續 有 家 長 反 對 加 費 英 基 明 日 解 畫

Twolovelyboys

If that was  funny than this is even funnier a lot of people JUST seem to think everybody in the UK is Rich.

I do not drive an expensive european car but a ten year old Nissan.  I have never stayed in a five star hotel because they are too expensive in Europe.  My kids go to state school because I cannot afford for them to go private in UK.  

AS you rightly said "ESF is ... a charitable ...organisation to provide ......education to........children in HK".  From this statement, I do not understand some parents view that  "ESF are channeling money to RC and DC......".  Being a charitable organisation, as long as the money used by ESF is helping the more people in HK to gain a better education (irrespective of their social class).  

I myself is from a HK middle class family (and paid just as much taxes as anybody else whilst in HK) and have every right to enjoy subsidy from the govt.

The point of my dicussion is to highlight to parents of ESF students that they should not use the arguement that increase in ESF student fee is due "to funding for developement of PIS schools" but rather the increase is due to poor management of ESF.

I too will be writing on the online petetion against the 23% increase in ESF school fee (over the last 3 years because it is excessive, but at the same time I
Congratulate them for them effert in providing more English speaking school for the need of the HK people.

Twolovelyboys

Seems you are contradicting yourself.

On one hand you say

"...not a topic to compare fee with UK schools.  Different countries have different systems."

but on the other hand you say

  "   ...they should be financed by endowment and/or other financial arrangement such as sponsorship, alumni fundings etc.  This is a common practice in many other schools in HK or in other countries."


I not getting the point you are trying to make here.  

It is selfish for parents who have already gotten their child into ESF school to say ".....funding of redevelopment or investment in PIS should not mainly come from school fees" because it does not benefit ESF students.   This is equivalent to saying why should the money from the 3 million HK people who pay taxe be used subsidise ESF schools because it does not benefit the 3 million taxpayers.  

If you think about it, I count parents of ESF students to be lucky, the money given to PIS schools will be paid back with interest to ESF.  No doubt,  I do not expect ESF to pay back the taxpayers money used as subvention never mind the interest.

It may not directly affect parents with already have childrens in ESF school but the opening of PIS Schools have given an opportunity for the 2300 or so parents of new ESF students who may otherwise not have had an opportunity to go to ESF school.

Base on my above explaination, people can use "ESF's poor management" as an arguement about ESF school fee increase but anybody who uses the arguement that "ESF funding for the developement of PIS school" for the school fee increase would just go onto show how selfish he or she can be.

原文章由 WYmom 於 08-6-21 09:49 發表
This is not a topic to compare fee with UK schools.  Different countries have different systems.  

We are discussing on the use of ESF school fees to build more and more independent private schools w ...

hhy2007

WYmom,

For such an educational development project as RC and DC, the ESF management must have calculated both the financial and economic returns on its investment for the whole project life.  Losing money for the first a few years does NOY mean the overall financial return for the whole project lifetime would be negative.  Furthermore, if you do the calculation, you will see the economic return on RC and DC investment must be higher.   

As a receiver of government subventions, ESF has its social responsibility and obiligation to contribute back to the whole HK society.  In this view, we, outsiders, would like to emphasize more the economic return on RC and DC investments.  

I can fully understand your feeling about the fee increase at ESF, however, please try to understand the feeling of non-EFS parents and students. Blaming RC and DC investments for the ESF fee increase is narrow-minded indeed.

WYmom

原文章由 hhy2007 於 08-6-21 22:45 發表
WYmom,

For such an educational development project as RC and DC, the ESF management must have calculated both the financial and economic returns on its investment for the whole project life.  Losing  ...

hhy007 and Twolovelyboys,

I understand what you mean.  But in fact, PIS parents may not understand that the current accounting or financial treatments of PIS have a lot of impact on ESF's accounts and leads to ongoing increase in fees to ESF parents, which will not affect PIS parents at all.

If ESF reports the financials of ESL as subsidiary instead of a separate independent company, the overall income will look much better for ESF and they will have less excuses to ask parents to pay more and more.  It is the fact that the same group of people managing ESL and PIS, sharing the resources on cirriculum, activities, etc. but the accounting and financial treatments did not reflect the fact of "subsidiary structure" in cost sharing.  The loan interest is only a very small return and loan will be repaid in a very very long time.  So ESF parents bear all the cost.  PIS parents do not need to "contribute" to any future capital investments in other campus of KJS, KGV and IS, am I correct?

So it is really not about "selfishness", but more about discussing the misrepresentation of accounts of ESF to reflect the true picture.  I am always challenging about the illusion and the unnecessary items in the financials presented by ESF, not the decision to build the PIS.

If you look at their financial projection, they said that they have to spend about $400M+ for redeveloping each of the 3 campus (really doubt very much how much they have inflated the investment projections), so can you imagine how much more we have to pay in future?  The school fee will likely hike up above those of PIS soon! (Now the secondary fees is already same as PIS)

So for funding these projects, I suggest to raise funds from other means, just like the other schools (DGS, DBS...).  Parents pay a lot already for all ESF management and staff salaries, ESF Centre and school Campus overheads and recurrent cost, how can parents pay so much more to fund all these large capital projects?  Do you think PIS parents should contribute a part too?

If you really read the financials more carefully, they in fact have more than enough recurrent cash flow to cover their increase in costs and capital investments in the coming year, but they still keep increasing the fees with the reason of inflations, increase in salarys, etc. These are very common reasons to be used.  However, in fact teachers' salary has been cut to lower level, but not management's pay!  So there are a lot of hidden agenda in the financials!

I hope you all be more polite and calm in discussing all these issues instead of accusing us parents if you ARE a rational person.  The problem is with ESF management as they present their financials as if they are running PIS as a business, which is NOT the fact!  



[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 07:21 編輯 ]

Twolovelyboys

PIS parents would off course share and contribute to the funding of future large capital projects by ESF, as long as the subvention recieved by ESF schools are shared with PIS schools.

AS mentioned in previous threads "government provided ESF primary schools with HK$115 million in subsidies.  For secondary schools, the government's subsidies amounted to HK$176 million".  

A simple calcualtions will indicate that in the next 3 years ESF schools will recieve HK$873million in subvention.   This is more than double what ESF will spend on its capital project of HK$400million plus in the next 3 years.   

I too hope you will be more polite and calm in discussing all these issues instead of accusing PIS schools of taking money away from ESF school as if you are a victim of some great injustice.

I agree with you that the problem is with ESF management but just leave PIS schools out of the arguement.  AND just to show my politeness, PLEASE.

原文章由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 06:51 發表


hhy007 and Twolovelyboys,

I understand what you mean.  But in fact, PIS parents may not understand that the current accounting or financial treatments of PIS have a lot of impact on ESF's accounts  ...

WYmom

原文章由 Twolovelyboys 於 08-6-22 09:40 發表
PIS parents would off course share and contribute to the funding of future large capital projects by ESF, as long as the subvention recieved by ESF schools are shared with PIS schools.

AS mentioned  ...

The capital investment in the coming 3 projects is: $400+M times 3 = $1,200+M, not $400+M!!

The subvention has been decreased to $260+M in 2003, while the no. of students in ESF schools are increasing.  Notwithstanding this, the ESF schools still invested $240M in PIS after 2003.  ESF only emphasize on the Intangible return, and do not tell much about the Tangible return.  I have said that I did not agree with their accounting treatment of the 2 new schools to be sheltered under a separate limited co. instead of as a subsidiary.   It does not equal to any accuse on RC/DC schools themselves.  The fault is with ESF financial management.  Do you understand??

We are asking for justification for the fee increase.  From the financials we see so far, there are a lot of problems which I have pointed out in previously messages.  They said clearly that they want to avoid bank loans and rely mainly on reserves to fund all capital investments and further PIS.  

Can you also please be more objective and focus on their financial management?





[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 10:53 編輯 ]

Wingba

Hi everyone,


Please calm down! I am grateful to learn more about the financial arrangement between ESF and the two PIS although I am still not that clear about the whole picture.

Nevertheless, the culprit seems to be the ESF management, prima facie.

One thing I would like to clarify is the teachers' salary has been trimmed but not the management. It seems not possible. From the above newspaper clippings the reason seem to be the date of joining. The present Chief Executive of ESF joined the band after salary reduction exercise? This is an important point before we can discuss/accuse whether it is any unfair treatment.

Secondly, we should be very careful in enlisting the help from the government. Mind you that after 1997 ESF
's status has been transforming/downgrading. The presence of an ENGLISH school foundation has become an eyesore amidst rising Chinese nationalism.

Getting a hand from the government is dangerous. With the departure of Arthur Li and Fanny Law ESF has a better chance to survive the storm. Having said that, I do not mean we should simply let it go without grilling the ESF management on something that they should be clear and responsible for.

Sometimes, you may not intend to stir up an argument  but the use of words may result in people taking offence. As mentioned before I am a RC parent and I always think that I am not so lucky to enjoy the subsidy from the government but it is a choice that I made and I will follow the rule as I like my girl to study traditional Chinese instead of the rootless simplified Chinese.

I do have some bad feelings when some parents saying that PIS was draining the resources of ESF and the parents of other ESF were paying the price. But all parents have a choice and parents in ESF schools can put their kids in PIS and enjoy the "subsidy". But I talk to myself that if I were other ESF parents I might have the same feeling. So let's take a deep breath and calm down. Don't point fingers and try not to ask the government to intervene otherwise you will regret for it.

It is perfectly okay to ask ESF management to disclose more financial figures to support their move and a large scale campaign in asking alumni to raise funds should be conducted.

Some of ESF alumni are rich and famous like Victor Fung. I am not sure if Arthur Li is also a ESF alumni.

Cheers

WYmom

原文章由 Wingba 於 08-6-22 14:02 發表
Hi everyone,


Please calm down! I am grateful to learn more about the financial arrangement between ESF and the two PIS although I am still not that clear about the whole picture.

Nevertheless, the  ...

I think no matter how we object, it is very difficult to see changes in ESF mgt as we see in the past years.  That's why seeking help from govt may be the last resort.

It is at least good for us to see some of their financials and realise a bit more, though they only show what they want to.  They have been "well-known" in their financial mgt since 2003!

As a lot of parents normally put their 2 or 3 kids in the same school, the rapid increase over these few years has become a great burden.  If economic recession is coming soon as expected,  less wealthy parents are forced to quit and return to their home countries.  Have already known some of these cases.

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 16:45 編輯 ]

hhy2007

Wymom,


I read the ESF Auditor's Report for 2006 and 2007 financial years and the ESF's Explanatory Note for its support for PIS, which were all posted on ESF website.
To my understanding, the followings are clear:


(1)
ESL pays ESF the overhead cost attributed to ESF's assistance to PIS schools.
This is proved by the 2006 & 2007 ESF financial reports and the Auditor's Reports.

(2)
ESL pays fees to ESF to cover the cost of ESF's investment plus a return equivalent to HIBOR+1% in the long run.
(3)
There is no cross subsidy between ESF and PIS schools.


You said making PIS schools to be independent accounting centers is harmful to ESF, while, if you look at the issue from the other perspective, you would see it's for the good of ESF, because ESF would just collect fees from ESL and not be accountable for any operating loss if occurred at PIS schools in the future.
In this view, PIS school parents are bearing higher risk of fee increase than ESF counterparts in the future.


As to the financial return, by nature, such educational development project should not have high return.
This is the common practice. More concerns should be focused on the economic return instead of the financial ROI.



You have the very right to push ESF management to improve their operating performance and efficiency.
However, the argument that ESF is sort of feeding PIS school is somehow emotional.

         

WYmom

原文章由 hhy2007 於 08-6-22 17:05 發表
Wymom,


I read the ESF Auditor's Report for 2006 and 2007 financial years and the ESF's Explanatory Note for its support for PIS, which were all posted on ESF website.
To my understanding, the follow ...

hhy2007,

Can you pls advise me the figures you refer to in your pt (1)?  Do you mean one of the item in "other income" $54M in 06/07 which includes  $32.2M from residential apartment rental, $4.2M donation, $8M interest income, and $9.4M miscellaneous income (do not know what it is)? Can you advise the % of sharing in overhead cost?  I really cannot find it.

For interest income, it is stated in previous message to be 3-month HIBOR +1%.

We do not know the deal between ESF and ESL regarding their inter-fee bookings in case of operating profit or loss.  Pls tell us if you know.  But what I said is that if report it as subsidiary and as group accounts, it reflects the real structure better.

Thanks.

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 19:53 編輯 ]

hhy2007

WYmom,

To my understanding of the auditor's report, (correct me if I'm wrong), ESL paid ESF HKD 2.194M in 2007 and HKD 1.809M in 2006 for overhead cost. I figure this is in the category of "Miscellaneous Income" of the $59M of "Other income".  As to the loan repayment and interest payment, it should be $3.908M in 2007.  I don't know their repayment schedule, and therefore, can not break down this $3.908M.  

If you want to have a clearer picture, I suggest you and other interested ESF parents talk with ESF's financial manager for a better explanation.

As to making PIS as independent cost center, it's understandable that ESF just want to collect the agreed amount of fees as a source of income, and doesn't want to finance ESL's operating if the later is not profitable.

In fact, I am in no position to defend for ESF.  I read their reports, and got my view.  If you have other info to correct me, please do.  Thank you.

WYmom

原文章由 hhy2007 於 08-6-22 20:01 發表
WYmom,

To my understanding of the auditor's report, (correct me if I'm wrong), ESL paid ESF HKD 2.194M in 2007 and HKD 1.809M in 2006 for overhead cost. I figure this is in the category of "Miscellan ...

Thanks for your reply.  But also in 2007, ESF paid ESL 6.957M as consultation fee in return.  So net-net still it is ESF paying ESL $4.763M in 2007.

Their relationship is really very complicated and all inter-related, so they are really not independent cos!

Anyway, we can see that ESF has more than enough cash surplus to cover their required increase, which is not related to ESL.

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 21:32 編輯 ]

almom

Parents, calm down and think about the whole situation again.

I am not good at bookkeeping or accounting. But I know that you pay the same amount (or almost the same amount?) for the same t-shirt at Giordano no matter which shop you are going to buy from. But customers in an old branch in TST would not blame customers of the new shop in Mongkok, just because a lot of money has been spent on furnishing the new shop.

Yes. Just within these 3 years, we have 2 new schools PIS's. That is a huge amount of money has been spent on constructing the campus, buying new computers, stocking up with chairs and tables etc. But as far as the book is concerned, these are all assets of ESF. RC and DC parents get NOTHING other than educational services. All we get is 10+ months of education, just like the rest of ESF schools. OK, I admit that there are things that are not exactly like other ESF schools. We have newer computers, we have newer tables. But the thing is, at some point down the road, you are going to get your share of "new stuffs". And honestly, even amongst the ESF schools, you do not all have exactly the same hardware or facilities, do you?

RC and DC are unlikely going to spend any huge amount on upgrading the hardware in the near future. However, I am sure there will be money spent on other "older" ESF schools, refurnishing the building, buying newer computers, etc. When money is spent next year, or the next, with an ESF school, does it mean that we RC/DC parents will then have a chance to accuse ESF on spending more money on ESF schools than on PIS schools?

BTW, in case people forget, school fees are not the only income. There are also income generated by those after school activities taken place at different schools. Now are we also going to consider that income as well? And can any one tell me which school is making most money and which school is making least money? And.....

If I still remember it, around one year ago, a lot of parents kept reminding people that RC/DC were school set up to generate money for ESF/ESL. I am a bit lost here. Why are people making totally opposite comments at different times? Are people making different comments at different times merely for their own convenience?

Parents (ESF, RC or DC) are paying the fees for what they want to get, ie educational services. We all have rights to challenge the management of how they spend the money. In the respect, we all agree that ESF/ESL do have a reputation of being a big spender. If parents want to vent the flames, accuse the group of the way they spend the money.

When you think about the whole picture, I think all parents of ESF, RC and DC have put in a proportion of the school fees into the management team. So WE ARE ALL subsidising the ESF/ESL management team. In a way, we are "losers".

Parents, please lock your target before you fire. And do not shoot at your own comrades. Now, your enemies are larghing.

bbjan

wingba,

TOTALLY AGREE with what u said:  

ESF should pay more attention to financial management especially the RoI of its funding. If it can achieve 50% of what Harvard did in managing its asset we should not be worried about fee increase.

hhy2007

Wymom,

That's not the proper way to interpreter data, and neither should we calculate net benefit in the way you mentioned.
The consulting fee received by ESL from ESF and the overhead cost paid by ESL to ESF are priced in accordance with market value.
If ESF don't use ESL's consulting service, it still has to subcontract it to other consulting entity and pay the bill.

If you still insist on your belief that the current school fee increase at ESF is mainly caused by PIS establishment, that's fine.
But, please bear in mind that there quite a few people out there don't buy your view.

WYmom

原文章由 hhy2007 於 08-6-23 23:13 發表
Wymom,

That's not the proper way to interpreter data, and neither should we calculate net benefit in the way you mentioned.
The consulting fee received by ESL from ESF and the overhead cost paid by  ...

How do you know if $2M overhead fee (don't even know what's the real total overhead?) and $7M consultancy fee were priced at market value or not?  How do you know their justification?  You can say that only if you are the ESF/ESL management, are you?

I did not insist that PIS is the only problem, I have pointed out various financial management problems re raising funds, justification of increase in expenses,  increase in management headcounts, the large cash surplus accumulated... I have said that the focus should be on their financial management, but you just keep on defending on the single issue on PIS.   It is quite obvious where you come from, as a NEW member.  If you support ESF management so much or actually you are one of them, don't waste your time here, do stand out to explain the missing details in front of parents officially.  Pls provide more explanation with financials for parents and the govt officially.  We look forward to that.  Thank you.

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-24 06:27 編輯 ]

Twolovelyboys

WYmom,

OK I got my sum wrong from the ESF presentation the capital investment is HK$1047M but you must remember it is over 7 years.  In that time ESF would have recieved (HK$260M*7) = HK$1820M, which still leaves HK$770M.  What do PIS school get nothing from the government and at the same time PIS school have to pay back whatever is owned to ESF.

I admit my wording can be over the top sometimes this is because I have very strong views about including PIS school into the equation when discussing ESF school fees increase.  The reason for this strong view is very simple, every time it is included in the equation, it justs gives more excuse for ESF/ESL to incease fees of PIS schools in future.

No offence to anybody but comments like

"why is the ESF school fee higher than PIS" will only give an excuse for ESF/ESL management to increase the PIS fees to the same level rather than decrease ESF fees.   

"ESF Centre also administers /manages RC and DC, yet  no recurring overhead cost of the Centre is allocated to RC/ DC", ESF respose would be "Ah yes why didn't we charge them, we should do that next year".

"RC's students are enjoying more resources in terms of teachers' ratio, campus facilities and ESF mgt Centre" - ESF responsed will be "Great another excuse to charge more"

As you rightly said "As a lot of parents normally put their 2 or 3 kids in the same school."   I will be one such parent in a couple of years time and still trying to sort out the finance.

原文章由 WYmom 於 08-6-22 10:48 發表


The capital investment in the coming 3 projects is: $400+M times 3 = $1,200+M, not $400+M!!

The subvention has been decreased to $260+M in 2003, while the no. of students in ESF schools are increas ...

WYmom

原文章由 Twolovelyboys 於 08-6-24 07:25 發表
WYmom,

OK I got my sum wrong from the ESF presentation the capital investment is HK$1047M but you must remember it is over 7 years.  In that time ESF would have recieved (HK$260M*7) = HK$1820M, which ...

The funds required is not equally spread in 7 years.  The capital investment will be $39M only in 2008, $113M in 2009 and go high up to $297M in 2010, $267M more in 2011 and more afterwards.  So the increase in fees in the next 2 to 3 years will be even more terrible if they are arleady asking 7%+ increase in 08 when the capital needs is only $39M.  How much higher the increase should we expect in 09/10 then?  

They threaten in the news today to cut the Chinese program instead of cutting those unecessary administration cost on employing many more HR /accounting staff, their new increase of 15% in cash allowance, or their nice-to-have dental benefits.  So you can see what kind of educationists they are!


Yes, I understand your worries.  Just that these have hit us first before hitting you.  Not sure if you are aware, they are also gradually shifting a lot of payments to parents.  They also delete the discussion forum we used to have in the past to stop communication among parents.  So we can have no choice but accept the more and more increase every year and onwards.  So maybe parents have to really keep an eye on them rather than just carefree as before unless you are very rich and don't bother.

[ 本文章最後由 WYmom 於 08-6-24 10:27 編輯 ]

KaKaYa

英 基 不 加 費 或 削 中 文 課 程  

英 基 上 周 舉 行 兩 場 簡 介 會 ， 解 釋 加 學 費 的 原 因 ， 但 未 能 說 服 家 長 。  

　　(星島日報報道)英基學校協會計畫下學年調高學費，引來逾三百名家長聯署反對。英基行政總監杜茵妮警告，若加學費計畫胎死腹中，校方可能被逼取消中文課程，長遠影響學生的普通話能力，亦未能向教師加薪，引致教師大量流失，影響教學質素。

　　英基上周舉行兩場簡介會，解釋加學費的原因，但未能說服家長。英基行政總監杜茵妮接受《英文虎報》訪問時坦言，若政府否決其加學費申請，校方已沒有後備計畫，教學服務勢必被削。

　　她形容，中文課程對學生來說「不能缺少」，但若英基未能加學費，校方將被逼取消該課程，長遠對學生有極大影響，「愈來愈多工作要求僱員懂普通話，因此不懂說的學生日後在本港市場競爭，將會吃虧」。  


　　她續指，加學費主要是為教師加薪約百分之四點八，以及將租金津貼提升約一成半，以挽留教師，否則將有大批教師流失，屆時學校的教學質素勢必下降。

　　對於家長指英基坐擁五億元儲備，杜茵妮解釋：「儲備是協會於過去四十年來累積的資產，只是帳面數字，不是現金。」她並反駁以學費投資私立獨立學校之說，指英基於九九年決定建校，二億四千萬元的建校費屬一筆過投資，而兩所私立獨立學校將分二十年向英基歸還撥款及利息。

　　家長對英基可能取消中文課程則意見分歧，兒子就讀沙田小學的本地家長認為，學校應不惜一切保留中文課程，寧願每年多付數千元學費；來自印度的家長John Mampilli則指，取消中文課程影響不大。

2008-06-24

bbjan

is there any govt dept or offical in charge of checking the ESF account every yr? surely the ESF mgt is asking too much. The fee increase should not be higher than the inflation rate. Did they decrease or freeze the fee when the economy was not gd few yrs back?