Schools should realise children's potential, not investors' profits
I refer to the report on Nord Anglia International School Hong Kong ("UK group with school in Lam Tin eyes US listing", December 18). There is something very wrong with the idea of a Hong Kong school (in this case its parent company) making an initial public offering.
An IPO must ensure for investors a reasonable return and potential for growth.
The natural consequence would be to continually focus on ways to increase profits (for example, larger class sizes, higher tuition fees and debentures, cheaper teachers, and the elimination of more costly school programmes and activities) while spending much time and energy planning for new schools instead of helping students.
As the Wall Street Journal reported in July, Nord Anglia Education, owned by finance company Barings, issued US$325 million in junk bonds in March 2012 and followed up with another issue of US$165 million, luring private investors to profit from education at high interest rates. News of an IPO further reinforces the focus on expansion for profit. I am fine with companies making a profit for investors, but schools are not the same as a purely commercial listed entity.
We surely do not want our schools to be exclusively for the wealthiest, less likely to offer grants to economically disadvantaged students or to cater for the needs of students with learning difficulties?
While Nord Anglia's investor might regard an education IPO as obvious, others value education as a right and its practice as a vocation and not a profit-making enterprise. It would seem wrong for taxpayers' money or government land, set aside for education provision, to be given to a dedicated commercial enterprise that did not plough 100 per cent of profits back into improving education in Hong Kong, through facilities, faculty enhancement, student grants, or research and development.