ESF bullies ignore struggling parentsComment: I don't always agree with Heather du Quesnay, but this does seem to make sense. Other fee-paying schools in Hong Kong work in a similar way (and/or require parents to buy debentures), and as the ESF is a non-profit organization, the interest earned and extra revenue (from operating at capacity) must surely translate into lower fees or better services.The English Schools Foundation has revealed its latest bullying tactics ("ESF clamps down on summer exodus", Education Post, March 24).
Many thanks to Heather Du Quesnay and Chris Forse for a new stab in the back, as usual introduced without agreement from the parents. Many hard-working families who struggle to pay the high fees may be forced to forfeit their summer holidays in order to deposit their hard-earned money in the ESF's fat bank account in advance.
Ms Du Quesnay states that 170 students lost over summer is a "huge loss". Nonsense. With 12,000 students, that represents 1.4 per cent. There are two disturbing points to mention:
* Many families survive on large education subsidies from their companies, paid at the start of each term. Companies will not bring forward the subsidies to June, causing hardship.
* The ESF obviously presumes fewer empty seats will mean more fees and therefore more income. Will the school fees be reduced then? Will parents see the interest from the extra $75 million that will sit in the ESF's bank account all summer?
Parents should be given the financial facts to choose whether to maintain the current fee schedule or pay September's fees in advance and receive a discount.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED
Parents who are lucky enough to have fees paid for them could surely ask their employers to pay the September fees in June.
As for letting parents decide, I believe this has been discussed with the JCPTA, and full consultation with parents would be time-consuming and expensive - and would most likely produce the same result.
1 comment:
The current ESF accounts show the opposite, a drop in subvention as a result of the Government freezing the number of classes it subvents and reducing the subvention per class by 1.8% from the 1999/2000 level with effect from September 2003, 4.8% from January 2004, 6.44% from April 2004,9.572% from April 2005 and 12.372% from April 2006 (all figures cumulative).
That means if we lose 170 students there is more money to go around the rest as it is a lump sum amount. So actually under the current subvention regime ESF would prefer to have less students, not more and should not be asking for money up front.
Post a Comment