Scope of Free Kindergarten Education

52

53

flexibly arrange grouping of children according to the needs of different learning activities. For local NPM KGs, in the 2014/15 school year, the average TP ratio of the AM session is around 1:10.0 while the average TP ratio of the PM session is 1:8.4.

(v) In the 2014/15 school year, more than half of the local NPM KGs (52%) receive rental reimbursement (among which more than 90% operate in public housing estates or government-owned premises), 26% pay nil/nominal rent while the remaining 22% are housed in commercial premises and pay market rent. The market rent paid by KGs varies significantly. For example, in the 2014/15 school year, the amount of rent reimbursed for one of the KGs is $3,100 per month but the reimbursed rent for another KG in the same district reaches $150,150 per month. The highest amount of rent reimbursed by a KG is

$350,000 per month.

(vi) KGs offer diversified services. In 2014/15 school year, out of the 760 local NPM KGs, 381 KGs operate both HD and WD classes (around 50%), followed by 235 KGs operating solely WD classes (31%) and 144 solely for HD classes (19%). Such number varies from year to year mainly depending on the demand for such places.

The Stakeholders’ Views and Committee’s Deliberations

7.1.3 In the course of the Committee’s deliberation, there were different views and expectations on the future free KG education policy. On the provision of KG programmes to children, some opined that HD schooling would suffice at KG level from the educational perspective. There were opposite views that free KG education should cover HD, WD and LWD KGs to cater for the different needs of families. While the operating hours of HD and WD KGs are three hours and six hours respectively (and even more for LWD KGs), it was considered that both WD and LWD KG programmes are not solely for education but also for child care service purposes.

Some therefore held the view that HD KG education would be the basic provision for all eligible children aged three to six, and free or subsidised WD or LWD KG places should only be provided on a need basis for children who meet certain prescribed criteria such as family income or both parents are working.

54

7.1.4 There was in-depth discussion on the level of subsidy under the basic provision of the future free KG education. The majority view was that it should cover the school fees that relate to the expenses directly attributable to students’

learning and school operation. While some were of different views, most considered that other charges collected by KGs for various school items as well as the expenses arising from paid or above-standard services should be borne by parents.

For students from needy families, it was suggested that additional subsidy might be provided on a need basis for them to meet the other related expenses.

7.1.5 On which types of KGs should be covered by the future free KG education policy, there were views that in line with the existing practice for PEVS, NPM KGs offering local curriculum should be covered. While there was a broad consensus that non-local KGs (i.e. KGs offering non-local curriculum) should be excluded from the new policy, there were diverse views on whether the profit-making local PI KGs should be covered. Some opined that PI KGs should not be covered as this was in line with the existing practice that only NPM KGs would be provided with recurrent government subvention. There were concerns that the use of public funds could not be justified and safeguarded if PI KGs, being allowed to siphon off profit or distribute dividend to shareholders, were to be covered. However, there were opposing views that PI KGs should be covered as all eligible children should be able to benefit from subsidy for free KG education regardless of whether they study in local NPM KGs or local PI KGs. There were also suggestions that under the future free KG education policy, government subsidy could be provided for local NPM KGs directly, whereas for students attending PI KGs, subsidy might be given to parents in the form of a voucher.

7.1.6 Members noted there would be about 760 local NPM KGs and such have provided reasonable choices for parents. Some also suggested that local PI KGs meeting EDB’s prescribed criteria (e.g. quality and financial requirements) could be covered by the future free KG education policy as a temporary arrangement, whereby they should be required to change to NPM status after a transitional period.

7.1.7 There were views that apart from local NPM status, other major criteria applying to KGs to be covered by the future free KG education policy might include charging a tuition fee not exceeding the specified fee thresholds, meeting the

55

minimum 1:15 TP ratio with teachers who possess C(ECE), etc.

The Committee’s Recommendations

7.1.8 The Committee is of the view that the objective of the future free KG education policy should be for the Government to provide funding to pay for KG education at a quality level in local NPM KGs so that parents need not pay for such education for their children. The future free KG education policy will be an additional commitment of the Government towards KG education on top of the existing PEVS which already provides parents with heavy financial assistance in the form of voucher. There must be significant enhancement to the quality of the existing KG education as provided under PEVS, or else it would not be too meaningful for the Government to inject more funding into KG education without corresponding improvement to quality. As regards the scope of quality KG education to be provided free, as detailed in Chapter 2, a number of research studies have been carried out to investigate the impact of school hours on three- to six-year-old children but existing evidence precludes drawing conclusions that WD programmes are more favourable to young children than HD programmes. The Committee shares the view that it is the quality of the KG programmes, rather than the duration, that determines whether children can benefit from them or not, and HD programmes allow relatively more family time for young children to play and interact with their family in a less-structured but more relaxing setting. The Committee is tasked to define the scope of quality KG education to be provided free. Taking into consideration the development needs of the children as well as overseas practices, the scope of quality KG education that directly impacts upon the learning and development of children can be provided by a HD (about three hours a day) programme. The Committee recommends that all eligible children aged three to six should have access to such programme and the Government should provide for that as the basic provision.

7.1.9 The Committee recognises the much needed services provided by WD and LWD services. The Committee also takes note of the recommendation of the

“Population Policy” of releasing more women back to the workforce and the need of extended care services required to support them. The Committee therefore recommends that appropriate and additional resources be provided for KG offering WD or LWD services. That notwithstanding, the Committee considers it important

56

to distinguish between the availability of services and the subsidy provided. While the former hinges on the supply of school places, the latter is a matter of how taxpayers’ money should be deployed. To facilitate a higher provision of WD or LWD services does not necessarily mean that full subsidy should be provided by the Government without considering the actual needs and circumstances of the parents using the services. In fact, some families with dual working parents would welcome the availability of more WD or LWD services no matter the services are fully subsidised by the Government or not. Against this background, the Committee’s views and recommendations on how to support WD/LWD KGs and the families in need of such services are set out in paragraph 7.4.

7.1.10 The Committee recognises that KG education is a foundation stage of learning and whole person development of children with unique pedagogical characteristics that integrate care and education. In formulating recommendations on the practicable implementation of free KG education, the Committee’s primary concern is to ensure the quality of KG education. The Committee respects the current diversity in KG education, and considers it important to maintain it, since such diversity caters for the different and unique needs of the children and their parents.

Preserving the diversity is vital in assuring and enhancing the quality of KG education.

With this in mind, and to ensure that the implementation of government assistance for KG education is practicable and sustainable, the Committee considers that it would not be tenable for the Government to subsidise every facet of the current and future free KG education. The Committee regards it important that government subsidy should fund KG education at a level which enables KGs to provide quality education. In this regard, the basic provision should cover school fees related to the expenses directly attributable to students’ learning and school operation. Other charges collected by KGs for various school items as well as the expenses arising from above-standard services should be borne by parents. Also, rental charges exceeding government subsidies, if any, have to be borne by parents. Children from needy families may apply for financial assistance and the details are set out in Chapter 8.

7.1.11 The Committee recommends that as a matter of equity, all eligible children aged three to six should have access to quality KG education. On the eligibility of KGs to be covered by the quality KG education policy, the Committee proposes that whilst all KGs are eligible and welcomed to join the policy, such KGs should, among

57

other criteria, be NPM, offering a local curriculum that conforms with the KG curriculum guidelines published by EDB and having proven track records on providing quality KG education. This is in line with the existing practice and policy of the Government. The Committee further recommends that for other eligibility criteria, reference might be made to some of those of the existing PEVS such as meeting the requirements in teacher qualifications, quality assurance and transparency in operation.