ESF schools Futher $$$$

flashingcat

回復 flashingcat 的帖子

typo.  should be I hate the most.  Flashed back all my memories, I still hate to study taxation law and employment law   nightmare

tay

interesting debate going on here....  Why don't we go back to the basics? ESF schools were started, pre-1997, to provide schooling to children that cannot study in local schools.  These children are most straight-forwardly categorized as those who cannot speak Cantonese and cannot read/write Chinese.  Honestly this is a fair categorisation for this purpose.  The then government (pre-1997) funding ESF schools was not seen as a problem because there were a lot of British families in HK and such.  If you think of it in another way, the government is actually being very generous in subsidizing education to both tax-paying local and non-local families, the former in local schools and the latter in ESF schools. This is really as simply as that.  I haven't done any research myself, but it would make a more valid case of unfairness if the amount of subsidy per student in a local school is significantly smaller than that to an ESF student.  If you are talking about the case where local families making all sorts of measures to make sure their children cannot speak Cantonese in order to be categorized as Cat 1, I think they are really just cheating their way into the system.  So the cases being raised here as being unfair (eg child being taken care of by Cantonese-speaking grandparents vs English-speaking helper), these are cases of cheating so of course they are unfair.  But this is the problem on the family, not on the rules of categorization.

so anyway i think the word 'discrimination' is too strong a word to use, because it implies wrongful, malicious intent.  But really ESF is trying to be fair in providing affordable education to those truly non-Chinese speaking families who cannot go to local schools.

bobbycheung

I don't mind ESF getting subsidy and I don't even mind the expats getting the priority as Category One applicants.  But I do mind ESF's silly policy of saying those who do speak Cantonese will go under Category Two.  This has led to the ludicrous result of some HK parents deliberately stopping their kids from learning Chinese so that they could get into Category One.  But once they manage to get in, these kids start learning Cantonese and Chinese freely.  To me, it's only fair that everybody who are qualified to receive education in local schools (regardless of what language(s) they know or do not know) should go under Category Two so that everyone of us in HK should get the same admission ticket.

hkparent

I agree that either ESF changes its admission policy or has its subsidy reduced to the same per head level as local schools - which may not be welcomed by parents wishing to apply). What can we do now? Shall we join forces to lobby the support of legislators?

bobbycheung

回復 tay 的帖子

When ESF and everybody know that "some parents could cheat their way into the system", I think it's only right that ESF should close this loophole immediately.  Otherwise, it will just continue to encourage parents taking the attitude that "if you don't cheat, you will lose out".  In fact, as more and more parents getting their kids into Category One by "cheating", it will soon become a certainty that "if you don't cheat, you won't get in"

tay

I believe they do put in measures to catch the cheats ie those claiming to not know cantonese.  I mean if parents are ready to lie (the application form does ask if parents can speak Cantonese) in the application process to be cat 1 families, then one really shouldn't put the fault on ESF. I'm sure there are children out there that, in your opinion, being mis-categorized, but I don't think they are the majority. Certainly there are plenty of parents **trying** to cheat their way in but what is the success rate?  Besides I think the admission policy stated in the website is a generalization, they probably have internal guidelines in categorizing the Cat 1s & 2s.  

But on a side note, one should give credit to those who manage to put in extreme measures to prevent their child from learning Chinese....  Seriously I would have imagine it to be a very difficult thing to do (for a local family....  imagine having to speak english in family gatherings; never watching Chinese TV programs.....  How weird is that??)

bobbycheung

回復 tay 的帖子

ESF's website says "ESF schools receive a subsidy from the Hong Kong Government to provide an education for English speaking children who can not access the local system."  
http://www.esf.edu.hk/our-schools
There are parents who deliberately tell lies by pretending their kids know no Chinese.  There are also others who deliberately stop their kids from learning Chinese.  But the truth is that all of their kids can access the local system. They are "cheating".  I don't understand why ESF has to resort to measures and internal guidelines etc.  Wouldn't it be better just to stick to what is said in its own website?  

Education Bureau's website says:-
Eligible children between the ages of six and fifteen, irrespective of sex, ethnic origin, religious or ethical belief, family status and physical or mental ability, have the right to enjoy basic education in public sector schools.
http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_4405/information%20notes_ncs_sept%202012.pdf

My understanding is that all children holding a HK birth certificate or a HKID card are eligible children and they do have access to the local system.  So basically all HK kids (regardless of whether they know Cantonese/Chinese or not) are entitled to go to local schools.  It's just that in order to gain priority, some of them are pretending that they can't access the local system.

Knowing fully well there is a loophole in the system but taking no action to correct it,  I don't think it's the right approach by a school.

On your side note, I feel it's equally weird to give credit or priority to those who cheat or attempt to cheat.

FattyDaddy

I have nothing to add but having been in this forum for a while I have seen enough discussions about ESF, no matter how the discussion started or what the original topic was, inevitably the discussion would lead towards this Cat 1 & 2 and learning Cantonese/Chinese thing. Allow me to summarize how this particular discussion went:-

ESF continues to get subvention from the government ...

... that is unfair because ESF is an "elite school" targeting ex-pats, they shouldn't be subsidized.

But the majority of ESF students are local Hongkongers and not ex-pats ...

... these local Hongkongers are not truly locals, they don't speak Cantonese and don't read/write Chinese, ESF "discriminates" against Cantonese speakers, e.g. my children.

But any local Hongkonger can choose not to learn Cantonese or read/write Chinese ...

... that is ludicrous, how can a local Hongkonger not learn? They must know how to speak Cantonese and read/write Chinese and they're just lying when they claim they don't know. If they purposely don't learn it, that is cheating, they will still learn after they have "cheated" their way into ESF.

If they genuinely have no interest and never learn it in their entire life, is that still cheating ...

... that is just plain weird, speaking English in family gatherings and not watching Cantonese/Chinese TV? That is so weird, I'm afraid you won't be able to find such a weird family / person !!!

I'll leave it at that

bobbycheung

Right, any local Hongkonger can choose not to learn Cantonese or read/write Chinese.  But a lot of them choose not to learn it for the sole purpose that they will get into Category One.  If there were not that admission policy, I wonder how many parents would stop their kids from learning Chinese altogether.  What is funny is that once they get in, I know many who will send their kids to learn Chinese outside school by private tuition as they feel what's taught at school is not sufficient.    I wonder what causes the 180 degree of change of attitute towards Chinese.

bobbycheung

FattyDaddy,

I am afraid you won't be able to find such a person.

bobbycheung

FattyDaddy,

I am not juding others based on my own circumstances.  (I omitted the words "limited knowledge" because I don't know on what basis you come to a conclusion that it's limited).  I know parents who cheat.  In their heart, they believe Chinese is important.  But they deliberately stop their kids from learning it for the time being in order to get into Category One.  This is their sole purpose and reason.  Once they get in, they will change their approach and attitute towards Chinese immediately and dramatically.  To me, whether these "cheaters" will never learn Chinese for the rest of their lives is irrelevant.  They cheat and gain unfair advantage over others.  If they had not cheated, they would have been in Category Two and they might not be able to get into ESF.  By unfair means, they manage to secure a place which might belong to another student.  What they do afterwards won't undo their wrongdoing.

WYmom

回復 bobbycheung 的帖子

Just wonder if ESF really categorise those Chinese parents who "cheat" as you said as Cat 1?  As I know, the schools require applicants to state the parents' languages and care takers languages, place of birth, passport etc. and they also ask the kids...
Besides, though you think that many students are local Chinese, there are in fact many Singaporeans, Japanese, Koreans, "mixed" kids with Asian faces ...their parents have settled in HK to work for years.  There are also a lot of HK people returned back after immigration and their kids have been brought up in an English-speaking environment for a few years.  So these kids naturally apply for ESF instead of local schools.

Moreover, a lot of local Chinese parents are civil servants who enjoy Education allowance from the govt.  There maybe some local Chinese parents trying to cheat due to the more intense competition, yet they may not meet the other criteria as said.

And, apart from ESF, the United College Li Po Chun is also receiving DSS subsidies for all the years without any reduction, and 50% of their students come from overseas.  If then,is it more unfair than ESF to subsidise those 50% in LPC who are really non-HK residents for so many years while no one will ever challenge?!

cowmoon

回復 bobbycheung 的帖子

I declare that I have no relationship with ESF and my kids have not applied to ESF schools before.

For the point of view of a local parents and taxpayer, I find that there are some loopholes in the current school mission, governance and administration. If all those loopholes are cleared, I think that most taxpayers may be more willing to continue subsidize the schools:

1. The mission of the schools: If the mission of the schools is to provide education to expat kids, it should stick to this mission. Don't say "70% of students are local people" as selling point because it is actually against and failing its mission.

2. Whether HK need to subsidize non-local education for expat kids is another issue. It may not be a bad idea if we want to attract expat to work in HK e.g. NET for all schools in HK

3. Providing non-local education does not mean that the schools are outside the supervision of the government. It seems that the school management is not accountable to anyone. As a taxpayer, what I am skeptical is how the money is used. In particular, recently the school raise school fees every year and all kinds of capital levy and nomination rights ... where is the money gone ? I think it is not very fair to compare the tuition fee with other IS because ESF schools are the only IS which have 30 students per class. As a wild guess, sometimes I would think, are the school managers receiving super high salaries comparable to MNC CEO?  To me, the financial situation of ESF is a complete black-box. And I (and the general public) genuinely have no time to do the research. If the schools are under EDB supervision, I will be much more comfortable about subsidizing it.

4. The admission policy ... I agree very much with bobbycheung but I would like to elaborate a bit more:-

a. If it is clarified that the schools are for expat kids, it should rectify the situation to make sure that it complies with the mission. The current situation - 70% students are local kids while there are expat complaining that they cannot find a place in ESF ... is just unacceptable. ESF admission office is definitely not executing well with the very loose and a bit silly Cat 1/Cat 2 (Know cantonese / Don't know cantonese) policy. I think that the Cat 1 / Cat 2 categorization should be best done by EDB. I believe that EDB, while very bureaucratic, will be unbiased to identify those real Cat 1 cases (e.g. expat with working visas and not ethnic Chinese). Then all the rest will be Cat 2 and can compete fairly for the remaining seats just like DSS.

b. Currently kids from ESF kindergartens have privilege which is definitely unfair to other kids and kindergartens. Why do graduates from a particular privately-run kindergarten have priority to get a place into a government subsidized school? There is no such thing in local system.

If ESF do not want to lose its freedom from government supervision, why don't they just "let go" of the government subsidy and become PIS status, just like RC and DC. RC and DC are actually doing very well and their admission policy is much more transparent to local parents than ESF schools.

bobbycheung

FattyDaddy,

Of course there are people who think Chinese is not important and they won't bother to learn it.  But we are talking about cheaters here and they are HK people.  How many HK people think that Chinese/Cantonese is so unimportant that they should not learn a word of it?  I am sure the number of cheaters I described far exceed the number of people you described (if there is any).  If you think my knowledge is limited, then yours has got to be very limited.   

bobbycheung

FattyDaddy,

I am sure some people may call these people 醒目仔 (which they are if we look at it from another angle).  They play by the rules and some people think there is nothing wrong with that.  Everybody knows there is a "loophole".  If you don't take advantage of it, there is no one to blame.  These people do not irritate me.  What irritate me is the ESF category One admission policy.   It put the parents in a dilemma.  If you teach your kid Chinese/Cantonese, he will lose the priority.  
Anyway, if the present policy remains unchanged, more and more people will claim (truely or falsely) that their kids know no Chinese/Cantonese.  As the number of Category One applicants swell, those who truly can't access the local system will soon find themselves unable to get in.  This may well explain why there are expats complaining that they cannot find a place in ESF as described by cowmoon.

bobbycheung

FattyDaddy,

OK, let's say there are locals who genuinely have no interest in Chinese.  But the fact remains that they are local HK people who have full access to the local system.  (They choose not to learn Chinese would not bar them from getting into the local system.  The Education Bureau website has provisions dealing with any local eligible children who do not speak Chinese).  Why should they be given priority in ESF Category One?  As the ESF website clearly says, "ESF schools receive a subsidy from the Hong Kong Government to provide an education for English speaking children who can not access the local system."  It's aiming at those who can not join it (rather than those who choose not to join it).  In fact, this is what you told me.

bobbycheung

回復 WYmom 的帖子

As I said, I don't mind ESF or LPC getting subsidy.  I don't mind if the subsidy goes to expats or HK local students.  I get no benefit (or jetso as FattyDaddy said), thats' OK with me.  I don't mind if the genuine expats/foreigners who can't go to the local schools get priority under Category One.  What bothers me is the wording of this ESF Category One policy which is giving some parents (who otherwise would not be qualified) an unfair advantage over others.  Why should ESF facilitate parents to jump (or attempt to jump) the queue?

torunpoland

回復 tay 的帖子

[size=15.454545021057129px]Not only it is difficult, but also a huge waste of bilingual environment if some young kids are trying not to learn Cantonese / Chinese here in Hong Kong. It's always the best side Hong Kong parents can think about while  raising a kid here instead of US or Canada etc (if such door is opened to your family) - to learn English and Chinese at the same time, though difficult and different levels may be achieved, you can after all have the best of two words if you have the trick carefully exercised.

bobbycheung

FattyDaddy,

First, it's your choice not to teach your kids Chinese in the first place.  Secondly, there are kids coming from China everyday who do not know Cantonese or traditional Chinese characters.  What happens to them?  Should they all go to ESF because they can't get through local schools?   

I have said it so many times that I am afraid I have "bad breath".  ESF schools receive a subsidy from the Hong Kong Government to provide an education for English speaking children who can not access the local system.  Why should the locals who have full access to the local system be given priority under Category One?  Why should they have the same priority as those who genuinely can't get into the local schools?  

There is an important distinction between those who can't access the local system and those who choose not to access the local system.  For example, if I think kindergarten education is not important and I don't send my kid to any kindergarten, can I say my kid can't access the local system because he skips kindergarten and can't now therefore get through the local schools?  Or I choose not to teach my kids any maths.  Can I say my kids can't access the local system because he won't be able to catch up the maths taught in local schools?

Anyway, I can't see how we could agree on this matter.  Parents could make their own judgment.

Shootastar

回復 WYmom 的帖子

The issue here is whether ESF should receive grants across the board (for all the students there).

ESF schools are great. Many local parents want to put the kids there. It is perfectly alright for ESF schools admit whatever students they like if they do not receive public fund. Many IS in Hong Kong sets out the policy that the top priority is for the students from their own countries or their education systems. The local people is on the bottom of the priority. That is fine because the very purpose of setting up the school is to cater the needs of those expatriates' kids.

No one says that ESF schools should not admit students from Singapore, Japan, Philippines and other countries. However, ESF adopts a discriminatory admission policy against those who speak month tongue (Cantonese) and/or know how to write Chinese characters. In reality, there are some local kids (meaning HK permanent residents, including Indian, Paklistan, Japanese, Singaporean) fit this definition and obtain priority of admission. There is no problem for that. Setting aside the places for these kids, the balance of the available seats would go to the othe persons in the Category One priority. If they do not cheat (I am sure they will not), their kids would have a lower priority than the foreigners or expatriates' kids.

Apparently, the admission policy is designed to admit foreigner' kids. As a Hong Kong taxpayer, I do not think it is fair and reasonable that our public money is used to favour those kids. If ESF drops its discriminatory admission policy, it would help preserve the integrity of many family by pretending they do not speak Cantonese and/or not know how to write Chinese characters. It would also help to maintain a fair and balanced schools - not to favour a section of the people at the expenses of the public funds.

If ESF drops its discriminatory admission policy, I think the opposition to the grant of fund (on across the board basis) should be substantially reduced although it is still debatable why should the taxpayers subsidise the non Hong Kong permanent residents.   

By the way, I cannot find out the information that LPC receives annual grant from HK government as the other local schools does. Could you please point out your source of information for my reference. Thanks.