ESF (-like) schools is not going to happen. What choices do we really have?

shadeslayer

siulumjing 發表於 12-11-3 23:01
I'm curious that what obligations are we talking about here? ESF is providing a really good educatio ...

DSS:
The price for DSS to get operation funding from the government:
- DSS has to admit at least 70% HK residents (a rule)
- DSS has to run HK DSE curriculum (a rule) although they can run multiple curriculum like HKDSE + IB

- other items I don't know.

IS or PIS:

All other International Schools or PIS get "NO" operation funding from Government.  However, in return they have:
- No rules to admit at least 70% HK residents
- No rules to run HK DSE


ESF:
The price for ESF to get yearly circa HK$300M operation funding from the government is NONE:
- No rules to admit at least 70% HK residents
- No rules to run HK DSE



ESF gets the funding like the DSS but has the freedom like a IS/PIS.  Isn't it easy to see the issue here?  How can anyone, hands on heart, say this is not a problem and is fair to all other schools in HK.  We all know we cannot fund all HK schools to become ESF-like schools. Nor should we do it.

FattyDaddy

shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-3 23:15
What choices do we really have? ...

You're asking me? I'll give you a "sensible" answer.

In any country, attending local schools is the norm, say if there is something wrong with local schools in a democratic country like France, the French will try to fix their local schools instead of sending their children to British or German international schools. OK, given the reality that Hongkong is neither democratic nor a country, Hongkongers don't have much say in changing anything, so the sensible choice for those who don't want to put their children through local schools would be to opt for international schools.

Most if not all international schools in Hongkong receive some form of assistance from the government, schools like Harrow and Kellet and Christian Alliance only pay peanuts to rent the land they are sitting on (Harrow pays $1000 for a plot of land valued at $600,000,000), in the case of ESF they also get a subvention, but ESF share that benefit with the parents in the form of low tuition fees, making quality international school education more accessible to the average Hongkonger.

If you are sending your children to international schools (obviously not ESF) and you feel ESF is receiving unfair favouritism, the sensible thing to do is to fight for the same niceties to be given to the international schools of your concern, now that is far more achievable than making all local schools to be like ESF isn't it? If you're not even willing to do that, what good could possibly be achieved by fighting to have the niceties taken away from ESF except some melancholic kind of satisfaction knowing that "if I can't have it then they can't have it either".

tcbobo

還有馬會捐錢起 Australian international school 和 Canadian international school 的校舍

shadeslayer

FattyDaddy 發表於 12-11-4 00:35
You're asking me? I'll give you a "sensible" answer.

In any country, attending local schools is th ...

In terms of getting support from the government on "land", ESF received just as much as all other IS / PIS.  Unless someone tells me otherwise, the only significant difference between ESF and other IS/PIS is the yearly circa HK$300M funding for operation.  How is this reasonable?
I am repeating myself here and the discussion is not making progress.  As I said, I am not against ESF schools per se, but the subvention and the role of ESF going forward need to be considered seriously. What is the valid reason to single out ESF from all IS in HK and give them funding?

Also, we must not forget, the ESF funding is a recurring funding from tax payers.  Completely different from some charity body or alumni donating to some schools some money.  how can we even compare the two types of money?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't both the DSS and ESF receive about 2.5k per month per student from the government?

When asked why the favoritism, answers like "good thing from colonial era", or "Parents of all other IS/PIS/DSS should fight for the _colonial good thing_ by yourself" are not satisfying.  After all, it is tax payers money.

Good night.

FattyDaddy

shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-4 00:53
What is the valid reason to single out ESF from all IS in HK and give them funding? ...

That is not the right question to ask.

The right question to ask is, "What is the valid reason for the international schools of your concern not to receive the same level of assistance as ESF?".

If your brother gets an extra apple from mum and you think it is unfair, you should ask mum to also give you an extra apple, instead of asking mum to take the extra apple away from your brother.

siulumjing

ESF doesn't have the freedom to restrict or give priority to certain nationalities. All other IS give priority to citizens of their own country.

ESF is non- discriminatory in the sense that they don't test how brilliant the kid is before they offer a place( very different from most, if not all DSS, they only test on their communication skills to ensure they can get and understand whats being taught.

As to % of residence, I really have no idea on the proportion of PRs, but if by either switching to the voucher system/ imposing criteria regarding to tax paying status of the parents or some similar measures, isn't that a better way to solve the issue? After all, this grants are probably the only benefits that a lot of the so-called 'middle class' can manage to obtain without affecting any other people. Why do we have to go about cutting it out when no one will be better off?

shadeslayer

FattyDaddy 發表於 12-11-4 01:13
That is not the right question to ask.

The right question to ask is, "What is the valid reason for  ...

No no, why single out ESF and give them perpetual funding is the right question to ask and is the right problem to solve.  Because the alternative---turning all IS / PIS into ESF like operation funding is a much bigger problem to solve.  And surely all DSS will request to drop all the restrictions they currently have and keep the money.  This effectively will destroy the HK schooling system.

shadeslayer

siulumjing 發表於 12-11-4 01:20
ESF doesn't have the freedom to restrict or give priority to certain nationalities. All other IS giv ...

ESF doesn't have the freedom to restrict or give priority to certain nationalities. All other IS give priority to citizens of their own country.
shadeslayer: Did the government attach the rule "Cannot give certain nationality priority in admission" when they hand out 300M to ESF?

ESF is non- discriminatory in the sense that they don't test how brilliant the kid is before they offer a place( very different from most, if not all DSS, they only test on their communication skills to ensure they can get and understand whats being taught.

shadeslayer: The crux of the problem here is not on the "actual" difference between the admission policy of DSS and ESF.  One very big restriction is the curriculum: DSS has to offer a HKDSE program.

As to % of residence, I really have no idea on the proportion of PRs, but if by either switching to the voucher system/ imposing criteria regarding to tax paying status of the parents or some similar measures, isn't that a better way to solve the issue? After all, this grants are probably the only benefits that a lot of the so-called 'middle class' can manage to obtain without affecting any other people. Why do we have to go about cutting it out when no one will be better off?


shadeslayer: Again, it is easy for you to say it.  But fundamentally changing the HK education system by using a voucher system is a huge undertaking and affects "everyone" in the education industry, tipping the balance of different types of schools and people.  Government schools, subsidized schools, DSS, IS/PIS will all be affected.  All of them.  A single DSS scheme has taken more than 10 years to become more mature and starting to see the fruits.  The voucher system will need about 10 years of discussion before pilots can be planned, if we are optimistic.

shadeslayer

If you used to receive unique benefits (say beer allowance of 50% of your salary) in a company, nobody else has it, just because you were the cousin of the boss.  Later, the boss was gone and someone unrelated to you became the boss.  15 years later, the new boss has had enough and asks HR to remove your unique benefit of 50% beer allowance, you explained there are valid "historical" reasons and said:

1. It is the only "good" thing left from the last boss, leave me alone!
2. The allowance is a good thing, let all other employees in the company to fight for this for themselves.  Leave me alone.
3. Alternatively, the company should fundamentally change the benefits system and implement a beer voucher system to make it perfectly fair.  Before a perfectly fair beer voucher system is in place.  Let me continue to have the 50% beer allowance.

Do you hands on heart think it is reasonable?  May be I am foolish to take on a topic so dear to the many ESF parents here.  Anyway.

I have made all my points.  Good night again.

FattyDaddy

shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-4 02:16
If you used to receive unique benefits (say beer allowance of 50% of your salary) in a company, nobody else has it, just because you were the cousin of the boss. ...

70% of ESF students are Hongkong residents, ESF schools are no longer "colonial" ex-pat schools (an image so steadfastly stuck in your mind). To put this fact back into your analogy, both the boss AND THE COUSIN had left the company 15 years ago, replaced by a new boss and a new employee, and the beer allowance is no longer a "cousin benefit" but an "employee benefit".

Why should this "employee benefit" be continued? Because the "new employee" does a better job than the "cousin", in the past ESF was almost exclusively for ex-pats, now it is providing quality international education to  mostly local Hongkongers.

Should the other "employees" get the same benefit? If the other "employees" do as good a job, sure thing.

shadeslayer

原帖由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-04 發表
本帖最後由 FattyDaddy 於 12-11-4 03:40 編輯

Do you think CIS/GSIS/HKIS etc are not doing as good a job, if not a better job than ESF. They are eligible for subvention then.  How do we formalize it though?  what about other IS on par with ESF, how do we define good job.  How do we monitor performance.  If we continue to do this to other IS, will it break the bank?  A whole load of questions are going to surface if we try to find logic in all this.  Don't get me wrong, I do think ESF does a good job.

Back to the company, the cousin employee (ESF) who is receiving benefits no one else receives is still in the company. He used to take the beer allowance and buy beers for himself and a handful of his close friends in the company. For 15 years, cousin employee has no protection from the old boss but he continues to be the only in the company to receive beer allowance. 15 years on, almost all his close friends are now gone, instead 70% if his beer money is used to buy bears for those who are not necessarily his friends- the normal company employees.

Should the cousin employee continue to receive allowance forever unchallenged? What gives cousin employee the right to be the only one to receive beer allowance and decide who in the company he will buy bear for? Eternal right?

More allowance is always a good thing for employees but not necessarily for the company.  The company will not survive or the productivity is severely damaged if everyone gets the allowance.

The cousin employee is a good employee and is delivering a respectable performance.  However, he is likely not THE best performing employee.  Even if he is THE best performing employee in the company, the beer allowance should be "formalized" in the company board as a formal policy. So one day a better employee may receive the beer allowance instead.

It has been an interesting discussion. I will stop before I spend TOO much time here.

FattyDaddy

shadeslayer 發表於 12-11-4 08:35
Do you think CIS/GSIS/HKIS etc are not doing as good a job, if not a better job than ESF  ...

No one is comparing, no one is saying the schools you mentioned do not deserve subsidy or other forms of assistance from the government, right?

In this company analogy you keep bringing up, the boss (the British government) is gone, the cousin (ESF schools serving Brtish ex-pats) is gone, now it is a new boss and a new employee (ESF schools serving Hongkongers), get over it.

mrshoho

Interesting discussion going on here...