Hong Kong people accord a high priority to their children's education; some even move home, at substantial cost, with the sole intent of enhancing their child's chance of admission to an elite school. Not surprisingly, the Director of Audit's recent report in which it severely criticised several direct subsidy schools for their messy accounts has raised serious concern.
Under considerable public pressure, the Education Bureau finally released the list of direct subsidy schools criticised for 'improper financial accounts'. Only one of the 77 had a completely clean record.
Apparently, many parents of students in those schools have no major complaints, and seem quite happy to accept the recent fee increases.
The general public, however, is concerned with the direct subsidy schools because many of them are elite schools that are perceived to offer significant opportunities for upward social mobility. In the past, admission to an elite school could significantly enhance the chance of access to universities, and thereby was seen as an entry ticket to good career development.
Back then, school fees of elite government subsidised schools were considerably lower than those of private schools. Hence, admission could also reduce parents' financial burden. Now, the opposite is true: the high fees of direct subsidy schools are often beyond the means of low-income families.
Some parents of low-income families admit that, even if they can afford the fees, they cannot pay for the various expensive extra-curricular activities. And they worry about their children's possible psychological discomfort, and the peer pressure of being 'left out'.
To the government's credit, when it introduced the direct subsidy school scheme as an option, it demanded provisions for scholarships and bursaries to ensure that children from low-income families could also attend these elite schools.