I refer to the report ("ESF must provide local curriculum, Eddie Ng says", November 1) and your editorial ("Subsidise and reform the ESF", November 10).
While schools operating under the English Schools Foundation are required to operate in compliance with the relevant ordinances and regulations, we should note that, broadly speaking, the ESF is autonomous in operation and may decide on the curriculum offered, student mix as well as admission criteria and arrangements.
Like other international schools, ESF schools offer a non-local curriculum. It is not our established policy to provide recurrent subvention to schools offering a non-local curriculum. Our standing policy is to facilitate their development through in-situ expansion, redeployment of vacant school premises and allocation of greenfield sites.
In terms of curriculum offered, admission policy, governance or even fee level, ESF schools are obviously no different from other international schools. The international school sector has changed substantially over the past few decades. These changes call for a review of the ESF's subvention arrangement from a holistic perspective of the entire school system and the position of the ESF therein, taking into account arrangements for other schools that operate in a like fashion.
Some suggest providing funding to the ESF that is comparable to funding received by schools under the Direct Subsidy Scheme (DSS) and at the same time allowing the ESF curriculum freedom. But ESF schools are different from DSS schools, which primarily offer a local curriculum and must comply with a more stringent monitoring mechanism. The two also have substantial differences in terms of curriculum, student mix, and their roles to pursue different government policy objectives.
The ESF has never been asked to adopt the DSS model including providing a local curriculum in order to qualify for any subvention. As far as we know, neither does the ESF have any intention to change its current mode of operation, mission or curriculum.