Stu Inte
dy on ernat
n the tional
Provi l Scho
Polic
Com Educ
Feb
ision ool Pl
Repor
cy 21 Li
mmission cation B
bruary 2
of laces
rt
imited
ned by Bureau
2017
in Ho ong K Kong
Table
Chapter 1 1 1 Chapter
2 2 2 Chapter
3 3 3 3 3 3 Chapter
4 4 4 Chapter
5 5 5 5 5 Chapter
6 6 Chapter
7 7 7 Chapter
8
8 8 8 Chapter
9 9 Chapter
1 1 Annex:
e of Cont
r 1 Introd 1.1 Intro 1.2 Study 1.3 Defin r 2 Study
2.1 Intro 2.2 Scho 2.3 Busin r 3 Stock
3.1 Intro 3.2 Prim 3.3 Seco 3.4 Geog 3.5 Geog 3.6 Com r 4 Findi 4.1 Intro 4.2 Scho 4.3 Futur r 5 Findin 5.1 Intro 5.2 Paren 5.3 Appl 5.4 Paren 5.5 Plan r 6 Findin 6.1 Scho 6.2 Paren r 7 Findin 7.1 Intro 7.2 Facto 7.3 Impa r 8 Projec 8.1 Over
8.2 Proje 8.3 Proje 8.4 Estim r 9 Adequ
9.1 ESF 9.2 ESF r 10 Obser 10.1 Meet 10.2 Prov
Summary o
tents
duction ...
oduction ...
y objectives nition of Inte Methodolog oduction ...
ool survey an ness survey . ktaking Prov oduction ...
mary schools . ondary school
graphical dist graphical dist mparison betw ngs from the oduction ...
ool admission re provision ngs from the oduction ...
nts’ preferen lication proce nts’ preferen
to stay in Ho ngs on the Pr ools’ views on nts’ views on ngs from the oduction ...
ors affecting act on busine ction of Dem rall Demand
Primary Lev Secondary L ected demand ected demand mating unmet uacy of Inter and other int and other int rvations and ting the dema
ision of spec on the findin
...
...
...
ernational Sch gy ...
...
nd Parent surv ...
vision of Inte ...
...
ls ...
tribution: Sch tribution: Pla ween projecte e School Sur ...
n mechanism of school pla e Parent Sur ...
ce for types o ess ...
ce for types o ong Kong ....
rovision of S n provision o n provision o e Business Su
...
demand for ss ...
mand for Int since the 201 vel ...
Level ...
d from local d from non-lo
t demand ...
rnational Sc ternational sc ternational sc d Recommen
and of intern cial education ngs concerni
2 ...
...
...
hool Places . ...
...
vey ...
...
ernational S ...
...
...
hool places ..
ace of residen ed figures fro
rvey ...
...
m ...
aces ...
rvey ...
...
of schools ....
...
of curriculum ...
Special Educ of special edu of special edu
urvey ...
...
international ...
ernational S 12 Study ...
...
...
students ...
ocal students ...
chool Places chools at the chools at the ndations ...
national schoo n services ...
ing Private I
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
chool Places ...
...
...
...
nce of studen om the 2012 S
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
m ...
...
cation Servi ucation servi ucation servic
...
...
l school place ...
School Place ...
...
...
...
s ...
...
...
primary leve secondary le ...
ol places ...
...
Independent
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
s ...
...
...
...
...
nts ...
Study and ac ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
ices ...
ices ...
ces ...
...
...
es ...
...
es ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
el ...
evel ...
...
...
...
t Schools (PI
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
ctual figures . ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
ISs)
... 3
... 3
... 3
... 4
... 5
... 5
... 5
... 6
... 7
... 7
... 7
... 8
... 9
... 10
... 12
... 13
... 13
... 13
... 14
... 16
... 16
... 16
... 17
... 20
... 25
... 27
... 27
... 29
... 34
... 34
... 34
... 35
... 38
... 38
... 38
... 40
... 41
... 45
... 48
... 50
... 50
... 54
... 58
... 58
... 59
1.1 I
1.1.1 T a w s y
1.1.2 T v i 6 t
1.1.3 E ( p a 2
1.2 S
1.2.1 T (
(
(
Introduct
The first rep and Second was project shortfall of year.
To meet the vacant scho internationa 6 000 intern the 2014/15
EDB comm (the current places (i.e.
and support 2022/23 (all
Study obj
The objectiv (a) to stoc
(with b school (b) to stud
places updatin 2016/1 (c) to exam
ESF an seven s
tion
port of the dary Levels ted that bas
about 4 200
e projected ool premise al schools.
national prim 5 school yea
missioned th t Study) to s situation of t of such sc l similar exp
jectives
ves of the cu cktake the la breakdown
s) at the prim dy the natur
(with brea ng the 2012 17 to 2022/2
mine the na nd other int school year
Chapter
Study on th in Hong K sed on the p 0 internation
shortfall, th es and green
Based on th mary and se ar.
he Policy 21 stocktake th f the 2015/1 chool place pression in t
urrent Study atest positio
by the Eng mary and se re of deman akdown by 2 Study by 23;
ature of sup ternational s s from 2016
3
r 1 Intr
he Provision Kong was co position of nal school p
he Educatio nfield sites he proposal econdary sch
1 Limited (P e latest posi 6 school ye es in the co this report r
y are as follo on in terms o glish School
econdary lev nd (includin
ESF and o y projecting
pply of inter schools) wi 6/17 to 2022
roductio
n of Interna ompleted in the 2011/12 laces at prim
n Bureau (E in the past l submitted hool places
Policy 21) t ition of the ear), and to ming seven refers to the
ows:
of the numb ls Foundatio vels in Hong ng un-met d other interna g demand fo
rnational sch ith a view t 2/23;
on
ational Scho n end-2012
2 school ye mary level b
EDB) has a t few years by the scho will be gra
to conduct a provision o make projec n school ye
relevant sch
ber of intern on (ESF) an g Kong in 2 demand) for ational scho for the seve
hool places o projecting
ool Places in (the 2012 S ear, there w by the 2016/
allocated a n s for develo ools concern adually prov
a new round of internation ctions on th ars, from 2 hool year).
national sch nd other int 2015/16;
r internation ools) with en school y
s (with break g such supp
n Primary Study). It would be a /17 school
number of opment of ned, some vided from
d of study nal school he demand 2016/17 to
ool places ternational
nal school a view to years from
kdown by ply for the
4
(d) to assess the adequacy of international school places (with breakdown by ESF and other international schools) for the seven school years from 2016/17 to 2022/23 and facilitate a review of support measures required; and
(e) to collect information on the provision of special education services in international schools.
1.3 Definition of International School Places
1.3.1 Under the 2012 Study, Policy 21 has collected data and information from ESF schools, other international schools and Private Independent Schools (PISs) when stocktaking the provision of international school places. Since PISs offering non-local curriculum classes, though admitting non-local students, are primarily for admitting local students1, they are excluded from the analysis under the current Study. In this report, “international school places” are defined as places offered by ESF schools and other schools recognised by EDB as international schools. Readers should exercise caution in comparing findings from the current Study and the 2012 Study. Findings related to PISs are separately set out in the Annex of this report for reference.
1.3.2 There are a total of 51 international schools, comprising 15 schools operated by ESF (including a special school) and 36 other international schools in 2015/16.
1 Local students refer to those who are Hong Kong permanent residents (with the right of abode in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region) and do not have any passports other than the HKSAR Passport or the British National (Overseas) Passport. According to EDB’s policy, PISs are required to admit primarily local students, which should constitute at least 70% of the overall student population.
2.1 I
2.1.1 U t s
2.2 S
2.2.1 T q i e t i e a c 2.2.2 A
o q p c d
2 In the c For exa counted interna
Introduct
Under the c to collect stakeholder
School su
The school questionnair information expanding c the Govern information educational all students collecting a A total of 35 14 schools) of 73.9%2 a questionnair parent ques conducted w discussions
calculation of ample, Germa d as one rep ational schools
Cha
tion
current Stud quantitativ s to collect
rvey and
l survey co re for pare n from inter current prov nment. Th n on views needs (SEN in internati dequate sam 5 internation completed and 84.7% r re, 85 repo stionnaires with princip
with a total
f response rate an Swiss Intern
orting unit in s) and a respon
apter 2
dy, Policy 21 e data, as qualitative d
Parent su
omprises a ents. The rnational sc visions and he parent q and prefer N). Since S ional school mple size of nal schools the school respectively rted that th with additi pals of nine l of 17 paren
e, internationa national Scho nstead of two nse rate of 73.
5
Study M
1 had condu s well as
data.
urvey
a questionn purpose o chools on th
problems f questionnair rences of pa EN children ls, a special f SEN studen
(including and parent y. Among hey had SEN
ional quest e internation nts were con
al schools und ol (English) a o, giving 34 o
9%.
Methodo
ucted a scho supplemen
naire for al of the scho
heir admiss faced, and v re, on the arents of c n account fo l sample de nts for analy
14 ESF sch questionna 454 parents N children tions on SE
nal schools nducted.
er the same n and German Sw
out of a tota
ology
ool survey a ntary in-dep
ll internatio ool questio sion policie views on su other han hildren wit or a very sm sign was ad ysis.
hools) and 4 aire, represe s who had c
with 78 of EN. In-de s. In additi
name are coun wiss Internatio l of 46 repor
and a busine pth intervi
onal schoo onnaire is t es, plans (if upport meas nd, aimed t th or witho mall proporti dopted with
54 parents ( enting a resp
completed t f them comp epth intervi
ion, two fo
nted as one rep onal School (G rting units (in
ess survey ews with
ls, and a to collect f any) for sures from to collect ut special ion among
a view to
(involving ponse rate the parent pleted the ews were cus group
porting unit.
German) are nvolving 51
6
2.3 Business survey
2.3.1 As there is no readily available information on the potential demand from expatriates who are or will be employed by establishments in Hong Kong, the business survey, targeting organisations that are likely to be employing or will employ expatriates, helps bridge the data gap. This approach is the same as that adopted in the 2012 Study.
2.3.2 The business survey covered a sample of 5 800 business establishments, of which 3 077 establishments were successfully enumerated. After excluding 720 establishments found to have been closed or moved, the response rate was 60.6%. In addition, a total of 12 in- depth interviews with representatives of three consulates, the European Union Office to Hong Kong and Macau, five large business establishments and three chambers of commerce were conducted.
Chap
3.1 I
3.1.1 E i f e e
3.2 P
3.2.1 I o Chart 3 internat
Note: Th ye
3.2.2 B p s
3 Figures 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
pter 3
Introduct
Enrolment i in 2015/16, from 410 51 enrolment in enrolment in
Primary s
In 2015/16, operated by 3.1: Provis tional schoo
he year in the ear.
Based on t percentages schools wer
in this Chapte 6,660
13,698
2006
Stockta
tion
in internatio whereas to 16 in 2006/
ncreased fro n ordinary s
schools
, there wer ESF and ot sion of pri ols from 200
chart refers t
the number of provisio re 99.1% an
er do not inclu 6,120 6,12 13,704 13,1
2007 200
aking Pro
onal primary otal enrolm 07 to 337 5 om 13 636 i schools decr
re 6 120 an ther internat imary scho 06/07 to 201
o the relevant
r of school on taken up d 88.1% res
ude those of th
20 6,120
131 13,202
08 2009 ESF
7
ovision o
y schools in ment in all t
558 in 2015/
in 2006/07 reased from
nd 16 310 p tional schoo ool places 15/16
t school year.
places pro p at the pri spectively in
he ESF special 6,120 13,244
2010 Other inte
of Intern
ncreased fro types of ord /16. As to to 16 530 in m 484 195 in
primary sch ols respectiv in schools
For example,
ovided and imary level n 2015/16.
l school.
6,120 6,1 13,943
15
2011 20 ernational sch
national S
om 17 614 dinary prim
internationa n 2015/16, w
2006/07 to
hool places vely.
s operated
, “2015” repre
the actual in ESF an
120 6,120
,010 15,424
012 2013 hools
School P
in 2006/07 mary school
al secondary while total
352 609 in
provided i
by ESF a
esents the 201
enrolment nd other int
0 6,120 16,206
2014
Places
3to 20 439 s dropped y schools, secondary 2015/16.
in schools
and other
15/16 school
data, the ternational
6,120 16,310
2015
8
3.2.3 In 2015/16, there were 204 and 667 operating classes at the primary level in ESF and other international schools respectively. The average class size was 30 for ESF schools and 22 for other international schools.
3.3 Secondary schools
3.3.1 In 2015/16, there were 6 990 and 11 686 secondary school places provided respectively in schools operated by ESF and other international schools.
Chart 3.2: Provision of secondary school places in schools operated by ESF and other international schools from 2006/07 to 2015/16
Note: The year in the chart refers to the relevant school year. For example, “2015” represents the 2015/16 school year.
3.3.2 Based on the number of school places provided and the actual enrolment data, the percentages of provision taken up at the secondary level in ESF and other international schools are 96.7% and 83.6% respectively in 2015/16. One of the reasons for the relatively lower percentage pertaining to “other international schools” is the net outflows of local and non-local students to pursue study overseas, particularly at upper grades.
3.3.3 In 2015/16, there were 243 and 494 operating classes at the secondary level in ESF and other international schools respectively. The average class size was 28 for ESF schools and 20 for other international schools.
6,919 6,982 6,964 7,012
7,024 7,025 7,020 6,979 7,006 6,990
8,683
8,327 8,383 8,735
9,627 9,842 10,532 11,161 11,625 11,686
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
ESF Other international schools
9
3.4 Geographical distribution: School places
3.4.1 In 2015/16, 58.2% of the international school places regardless of school level were on the Hong Kong Island, whereas 22.5% and 19.3% were in Kowloon and the New Territories respectively.
3.4.2 At the primary level, 53.2% of the international school places were on the Hong Kong Island, while 23.6% and 23.2% were in Kowloon and the New Territories respectively.
The number of operating classes at the primary level has a reasonably similar geographical distribution, with 54.2% on the Hong Kong Island, 23.8% in Kowloon and 22.0% in the New Territories.
Table 3.1: Geographical distribution of international school places at the primary level in 2015/16
District Number of places Number of operating
classes Number of students Hong Kong Island 11 929 53.2% 472 54.2% 10 855 53.1%
Kowloon 5 293 23.6% 207 23.8% 4 930 24.1%
New Territories 5 208 23.2% 192 22.0% 4 654 22.8%
Total 22 430 100.0% 871 100.0% 20 439 100.0%
3.4.3 At the secondary level, 64.2% of the international school places were on the Hong Kong Island, while 21.2% and 14.6% were in Kowloon and the New Territories respectively.
The number of operating classes at the secondary level has a reasonably similar geographical distribution, with 62.1% on the Hong Kong Island, 21.2% in Kowloon and 16.7% in the New Territories.
Table 3.2: Geographical distribution of international school places at the secondary level in 2015/16
District Number of places Number of operating
classes Number of students Hong Kong Island 11 988 64.2% 458 62.1% 10 521 63.6%
Kowloon 3 954 21.2% 156 21.2% 3 518 21.3%
New Territories 2 734 14.6% 123 16.7% 2 491 15.1%
Total 18 676 100.0% 737 100.0% 16 530 100.0%
3.4.4 There are variations between districts in the percentage of places taken up and the average class size. The percentage of international school places taken up is slightly higher in Kowloon at the primary level and in the New Territories at the secondary level.
The average class size, on the other hand, is higher at 24.2 for schools in the New
10
Territories at the primary level while at a lower level of 20.3 for schools in the New Territories at the secondary level.
Table 3.3: Percentage of international school places taken up and the average class size in 2015/16
District % of places taken up Average class size
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Hong Kong Island 91.0% 87.8% 23.0 23.0
Kowloon 93.1% 89.0% 23.8 22.6
New Territories 89.4% 91.1% 24.2 20.3
Total 91.1% 88.5% 23.5 22.4
3.5 Geographical distribution: Place of residence of students
3.5.1 When comparing the geographical distribution of school places and place of residence of students4 at the primary level, it is noted that percentages of students who are living and studying in the same catchment area in the Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories are 55%, 47% and 74% respectively (see Table 3.4 below).
Table 3.4: Percentage distribution of international school places taken up at the primary level by areas of residence of students in 2015/16
Location of schools
% distribution by areas of residence of students Hong Kong
Island Kowloon New
Territories Unknown5 All districts
Hong Kong Island 55% 3% 4% 38% 100%
Kowloon 12% 47% 30% 11% 100%
New Territories 2% 13% 74% 11% 100%
Overall 33% 16% 26% 25% 100%
3.5.2 The distribution of the place of residence6 among international school students at the secondary level is similar to that at the primary level. Percentages of students who are living and studying in the same catchment area in the Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and New Territories are 48%, 44% and 71% respectively (see Table 3.5 below).
Table 3.5: Percentage distribution of international school places taken up at secondary level by areas of residence of students in 2015/16
Location of schools
% distribution by areas of residence of students Hong Kong
Island Kowloon New
Territories Unknown7 All districts
Hong Kong Island 48% 7% 10% 35% 100%
Kowloon 13% 44% 33% 10% 100%
4 Residential information in respect of 25.3% of the international primary school students is not available.
5 Caution should be taken in interpreting the above figures owing to high proportions of unknown cases.
6 Residential information in respect of 27.6% of secondary students is not available.
7 Caution should be taken in interpreting the above figures owing to significant proportions of unknown cases.
11 Location of
schools
% distribution by areas of residence of students Hong Kong
Island Kowloon New
Territories Unknown7 All districts
New Territories 3% 4% 71% 22% 100%
Overall 34% 14% 24% 28% 100%
3.5.3 The above shows that the provision of international school places at both primary and secondary levels does not completely correspond to the area of residence of students. Some parents choose to send their children to attend schools they prefer even though these schools are located relatively far away from their places of residence. However, there are indications that there is a shortage of international school places in the New Territories. This may be demonstrated by comparing total enrolment by the location of schools with the number of students by the area of their residence (see Table 3.6 below). Despite that most of the students attend international schools on the Hong Kong Island (57.8%), only 33.2% of all international school students reside on the Hong Kong Island. The proportion of students residing in the New Territories (about 25%) is higher than that enrolled in schools in the same area (around 19%). With the ongoing development of a new international school campus in Kowloon, and four new international school campuses in the New Territories, it is expected that the shortage of international school places in the New Territories will be relieved upon their commencement of operation in the period between 2016/17 and 2018/19.
Table 3.6: The number of students by location of international schools with the number of students by the location of their residence in 2015/16
Area
Number of students By location of schools
(% to total)
By area of residence (% to total)
Hong Kong Island 21 376 (57.8%) 12 264 (33.2%)
Kowloon 8 448 (22.9%) 5 582 (15.1%)
New Territories 7 145 (19.3%) 9 393 (25.4%)
Unknown - 9 730 (26.3%)
Total 36 969 36 969
12
3.6 Comparison between projected figures from the 2012 Study and actual figures
3.6.1 The 2012 Study projected that the demand for primary school places at ESF schools, other international schools and PISs as a whole for 2016/17 would be 32 648 and with the projected supply of 28 445 places, there would be a shortfall of some 4 200 primary school places in 2016/17. A comparison of the projected and the actual figures of 2015/16 is set out in Table 3.7 below.
Table 3.7: Comparison between projected demand for primary school places in ESF schools, other international schools and PISs under the 2012 Study and actual number of students of 2015/16
Projected demand of 2015/16 under the 2012 Study
(a)
Actual number of students of 2015/16
(b)
Difference (c) = (b) –(a)
Local students 8 173 8 768 +595
Non-local students 19 935 18 415 -1 520
Waiting List# 3 232 2 172 -1 060
Total 31 340 29 355 -1 985
# Adjusted taking into account the estimated number of applications that might be submitted for the same student and the estimated number of waiting list applicants who were subsequently admitted.
3.6.2 The comparison shows that the actual demand (including the “unmet” demand as shown by the adjusted number of applicants on the waiting lists kept by schools) is less than that projected under the 2012 Study, mainly attributed to a smaller number of enrolled non- local students and a shorter waiting list. On the other hand, the actual number of enrolled local students is slightly higher than the corresponding projected figure.
3.6.3 On the supply side, the latest estimate indicates that the number of primary school places of ESF schools, other international schools and PISs would increase by 3 807 from 2011/12 to 2016/17, being some 1 600 higher than the corresponding increase of 2 177 as projected under the 2012 Study, underpinning the efforts of the Government in meeting the projected demand by promoting the development of international schools through allocation of greenfield sites and vacant school premises and facilitating in-situ expansion of existing schools in the past few years.
3.6.4 Based on the latest estimation, there would only be an insignificant shortfall in places of ESF, other international schools and PISs in 2016/17, and the trend of increase in non- local students would not be as sharp as projected under the 2012 Study.
4.1
4.1.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
Ch
Introduc
Under the schools (in were ESF both prima provided s in the ensu
School a
The major priority to indicated t debentures priority to respectivel 85.7% of for admiss admission a chance o wait-listing principle, priority of based on grades on About 82.9 waiting lis the averag admitted b
hapter 4
ction
school surv ncluding th schools, 60 ary and seco secondary e uing paragra
admission
rity of the o applicants
that they ha s / nominat o other cate
ly).
the enumer sion. Amo on the wait of admission
g arrangeme while anoth f applicants the random the waiting 9% of the e st whereas 1 ge percentag by the schoo
Findi
vey, comple he special s 0% were oth
ondary educ education on aphs only re
mechanis
enumerate s with siblin
ad accorded tion rights.
egories, such
rated school ong them, 8 ting list, and n during the ents, 26.7%
her 26.7% h s for Primar m number a list was bas enumerated 17.1% did n ge of studen ols is append
13
ings from
eted question chool unde her internat cation, 40%
nly. It shou epresent tho
sm
d schools ( ngs studyin d priority to 82.9% of h as childre
ls indicated 80.0% inclu d 10.0% pla e same scho
% accorded p had differen
ry (P) 1 an assigned wh sed on the “
schools rep not. The br
nts placed o ded in Table
m the Sc
nnaires wer er ESF). O ional schoo
% provided p uld be noted se having re
(94.3%) ind ng in their o applicants f the school en of alum
d that they k uded all app aced only ap ool year on priority base nt arrangeme nd Secondar
hereas the
“first come f ported that t reakdown by on the waiti e 4.1 below.
hool Sur
re collected Of the schoo
ols. And, 40 primary edu d that the su esponded to
dicated tha schools. 6 s whose par ls stated tha mni and chil
kept waiting plicants con pplicants wh the waiting ed on the “f ents for diff ry (S) 1 on priority of first serve” p they enrolle y levels and ing lists wh .
rvey
from 35 int ols enumera
0% of them ucation only urvey findin o the survey.
at they had 60.0% of th
rents were h at they had ldren of sta
g list for ap nsidered qua ho were like g list. As re first come fi ferent grade the waiting applicants principle.
ed students f d types of sc ho were sub
ternational ated, 40%
m provided y and 20%
ngs set out .
accorded he schools
holders of d accorded aff (44.8%
pplications alified for ely to have
egards the first serve”
es, e.g. the g list was for other
from their chools for bsequently
14
Table 4.1: Average % of students placed on the waiting lists kept by schools who were subsequently admitted by the schools by school types
Types of schools
Average % of students placed on the waiting lists who were subsequently admitted
Children attending primary schools
Children attending secondary schools
ESF schools 26.1% 37.2%
Other international schools 35.0% 40.3%
4.3 Future provision of school places
4.3.1 The coming seven years’ plan (i.e. 2016/17 to 2022/23) for adjustment to provision of places was sought from the enumerated schools. About 51.4% of schools indicated that they did not have plan to change their provision of places in the coming seven years whereas 48.6% indicated that they had plans to do so. Among those schools having such plans, the measures to be adopted were mainly “in-situ expansion in existing school site” (47.1% of the schools with such plans), “applying for allocation of vacant school premises” (47.1%) and “converting the use of some existing classrooms / special rooms” (29.4%).
4.3.2 Views on the support measures from Government in the course of school expansion / redevelopment / relocation were sought from schools. About 85.7% of the enumerated schools considered the support measure in expediting the procedures required in school expansion from Government very helpful or helpful. Regardless of the location , 77.1%
of the schools considered the support measure of “allocation of greenfield sites / vacant school premises” useful, with most schools preferring sites/premises on the Hong Kong Island, with those in Kowloon and the New Territories follow. Relevant findings are shown in Table 4.2 below. Schools’ views were also sought on the helpfulness of the support measures from the Government to new operators in enhancing their understanding in the school development and operation requirements in Hong Kong.
Regarding other potential support measures that the Government may consider, the majority of the schools considered the support measure of “organising briefing sessions with regard to requirements on school development/operation” (85.7%), “facilitating communication among schools, district councils and local communities” (82.9%) and
“facilitating sharing of experience among international schools in Hong Kong” (74.3%) from the Government very helpful or helpful.
15
Table 4.2: Schools’ view on the helpfulness of the support measures from Government
Support measures from Government that were considered very helpful or helpful % of schools concerned Expediting the procedure required in school expansion from Government 85.7%
Provision of capital loan for the construction of the school premises 74.3%
Allocation of greenfield sites / vacant school premises on the Hong Kong Island 68.6%
Allocation of greenfield sites / vacant school premises in Kowloon 54.3%
Allocation of greenfield sites / vacant school premises in the New Territories 48.6%
Note: Schools may choose more than one option for the question concerned and hence the percentages above do not add up to 100%.
5.1
5.1.1
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
Ch
Introduc
The paren schools. A with stude other inter views from
Parents’
Parents’ p preferred o schools, s internation (89.1%) o preferred t level.
Among sc parents wi schools hi parents wi in other in studying respectivel internation schools un or aided sc
hapter 5
ction
nt survey w A total of 4 ents studyin rnational sch m parents w
’ preferen
preferences or preferred schools un nal schools, of the paren
the types of
chools other ith local ch ighly prefer ith children nternational in ESF sc ly. This i nal schools nder DSS, p
chools are le
5 Findi
was conduct 454 parents ng in ESF hools. The
ith students
nce for typ
(expressed d) for differ nder Direct
, and PISs) nts of child f schools th
r than ESF ildren study rred or pref studying in schools) wh chools and indicates th
especially private schoo
ess preferred
16
ings from
ted on paren were enum schools. T
findings ha studying in
pes of sch
as percent rent types o Subsidy for their c dren studyi at their chil
and other i ying in mai ferred PISs n ESF schoo hile the perc
other inte hat PISs is for parents ols offering d (for paren
m the Par
nts with ch merated, wit The correspo
ave been gro n internation
ools
age of pare of schools (i Scheme (D children wer ing in ESF ldren were s
internationa instream ES
offering n ols, 63.8% fo
centages for ernational s s a popular s with local non-local c nts of local o
rent Sur
hildren stud th 62.3% o onding perc ossed up sta nal schools.
ents indicat including g DSS), ESF
re collated.
F or other studying in,
al schools, m SF schools o non-local cu
or parents w r parents wi schools are r alternative
l children.
curriculum a or non-local
rvey
dying in int f them bein centage is 3 atistically to
ting that th overnment schools a The great internationa , regardless
more than h or other int urriculum (5 with children ith non-loca e 45.7% an e to ESF
On the ot and local go l students).
ternational ng parents 37.7% for o represent
hey highly and aided and other
t majority al schools of school
half of the ternational 51.4% for n studying al children nd 64.1%
and other ther hand, overnment
17
5.3 Application process
Average processing time taken from submission of application to successful admission
5.3.1 It took about 6.50 months on average from submission of applications to successful admission to international primary schools while that for the ESF special school was 17.30 months. For secondary schools, the average time in question was 5.41 months while that for the ESF special school was 14.20 months. Relevant findings are shown in Table 5.1 below.
Table 5.1: Average processing time (months) taken from submission of applications to successful admission analysed by the school types that the children were attending
Average processing time (months)
Primary Secondary
Children attending
ESF special school 17.30 14.20
ESF mainstream schools 7.61 5.37
Other International schools 6.02 5.40
All schools 6.50 5.41
All schools (excluding the ESF
special school) 6.48 5.39
Children as
Local Students 5.65 6.75
Non-local students 6.79 5.16
Local Students (excluding
those of ESF special school) 5.65 6.75
Non-local Students (excluding those of the ESF special school)
6.78 5.13
5.3.2 The average time taken from submission of applications to successful admission to the ESF special school was much longer than other international schools, including mainstream ESF schools. For admission to the ESF special school, the average processing time for local students was 10.00 months while that for non-local students was 16.12 months (see Table 5.2 below). It is noted from ESF that the waiting list is ordered according to the priority criteria set by ESF, which have nothing to do with the students’ residency status, and the application date. The duration of the processing time should in principle be the same no matter the applicant is a local or non-local student.
18
Table 5.2: Average processing time (months) taken by the ESF special school students from submission of applications to successful admission analysed by residency status
Average processing time (months)
Children as Local Students 10.00
Non-local students 16.12
Average number of applications submitted
5.3.3 On average, including the schools in which their children were currently studying, parents with children at primary level indicated that they had applied for 2.33 schools at the time of admission and that for secondary level was 2.00 schools. If only applications that were subsequently placed on the waiting lists are counted (i.e. excluding the schools in which their children were currently studying at), the average number of schools applied for was 1.95 at the primary level and 1.80 at the secondary level. Relevant findings are shown in Table 5.3 below.
Table 5.3: Average number of application analysed by the school types the children were attending
Children attending
Average number of applications made at the time of admission (including the school in which
their children were studying)
Average number of applications made after removing those made to
other schools but not placed on the waiting list (excluding the school in which their children were studying)
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
ESF special school 2.33 4.00 2.00 2.00
ESF mainstream schools 2.14 1.42 1.55 1.00
Other international schools 2.41 2.24 2.10 1.81
All schools 2.33 2.00 1.95 1.80
Difficulties encountered in finding international school places
5.3.4 The difficulties encountered by parents in finding international school places for their children are shown in Table 5.4 below.
19
Table 5.4: % of parents encountering difficulties in finding international school places analysed by the types of schools the children were attending
Difficulties/problems encountered
Parents with children attending primary schools
Parents with children attending secondary schools ESF
mainstream schools
ESF special school
Other int’l schools
ESF mainstream
schools
ESF special school
Other int’l schools Waiting time for
international schools I prefer is too long
32.7% 45.5% 48.4% 28.8% 36.4% 29.6%
International schools I prefer are located too far from our place of residence
14.7% 27.3% 26.7% 9.2% 18.2% 16.7%
It is difficult for the children to get admitted to international schools early in advance before my family members come to Hong Kong
18.5% 9.1% 30.4% 8.4% 9.1% 25.2%
Much time is required in applying for several international schools in order to increase the chance of being admitted into international schools
29.1% 9.1% 39.5% 12.0% 0.0% 33.4%
Little information is available on the quality of teaching in different international schools
11.4% 0.0% 23.8% 13.4% 0.0% 20.6%
Some schools do not provide services for students with SEN8
5.6% 81.8% 5.1% 1.1% 72.7% 3.0%
Some schools do not have sufficient facilities for students with SEN8
4.6% 72.7% 1.9% 1.9% 54.5% 0.0%
Other problems9 7.1% 9.1% 10.6% 7.1% 9.1% 6.7%
No problem has been
encountered 37.9% 9.1% 24.2% 37.5% 27.3% 36.6%
Note: Parents may choose more than one option for the question concerned and hence the percentages above do not add up to 100%.
8 This entry reflects response provided by parents with SEN children only.
9 Other problems include affordability, fierce competition and unclear interview details.
20
5.4 Parents’ preference for types of curriculum
5.4.1 For both primary and secondary education, parents (including those with children currently studying in the ESF special school) indicated that the quality of teaching staff was the most important factor affecting their choice of schools, regardless of school types and residency status of their children. Table 5.5 below shows parents’ perceived importance of factors affecting choice of school, with breakdown by local and non-local students.
Table 5.5: % of parents by perceived importance of factors affecting choice of school
Factors
% giving the score of Mean score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total*
Most important Least important
Location Local 1.6 4.8 4.1 27.9 30.8 30.9 0.0 100 4.7
Non-
local 6.2 5.6 16.4 18.1 32.2 19.1 2.4 100 4.3
Total 5.3 5.5 14.0 20.3 31.8 21.2 1.9 100 4.4
Curriculum Local 34.1 19.9 19.6 17.2 6.8 2.4 0.0 100 2.5 Non-
local 31.4 26.0 25.2 10.5 6.8 0.2 0.0 100 2.4 Total 31.7 24.7 24.5 11.7 6.7 0.6 0.0 100 2.4 Quality of
teaching staff
Local 28.8 30.5 25.5 11.5 2.4 1.5 0.0 100 2.3 Non-
local 36.2 37.4 11.9 8.4 4.8 1.2 0.1 100 2.1 Total 35.2 35.9 14.4 8.9 4.3 1.2 0.1 100 2.2 Reputation Local 19.6 25.1 23.4 14.4 10.7 6.5 0.4 100 2.9
Non-
local 15.7 12.3 24.1 23.0 17.3 7.1 0.5 100 3.4
Total 16.4 15.1 23.9 21.2 16.0 6.9 0.5 100 3.3
Prospect of graduates
Local 10.4 15.3 14.3 23.3 17.6 17.2 1.9 100 3.8
Non-
local 3.8 7.4 16.1 22.5 25.2 21.2 3.7 100 4.4
Total 5.0 8.8 15.7 22.6 23.7 20.8 3.3 100 4.3
Tuition fee Local 5.2 4.5 10.3 5.4 30.4 41.5 2.7 100 4.9 Non-
local 3.5 9.0 6.1 16.8 13.5 48.9 2.3 100 4.8
Total 3.8 8.1 6.8 14.6 17.0 47.3 2.3 100 4.8
*Rounded to the nearest integer. For a particular factor, those parents without indicating ranking are excluded.
5.4.2 Furthermore, when parents were more specifically asked about the reasons for sending their children to international schools, regardless of whether their children are SEN or non-SEN children, the main reasons include “more flexible/interactive learning in international school”, “better bridging to education systems overseas”, “more relaxed
21
learning environment and less study pressure in international school” and “language barrier, cannot cope with local curriculum”. When taking a further look of the findings analysed by the residency status of the children, while “more flexible/interactive learning in international school” is commonly shared by both parents with local and non-local children, “language barrier, cannot cope with local curriculum” is more commonly shared by parents of non-local children than local children. An analysis of the reasons of parents choosing international schools is shown at Table 5.6 below.
Table 5.6: Reasons for parents to send their children to study at international schools (Multiple Responses)
Reasons
Parents with non-SEN children
Parents with SEN children Mainstream
(ESF and other
international schools) All
ESF special
school
Mainstream (ESF and other
international schools) All
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
More flexible/
interactive learning in international school
Local 96.0% 94.4% 95.4% 61.5% 100.0% 100.0% 98.7%
Non-
local 71.2% 64.5% 68.0% 47.9% 70.0% 66.7% 67.0%
Total 76.8% 69.2% 73.4% 49.9% 75.5% 77.3% 72.5%
Better bridging to education systems overseas
Local 62.2% 56.0% 59.9% 0.0% 31.6% 37.6% 34.4%
Non-
local 70.3% 57.8% 64.5% 15.9% 60.2% 50.9% 52.9%
Total 69.0% 57.5% 63.9% 13.6% 54.9% 46.7% 53.7%
More relaxed learning environment and less study pressure in international school
Local 90.7% 76.8% 85.4% 0.0% 100.0% 68.8% 76.4%
Non-
local 60.8% 46.6% 54.2% 40.0% 61.6% 40.6% 50.5%
Total 67.3% 51.3% 60.2% 34.1% 68.7% 49.6% 51.8%
Language barrier, cannot cope with local curriculum
Local 13.3% 23.2% 17.1% 22.9% 37.3% 31.2% 32.9%
Non-
local 67.5% 53.7% 61.0% 69.3% 71.3% 66.7% 69.0%
Total 55.5% 48.9% 52.5% 62.4% 65.0% 55.3% 65.2%
Quality of learning and teaching is better in international school
Local 74.8% 52.0% 66.1% 61.5% 50.5% 62.4% 58.4%
Non-
local 52.7% 46.6% 49.9% 19.1% 53.2% 49.8% 49.4%
Total 57.0% 47.5% 52.7% 26.1% 52.6% 53.8% 47.9%
22 Reasons
Parents with non-SEN children
Parents with SEN children Mainstream
(ESF and other
international schools) All
ESF special
school
Mainstream (ESF and other
international schools) All
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Improve my child’s proficiency in English
Local 60.9% 54.4% 58.4% 38.5% 50.0% 68.8% 61.8%
Non-
local 27.5% 23.9% 25.8% 22.6% 14.8% 37.5% 25.8%
Total 34.8% 28.7% 32.1% 25.0% 21.3% 47.5% 37.5%
Non-local students cannot be admitted to local schools *
Non-
local 11.0% 10.5% 10.8% 0.0% 6.2% 12.6% 8.8%
*This option is only applicable to parents with non-local children.
5.4.3 In addition, for children attending the ESF special school and ESF mainstream schools at the primary level, a greater proportion of the parents highly preferred or preferred their children to study the International Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum (63.6% and 93.8% respectively). For other international primary schools, the majority of the parents (78.1%) highly preferred or preferred their children to study the UK-based curriculum, whereas a relatively lower proportion of parents highly preferred or preferred the IB curriculum (57.1%) and the national curriculum of their original country (33.7%).
5.4.4 For children attending ESF mainstream schools and other international schools at the secondary level, a greater proportion of the parents highly preferred or preferred their children to study the IB curriculum (89.9% and 77.0% respectively). Relevant findings and analysis by local/non-local students are shown in Tables 5.7 and 5.8 below.
Table 5.7: % of parents’ preference (highly preferred or preferred) on curriculum analysed by the types of schools that the children were attending
Curriculum highly preferred or preferred
Parents with children attending primary schools
Parents with children attending secondary schools ESF main-
stream schools
ESF special school
Other int’l schools
ESF main- stream schools
ESF special school
Other int’l schools International
Baccalaureate curriculum
93.8% 63.6% 57.1% 89.9% 45.5% 77.0%
23 Curriculum highly
preferred or preferred
Parents with children attending primary schools
Parents with children attending secondary schools ESF main-
stream schools
ESF special school
Other int’l schools
ESF main- stream schools
ESF special school
Other int’l schools UK-based curriculum
(e.g. IGCSE) 75.5% 54.5% 78.1% 79.0% 36.4% 75.5%
National Curriculum
of country of origin* 30.3% 27.3% 33.7% 20.9% 45.5% 22.9%
Local curriculum 5.2% 0.0% 5.0% 0.9% 9.1% 4.8%
*This option is only applicable to parents with non-local children.
Note: Parents may choose more than one option and hence the percentages above do not add up to 100%.
Table 5.8: % of parents’ preference (highly preferred or preferred) on curriculum analysed by the residency status of the children
Curriculum highly preferred or preferred
Parents with children attending primary schools
Parents with children attending secondary schools Local
students
Non-local students
Local students
Non-local students International Baccalaureate curriculum 80.0% 64.5% 83.6% 81.9%
UK-based curriculum (e.g. IGCSE) 80.8% 77.3% 96.2% 73.1%
National Curriculum of country of
origin* N/A 40.7% N/A 26.4%
Local curriculum 9.1% 4.1% 0.0% 3.9%
*This option is only applicable to parents with non-local children.
Note: Parents may choose more than one option and hence the percentages above do not add up to 100%.
Parents’ decision when there was no place from schools offering non-local curriculum
5.4.5 Parents of local and non-local students would make different decisions when there was no place from schools offering non-local curriculum. More than 20% of the parents of local students would send their children to attend local schools while only about 9% of the parents of non-local students would do so. Furthermore, more than 60% of parents of non-local students at primary level and more than 40% of parents of non-local students at secondary level indicated that their whole families would leave Hong Kong should no place at international schools be available, demonstrating the importance of the provision of school places on non-local curriculum for non-local students. Relevant findings are shown in Table 5.9A below. On the other hand, when analysing parents’ responses by whether their children are with SEN or not, one could also note the different decisions they would make when there was no place from schools offering non-local curriculum.
For instance, while only less than 10% of parents with non-SEN children studying in
24
secondary schools indicated that their whole families would stay in Hong Kong and send their children to attend local schools, more than 30% of such parents with SEN children would do so when there was no place from schools offering non-local curriculum.
Relevant findings are shown in Table 5.9B below, with a further breakdown regarding parents with SEN children in Table 6.3A and Table 6.3B in Chapter 6.
Table 5.9A: % of parents by decision when there was no place from schools offering non-local curriculum analysed by the residency status of their children
Decision of parents if there was no place from schools offering non-local curriculum
Parents with children attending primary
schools
Parents with children attending secondary
schools Local
students
Non-local students
Local students
Non-local students My whole family will leave Hong Kong 12.5% 60.8% 12.6% 41.8%
My family will stay in Hong Kong while my
children will go abroad 25.2% 4.8% 27.8% 21.1%
I will stay, but my spouse and children will
leave Hong Kong 1.3% 4.9% 0.0% 3.9%
My whole family will stay, and we will send
our children to attend local schools 26.7% 8.8% 21.6% 8.4%
Not decided yet 32.9% 20.3% 29.0% 20.6%
Refused to answer 1.3% 0.2% 8.9% 4.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 5.9B: % of parents by decision when there was no place from schools offering non-local curriculum analysed by whether their children are with SEN or not
Decision of parents if there was no place from schools offering non-local curriculum
Parents with non-SEN children
Parents with SEN children Primary
school
Secondary school
Primary school
Secondary school My whole family will leave Hong Kong 50.5% 37.6% 38.9% 23.7%
My family will stay in Hong Kong while my
children will go abroad 9.1% 22.4% 6.0% 15.1%
I will stay, but my spouse and children will
leave Hong Kong 4.1% 3.4% 4.9% 0.0%
My whole family will stay, and we will send
our children to attend local schools 12.1% 9.8% 21.5% 31.8%
Not decided yet 23.4% 21.8% 26.5% 26.3%
Refused to answer 0.7% 4.9% 2.2% 3.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
25
5.5 Plan to stay in Hong Kong
5.5.1 At the primary level, about 21.0%, 27.3% and 48.0% of parents with children studying in ESF mainstream schools, the ESF special school and other international schools respectively planned to leave Hong Kong in the coming seven years. For parents with children studying in secondary schools, the corresponding percentages are 7.8%, 0.0%
and 38.3% respectively. Relevant findings are shown in Table 5.10 below. These figures, however, should be interpreted with caution as a considerable percentage of parents responded that they had no comments.
Table 5.10: % of parents by whether they planned to leave Hong Kong in the coming seven years
Plans to leave Hong Kong
Parents with children attending primary schools
Parents with children attending secondary schools ESF
mainstream schools
ESF special school
Other int’l schools
ESF mainstream
schools
ESF special school
Other int’l schools I have no plan to
leave Hong Kong 42.3% 54.5% 27.9% 46.6% 63.6% 43.0%
I have plan to leave Hong Kong in the coming 7 years
21.0% 27.3% 48.0% 7.8% 0.0% 38.3%
Others10 6.3% 0.0% 6.1% 2.1% 0.0% 2.0%
No comment 30.5% 18.2% 18.0% 43.5% 36.4% 16.7%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
5.5.2 For parents with local children studying in international schools, 8.5% and 3.7% of these parents indicated that they planned to leave Hong Kong in the coming seven years at the primary and secondary level respectively. For parents with non-local children studying in international schools, the corresponding figures are 48.8% and 30.2% at the primary and secondary level respectively.
5.5.3 The percentages of parents with non-local students that planned to leave Hong Kong in the coming seven years were higher than those of parents with local students for both primary and secondary levels. It was probably due to the tenure of office in Hong Kong (commonly lasts for a few years’ time) for expatriate staff. Relevant findings are shown in Table 5.11 below.
10 “Others” refers to those who have indicated a plan to leave Hong Kong, but have no concrete timeframe in mind.
26
Table 5.11: % of parents by comment on length of stay in Hong Kong analysed by the residency status of their children
Comments on length of stay
Parents with children attending international primary schools
Parents with children attending international secondary schools Local Students Non-local Students Local Students Non-local Students I have no plan
to leave Hong Kong
59.3% 25.3% 52.7% 42.9%
I have plan to leave Hong Kong, with breakdown by length of stay:
8.5% 48.8% 3.7% 30.2%
For around
1-2 years 0.7% 9.4% 0.0% 2.1%
For around
3-5 years 7.8% 21.7% 0.0% 16.6%
For around
6-7 years 0.1% 17.6% 3.7% 11.5%
Others11 9.1% 5.3% 3.7% 1.7%
No comment 23.1% 20.6% 39.9% 25.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
11 “Others” refers to those who have indicated a plan to leave Hong Kong, but have no concrete timeframe in mind.
C
6.1
Provisio
6.1.1
6.1.2
Admissi
6.1.3
Chapter
Schools’
on of school
Among th operated internation support to setting.
(including special edu these scho special ed (96.7%), Speech an
For those e that there w cater for a in providi profession
ion policy fo
About 80.
SEN stude of the sch
“admitting
r 6 Find Serv
’ views on
l places for
he internatio by ESF to nal schools o students w
The school all enumer ucation serv ools were At ducation ser Autistic Sp d Language
enumerated were too ma all types of S ing special nals with trai
or SEN stud
0% of the ents and the hools conce g only partic
dings on vices
n provision
students wi
onal schools o cater for including a with mild to
l survey re rated ESF s vices to chil ttention Def rvices), Sp pectrum Di e Impairmen
d schools no any types o SEN, where education ining in spe
dents
enumerated e policies in erned), “kee cular types o
27
the Prov
n of speci
th special ed
s in Hong K r students all enumerat
o moderate esults show schools and ldren with S ficit / Hyper ecific Lear isorders (86 nt (83.3%).
ot providing f SEN and t eas 40.0% ex
services an ecial educati
d schools in ncluded “con
eping a des of SEN stud
vision of
al educati
ducational n
Kong, curre with seve ted ESF ma SEN in an w that 85.7 d other inte SEN and the
ractivity Dis rning Diffic 6.7%), Hea
special edu they could n xpressed tha nd that they ion to suppo
ndicated tha nfining to s sired ratio dents will be
f Special
ion servic
needs (SEN)
ently there i ere SEN, w ainstream sc n integrated 7% of the ernational sc e major typ sorder (100%
culties in R aring Impa
ucation serv not provide at higher co y could no ort students
at they had students wit of SEN stu e admitted”
l Educati
ces
N)
is one spec whereas so chools woul d and/or spe enumerated chools) had
es of SEN c
% of school Reading and airment (83
ices, 60.0%
additional ost would be ot recruit te with SEN.
admission p th mild SEN udents” (32
(21.4%).
ion
cial school ome other
ld provide ecial class d schools d provided
catered by ls offering d Writing
.3%) and
% indicated support to e involved eachers or
policy for N” (46.4%
2.1%) and
28
Collection of additional fees from students receiving special education service
6.1.4 ESF charges the same tuition fee levels for students studying in their mainstream schools and the special school while individual parents may have to pay for specific services such as individual support by education assistants, and therapy services which are outside the scope of the main curriculum. 19.4% of the enumerated schools that had admitted students with SEN collected additional fees from students receiving special education services provided by the schools. The additional fees collected were used to recruit staff with training in special education (66.7% of the schools charging additional fees), to hire special education related services (such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, etc.) (50.0%), and to purchase facilities required for students with SEN (50.0%).
Difficulties encountered in providing special education services
6.1.5 The majority (93.5%) of the enumerated schools had encountered difficulties in providing special education services. For those schools that had encountered difficulties, about 75.9% indicated that some students with SEN required intensive support services for which the school might not be able to fully meet the cost and about 62.1% indicated that they had difficulties in financing the cost involved in providing special education services. Furthermore, 48.3% indicated that the progress of learning and teaching for other non-SEN students would be affected by diverting staff resources to provide special education services.
Factors encouraging schools to accept students with SEN
6.1.6 82.9% of the enumerated schools considered “funding specifically for special education services” the most important factor, followed by “if parents are willing to pay additional service charge for the special education services required by their children” (60.0%) and
“(more) staff with training in special education could be employed” (45.7%) for encouraging them to accept students with SEN.
