Expensive schools should be more transparent
- Private or international concerns in Hong Kong that charge some parents millions of dollars in miscellaneous fees will have to justify their actions
Some people would not feel much sympathy for parents who can afford private or international schools but complain about the cost anyway. But that may not do justice to the substance of some of the grievances or serve the best interests of the city. The issue came to notice a few months ago when the ombudsman took an interest and published a report critical of the Education Bureau for allowing private schools to charge some parents millions of dollars in miscellaneous fees, sometimes in exchange for priority in their children’s enrolment.
These extra charges can include debentures, capital levy fees, entry and application fees, deposits, learning support fees and more. These may not be exceptional but, unlike tuition fees, they are not subject to approval by the bureau or transparent scrutiny.
Hong Kong’s private, international schools told to justify extra charges
The bureau acknowledges that, for many of the city’s 160 private schools, including about 50 international institutions, these charges have become a source of funding for various activities not covered by tuition fees. It is a long-standing practice, but one that has given rise to increasing concerns from parents, both local and international.
Now, for the next school year 2020-21, under transitional arrangements to continue until 2024-25, schools must submit paperwork by the middle of this month to justify such fees, pending the introduction of a comprehensive approval mechanism. Hopefully this reform will include extra transparency. Along with more regulation this should throw some light on a largely unaccountable aspect of private and international school funding.
The issue looms large in the city’s competitiveness as an international financial centre. It cannot afford to be complacent. The need to continue attracting talent is a given. The high costs of Hong Kong property and international education have long been disincentives. But they have been counterbalanced by safety, stability, tolerance and cultural diversity, including in quality English and foreign language education. Long months of social unrest and violence, resulting in the imposition of a national security law tailored for Hong Kong, have done nothing to enhance that image. The transparency and certainty of the international education landscape are paramount to global competitiveness.
