ISF Academy

[scli2000]

Isf

If you'd like to find out fair and honest comments on ISF, you can refer to this blog post: gweipo: True and false and impressions...

The blog's author has a daughter who is a student at ISF and her son will be going there as well. She's written quite a few posts about the school on her blog and I find them candid and objective.

My daughter will be entering the Foundation Year program this year. I've been to tours and briefings at the school several times. Although I don't have any "inside information" yet, I did sense a positive vibe within the faculty and students. The school is still young and constantly evolving, which we consider as a positive rather than negative factor.

We, as the potential parents, were also quite impressed by the talk given by the Vice Principle in charge of the Secondary division, who is an expat but speaks fluent Mandarin. As far as we can tell, he's far from someone who would "hide in an office" as mentioned by kalrok.

According to the Vice Principle for the Secondary division, the school was not accredited by MYP simply because of its IMMERSION EDUCATION in Mandarin and English. Since 70 percent of the students there have HK permanent residency status, their native language is Cantonese. Teaching in non-native language is regarded as a violation of MYP's requirement. But the school would rather continue with its immersion teaching style than sacrifice it only for the sake of an accreditation.

 

[kalrok]

So gweipo has posted on her blog a response which prob would work better posted here. That's fine, she is a knowledgeable parent who speaks in response to her daughter who is a non native in 1st Grade who will learn the fundamentals of Mandarin, and it will benefit her...maybe up until 5th grade then the amount of mandarin taught plummets so the basics may soon disappear if not kept up outside of school.

My problems with ISF is not teachers or teaching. It's the admin which effects the teaching. And there is a big big shake up for next year. <snip> will leave and <snip> will take over. <snip> will be lower school vice principal and a new person will be upper primary. There will be a new Director of the school (ie. Principal), a bilingual Australian man. And numerous other positions. Gahhh you just fear for the organization next school year with all the new people. Will any more educational principles get developed with so many new people....? I have great fears.

Note to ISF....stop rotating head jobs!! Hire someone with competence and stick with them!!! Our children will never get any advantage from an unstable administration as it has a direct effect on the teachers and teaching.

In response to scli2200 sorry but you have a few facts wrong; <snip> is certainly not the Vice Principal of the Secondary School! Far from it! He is officially Vice Principal of Academic and Student Development...whatever that means (nobody knows)! He does something in the Secondary School, head of house or something (which is pointless)...he used to be a choir master and plays drums in public whenever we can..and my children don't have a clue who he is.

 

[scli2000]

Isf

Kalrok, your children have no clue who <snip> is doesn't mean that he is 'nobody'.

His exact title is not important. We were simply delighted and excited by his speech during the parents briefing. I'll be actually happier if he is the Vice Principal of Academic and Student Development cuz then the lower grades may benefit from his expertise and experience in education.

Before joining ISF, <snip> was the assistant to the principle of the Shenzhen Middle School for seven years. That school is the very best secondary school in Shenzhen and has fabulous reputation. In April 2008, over 40 of their graduating students were accepted by the top 50 universities in the US. Besides some administrative works, Mr. Holder was also in charge of the school's 'public relations' with those first tier universities and guided the students with their individual college applications. In a way, his role there was equivalent to someone in charge of the Academic and Student Development.

It's interesting that you mentioned him as a choir master and drum player. He was described in Shenzhen's newspaper as an 'elder brother' to the students and was loved by them with his warm personality and talents in music. Isn't this the kind of quality we as parents should be looking for from the teachers at our children's school? As for what he does exactly behind his office doors (meeting with students or teachers or contacting universities' representatives), that should be his colleagues' concern and not us parents'.

 

[kalrok]

Wonder why he was overlooked for any of the promotions then for next year, while a woman how was employed just a few months ago as his underling will be his boss next school year. And, yes, I think he is more "involved" in the secondary school.

Anyway, yes I digress, it doesn't effect the kids what he does or does not do but in my opinion it may be part of a bigger picture of staffing "issues"; especially in admin (which in turn effects teaching).

I hope all the new admin positions can work collaboratively (and quickly!) next year for the best for our children.

 

[testuser]

Folks - Can we continue this discussion without naming specific names. It opens a whole new can of worms which I would rather not get into.

Drop us a note on [email protected] if you have concerns...

 

[charlsbu]

I am not an ISF parent but my nephew is an ISF student.

ISF started out marketing themselves as a to-be IB school when they first open. I cannot remember whether they put this on their pamphlets but definitely, they did told parents at talks or open days that they are adopting the IB curriculum. They spent a lot of time explaining how good and beneficial the IB program is.

However, a few months ago, their application for PYP was rejected, AND THEN they started to claim that they do not really care whether they are IB accredited. They have even started "educating" parents that PYP is in fact not that beneficial and ISF does not need to run PYP at all. That sounded like sour grapes to me.

ISF is (still) proud of their "70% Chinese in lower primary to 70% English in secondary" language environment. Things would be so perfect: children (mostly native Cantonese speaking) would use mostly Chinese in primary and then they would gradually and eventually move to English immersion. Isn't that wonderful? Ideally, ISF students should have solid Chinese skills and by the time they leave high school, they should also be very competent in English.

However, even within 2 years, I can say that this model is going to fail for the majority of people. My nephew in P4 constantly need help with his Chinese because it is very hard. His English is also poor because he is not using English as much now. Can you imagine. He was from a LOCAL SCHOOL and now at ISF, his English has gone poorer?

Practically, for most average international school students, they would not need any after school tutor at all. However, my nephew needs a tutor for everything. A school must have its edge to charge that fee. And I cannot see why I want to pay that much for such a curriculum. I would appear to me that it is probably not much better than most Chinese local schools, except the class size is smaller.

Okay, people may say that the problem must be with my nephew. But I have gone through these 2 years with him too and I can say that the curriculum is far from being even close to an IB school. It is also no where even close to any other international schools. From what I see, it is a local school with smaller class size and expensive fees.

The teachers are mostly locals and are not qualified IB teachers. Some probably have never taught with any international school or IB school before, because the way they teach or deal with the students are the same as any old-fashioned local schools. When a student has problem with school work, they do not offer any help outside the classroom. So there is basically no use going to the teachers to seek help during break time.

My nephew is happy, though, at school, because he has a few good friends now. So this may be the luckiest part of everything. However, my sister wanted to transfer him out of ISF but he has failed in all applications with international schools. Even with Yew Chung which is known to have slightly lower expectation with English, They only offered to put him in the IEP program, which is a special English immersion class, because his English was considered poor. For comparison, another friend's daughter with a local school has successfully secured a place from Yew Chung without the need to go for any special english immersion class.

Tricky enough, it appears that ISF has never said that they are an international school. My sister threw away all pamphlets she got 2 years ago but I think they never used the term "international school". And strangely, I saw that their most recent advertisement in newspapers are in fact marketing themselves as "a Chinese school". This is again a shock to me.

IBO has strict language requirements. A school has to have the environment to qualify a language as a "first language". With the swifting Chinese vs English proportion, I think that was one of the reasons why ISF failed in getting accreditation. I am suspecting that they are trying to make it up by choosing between Chinese and English as their first language so that they can get IB accreditation. Obviously, with almost 100% local Chinese students, and 70% of Chinese in primary school, it would be impossible to make English their first language. So does it mean that they have settled to use Chinese as a first language. And thus the advertisement as "a Chinese school"?

In an era when even local schools are switching to more English, I do not see the edge of ISF identifying themselves as "a Chinese school" (and parents paying the premium!), except that this was for a second try for IBO accreditation.

The school is only a few years old and things have already been so unpredicatable. I do not see why they did not seek professional consultation BEFORE setting up the school. Most things they do have never been like any other IB school. They do not have IB qualified teachers. Everything was just not done in accordance to IBO standard. The application last time was in fact a waste of time and money.

 

[leehoma]

What a load of crap. If you want to discredit someone, you have to try harder.

>>> ??a few months ago, their application for PYP was rejected?? ? Rubbish. ISF never ever went for PYP.

>>> ??However, even within 2 years, I can say that this model is going to fail for the majority of people. My nephew in P4 constantly need help with his Chinese because it is very hard. His English is also poor because he is not using English as much now. Can you imagine. He was from a LOCAL SCHOOL and now at ISF, his English has gone poorer??? ? What?s the worth of one single case? I can name at least two girls in grade five who are reading Outliers by Malcolm Galdwell with great interest. And, yes, they are Chinese kids born in HK.

>>> ??Practically, for most average international school students, they would not need any after school tutor at all. However, my nephew needs a tutor for everything.?? - Is that only because of the school?

>>> ??The teachers are mostly locals and are not qualified IB teachers. Some probably have never taught with any international school or IB school before, because the way they teach or deal with the students are the same as any old-fashioned local schools.?? ? This is ridiculous. Of the 95 or 96 teachers, name three who are locally trained and have no experience with teaching in international schools or teaching overseas.

>>> ??However, my sister wanted to transfer him out of ISF but he has failed in all applications with international schools. Even with Yew Chung which is known to have slightly lower expectation with English, They only offered to put him in the IEP program, which is a special English immersion class, because his English was considered poor. For comparison, another friend's daughter with a local school has successfully secured a place from Yew Chung without the need to go for any special english immersion class.?? ? A mismatch is a mismatch. If your sister wants to take her son out of ISF, please do. By the way, have you and your sister ever wondered why some ISF students managed to get offers from Sevenoaks, Choate Rosemary Hall, and locally from CIS and GSIS, but your nephew is required to join some IEP programme?

>>> ??Tricky enough, it appears that ISF has never said that they are an international school. My sister threw away all pamphlets she got 2 years ago but I think they never used the term "international school". And strangely, I saw that their most recent advertisement in newspapers are in fact marketing themselves as "a Chinese school". This is again a shock to me.?? ? ISF NEVER claims to be an international school. Sorry that you and your sister thought that ISF is yet another international school. (And, sorry to say that the misconception on your and your sister?s part does not reflect very well on you two).

>>> ???IBO has strict language requirements. A school has to have the environment to qualify a language as a "first language". With the swifting Chinese vs English proportion, I think that was one of the reasons why ISF failed in getting accreditation. I am suspecting that they are trying to make it up by choosing between Chinese and English as their first language so that they can get IB accreditation. Obviously, with almost 100% local Chinese students, and 70% of Chinese in primary school, it would be impossible to make English their first language. So does it mean that they have settled to use Chinese as a first language. And thus the advertisement as "a Chinese school"?? ? ? Do your homework. The reason for the prolonged discussions with IBO is that IBO for some reasons maintain that the ISF?s English/Putonghua immersion programme, which excludes the use of Cantonese, infringes MYP?s mother-tongue policy. There will be another round of discussions with IBO soon.

>>> ??In an era when even local schools are switching to more English, I do not see the edge of ISF identifying themselves as "a Chinese school" (and parents paying the premium!)?? ? Looking at the worldwide picture, more schools are switching to Chinese.

I agree that people should think twice before sending their kids to ISF. I have been an ISF parent for some years. My observation is ? ISF is not for those who are too ?local? (sorry, cannot think of some better words but the fact is that many of the unhappy parents actually prefer local schools? way of teaching but wish that a switch to ISF or an international school will do instant magic to their kids).

 

[WICKED]

My son has just got admitted to ISF foundation programme 09/10 so it is quite worrying to hear such mixed reviews about the school.

I've attended their past briefings and school tour and I had paid my most attention, not to the presentation, but the students themselves. For the success of a school is best reflected on the students. In general I find the ISF kids very outspoken, confident and lively. I talked to some G3 and G4 students and quite a few of them were transferred from local elite schools one or two years earlier and they told me they were much happier here, though one of them still had some problems conversing in Mandarin.

A quick question, if mother tongue learning is so important under IB, why would Victoria get accredited since they are also using Mandarin and English as teaching medium to a high majority of local Hong Kong students?

Regarding whether ISF considered themselves an international school or not, a staff told me clearly that they are NOT an internationl schoolunder the definition of Education Bureau but a local school. This has nothing to do with their teaching approach but their student mix. As a local school in registration, they need to admit a high percentage of local students (maybe up to 60 - 75%). I guess an international school won't have this requirement.

 

[emom]

There are mixed reviews since ISF is unique in many respects. It is not an international school by design and yet it has attracted students of many different nationalities. The curriculum is not local although Chinese is used predominately in the primary section. Parents need to do their own due diligence by visiting the school and talking to the students in order to know what to expect.

One important point, the language programme of the school is by design predominately Chinese in the primary section and then reverse in the secondary section. It is rather unrealistic and unfair to expect an average kid in the primary section to have the same level of exposure of English as students in an international school. However, this is expected to be caught up later in the secondary section.

I believe Victoria (and perhaps some other schools too) got the IB accreditation since they do not "prohibit" cantonese in the playground, as does ISF.

 

[leehoma]

VSA does not exclude Cantonese as a medium of instruction.