Been reading the press on the current 'arguments' regarding the ESF subversion.
I have always been puzzled as to why the ESF needs this huge financial support to operate whilst the independent schools don't.
Granted the fees at the latter are a bit higher than ESF but then again the class sizes are smaller so I reckon at an income per teacher/classroom metric they must be fairly similiar. Running costs must also be fairly equivalent.
So what is it at ESF which makes it so financially innefficient they need this huge amount of government support to operate ?
Please support our advertisers:
while the monthly fees at independent international schools are not marginally higher than esf's, they require students to pay extras.
in the form of bonds, funds, etc. these are non-interest making lump sums of money that parents pay into the school and they will get their net returned when their child leaves the school.
Please support our advertisers:
Hang on a minute. Fees at most international schools are not "a bit" higher than ESF. They are much higher, especially if you count debentures. Example:
- Bradbury (next year): 63k/year + 20k capital levy
- Kellett: 101k/year + 80k debenture (individual) or 300k debenture (corporate)
HKIS, CIS and GSIS are even higher than Kellett.
As I see it, ESF is "left over" from British rule, and as such has a sort of special status. Whether it should keep that status or not is up to debate. But certainly without state support fees would immediately go up to the same level as the other schools.
BTW this debate has come up before and it will come up again. Not arguing either way. I'll just say that one shouldn't believe everything the press says.
Please support our advertisers:
As axptgy says, fees for IS are substantially higher than ESF, even after the recent ESF hikes...
Kellet
http://www.kellettschool.com/contentpage.php?workplaceID=37
HKIS
http://www.hkis.edu.hk/contentpage.php?type=wg&workplaceID=288&appid=334&apptype=2
Chinese IS
http://www.cis.edu.hk/tuition.asp?lang=e
German Swiss
http://mygsis.gsis.edu.hk/SchoolInformation_School_Fees.aspx
Canadian IS
http://www.cdnis.edu.hk/admissions/20102011-tuition-fee-structure.html
Please support our advertisers:
Yes but if you take into account that class sizes are in most cases significantly smaller at the International schools then as I say I reckon the income per classroom/teacher are roughly the same.
In the market driven system that is HK it is surprising that the system that ESF enjoys is still around.
Surely the answer is to remove the grant and let ESF sink or swim on it's own operational merits.
Please support our advertisers:
That's one view boddingtons. The counter is that HK has a very significant English speaking heritage, plus it is an official language of the territory. Thus it makes sense for the state to sponsor, at least in part, English language education for residents who do not speak Cantonese.
As for income per classroom/teacher it does not even things out to roughly the same. (Pupils per class at Kellett and HKIS are from memory and may be a bit off).
- Bradbury. 63k/year per child x 30 per class / 2 staff per class (1 teacher + 1 assistant) = $945000
- Kellett. 101k/year per child x 23 per class / 2 staff per class (1 teacher + 1 assistant) = $1161500
- HKIS. 121k/year per child x 20 per class / 1½ staff per class (1 teacher + 1 shared assistant) = $1613333
If you include debentures, the discrepancy is even more apparent.
Please support our advertisers:
in relation to what axptguy38 is saying, it is important to consider the needs of the families who require the 'service' of the esf system.
there are families with children who are not chinese speaking and cannot attend local schools and cannot afford private international schools. esf with its lower fees are necessary for their children to get an education.
Please support our advertisers:
You must be logged in to be able to reply.
Login now
Copy Link
Facebook
Gmail
Mail