GSIS and Ma On Shan

Happyhour thank you for your reply.

I take your point which is very valid that there are many children who travel hours to get to their schools to receive an education. The difference is that they have chosen to do this as opposed to being forced in to it by a relocation of the school. I also think that you may be right that that there are many people who will be wanting to get in to GSIS if there is a large exodus of present students. I just hope that the school does not relax its entry requirements due to economic needs caused by the outflow of present students and the need for funding of the building works for this would really change the character of the school.

This is really not about who is right or who is wrong. This is about "is MOS really the only option?and has all been done to seek other alternatives?" Just from my casual research on the web I found information on greenfield sites that the Hong Kong government were offering to schools last year that would have been big enough to build a fantastic new school for all age groups. Were these looked in to? Over the last 4 years I have seen a fantastic new international school built in Pok Fu Lam on a huge site. How did the GSIS miss this that one. If at the end of the day MOS really does turn out to be the best alternative and all other options have been exhausted then so be it. I am just saying that we as a whole school community with all the resources we have need to work together with full disclosure from all parties to come up with what is right for our children and the school as a whole. Once that has been achieved then it will be up to parents to decide if they want to send their children to MOS or not.
 
genome,

Nobody knows for sure if MOS is really the only option and whether all has been done to seek other alternatives. What is important here is the timing. If we believe there is no real urgency to renovate the school, then we could just sit and wait for another site. However, if we think we must do it now, then I assess the situation by looking at the risks that we are running. Let say it turns out that MOS is not the only option or that they haven't done everything to seek other alternatives, the consequence is that our kids will be put to great inconvenience for 4 years. At the end of that, we will get a better school for our primary school kids who will also benefit when they go on to the secondary. On the other hand, if it turns out the school is right in saying that there will not be any site available for the next 2 to 3 years, the quality of education provided might be affected. To me, this is a huge risk that I don't want to take. What I am saying is that the need to maintain the best quality of education takes priority over everything else because to me that is the reason why I send my kid to GSIS. Incidentally, I think the school could make a few changes that will make it easier for everybody. For example, could the school start a bit later in the morning? Furthermore, can't the renovation period of 4 years be shortened?
 
happyhour thank you very much for replying and your points make a lot of sense and are worth raising.


There is no doubt that once all four phases are done the school will be a better place and primary will definately benefit. The only problem is that I am hearing at the moment the proposal is only to do phase 2 hence all benefit goes to secondary and primary gets nothing. They just move back to where they were.

The quality of education is paramount in my mind as well. The teachers have done a fantastic job in this respect. The one thing that worries me here is that from the survey done by the school only 45% of staff voted decisevely for the move. It does not seem to me that the people providing this education are overwhelmingly conviced that the move is a good idea.

As you say we need to make the right choice from an educational point of view as well as what is best for our children and the only way that I can see this being done is for full disclosure at all levels. No hidden agendas, no build out to create a legacy, no should have could have would have but to sit down work out where we are and to come up with a plan agreeable to the majority and then putting all of our efforts in to making it work.
 
Happyhour

I am not sure you are aware how long it took to find MOS?
One month! GSIS approached EDB in November 2007 and got MOS in December 2007.

Are you aware how long the proposed project has been under work? Until 2006 they always wanted to build a completely new building. In July 2007 they got Pokfulam and only in September 2008 the Heads of the Departments were asked for their space needs!

Do you know what we gain from the proposed project? Not a single classroom more but we will loose the swimming pool. (We'll get a cafeteria and bigger libraries, better science labs etc) but he gain is minimal.

Did you know when they realised that GSIS needs more space? One (1!) year after completion of the Lower Building they initiated the space study (in 1999).

I think in this economic environment many more options can be explored, like land swap, finding commercial site for decanting, using Pokfulam site more efficient and not decant anywhere else and many more.
Also in this environment we could launch an architectural competition to get a better project.

To sum it up:

MOS is not an option because of the distance.

The proposed project does not maintain the level of education but actually lessens it.

The people on the Board should only be allowed a certain amount of time to sit on the Board. Especially with such a track record! (I mean, one year after completing new building you start a space study? Gee!) It will also create an environment of more transparency and no risk of building a legacy.
 
genome,

... and, most important of all, to do it quickly because there is a deadline before which I must decide whether we are going to accept or give up MOS. By the way, it's not a good idea to pay too much attention to rumours otherwise it's easy to confuse them with facts. The other thing is, for the sake of argument and assuming what you hear is true, I see no problem with all the benefits going to the secondary. All our kids will enjoy the benefits ultimately when they go to the secondary, won't they? If I sound harsh and impolite, please forgive me as I am merely speaking my mind. I never meant to offend you in any way.
 
happyhour please dont worry you have not offended in anyway.

It is good that we all have the chance to say what we think and what our opinions are. That is why I started this thread in the first place and really do appreciate everyones input. (over 2500 people have viewd this thread) The only way to solve this issue is to get everyone involved and listen to all ideas. Your point of being able to enjoy the benefits of the secondary school is true if you are round long enought to make use of it.

Hong Kong as we all know is a transient society and none of us know how long we will be here. This has been brought even more to our attention with the present economic climate. So sadly being able to enjoy the benefits of the secondary school may not be an option for parents taking the pain at this present time.
 
Tabby,

If the Board is really that incompetent, then the right thing to do is to call for the removal of the Board rather than asking them to explore further options. To be honest, I don't understand why the Board decided to conduct a survey in the first place. They are under a duty to act in the best interest of "the school". To me, "the school" should include the existing students as well as the pupils who are going to join the school in the future. If after careful consideration they decide it's the right thing to do, they should advise everybody the grounds for the decision, make the best possible arrangement in the circumstances and then go ahead with it. The problem with the survey is that everybody has got different consideration which might or might not coincide with the best interest of the school. For example, my kid will go abroad to study in 2 or 3 years' time. Why should I support a move to MOS which gives me no benefit but inconvenience? Likewise, if I am going to be posted to another country in the near future, why should I support the move?
 
When we first arrived in HK over a decade ago, we shared the same view about HK being a transient society. We, and many other expatriates, just stayed on due to its many attractions and job opportunities etc. Unless directly affected by the layoffs, we would still put our bet on Asia for the medium term. There are no jobs in the West, let alone those that can remotely match the existing package in HK (even with pay cuts etc). The only grave concern we have is the deterioration of air quality. There are many places outside HK Island that are very liveable, pleasant and have better value for money. In fact, the real and more interesting bits of HK are not confined to the Peak or Mid Levels etc. There is also a huge expatriate community that live on the other side.

I am not a fan of the school board. However, it didn?t take me long to realise that it would be fruitless to use the ?fight and resist to the end? strategy or get them to account for possible past blunders. It is ?politically smooth? for them to protect their turf than take accountability. I think the survey is ludicrous and might have been designed to indicate, in a crude way, that the majority of the school community supports the move to MOS and leaving the decision to the board. Instead of deploying more effort to identifying areas of their incompetence and the ?should have/ could have/ would have?, I find it is more pragmatic to adopt what genome said, ?to sit down, work out where we are and to come up with a plan agreeable to the majority and then putting all of our efforts into making it work?. To be honest, the current dire space constraint and out-dated facilities are unlikely to stand the test of time for much longer. I agree that timing is crucial. A land swap between Guildford Road and Mansfield Road will never materialise because they involve different government departments. If you have any idea how government departments work, you will then understand why even though the various departments are under the same administration, they will never bow to pressure from the GSIS community or cross each other?s turf unless by specific order from the CE on grounds of ?public interest?. Besides, the Government now has a lot more on their plate given the gravity of the financial situation. The only possible land swap is for sites outside the Peak, to which the majority of the GSIS community would categorically object.

I hope all parties involved would eventually find some common grounds to work together towards a feasible/ practical solution after taking a breather from the heated debate, and move on . To all of us, the quality of education as well as what is best for our children take precedence over other things.
 
Myview thank you for your reply.

I concur that a lot of people come here for a two year stint and all of a sudden wake up one morning still here after ten years. This does not however take away from that fact that there still exists a transient part of our society. Hong Kong is just like that. In respect to staying in Asia during the present economic crisis you are right for the moment there is no better place to be. I would however caution in believing that this will be the case for long in that I am hearing from many senior managers that there are still many layoffs to come and that companies are finding ways to cut costs and the easy way to do this is to change the packages that you mention.

One of the beautys of Hong Kong is the diversity of the different locations and the wide choice of styles that we have in a relatively small area. Which is something that we should embrace. Air Quality what can I say..................

In respect to the survey by the school. I feel that the survey was necessary in that it opened up the issues to a wider audiance which needed to be done in respect to full transparency/disclosure. Once you got past the badly worded questions, the strange choices that were put to parents and the headline numbers that the school provided back to parents the results were quite interesting and revealing. ( please see break down of numbers from one of my earlier entries) If the board was trying to show that they had overwhelming support then this in my opinion was not achieved.

Sorry if I am rambling and to get to the point there are two things that need to be answered quickly so that we can move on with providing quality education to our children in a safe and conducive environment.

1) is MOS the best and only option available to us and if it is I would like to see full disclosure as to why it is and what has been done to ascertain that it is.

2) do we have the right board with the right experiences in place to make the right decisions for the school as a whole going forward during this critical build out. A build out that will shape the school for the next generation. In that for us to get to this stage and this amount of dissent I wonder if we do.
 
Has anyone look at the available sites on HK island? Off my head:

1.The Two old ISF sites – one in Wanchai, one in Causeway Bay
2. The Victoria Shanghai Academy in Wanchai – they moved to the new campus in Shum Wan last year. How is this site used?
3. The St. Paul’s coed old site – I believe the school moved (or will be moving) to the new campus in Wong Chuk Hang. Is this site available?

I don’t know whether these sites have been checked out or available but doesn’t hurt to ask. Parents, though, need to remain flexible on the condition of the school. In Hong Kong, schools in good condition are rarely available. If you’ve been to Hong Kong Academy, you’ll know what I am talking about. Their site is not perfect. It’s the quality of education that counts.

The other thing is 4 years is really too long. If I am the government official, I wouldn’t want to give up a site for 4 -5 years (including renovation) as a temporary site before I can give it to another school. I think this is something constructive that parents could work with the school board on. I would say 2 years is a very reasonable time frame.

Just my 2 cents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About this archive

This is an archive of over 20 years of GeoBaby and GeoSchools knowledge and discussions, kept online as a read-only reference.

Back
Top