Insane school argument

Above-some pics of Pui-O beach



School faces stiff fine for noise at recess after neighbours complain

Expatriate children at an international primary school in Pui O on Lantau Island are in no doubt about what the locals think of their school. NO NOISY SCHOOL 30-centimetre-high letters scream on a six-metre banner strapped to a roadside railing. Local villagers who erected the banner have complained to the Environmental Protection Department about the noise made by the 70 pupils, aged seven to 11, during recess at Lantau International School. And it could force the school to shut down. The department has issued it with a noise abatement notice, failure to comply with which could cost the school a HK$200,000 fine plus HK$20,000 for every day the order is disregarded. The school has lodged an appeal, which will be heard on Monday. The EPD found the level of noise from the school to be above the permitted 60 decibels. Staff of the school who also measured the noise said it varied between 62 and 65 decibels, slightly over the limit. Principal Serge Berthier and senior teacher Tom Vujnovac say it will be very difficult to pay the fines if the appeal fails. Plus we have to pay heavy legal fees for representation at the appeal, Vujnovac said. And it is not just the noise that is upsetting villagers in the beach resort town just a few kilometres from Mui Wo, the scene of another row with villagers over a school. Pui O residents say they do not see the need for an expensive school with an expatriate teaching staff and a body of mainly expatriate pupils in their small village, where there is already a free public school. Eddie Tam and his wife, Jenny, who live next to the international school - which occupies three village houses in a residential area - said its facilities were inadequate. This school is charging fees close to that of private schools where children have much better facilities, they said. Fees are HK$5,450 a month, and tuition is in English and follows the Basic English Curriculum. Vujnovac said most Pui O residents welcomed the school, but the Tams did not agree with him. Eddie Tam said that when they objected to planning permission he collected 250 signatures of people who lived in Pui O and did not want the school. Police estimate the population of Pui O to be about 1,000. No data is available on how many of these are expatriates. Berthier said the EPD was discriminating against expatriates. There are locally owned holiday homes in Pui O that are very noisy, often through the night. Yet these are never served with such notices, he said. Vujnovac said Pui O public school staff used hand-held loudhailers and roof-mounted loudspeakers to address the pupils, yet they had never received a noise abatement notice. Tam and his wife lead the objectors, but they said three village heads were backing them. He did not deny that the teaching staff were qualified but said the children have no playground; there is less than a metre of ground they can use for leisure breaks. He added that down the road is a public school with plenty of space and a large playground, and also with fully qualified staff. Expatriates are misguided if they think their children cannot be educated in Cantonese. The EPD said that noise complaints had been received about the school since late 2007. Noise measurements taken of the school at a complainant's premises confirmed that the statutory noise limit was being exceeded.

. South China Morning Post

Some Views;

SteveG

There is more to it than this. The acerbic head of the school reneged on some promises he made to the local community and they have not forgotten this.

If he actually tried to engage people instead of just being nasty he may find he actually makes progress.

Unfortunately you can't teach an old dog new tricks and will continue to be at loggerheads with the local community - including the school children's parents - for the foreseeable future.

Real shame as it is the excellent teaching staff that bear the brunt of this and they deserve better.

6th June 2010, 12:10 AM

ho loy

Agree with SteveG.