Like Tree10Likes

ESF to phase out GCSEs?

Closed Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    薄扶林
    Posts
    47,964

    >> ESF are not private they are government subsidised.

    Thank you, Thank you once again for saying that.

    I've been told off by several ESF stakeholders that I should keep my problems quiet - because it makes the ESF look bad during times when they're trying to (re)-negotiate their subsidy.


  2. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    hong kong
    Posts
    3,484

    Glad you never taught me

    @ gileshk
    With an attitude like this - "Bottom line is that it's better to lose 10 weak kids than 50 strong ones." and your history of troll-ism here, I rest my case. What a great teacher you must have been. Your reason d'etre has always been high jacking reasonable peoples threads. I see no difference in the way you expressed yourself before.

    As a tutor (snigger snigger) I spend all my time explaining to bright kids why things are, so they understand what the teacher is telling them and why things happen. Rather than teachers, "you do this and this .. lets move on". FYI - I do Maths, Physics and Mechanics to kids and Business English to major corporations like PWC, Oracle, CITI Group etc. My skill is in the workings of the real world so giggle all you want. A Mainland HR company has just given me 30K a month for one days work a week (10-4). This to retain my services for a major university project - snigger snigger gafaw gafaw - so keep on giggling, I can afford it.

    FYI - "perhaps you could explain what is so bad about transitioning to a full IB set up" Of course I have never even come close to saying this. The exact opposite would be more accurate. O levels / GCSE or their equivalent are irrelevant for anything more than sorting out able candidates for A levels . I think I indicated as such. So .......... maybe you should investigate your own reading skills.

    Neither did I purport to hold the views of ALL Students .. but you know that. Your just trying to stir up the malicious pot, as usual.

    IN FACT my main point has been the feed back from students in the system now, not at some time in the past, which is irrelevant to this discussion. My office has not heard and the students are not aware, of this change. My point was also the accuracy of rumour.

    You claim "My word certainly isn't the gospel" yet when someone might question your sermon on the mount, you let fly with thunderbolts and we hear the gnashing of teeth.

    I hope the parents minds are reassured quickly. Both them and the students do not do well when things as important as education, are changed before their eyes.


  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905
    Quote Originally Posted by dipper:
    Newsflash, ESF are not private they are government subsidised.

    This is the fundamental problem of ESF. They want to get government subsidy on the grounds that they provide a service to non-Cantonese speaking students, but they want to take that subsidy and use it to run an elitist, high-fee 'private' school for the rich. There's nothing wrong with high-fee private schools for the rich but there's no good reason for Hong Kong taxpayers to be subsidising it. If that's the kind of school they want to run then they should lose the subsidy and compete fairly in the market with other elitist private international schools.

    In the meantime, schools for poorer non-Cantonese speaking students struggle along being run by local charitable and religious organisations with little or no subsidy from the government charging the low fees that poorer parents can afford and with poorly paid but dedicated teachers. I was at a school that we work with in Mongkok recently that provides education to non-Cantonese speaking immigrant students in the area. ESF wouldn't touch these kind of kids with a bargepole and in any case the parents' total incomes wouldn't come close to what ESF charge in fees but ESF happily takes government subsidy that these schools could use to help students who are genuinely in need.

    So if ESF wants to be an elite school, that's fine, but they should lose the government subsidy and compete fairly in the market. If they want to be subsidised then that's fine too but they should then have a duty to use their undoubted expertise to provide services for genuinely needy non-Cantonese speaking students (not just one or two token scholarships). This would mean charging low fees that poor immigrant parents can afford. Of course, this would mean that they would not be able to pay quite such high salaries to teachers in order to attract 'the best teachers' but they would be able to provide a genuinely socially useful service to poor students.
    I actually totally agree with this. I don't believe that ESF is entitled to subsidies and they should be competing fairly with other schools for the same market. Invariably when this is mentioned, there are many that come out of the woodwork(usually expats) complaining that they want English education at a discount.

    However this has little to do with a move like taking GCSE out and going towards a full IB program.

    You are correct that it isn't technically a private school system since it was established by a government ordinance and there are committees that provide input from various parts of the community. Unlike what seems to be suggested here, decisions are not made in a vacuum and there's a consultation process.

    The Sarah Roe school also does provide a unique service for students that are less fortunate.

    Realistically, ESF can't be everything to everyone. There will always be people that will be unhappy about changes. In my opinion, the MYP program is superior to the GCSE, it is far more popular internationally and provides a better educational framework while avoiding the unnecessary time wastage of preparing for rigorous exams twice. Furthermore, it would integrate better with the IB diploma program that all ESF schools have embraced... As I said, they are in a far better position to make an appropriate decision about which program is better for students having had a few years to compare both approaches.
    Last edited by gilleshk; 20-04-2011 at 03:49 PM.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris:
    @ gileshk
    With an attitude like this - "Bottom line is that it's better to lose 10 weak kids than 50 strong ones." and your history of troll-ism here, I rest my case. What a great teacher you must have been. Your reason d'etre has always been high jacking reasonable peoples threads. I see no difference in the way you expressed yourself before.

    As a tutor (snigger snigger) I spend all my time explaining to bright kids why things are, so they understand what the teacher is telling them and why things happen. Rather than teachers, "you do this and this .. lets move on". FYI - I do Maths, Physics and Mechanics to kids and Business English to major corporations like PWC, Oracle, CITI Group etc. My skill is in the workings of the real world so giggle all you want. A Mainland HR company has just given me 30K a month for one days work a week (10-4). This to retain my services for a major university project - snigger snigger gafaw gafaw - so keep on giggling, I can afford it.

    FYI - "perhaps you could explain what is so bad about transitioning to a full IB set up" Of course I have never even come close to saying this. The exact opposite would be more accurate. O levels / GCSE or their equivalent are irrelevant for anything more than sorting out able candidates for A levels . I think I indicated as such. So .......... maybe you should investigate your own reading skills.

    Neither did I purport to hold the views of ALL Students .. but you know that. Your just trying to stir up the malicious pot, as usual.

    IN FACT my main point has been the feed back from students in the system now, not at some time in the past, which is irrelevant to this discussion. My office has not heard and the students are not aware, of this change. My point was also the accuracy of rumour.

    You claim "My word certainly isn't the gospel" yet when someone might question your sermon on the mount, you let fly with thunderbolts and we hear the gnashing of teeth.

    I hope the parents minds are reassured quickly. Both them and the students do not do well when things as important as education, are changed before their eyes.
    Someone has a little chippie on his shoulder... By the way, read carefully, some of the things you said didn't really come from me. One of your post also indicates very limited knowledge about the IB program.

    As a teacher, I had to face having kids being kicked out of a school being in tears as well as their parents because it was felt that they wouldn't do well in IB. I certainly had a lot of empathy for them and it's an important personal experience to have when making decisions.

    However as a business, sometimes you have to make these kinds of decisions and in the long run, sometimes the students are better off in a different environment. One of this kids that was kicked out of HK in tears ended up in a boarding school in Australia that was far more appropriate for him and I saw him a few years later and he was very happy of the way things turned out even if at the time, it seemed like a terrible thing.

    That's what experience from having dealt with thousands of kids and situations allows, it sometimes gives perspective that parents or tutors will never get and can't have because they are often only concerned about one student/child. It doesn't mean that mistakes are not made or that decisions are always made for the good of the children, one would have to be blind to reality to claim that...

    You obviously have some issues so my best advice is to do like another person that seem to have trouble controlling his emotions and add me to your banned list, it's a very simple move and then you wouldn't have to get so worked up and make yourself look foolish by calling someone adolescent names instead if having an adult discussion. I hope you exercise better self control when you deal with students...
    Last edited by gilleshk; 20-04-2011 at 04:36 PM.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by dipper:
    Newsflash, ESF are not private they are government subsidised.

    This is the fundamental problem of ESF. They want to get government subsidy on the grounds that they provide a service to non-Cantonese speaking students, but they want to take that subsidy and use it to run an elitist, high-fee 'private' school for the rich. There's nothing wrong with high-fee private schools for the rich but there's no good reason for Hong Kong taxpayers to be subsidising it. If that's the kind of school they want to run then they should lose the subsidy and compete fairly in the market with other elitist private international schools.

    In the meantime, schools for poorer non-Cantonese speaking students struggle along being run by local charitable and religious organisations with little or no subsidy from the government charging the low fees that poorer parents can afford and with poorly paid but dedicated teachers. I was at a school that we work with in Mongkok recently that provides education to non-Cantonese speaking immigrant students in the area. ESF wouldn't touch these kind of kids with a bargepole and in any case the parents' total incomes wouldn't come close to what ESF charge in fees but ESF happily takes government subsidy that these schools could use to help students who are genuinely in need.

    So if ESF wants to be an elite school, that's fine, but they should lose the government subsidy and compete fairly in the market. If they want to be subsidised then that's fine too but they should then have a duty to use their undoubted expertise to provide services for genuinely needy non-Cantonese speaking students (not just one or two token scholarships). This would mean charging low fees that poor immigrant parents can afford. Of course, this would mean that they would not be able to pay quite such high salaries to teachers in order to attract 'the best teachers' but they would be able to provide a genuinely socially useful service to poor students.
    As a newcomer to Hong Kong the whole ESF thing is something I still find hard to fathom. A 'private' school subsidised by the government to look after the children of expats earning way above the national average whilst other expats from 'less western' (in general!) backgrounds earning much nearer the national average have to send their kids to local schools, although this is not neccesarily a bad thing, I have no experience of the local schools here and have actually heard some of them are quite good.

    I can only assume the logic is that the government believes that if they do not provide for these children then the money the economy would lose by the expats not working here is greater than the money spent on subsidies. Would I be right?

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905

    You have to realize that ESF was established at a time when the people in charge were British which meant a lot of civil servants from there. Of course, they wanted a quality system for their kids and along that line, they didn't mind spending government money to get that. International schools were not what they are today. Believe it or not, their pay packages now are far worse than they use to be... Many of the older teachers have decided to retire in the last few years seeing that the end of the gravy train was coming.

    My personal belief is that it is a bit of an anachronism in today's environment which is one of the reason the subsidy was slashed and may be yet again. There are many who feel entitled to this service for some reason, I don't believe that this is the case but again that depends on people's point of view. There are of course lots of expat children in those schools but depending on the school, locals can make up 50% or more of the students. Interestingly enough, civil servants can still get a government allowance to send their kids to private(or ESF) schools so there is some incentive to maintain the status quo...

    Last edited by gilleshk; 20-04-2011 at 05:53 PM.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    16

    In the UK it is well known now that GCSEs are close to worthless as records are broken each year. A-levels have now gone the same way.

    Seriously, IB is the way forward. They are much better. Although different, they command the respect that GCSEs and A-Levels used to have.

    GCSEs/A-Levels went that way thanks to the socialist-liberal public sector elite in the UK who intentionally dumbed them down so schools could always proclaim that they were doing better, year after year.

    Pretty soon I expect no school outside the UK to be using them. Even many privates schools in the UK are now offering IB and who can blame them.


  8. #28

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    29,763
    Quote Originally Posted by bretonn:
    In the UK it is well known now that GCSEs are close to worthless as records are broken each year. A-levels have now gone the same way.

    Seriously, IB is the way forward. They are much better. Although different, they command the respect that GCSEs and A-Levels used to have.

    GCSEs/A-Levels went that way thanks to the socialist-liberal public sector elite in the UK who intentionally dumbed them down so schools could always proclaim that they were doing better, year after year.

    Pretty soon I expect no school outside the UK to be using them. Even many privates schools in the UK are now offering IB and who can blame them.
    You don't by any chance read the Daily Mail do you?

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    You don't by any chance read the Daily Mail do you?
    Haha, my thoughts exactly. I never tire of people claiming that the exam results getting better is nothing to do with standards of education getting better and only to do with the exams getting easier. Although I would agree that the socialist/liberal public sector elite() are to blame for the increase in GCSE results.
    Last edited by almightygoodgod; 26-04-2011 at 01:08 AM.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    You don't by any chance read the Daily Mail do you?
    No I don't read that rag, of course not.

    But of all people, I expect that Hong Kongers should be able to see the complete nonsense policies that now exist in the UK, especially at local/council level. You'd never see such policies in Hong Kong or Asia.

    The UK is a lovely place to visit, not as great to live. There is also a great entitlement culture. Much of this happened during New Labour's tenure.

    This article I read yesterday by a HK resident really sums it up:

    Glencore's Simon Murray: 'England today looks economically absolutely shambolic' - Telegraph

    I actually don't agree with everything he says but there has definitely been a shift the wrong way and the GCSE situation is part and parcel of that.

    GCSEs are a laughing stock now. Even the most twisted socialists will admit that. It's well known in the UK these days that you have to get a degree just to get a regular white collar job, if only to serve as a differentiator because GCSEs and A-levels no longer do this.

    And by the way, I'm no baby boomer whining about the "good old days". I'm in my very early thirties! Luckily, I was born early enough to beat the celebrity-obsessed youth generation that you see today.
    Last edited by bretonn; 26-04-2011 at 09:30 AM.