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.