Much complaining has come from unhappy expats with little information. In the interest of the transparency they so insistently demand, I am going to share as much as possible.
July 4th, in response to the brouhaha over the selection of International Christian School to operate the Yongsan International School of Seoul, American Chamber of Commerce in Korea Chairman Wayne Chumley (DaimlerChrysler Korea CEO), issued the following letter to AmCham members:
Much has been written and said about the new school in Yongsan and since AMCHAM has been prominently mentioned in relation, I feel the need to clarify a few points.
First and most importantly, the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea is deeply appreciative of this unprecedented level of support shown by the Korean government (MOCIE [Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Energy] & Seoul Metropolitan Government) for this very important initiative designed to improve the quality of life and the educational options for expatriate families in Seoul.
MOCIE donated $10 million and Seoul Metropolitan Government donated the use of priceless land in Hannam-dong in an effort to improve the foreign investment climate in Korea. This is enormously important because over the last several years, Korea has lost potential investments due to a lack of foreign school space in the schools of choice.
The Korean Foreign Schools Foundation (KFSF) was established to oversee this important project and AMCHAM along with another foreign chamber of commerce were actively involved in the process. AMCHAM designated one of our governors who had experience in creating an international school in Busan as our representative to this Foundation and our leadership has had frequent updates on the progress of the project.
Initially, the British School was selected as the preferred operator but it is my understanding that due to a variety of factors, they were never able to sign an operating agreement with the Foundation. I would also like to point out that AMCHAM was fully supportive of the British School until we felt they were no longer a viable candidate for the project.
It is important for us to remember that this is a Korean government project funded with Korean tax dollars on land donated by Seoul City so I believe it is realistic to expect that the Korean government, via the Foundation, would expect a reasonable amount of management and financial oversight. It isn’t helpful to get into who said what recriminations but at a certain point, the Foundation, of which AMCHAM is a member, decided it would be impossible to reach an agreement with the British School and a request for proposal was issued.
At that time, there were two foreign chambers of commerce actively involved in creating the selection criteria and both were represented on the selection committee. All participants of the selection committee signed confidentiality agreements so I don’t know which school AMCHAM’s representative voted for, but I can assure you he was given clear instructions to ensure the selection process was fair and transparent and then to vote with his conscience for the school he thought would best serve the needs of AMCHAM members. He was also instructed not to be afraid to non-select any of the schools and to urge to delay a year and hire a consultant to build a completely new school if he felt that was in the best interests of AMCHAM members.
I find it very puzzling that the other chamber has, after participating in designing the selection criteria and participating on the selection committee has now resigned in protest. As the chairman of AMCHAM, I can tell you that our representative to the Foundation has my complete confidence and trust. He has volunteered thousands of hours representing our organization in these important meetings and I believe he has represented us well.
Some in our community may complain that the school selected is not a quality school and to them, I would urge them to actually talk to parents with children in the school and their faculty before making judgments. Their Parent Teacher Organization President, Diana Parker (Chevron family) had this to say: “My husband’s job has taken our family to Newfoundland, Canada, Italy and now Korea. I have been actively involved in the international schools in each of these countries and by comparison, the academic program at ICS Seoul is clearly at the top.”
ICS currently has the second-highest number of non-ethnic Korean students and 100% of their graduating students are accepted into universities. I have actually looked at the list of schools and I was impressed to see it includes many of America’s top universities including several from Europe as well. Currently students from 44 countries and 16 embassies are represented in their student body with a growing waiting list.
Another complaint I have heard is that as a Christian-based school, they will force our children to follow their beliefs. I can assure everyone that AMCHAM has expressed this concern in great detail with the Foundation and the school and every possible measure to ensure this does not occur will be taken.
I was pleased to discover that last year their Speech and Debate champions were not Christians and that one of the winners for a school-sponsored talent show was a professed atheist. I find it comforting to note that currently there are children of many faiths represented including atheists. This seems to me to be a school that welcomes all children and is more concerned with providing the highest quality education in a warm, supportive environment.
When we asked whether other faiths were represented on their parent-teacher association, we were told they didn’t know because they don’t ask that question but upon further investigation discovered they have Protestant Christians, Catholics and non-Christians on their parent-teacher association.
We were also especially pleased at their position regarding children with special needs. Two years ago, they hired their first certified special needs teacher and we have been assured they will expand as needed to accommodate a greater number of students with mild to moderate learning disabilities in order to provide individualized assistance for those students who need extra help.
To summarize, AMCHAM is very grateful to the Korean government for their incredible support to provide this world-class facility and now we believe the school selected is on their way to becoming a high quality international school. To all those people who have additional concerns, I invite you to join us to work together to ensure this school is the best it can be and will become the “benchmark for Asia” that we all have envisioned it could be.
UPDATE July 7, 2006 14:15 - I apologize for the crappy formatting of the AmCham letter. I’ve tried everything to force breaks and white space between paragraphs, but the CSS stylesheet for the Marmot’s Hole doesn’t seem to recognize a paragraph style within the HTML blockquote tag. As for the crappy writing evident in the letter itself, I concede it’s shameful that AmCham Chairman Wayne Chumley or his ghostwriter writes so very poorly (it was actually worse before some subtle changes, but I gave up on that because too much editing would have been evident to anyone in possession of the original letter), and that the quality of the writing reflects badly on the American education system which is under attack here. Ironies abound!
68 Comments
Wayne (or whoever wrote this for him - probably the Linda Hunt character) makes a lot of valid points, while studiously ignoring the pertinent issues. I thought he was smarter than to be maneuvered into being such an open quisling.
Who taught this guy to write? Compare the two versions.
The American Chamber of Commerce in Korea is appreciative of the unprecedented support shown by the Korean government (MOCIE [Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Energy] & Seoul Metropolitan Government) for this important initiative to improve the quality of life and the educational options for expatriate families in Korea.
MOCIE donated $10 million and Seoul Metropolitan Government donated the use of high price real-estate in Hannam-dong to improve the foreign investment climate in Korea. This is important because Korea has lost some potential investments in the past due to a lack of foreign school space in the schools of choice.
The Korean Foreign Schools Foundation (KFSF) was established to oversee this important project and AMCHAM along with another foreign chamber of commerce were actively involved in the process. AMCHAM designated a governor who had experience in creating an international school in Busan as a representative to this Foundation with AMCHAM receiving frequent updates on the progress of the project.
The British School was selected as the first preferred operator but due to a variety of factors (WHAT) they were never able to sign an operating agreement with the Foundation. AMCHAM was fully supportive of the British School they were no longer a viable candidate for the project.(WHY)
It is important for to remember that this is a Korean government project funded with Korean tax dollars on land donated by Seoul City so it is realistic to expect that the Korean government (via the Foundation) would expect a reasonable amount of management and financial oversight. It is not helpful to get into who said what recriminations but at a certain point the Foundation (which AMCHAM is a member) decided it would be impossible to reach an agreement with the British School and a request for proposal was issued.
At that time there were two foreign chambers of commerce actively involved in creating the selection criteria and both represented the selection committee. All participants of the selection committee signed confidentiality agreements and given clear instructions to ensure the selection process was to vote for the school thought best to serve the needs of AMCHAM members. Also instructed was not to be afraid of selecting any particular school and to urge to delay a year and hire a consultant to build a completely new school if he felt that was in the best interests of AMCHAM members.
It is puzzling that the other chamber has after participating in designing the selection criteria and participating on the selection committee has resigned in protest. The chairman of AMCHAM assures the public that the representative to the Foundation has complete confidence and trust. This has been proven in the volunteering of thousands of hours representing AMCHAM in these important meetings that represented the organziation.
Some in our community may complain that the school selected is not a quality school and to them, I would urge them to actually talk to parents with children in the school and their faculty before making judgments. Their Parent Teacher Organization President, Diana Parker (Chevron family) had this to say: “My husband’s job has taken our family to Newfoundland, Canada, Italy and now Korea. I have been actively involved in the international schools in each of these countries and by comparison, the academic program at ICS Seoul is clearly at the top.”
ICS currently has the second-highest number of non-ethnic Korean students and 100% of their graduating students are accepted into universities. I have actually looked at the list of schools and I was impressed to see it includes many of America’s top universities including several from Europe as well. Currently students from 44 countries and 16 embassies are represented in their student body with a growing waiting list.
Another complaint I have heard is that as a Christian-based school, they will force our children to follow their beliefs. I can assure everyone that AMCHAM has expressed this concern in great detail with the Foundation and the school and every possible measure to ensure this does not occur will be taken.
I was pleased to discover that last year their Speech and Debate champions were not Christians and that one of the winners for a school-sponsored talent show was a professed atheist. I find it comforting to note that currently there are children of many faiths represented including atheists. This seems to me to be a school that welcomes all children and is more concerned with providing the highest quality education in a warm, supportive environment.
When we asked whether other faiths were represented on their parent-teacher association, we were told they didn’t know because they don’t ask that question but upon further investigation discovered they have Protestant Christians, Catholics and non-Christians on their parent-teacher association.
We were also especially pleased at their position regarding children with special needs. Two years ago, they hired their first certified special needs teacher and we have been assured they will expand as needed to accommodate a greater number of students with mild to moderate learning disabilities in order to provide individualized assistance for those students who need extra help.
To summarize, AMCHAM is very grateful to the Korean government for their incredible support to provide this world-class facility and now we believe the school selected is on their way to becoming a high quality international school. To all those people who have additional concerns, I invite you to join us to work together to ensure this school is the best it can be and will become the “benchmark for Asia” that we all have envisioned it could be.
Why don’t you stop pretending to be unbiased and admit that you find discrimination against non-Christians acceptable?
just WHY the British School was de-selected by the Koreans remains the question yawning like Grand Canyon here. What’s the scutlebutt on this…?
I mean, seriously, there is a lot of Christian mealy-mouthed double-speak in their public statements, they are unclear about their religious policy and the fundamentalists are already chuckling about how they pulled one over on the rest of us. You are disingenuous and you should really stop this acting as if you don’t care. You support this move for personal reasons and should stop using this as a soapbox for the AMCHAM.
Discrimination against non-Christians? - LOL.
“just WHY the British School was de-selected by the Koreans remains the question yawning like Grand Canyon here. What’s the scutlebutt on this…?”
The Limes went into the final negotiations way too arrogantly. Major strategic error. I’d have advised them differently, but they didn’t ask. Of course, post-Christian Europe thinks the devil is behind this decision. All of you Euros afraid of religion had better run now!
Seriously, this whole thing will make a good business school case someday, though, about how not to do business in a foreign country.
Fortunately:
• there’s a French school in Seoul;
• I don’t live permanently in Seoul any longer;
• I don’t have kids;
The good thing – I think – about the French schooling system is that religious schools are allowed to provide an alternative to parents who are – for various reasons – reluctant to send their kids to public schools, while having to teach the same things. They *are* free to teach other things, but the kids will take the same exam as the commoners at the end of high-school – le bac. A school that neglects to teach some parts of history or litterature or else could see a non-negligeable percentage of their pupils fail the exam because they didn’t screwed up in some subjects – which, as a for-profit institution, would be a bad commercial move…
Well, I guess the reason I don’t make that admission is because I don’t find discrimination against non-Christians acceptable. None of you knows my own religious background. Frankly I’m not so sure I know myself. It’s none of your business anyway.
What I detest about the current argumentation against ICS is that it’s solely based on fear and ignorance. (The sense of entitlement is pretty galling as well.) The only thing that any of you naysayers know about ICS is that it has the word “Christian” in its name and in its mission. Apparently, in your own “non-discrimination” policy it’s okay to make ignorant assumptions about the attitudes of Christians. My own experience with the school is far different from the Spanish Inquisition.
I’ve said it before in oblique terms, but here it is again: If snake-handlers manage to brainwash your children, then you are a crappy parent. The most influential person in the child’s life is none other than you. Encourage inquiry. Nurture the child’s free will. Give her all the perspectives available, then watch her make her own choices.
There is no discrimination at ICS. The school is respectful of all its students and families. I think it comes from Jesus’ restatement of the Ten Commandments into two instructions: Love God and Love Thy Neighbor.
My parents put me through five years of Catholic school, and now I’m an agnostic who practices Buddhist meditation. I agree, Brendon, that children will grow up, explore the world, and make their own choices.
Well, it’s not. Although intemperate remarks have been made, the basic complaint is that the new school really doesn’t solve the problem of limited educational offerings for foreigners. There are already several schools that offer religiously-colored educational programs and/or environments that are effectively Korean. The new school is more of the same; it understandably doesn’t matter to those who prefer a secular education that their children will be excused from catechism or Bible class if the overall tenor of the school is religious — in fact that’s the principal objection that many people have to the school that is otherwise the school of choice, SFS. Nor is there some kind of unjustified sense of entitlement run rampant here. The Korean government undertook, very much for its own purposes, to provide both more and more varied educational opporuntities for foreigners and heavily publicized and promoted it in ways that generated expectations and also induced people to change their personal circumstances in reliance thereon. Then it effectively reneged by creating another religiously-oriented school that will be predominantly favored by and geared to satisfying its Korean customers and that is, moreover, subject to direct govt interference in policy, personnel and financial matters.
Spewer wrote:
So then, if I understand the most important aspect of this whole affair correctly, the issue is of the Korean Government’s failure to honor its stated intentions and the potential for the government’s interference in said organization?
Is such a facility subject to Ministry of Education control or is this effectively run by a consortium of individuals or businesses?
It seems, after reading commentary from various people, that the issue of religion is of minor importance but rather *who* will determine the standards upon which the curriculum will be based and how the facility will be operated is the more important issue.
Yongsan International School will choose its own curriculum. It’s an independent foreign school not subject to Ministry of Education control. To my understanding from discussions with ICS, the Foundation essentially requested two rights: (i) information and an oversight right in respect of the budget, to monitor that the school is being managed competently and that money is not being siphoned off into secret accounts somewhere (mistrust goes two ways; why are the foreign schools — especially the ones whose land and buildings are more-or-less paid for — so expensive, why do some of them direct payments into U.S. bank accounts, and why do they refuse to reveal their accounting?); and (ii) the right to approve the operator’s intended replacements of the key leaders, if they change. In principle, when the Foundation goes into a partnership with a school operator, the decision is based in large part on the people involved. When the people change, the Foundation wants to be involved in the succession.
As for the books, one who keeps clean books should have no objection. ICS has no objection to this; it’s puzzling why this is something that was such an issue for the previous bidder. The second right is one which I concede is open to potential abuse by the Foundation, inasmuch as the headmaster and principals set some of the tone for the school. But that is a potential, future issue. And the reason the Chambers of Commerce were invited to the Foundation was so that their voices would be heard on selection of the operator and the oversight by the Foundation. In this respect, the European Union Chamber of Commerce’s decision to quit the Foundation is unfortunate — their walking out in a snit decreases foreign influence on the Foundation.
Brendon. This sort of innuendo, and the crack about clean bookkeeping - which you know or should know isn’t the issue — is really beneath you.
At least in the case of SFS (I can’t speak to the situation at other private schools owned and operated by both foreigners and Koreans inpart for profit):
(i) tuition is high notwithstanding bought and paid for land and buildings, because a significant portion of the tuition is reserved not only for building maintenance but for new and replacement construction, such as the recently completed performing arts and athletic centers and the current reconstruction of the elementary school. My understanding is that these sorts of projects have no other source of financing other than self-funding and that the school pays for it all out of savings, (no borrowing);
(ii) a portion of tuition is paid in dollars because the school has dollar obligations (e.g., for teacher salaries and books and supplies sourced in the States at prices that don’t reflect a Korean middleman’s mark-up.
You are correct that MOE will not have control over curriculum, but the Foundation, which is de facto (and may be de jure, I haven’t checked, but it’s unimportant given the reality of the locus of power within the Foundation) another creature of ROKGOV ultimately does. Various people may for various reasons feel comfortable with that and the other arrangements of the new school. Others, and I think this group includes a very substantial majority of the people whom this institution was supposed to serve, don’t, and there’s no reason they should.
You’re probably right. I was sloppy writing that. It’s not my innuendo, it’s intended to represent the presumed concern of the Foundation. Remember that the majority of the members of the Foundation are Korean, and therefore are accustomed to — indeed, conditioned by their society to expect — funny accounting. Also consider that they think they are the stewards of a W100 billion piece of land (you and I agree that figure is probably overstated, but it’s still valuable land nonetheless), and a government cash contribution of W10 billion. Put those together and a desire to see the books is not so outrageous. Anyway, ICS and the British School had differing attitudes about the right of the Foundation to look at the books, and that was one of the factors leading to the collapse of the British School’s bid and the success of ICS’s.
I find it hard to believe that the issue was one of simply “looking at the books.”
If the school provides a good education, what’s the problem? I don’t expect they will shove Christianity down the throats of kids, so it sounds like a good place to me. I think alot of the complaining stems from an anti-Christian and maybe even an anti-American bias. I would have no problem sending my kids to a good school run along European lines (whatever difference that might be-as long as it wasn’t a pure propoganda front for socialism). The bottom line should be a good education for the kids.
I’m sure that there at least some Korean schools that provide a good education, but it’s a Korean education and (putting aside the bullying she would face), I’m not interested in seeing that my daughter gets a Korean education, no matter how good it is. I think there are quite a few people who feel the same way about Christian education, American education, etc., etc. - none of which necessarily entails anti-Korean, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-X bias. The fact is that education can’t simply be separated out from the national/cultural/religious environment that surrounds and shapes it.
That has now been corrected.
I think this is what worries people about the way in which the new school is shaping up, ex the facilities issue:
http://www.expatexchange.com/r.....workid=159
Thanks for the clarification guys.
I really hope the local government is not envolved with such; that would not be a good omen.
And here are some of the job qualifications require of teachers (whose job is described as a “ministry”)at ICS (from its website [http://icseoul.org/applicant/openings.htm]
The reason the British School is not moving is because they refused to become a high priced hagwon. They would rather be de-selected than allow the Chaebol kids to populate the classrooms. The British school is a mission school but they do not go overboard with it like the American side of SFS and ICS.
Mr. Carr, With respect,where are you getting your information? I happen to know people who are responsible for the decision and sat across the table in the meetings.
All this sounds to me like the typical elitists who are so often the high horse champions of multiculturalism showing they are full of shit….
There are plenty of people (around the world) who have sent their kids to a Christian based school —- schools from what I heard are often much more overt in displaying their beliefs than this school in Seoul seems to be —– who were not fans of the religious orientation but were fans of the quality of education.
If these elites screaming in the streets can show me how this group runs bad schools around the world —- how the students it turns out are idiots and can’t get into Harvard or Cambridge because the schools suck at teaching —— or how the schools churn out wave after wave of brain-dead zombie Christian fanatics –
—-maybe the amount of rhetoric flowing in the press from these elites would make some sense to me.
Until thin —- it looks a hell of a lot to me like a classic example of provincialism —- which tickles me pink….
“If the school provides a good education, what’s the problem? I don’t expect they will shove Christianity down the throats of kids, so it sounds like a good place to me.”
Well —- you see —– if the education talks about instilling ethics and and sense of community and the well-being of others and being a responsible member of the global community —–
—-that’s fine —–
but don’t mention Christianity.
You might get away with talking about social systems and ethics in the great multi-cultural world by talking about good ethics thought in India or Tibet and so on —-
—–but don’t get me started about those American fundamentalists!!!!
(I love elitism)
Ho Hum…
But back to the main question - why did the British School get dumped? The lack of a clear answer to this points to the core of the problem. Had the preferred bidder been dumped for a clear reason that grew out of a negotiating clash, all would be OK.
Wedge says the “Limes” were way too arrogant. That is actually the insider view on the Foundation. Translation: they reminded the chairman that an operating agreement would need to be signed if the sachool were to open in August. How arrogant. Then the British ambassador wrote a letter above the chairman’s heaad to govt ministers saying the same. That did it. One minister reportedly was angered and that was enough for Amcham, whose leaders get damp around senior Korean officials.
Interestingly, the whole problem began when the Foundation lawyer, a certain J Jones, sat for months on the operating agreement. His cunning plan was to find a way to shoe ECLC in because he sits on the board (btw, Lee Kun-hee’s grandkids go there illegally). He pitched the new chairman on the idea, was told to get lost, but the seed was sown.
Those backing Amcham, the Foundation and ICS fall into the trap of blaming the victim. They should be ashamed.
Why am I not surprised, and inclined to credit this report despite the absence of any supporting evidence?
As the chatelaine of AMCHAM tried patiently to explain to me once exactly why it was that the organization was blatantly violating the terms of one of its own charters in a certain instance, “it’s all about access”. Access by whom to what orifice, I asked?
It was payback time at AMCHAM. You are correct; they look to access the market, at whatever the cost, Ethics be damned.
Anyone still following this issue might check the following Letter to the Editor from a happy ICS family.
Tit for tat, Brendon:
http://times.hankooki.com/lpag.....754070.htm.
No one really doubts that there are people who are happy with ICS; that just ins’t the point. One size doesn’t fit all, and if Korea wants to play in the big leagues, it should stop acting like it does.
Yes, it comes as little surprise that the president of ICS’ parent teacher organization is overall supportive of the school. Sadly, however, she offered nothing with regard to the substantive issue of how the British School was suddenly dropped.
The line originally given was that talks between the Foundation and the British School’s representatives broke down because the Foundation’s new chairman found them to be too arrogant. Was it really a smug sense of superiority that brought the deal to a sudden end? In other words, if only they had been nicer when speaking to the new chairman, are we to believe that the British School wouldn’t have been dropped?
It should be pointed out that the decision to drop the British School led to a letter-writing campaign in which 44 ambassadors publicly voiced their complaint. Those who work regularly in group negotiations know that a public gesture of this type was almost surely preceded by such sentiments being shared privately. One might ask if the collective opinions of 44 ambassadors represent ignorance, or a differently formed point of view.
One reason that the letter from Dean & Diane Parker explaining how ICS was their “school of choice” despite the fact that the oil company dispatching Dean Parker to Korea was paying for all his expenses (unlike my cheapskate employer) didn’t explain how the British School got dropped is that neither ICS nor the Parkers had anything to do with that decision. ICS parents are not really in a position to know how (or if) the British School wore out its welcome, leaving the door open for ICS to get evaluated. But I am, because I’ve been following this really closely for years.
Originally, when the Foundation stood up in the first instance, Seoul Foreign School was designated — “unilaterally”, as the crowd of nay-sayers likes to say — by the Foundation as the intended operator of the Yongsan International School. There wasn’t much discussion about it either. It was simply presumed that since SFS was the “best” foreign school in Korea, of course SFS should be tapped to operate the new school too. This was the source of much grumbling out of me at the time (think 2003 or 2004 AmCham picnic) and I chewed the ear off the hapless beauty queen hired by SFS to coordinate that project. Ambassador Chris Hill mused that having SFS get state funding to expand its dominion wasn’t exactly an “alternative”, and so SFS got dumped in favor of the British School (how that was viewed an “alternative” puzzled me at the time). There wasn’t much public debate over that one either. Secular curriculum was a by-product of the “not-SFS” characteristic of the choice, not the objective. When SFS was wired into the front-runner’s spot, secular/not-secular wasn’t a consideration. “Best” was.
The week-long tender process which has of late been denounced as “corrupt” is exactly the same process used to select the British School as preferred negotiator, except that ICS and some other “disfavored” schools were not even invited to submit bids. This is what prompted the desperate package circulated by Indianhead School of Uijongbu last spring — the unfairness of all other operators not being allowed to extol their own virtues and be judged head-to-head.
“Preferred bidder” means the party who is allowed to negotiate over the terms of an agreement. It does not mean that the British School was awarded operating rights. The British School had two years to close the deal but didn’t. They ran out the clock. My sources say that the British School approached the Foundation from the position that the British School was doing them some kind of favor to take the Yongsan International School off their hands. To the extent that the Foundation’s designated lawyer-consigliere screwed the Foundation over through his own machinations in favor of a prospective bidder (which sounds like a bar complaint if true) and contributed to the collapse of the British School’s bid (if at all), then he should wear the opprobrium, not ICS. ICS merely walked in the door.
If they had had a fair shake from the outset, ICS probably should have been the first preferred bidder instead of SFS. And if people considered it rationally, ICS should have been selected ahead of the British School two years ago. But they weren’t invited to bid.
On a head-to-head comparison, ICS beats the British School on all salient characteristics other than “secular curriculum” — and ICS has pledged to bring in its network’s secular curriculum. For example, the British School does not operate a high school; ICS does, which means ICS brings over a core faculty for all students, while the British School would need to hire all-new faculty for the higher forms. The British School has been an administrative parasite of SFS, and has no experience independently managing its operational budget; ICS’s headmaster is responsible for all aspects of management and the school has managed its budget for 16 years (ICS also can tap into its network of 19 schools around the world for knowhow). Together with SFS, the British School has heretofore refused to consider serving any “special needs” of children (because as the “school of choice” they feel entitled to be quite choosy), whereas ICS’s “mission” encourages them to try to serve all children including children with special needs. The test scores at ICS are equal to those at the SFS high school. And somehow ICS makes it happen at a cost 40% less. Should this all be disregarded?
As for Early Childhood Learning Center (ECLC), the wonderful Montessori pre-school which my older daughter attended (and which recommended we consider ICS), that school has no organic experience with anything other than a day-care cum kindergarten. Its so-called “joint bid” with some unspecified Belgian(!) school consisted of the Belgians promising to photocopy their operating manual for ECLC to use, and probably to answer their phone calls for help. ECLC has no experience with first through twelfth grades, and although its headmaster ably administers the school, ECLC is a much smaller enterprise than ICS. As much as I believe there is a place and a need for ECLC to expand its curriculum and offer a full K-6 Montessori school program in Seoul (how great that would be for hippies!), in June 2006 ECLC was not the right choice for the Yongsan International School.
We really need to hear the merits of each of the bids…I think some were stronger than you make out here…but you don’t know that….for instance the ECLC bid was a joint bid with one of the worlds best international schools coming from the most competitive market in the world for international education…and who have experience of setting up schools in Asia. This is a well known practice in international education. A genuine attempt to bring in a radically better choice. Then what about KIS, they have all the experience of just having set up a new school. I think you are being optimistic that the costs will stay as they are at ICS…better start negotiating long term contracts at fixed prices now….
Next time you’re here let me buy you lunch. You have the same tenacity as me!
Thanks for the offer…I just hope you know what you are supporting…I saw recent comments on costs from another string…when the faculty changes to a non-missionary one, which it will have to do to live up to a secular promise, and to ensure that it is offering best-in-class teaching, then the costs will definitely change. The math is simple, take the cost of a teacher’s salary and benefits, add accommodation, divide by 20 (for the number of kids in a class) then add another 25% for non-teaching costs and 1000th of the capital costs (assuming that school is paying its share here and is not all subsidized by the tax payer) and you have a base case. In fact, the staff:student ratio ought to be less than 1:20 in a good school….probably more like 1:10, especially in the higher grades…. Net result, stand by either for a renege on the secular promise or a hike in fees…unless it is hidden by the taxpayer…in which case the Koreans ought to kick up a stink!
I know what I am supporting. I’m not so sure you know what you’re opposing. Next visit to Seoul come over and see.
The ICS faculty already is excellent, so I don’t know that a change to non-missionary staff is necessarily required to offer “best-in-class” teaching. To my way of thinking, best-in-class can be evaluated by two things: (i) the academic results, which at ICS measure up to any other school in Seoul and also to any of the private or well-regarded public schools in St. Louis (where I’m from and whose schools’ respective qualities I know); and (ii) the character of the kids after coming through the institution. In this latter regard the kids from ICS — especially the teenagers — knock my socks off every time I encounter them. The “secret ingredient”, it seems, is the love which fills the air in that place. It positively reeks of love over there. Additionally, there is nothing barring a missionary from teaching from a non-missionary playbook; belief in God doesn’t mean the teacher cannot teach a “secular” curriculum. ICS’s current teacher:student ratio is something on the order of 10:1 anyway so I don’t think there’s going to be a huge increase in per-student staff overhead. That doesn’t mean it’s not going to cost more — there is a swimming pool, a soccer field, and HVAC cost to reckon with.
In case anyone out there is still interested in this saga I would like to point out an “interesting” change in the `priority for admissions’ policy of ICS after it became YISS (just noticed it while checking out their website). Previously their policy was basically the same as at all the other intenational schools in Seoul in that kids of foreigners had priority over kids of (semi-)locals. That is no longer the case. Priority is now only given to an exclusive subgroup of foreigners; all other foreigners have same priority as Koreans who meet the minimal govt. requirements (e.g. Green card). Here’s what the school website says:
“Priority for Admissions…(1) families who are foreign residents in Korea and employed by companies with foreign direct investment in Korea; (2) foreign embassy staff assigned to Korea; and (3) all other students based on qualitative criteria to help determine the match between the student’s abilities and needs and Yongsan International School’s resources and capabilities.”
So, if you are foreigner recruited by a Korean company or university your kids will have the same priority as those of local Koreans who (e.g.) arranged to have them born in the U.S. The fact that your kid has no alternative to English education at an international school, while the Korean kids can and have been educated in the local school system, and could continue to be so were it not for their parents obsession with getting them into an international school as a step towards getting into an elite U.S. university, makes no difference - the priority level is the same.
It is going to be really interesting to hear Brendon Carr’s explanation for this one… Here are a few questions for you, Brendon:
(1) Why did ICS change their ‘admissions priority’ policy after becoming YISS?
(2) Did the KFSF have anything to to with bringing about this change? Did they insist on it as a condition for ICS to get the contract, in order to ensure that the kids of the local elites would have easy access without having to go on waitlists while those damn foreigner kids just walked straight in?
(3) If the KFSF did have something to do with it, how do you reconcile this with your claims on the limitations of their role in #13 above?
Are there other aspects of the school that KFSF is controlling that we have yet to hear about?
(3) Do you think a reason behind the breakdown in negotiations with the British School might have been that the KFSF perceived them as being less flexible about changing their admission priority policy than ICS?
(4) As a YISS parent, how do you personally feel about the school’s new admissions priority policy. Do you see it as a good development?
(5) Would it be fair to say that the new YISS policy makes a mockery of the assurances you have given on this blog that the school would give priority to foreigners over locals so as not to go down the hagwon path?
The Korean government is of course free to do whatever it likes with its money, and if that includes building a new school for English education of the local elites, with some kids of the most well-to-do foreigners lured in to provide the Korean kids with extra English practice, then that’s their business. (Korean tax payers might have an issue with it, but as someone who pays almost no taxes here I’m in no position to complain.) The objectionable thing though is that the whole foreign school project was originally presented as something very different from what it turned out to be. People made life-altering decisions based (at least in part) on promises that now appear to have been ******** and **********. (Please note that the blanked out words were NOT supposed to be `dishonest’ and `misleading’ - I’ve no desire at all to risk making acquaintance with the Korean legal system by besmirching the reputations of the wise and noble members of the KFSF.)
At any rate, it looks like my kid is going to have the dubious honor of being one of the first test cases of the new YISS policy; their admissions process for the coming academic year is currently underway. She’s been on the waitlist for almost a year now, but there are no doubt local kids who have been on for much longer than that so we’re not holding our breath. If the outcome is as expected at least I get to take out my frustrations with some more YISS/KFSF/Brendon bashing on this blog.
Actually, it’s not true that “your kid has no alternative to English education at an international school”, as you assert. There are quite a few foreign residents of Korea whose children attend the local Korean schools. Also, there are in fact a number of international schools which always have places open. The crux of this matter is you believe your child should automatically be able to attend this particular school — oversubscription and waiting lists be damned — because you’re a “real foreigner”. And you claim that the yet-to-be-completed foreign school, and your expectation of your daughter’s attendance at this school, was the key factor in your decision to take up a research fellowship at a crappy Korean university (”best in Korea” can still mean crappy). Pardon me, sir, but that’s nonsense. You’re either deluded or you’re lying for dramatic effect.
You won’t believe this, but the nationality-based admissions priority at foreign schools is dictated by the laws of the Republic of Korea, not the statement of policy written by the school. However the school chooses to explain matters for your (and my) understanding, the key determinant of admissions categories is the law. Neither the school nor the all-powerful Foundation may re-write the law. Additionally, as a matter of law, ethnic Koreans holding foreign passports are in fact foreign citizens. Ethnic-Korean Grace Lee born in Riverside, California and raised in Seoul has the same American citizenship as Grace Lee born in Riverside and raised in Riverside. Like it or lump it, it’s the same.
An observation: For someone who pays no taxes, you’ve got a hell of a lot of demands on how the tax money must be spent to your preference.
Brendon’s statement about the admissions policies being dictated by Korean law is correct. SFS has been able to fly a bit under the radar, due to their long standing in Korea, by giving a higher priority classification to applicants whose head-of-household also has a foreign passport. However, this is not without cost - hence SFS Middle School curriculum censor of the book “Far From the Bamboo Grove” at the insistence of the Korean Minister of Education.
But the first paragrah Brendan wrote blew my socks off. I know of no expats who put their kids in Korean schools! Korean don’t want to put their kids in Korean schools and go to great expense to avoid it. And after our experience at the international schools “which always have openings” I advise any temporary-stay expat who is on a waiting list to SFS or YISS to remain there.
It shocks me as well, but I keep meeting these people. Usually they are mixed couples who don’t necessarily want to obliterate their child’s “Koreanness”. But also there are “real foreigners” who do it — did we miss the story on the Turkish girl in Bogwang-dong?
Would the physicist have any chance of rising to Priority 1 (post #38) by moving 50K US into Korea and declaring himself a foreign investor? He could still live off his salary or research stipend at “the University”, and import a box of Corn Flakes now and then. When done in Korea, cash out and move on…?
Visa status D-8 (Treaty Investor) may be obtained by anyone who brings W50,000,000 (not $50,000) of “foreign investment” to Korea from offshore. There is no need to incorporate a business, although that certainly makes things easier.
It’s too bad you didn’t feel like answering any of my questions, Brendon. They were all addressing the general issue of admissions priority at YISS without reference to my own situation. Instead of adressing them, you chose to go after me, questioning my motivations etc. This seems to be your general tactic in these debates: don’t address the issues raised; instead, attack the credibility of the person raising them. Make up random stuff that you claim the person wrote (”you claim that the yet-to-be-completed foreign school, and your expectation of your daughter’s attendance at this school, was *the* key factor in your decision…”) and then sit back and laugh while he gets sidetracked into defending himself; the general issues he raised being conveniently forgotten in the process.
Well, sorry Brendon but I’m not going to take the bait this time. Much as you would love to move the topic on to my “decision to take up a research fellowship at a crappy Korean university” (what on earth has that got to do with the issue at hand? - see how this guy operates, folks?) I’m going to stick with the original one. It is revealing to contrast what you wrote above with your previous assurances on this blog, for example this:
“UPDATE #5 July 5, 2006 16:00 - The Dong-A Ilbo’s English edition today reports the YISS will accommodate “up to 30%” Korean students. Cynics among the expat community will point to this and say “See? Bend over, here it comes!” and intimate that the secret mission of the YISS is to become a “chaebol kids’ hagwon” or English institute instead of a real school.
What’s important to note is that the 30% threshold is in fact a limit, but not a guarantee of places. Currently ICS enrolls 520 and has a 183-student wait list. Most (all?) of those kids on the wait list are Koreans in the lowest admissions category — Korean passport holders who have lived abroad for five years or more. And of the current 520, 18% are presumably already in that same admissions category. But note that those Korean kids in the lowest admissions category get pushed down in priority and could get bumped whenever a higher-category “real foreigner” applies. There is no certainty that the enrollment of YISS will in fact turn out to be 30% Korean passport holders, and in all likelihood the proportion could turn out to be less than the 18% currently enrolled at ICS based on enrollments of “real foreigners” once the brouhaha dies down”
No mention there of the dictates of Korean law… Do you stand by your previous assurances, Brendon? Can you assure us once again that all “real foreigners” will have priority over Korean passport holders for admission to YISS? In any case, isn’t it just a little strange that your previous assurances are not relected in the YISS admissions priority policy stated on their website?
I understand that KAIST paid Robert Laughlin a salary of $500,000/year.
I think his kids were past school age, though.
David,
I’m not an employee of or spokesman for the school, nor do I have any connection to the Korea Foreign Schools Foundation — although my firm is the legal advisor to KFSF and I’d be glad to be involved if asked. So be clear: I do not speak for this school.
And I’m not laughing at you. If anybody does end up laughing at you, I respectfully submit such might be the result of the paranoia you exhibit in respect of the Yongsan International School of Seoul and the supposed violation of your “right” to enroll your daughter there.
Yes, I stand by the July 5, 2006 description of the probabilities of admission based on the composition of the waitlist at that time. Then, as now, that statement was based on the admissions categories established by law.
As for the YISS not checking all their public statements with me — yes, I do find that strange and I intend to rebuke the school as soon as possible. In fact, David and the rest of you, please make certain to check all your public statements with me and to submit to my commands in your private affairs.
You’ve also complained about my not providing direct responses to your questions. Here they are:
If they did, I don’t know why. But I’m not convinced that the evidence you’ve presented supports any conclusion that admissions categories have changed.
I don’t know.
I don’t know.
No. Admissions categories are fixed by law.
I don’t really care. I expect that we are stuck with whatever the law is.
No, it would not be fair.
A Finnish couple sent their two kids to a Korean school in the late 90s. I guess they’re in the middle school now and perhaps speaking Korean to each other. They knew no English but all the playground Korean before school, so I guess it was quite a natural decision to send the kids to a Korean school.
I’ve seen on 인간극장 an Italian couple that sent their three children to Korean schools.
Brendon,
Regardless of whether or not you represent YISS or the KFSF you have been making some pretty definitive statements on this blog about YISS admissions policy and related things. You wouldn’t be making such statements without knowing for sure that they are correct, right?
I have pointed out that ICS changed the formulation of its admissions priority policy after becoming YISS, and that in the new version there is no stated priority for all foreigners over e.g., Korean passport holders, unlike in the previous version, and unlike in the description of the situation that you gave previously on this blog. This seems ominous to me; you can dismiss it as paranoia if you wish and I sincerely hope you are right. We will find out pretty soon once the outcomes of the current YISS admissions process are known.
Re: “…the supposed violation of your “right” to enroll your daughter there.” You just can’t help yourself. For the record, I don’t think the ICS/YISS or KFSF owes me anything other than clear and honest information on their intentions, policies and what foreigners such as myself can and cannot expect regarding admission of our kids at the school.
Regarding sending foreign kids to local schools, the viability of this depends a lot on their age. Younger kids have time to adapt (although it can still be damn tough - I know this from personal experience). But it seems a crazy option for kids in the latter stages of high school such as my daughter (grade 11).
-David
Poke #40 wrote: “And after our experience at the international schools “which always have openings” I advise any temporary-stay expat who is on a waiting list to SFS or YISS to remain there.”
My daughter is currently attending such a school - Indianhead International School (IIS) - and it has actually worked out quite ok in her case. The school is quite small but the teaching staff generally seem to be dedicated and competent and they have an excellent record of graduates getting into good universities (e.g. one of their students got into Stanford last year).
The students are almost all ethnically Korean, which makes fitting in a bit of a challenge for foreigners. I’ve seen reports of foreign students being bullied at other “Korean” international schools (see, e.g., the link in Sperwer’s comment #20 above) but no sign of this at IIS - there seems to be a nice “family” atmosphere among the student body there. It helps no doubt in my daughter’s case that she is ethnically asian (Taiwanese) and is familiar with asian culture through her family despite having grown up mostly in western countries. But I don’t see why caucasian western kids shouldn’t be able to do ok there as well, provided they approach it with an open, accepting attitude and a fair bit of patience. It would also help a lot for the social side of things if they learn a bit of Korean (the language of the corridors, at least when there are no teachers around). The English proficiency of the students is good enough for classes to run at at a reasonable speed at my daughter’s level (grade 11), although that might not necessarily be the case at in the lower school grades.
So, for expats who can’t get their kids into SFS or YISS I recommend considering IIS - it needn’t be a disaster, and you might be positively surprised. Their bulidings/facilities are new and state of the art, and fees are (relatively) very competitive - all in all it’s pretty good value for money compared to other international schools in Seoul.
The problem in my daughter’s case is that IIS is right in the north of Seoul (Uijeongbu) whereas we live in the south beside SNU, meaning a 100 minute journey to school each day. Also, as a result of having been dragged all around the world she is in the situation of having to make up some credits in order to graduate on time, and IIS is less well able to help with this due to limitations of their small size. For these reasons YISS would be a better option for us, although if she can’t get in there will be happy to continue at IIS.
Time to revisit the Yongsan Foreign School saga and confront some of Brendon Carr’s statements with reality.
To recap, Brendon has been repeatedly assuring us that there is no need to worry about YISS turning into a chaebol kids’ hagwon. He assured us above that admissions priorities at YISS are fixed by Korean law and that there is therefore no need to worry about or take seriously the new YISS admissions policy stated on their website which places all foreigners except for an exclusive subgroup at the same priority level as Korean nationals. He has also assured us in an earlier post that, at the time ICS was selected to operate YISS,
“Most (all?) of those kids on the wait list are Koreans in the lowest admissions category — Korean passport holders who have lived abroad for five years or more. [...] But note that those Korean kids in the lowest admissions category get pushed down in priority and could get bumped whenever a higher-category “real foreigner” applies”
When asked above (May 2007) if he still stood by this, his respose was:
“Yes, I stand by the July 5, 2006 description of the probabilities of admission based on the composition of the waitlist at that time. Then, as now, that statement was based on the admissions categories established by law.”
Furthermore, in another thread last year Brendon claimed that:
“…if you had applied to the school even as late as April or early May [2006] your daughter would in all likelihood been able to enroll this August [2006]. As you note from my earlier description, because the ICS waiting list as of May 2006 was (is) almost entirely local kids eligible to attend a foreign school, and your daughter — because both you and your wife hold foreign passports — would go to the head or very near the head of the queue.”
Well, an interesting opportunity to test Brendon’s assurances presents itself in summer 2007. At this time my daughter has been on the ICS/YISS waitlist for almost a year, having joined it right after ICS was confirmed as operator for YISS. According to Brendon’s assurances it should be a piece of cake for my daughter to get a place at this point. But no - it turns out that YISS has no open place for her in grade 12 for the 2007/8 academic year… So we have a situation where a foreign kid in the highest priority group according to Korean law (but not according to the YISS’s stated admissions policy) doesn’t manage to get a place at YISS despite having been on their waitlist for a year… Hmmm, what to make of that? Has there been a sudden influx of foreigners looking to enroll their kids at YISS over the past year that I’m not aware of? Otherwise it looks like your credibility is in tatters, Brendon.
But wait, there’s more. You would expect that whatever the waitlist at YISS is like the waitlist at SFS must surely be longer, right? SFS is still the most desirable school for foreigners (and Koreans), is it not? So if a foreign kid can’t get into YISS after a year on their waitlist then surely SFS wouldn’t have any remaining open places in the kid’s grade for 2007/8 when the parent makes an enquiry about it in late June 2007? But yes, in fact they did. I sent them an email enquiring about this after hearing stories of other foreigners whose kids were able to get into SFS immediately without going on the waitlist at all. (That’s not always possible, but apparently sometimes it is.) Before that I had simply assumed that if ICS/YISS didn’t have a place available for a foreign kid in the highest priority group then surely SFS wouldn’t have one either.
How can it be that a foreign kid in the highest priority group can’t get a place at YISS after being waitlisted for a year, but at the same time is able to walk right in to SFS without being waitlisted at all? What does this tell us about the relative admission policies of these two schools? Are they not both governed by the same dictates of Korean law?
The Korean government, KFSF and ICS are of course free to do whatever they like within the law. The objectionable thing about this whole saga is that the Yongsan Foreign School was sold to the foreign community as something quite different from what it now appears to be. Sperwer summed it up nicely in #11 above:
“The Korean government undertook, very much for its own purposes, to provide both more and more varied educational opporuntities for foreigners and heavily publicized and promoted it in ways that generated expectations and also induced people to change their personal circumstances in reliance thereon. Then it effectively reneged by creating another religiously-oriented school that will be predominantly favored by and geared to satisfying its Korean customers and that is, moreover, subject to direct govt interference in policy, personnel and financial matters.”
Let it go, man.
Don’t worry, I’ll be more than happy to let it go after this last installment. The fact that the latest things happened during the summer but I didn’t mention them until now shows my lack of enthusiasm for dragging this up again. But this saga is a big deal for some of the foreign community so I felt an obligation to mention my experience. It contradicts some of the things that have been said and which would be likely to mislead others looking for info on foreign schools who end up on this blog just like I did. Also, since Brendon Carr is regularly making authoritative pronouncements on all kinds of things here and on his blog, which sound so insightful and impressive that people can’t imagine it could possibly be wrong, it’s maybe a useful service to the readers to point out through this example that the correctness of what he says doesn’t always live up to the confidence and authority with which he says it.
It’s 2:30 in the morning, fella.
Get some shut-eye.
Nah, this is the best time for doing stuff.
You’re a scientist, right? How on earth do you justify a sample size of one to prove or disprove a hypothesis?
The expansion of classes at YISS is taking place in stages, with the elementary grades getting expanded first (this year) — a 50% capacity increase in those grades. The reason they’re taking time is that it’s hard to find and bring over qualified teachers. Next year I’d guess they’ll hire for the middle school, and the high school sometime later.
These are my guesses based on what’s reasonable. I’m not a board member or anything so they could be plotting something devious without my knowledge.
It’s possible that the availability of places in the 11th grade at YISS is driven by the confluence of two factors I’ve noticed from talking to friends: (i) the location in Hannam-dong is more attractive to families living there than is the location in Yonhee-dong, which would require a long bus ride; and (ii) families which can avoid it try not to move their teenagers in the 11th or 12th grades. If those are true, it may be understandable that there may still be temporary capacity problems at YISS.
And there’s no guarantee that the school won’t still be oversubscribed the minute that YISS manages to come up with teachers for the higher grades. It’s a good location and a great faculty and administration (although I have some concerns one of about my daughters’ teachers being inexperienced and a little overwhelmed), so the demand may be expected to be high.
Also, do you imagine that it’s possible other families had also gotten onto the waitlist for the higher grades even before you did? Is it possible that some of the students enrolling at YISS this year may be SFS students moving over to a school closer to their homes? What kind of scientist are you?
I’m glad your daughter is having a good time at Indianhead.
Your previous statements about how YISS admissions will work out created a strong impression that foreign kids in the top priority group will get a place at the school for the new academic year provided they apply in good time (before the enrollment period closes). Now you are confronted with a real-life counter-example, showing that even being on the waitlist for a year does not ensure a place. Your response to this, in effect, is to suggest that maybe this one case is very atypical, that my kid was just very unlucky, and that for almost all other foreigners in the highest priority group the situation would be as you had previously described it. That’s just silly, Brendon. Why don’t you do your research, go ask your contacts at YISS what the real situation is and then come back and tell us, instead of just presenting your own musings here as if they were established facts. And while you’re at it, ask the YISS folks why they chose to write an admissions policy on their website which is at odds with Korean law (as you have described it).
“What kind of scientist are you?”
That’s right, attack the person not the arguments. If you really want to know, I’m a theoretical physicist who regularly publishes in the top journals in his field. I’ll refrain from asking you what kind of lawyer you are.
Perhaps decaffeinated coffee could help. These days many decaf brands taste just like regular coffee.
Anyway, what’s the problem? Your child is going to SFS for the 12th grade, right?
Congratulations on your publication record. We’ll be watching for the time machine.
Brendon, for the “problem” see the comments by Sperwer and Railwaycharm above in this thread. My small contribution has just been to provide an explicit example backing up their general theory. And no, my kid isn’t going to SFS. She decided to stay at IIS since she is happy enough there and can’t bear the thought of changing schools yet again.
As for the time machine, it’s coming along nicely after we recruited this guy. 15 fraudulet papers in Nature and Science over the space of 2 years — gotta be impressed by that! Hwang Woo-suk is a complete amature in comparison. The frauds were all perpetrated at Bell Labs in good ol’ USA; no doubt they could teach SNU a thing or two.
It’s been a while…and it is clear that the additional spaces for international schooling created when YISS was formed have been very few…and possibly the most expensive the world has ever seen.
Itinerant Physicist, I along with many other parents are going through your same situation at YISS. They do not seem to be following the criteria outlined on their web site or found in this post. They admissions selection seems very suspicous. I hope if needed you will band together with other parents to stop this situation from happening to others.
Brendon I would really appreciate your help in this area also. To start maybe if you can point me to where I can find the government regulations if there are any for admissions policies. I know of some situations where students whose families hold no foreign passports are being admitted ahead of foreign passport holders.
I will try to gather some more information and other concerned parents to help uncover this mystery. It seems very peculiar that YISS is unwilling to publish statistics on newly accepted applicants. It would really be a shame to see the institution simply dwindel into a high proced hagwon after all the effort and money spent by the government, the community and the students.
From what I have uncovered so far, I believe the overall purpose of these international schools is to provide English education for the local Koreans using the available foreign student pool. These interational schools are basically high priced hagwons which accept a certain percentage of foreign students to help teach local Koreans.
Juicy. Tell us more.
I know of a family who has a child enetering the 1st grade. From sources at YISS, this year YISS will open a new class for the 1st grade and there are 30 open spots this year.
Okay with 30 open spots in the 1st grade you would think that a family (lets call them the Expat Family) which just came to Korea 1 year ago, and in which the father has a foreign passport and the child has a foreign passport, would certainly be able to get into YISS. That child actually did not get into YISS.
However, there are families where the parents are Korean nationals and do not have foreign passports and the child was born overseas but did not spend any significant time overseas, who got in before the Expat Family’s child.
Many parents who know of this situation are very confused. When everyone did their calculations as to whether their children would get into YISS, they all assumed that the Expat Family’s child would definitely be offered a spot.
When the admissions office was questioned regarding this situation they simply would not give any concrete reason for this occurance and said that they do not disclose any public information about the profiles of their classes. They indicated they wanted to protect the privacy of each family. However, I think that they could and should publish at least general information as to the class composition.
% for both parents as foreign passport holders and child
% for one parent as foreign passport holder and child
% for only child as foreign passport holder
% for no foreign passport holder
% ESL students
etc.
If the school is being run on the up and up there should be no problem d