Parents disappointed as ESF rejects freeze on fees

Sunday Morning Post - October 31 2010

Simon Parry

The chief executive of the English Schools Foundation (ESF) has ruled out a freeze on fees at a meeting with a group of parents protesting over sharp rises in schooling costs and the introduction of a HK$25,000 refundable deposit.

ESF chief executive Heather Du Quesnay told members of the Concerned Parents Group, who have called for a freeze on pay rises and a suspension of the HK$25,000 capital levy, she could not agree to their demands at a meeting last week.

One of the association's leading members, Dr Hans Ladegaard, said he was 'disappointed and disillusioned' with the way the meeting had gone.

'There was a lot of talk but nothing was accomplished,' he said. The group now wants talks with the ESF board and legislators to take their complaints further.

Seven group members with children in the ESF's Sha Tin College and Sha Tin Junior School attended the meeting to air concerns after the ESF imposed rises totalling 29 per cent for primary school and 19 per cent for secondary schools in the past five years.

Ladegaard has claimed parents are struggling to meet rising ESF fees, and that some expatriates had been forced to take their children out of school and leave Hong Kong because education costs were no longer affordable.

Fees for ESF primary schools have gone from HK$47,300 a year to HK$61,000 in the past five years while secondary school fees have risen from HK$78,600 to HK$93,500. A new HK$25,000 refundable levy will also be imposed from the next academic year.

Government subvention for ESF schools has been frozen for the past decade, so that each ESF secondary school pupil received a subsidy of HIK$28,927 in the past academic year compared to HK$41,270 for children at indirect subsidy secondary schools.

Du Quesnay, who met parents accompanied by two other ESF officials, said: 'The parents wanted me to promise that there would be no further fee increases and that they would be able to stay in Hong Kong with their children. I am not in a position to do that.

'The future of any family in Hong Kong can be decided only by the family itself. As far as ESF is concerned, I told them that fees will be reviewed every year by the board and it is for the board to make the decision about any increase or otherwise, taking into account all of the relevant factors.'

Du Quesnay indicated that the ESF board was unlikely to agree to meet the parents' group. 'I did say I would ask the board if they wished there to be a further meeting, but the board has discussed the Concerned Parents' [earlier] letter at some length.

'It was the board and the Committee of Parents who suggested the meeting that has just been held. I was there as the board's representative, not as an individual.'

Du Quesnay described the meeting, held at the Baptist University staff quarters in Sha Tin, as 'constructive' and 'courteous' and said: 'We explained our strategy on trying to secure the recurrent subvention, answered a large number of questions and promised to get back to them ... with answers to detailed questions which we do not carry in our heads.'

However, Ron Abbott, chairman of the Overseas Inspectors Association and an ESF parent who has raised questions over the way the ESF board is run, said parents who attended had expressed 'extreme frustration' to him afterwards.

Abbott, who did not attend - saying that he knew from previous meeting with Du Quesnay that it would be 'next to useless' - said: 'The consultation ended up typically as 'her way or the highway'.'

Abbot said parents had been asked by Du Quesnay not to speak to the press after the meeting. 'If the ESF management team has nothing to hide, why do they fear the attention of our legislators and the press?' he asked.

Going up

In the past five years, ESF fees have increased 19 per cent for secondary schools and, for primary schools,: 29%

End this ESF dispute and seek a better deal

Leader - South China Morning Post - Friday October 1 2010

Peace, it seems, did not break out for long at the English Schools Foundation, which provides the education of choice for an increasing number of ethnic Chinese as well as expatriate parents. Rises in fees that are becoming annual events, and a HK$25,000 capital levy on new pupils and those graduating to secondary level, have strained relations with parents. Now they have deteriorated, with two parent action groups snubbing management and taking their concerns to lawmakers. Reforms under new ESF leadership to clean up corporate governance resolved conflicts with the government and parents. They were also supposed to make management more accountable. But the ESF Concerned Parents Group and the Overseas Inspectors Association - speaking for police with more than 250 children at the foundation's schools - say this is not the case. The foundation's governing board is accused of failing to communicate with parents for two years and ignoring calls for an end to fee rises. The parents' group says a fee increase, the levy and an attempt to change the school calendar have been introduced without warning. Moreover, parent members of the ESF's governing board are allowed to speak but not vote on financial matters, even though parents provide 70 per cent of revenue. The police officers' association says a clause in the code of conduct for members of the governing board stifles dissent and communication with parents. The perception of lack of communication, transparency and accountability must be tackled, though ESF chief executive Heather Du Quesnay has strenuously defended the board. It is important that relations with disaffected parents are repaired. It would help if their representatives agree to meet Du Quesnay again and are given a full hearing. There is, after all, a need for parents and ESF management to pull together and face a broader problem faced by the foundation. The increasing cost to parents reflects the fact that the government subsidy to the ESF, currently about 20 per cent of total income, has been frozen - thus effectively declining - for a decade. While this remains the case, more fee rises seem inevitable, with costs getting closer to those at private international schools. The subsidy has been a politically sensitive subject ever since former education chief Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung threatened to end it unless the foundation reformed its governance. Even though it has now done so, the foundation appears reluctant to open negotiations about the subsidy in the absence of any indication officials would be sympathetic. It should not need to fear such a move. Given the persistent but mistaken perception, rooted in the colonial past, that ESF schools are only for privileged expatriate families, any significant rise in the subsidy would raise questions of social equity. But those questions would be misplaced. In fact, a majority of ESF students are now permanent residents and more than half are ethnic Chinese. As a result, the schools are not unlike other direct subsidy schools. The ESF has the same case for consideration of a higher subsidy as other school sponsoring bodies. The foundation should certainly be inclusive and transparent when justifying rising fees and charges with parents. But both sides should also have an eye on the bigger picture. Having put its governance house in order, the ESF is entitled to expect more financial support from the government. If that was provided, the pressure for fee rises would decline. It is, therefore, in the interests of all concerned to settle the dispute swiftly and unite in seeking a better deal from the government.