Hong Kong Plans New Code for Private and International Schools After Financial Concerns

A public compliance list to reassure families

Hong Kong plans to introduce a code of practice for private and international schools and publish a list of institutions that comply, as financial and management concerns put pressure on the government to strengthen oversight. Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu announced the approach, which aims to give families a clearer picture of how schools are run and whether they meet common standards.

As of October 10, 2025, officials had not released a draft. The proposed framework is expected to address governance, financial reporting and school self evaluation. Its precise requirements, implementation timetable and arrangements for the public list have yet to be set out.

Lawmakers following the sector say stronger supervision is overdue. Their concern is that some private operators have faced limited scrutiny while collecting regular tuition payments and, in some cases, receiving public support such as land grants. They want expectations for private and international schools brought closer to the transparency and accountability required of subsidized schools.

Education sector lawmaker Chu Kwok-keung has urged the government to refine its supervision mechanisms after introducing the code. He argues that regular disclosure and a disciplined process for schools to assess their own performance would help raise standards and identify trouble earlier.

For parents, the practical issue is whether a school can keep teaching their children without an unexpected interruption. Recent closures or reductions in operations have brought concerns about lost prepaid fees, disrupted learning and the difficulty of finding another school place during the academic year. A public compliance list would give families a common reference when comparing institutions, alongside the schools' own information.

School closures sharpen the demand for action

Think International School has become a focus of concern following reports that it was preparing to cease operations on July 31. The case brought attention to how quickly authorities can respond when a school's finances deteriorate and what protection families have when an operator closes.

Parents facing a closure must deal with several problems at once. They may need to recover fees already paid, obtain their children's records and find places at schools offering suitable courses. A move during the school year can also interrupt teaching and separate children from familiar teachers and classmates.

Some private institutions have faced management disputes, funding shortfalls or abrupt leadership changes. These problems can affect decisions about spending, staffing and the school's continued operation. The proposed code is intended to make weaknesses easier to identify before they become a crisis for students.

Hong Kong's changing population has added pressure. The population fell earlier in the decade, while emigration and a falling birthrate reduced demand in some neighborhoods. Administrators reported noticeable declines in primary intake, with some schools losing a sizable share of their students in a single summer.

Smaller private schools can be particularly vulnerable when they depend on each year's tuition revenue and have limited reserves or no strong financial backing from a larger sponsor. Fewer students mean less fee income, while the school still needs to pay staff and meet other obligations. The call for earlier monitoring therefore concerns both management decisions and the financial cushion available when enrollment falls.

What schools already have to do

Hong Kong's Education Ordinance and Education Regulations already govern schools across the system, including private and international schools operating outside government subsidy schemes. Before opening, a school must register with the Education Bureau, appoint qualified managers and satisfy health, fire safety and building requirements.

Purpose built campuses are preferred, although premises can be converted for school use if they meet planning and safety rules. Schools must stay within their approved class sizes and enrollment limits and display their registration certificates. These requirements provide the existing legal foundation for supervision.

The proposed code would add clearer expectations about how schools manage their affairs, report their finances and assess their performance. Advocates want monitoring to identify institutions showing early signs of financial stress or weak governance, allowing authorities to engage with managers before teaching is disrupted.

The Education Bureau also oversees private schools offering non formal curricula, including specialized learning centers that do not provide a full day program. These providers operate within a different part of the education market from formal day schools, but they are also subject to oversight.

Parents can consult the Bureau's non formal curriculum information, which includes explanatory guidance and records of contraventions of the Education Ordinance. Those records provide an existing official resource for checking enforcement information while the new code is being developed.

Why the Direct Subsidy Scheme is a model

Schools in the Direct Subsidy Scheme, known as DSS, offer a reference point for the proposed framework. They are privately run, receive government support and can charge fees with government approval. They also have more flexibility over curriculum and admissions than fully subsidized schools.

DSS schools accept accountability requirements in return for that flexibility and support. These include annual audits, a structured cycle of school self evaluation, external school reviews and transparent communication of development plans and key data.

An audit checks financial accounts, helping readers understand how money has been received and spent. School self evaluation asks an institution to examine its own teaching, leadership and support for students. External review adds scrutiny from outside the school. Together, these practices give a broader view than a registration certificate alone.

Lawmakers have suggested adapting those habits for private and international schools. Regular accounts and performance reviews could make fee decisions and the allocation of resources easier for parents to understand. They could also help school managers identify weaknesses and demonstrate that the institution has the resources and organization to withstand difficulties.

The proposed approach would set expectations for managing money, engaging parents and responding to risks. Applying DSS style accountability practices is envisaged as a way to improve oversight while leaving schools' curricula and languages of instruction in place.

What the proposed code could cover

Education stakeholders have identified several possible building blocks for the code. These remain proposals rather than a published set of obligations. Their common aim is to make responsibility, financial health and student protection easier to assess.

Financial transparency would be central. Suggested disclosures include audited annual accounts, management letters and basic indicators of liquidity and reserves. Liquidity means having enough readily available money to pay bills when they fall due. Reserves are funds a school can draw on when income drops or unexpected costs arise.

Governance requirements would address who makes decisions and how those decisions are recorded. Suggested measures cover board composition, term limits and the management of conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest arises when a person making a school decision also has a personal or business interest that could affect that decision.

• Regular financial disclosure, including audited accounts, management letters and information about liquidity and reserves.
• A standard school self evaluation checklist covering teaching and learning, student support, leadership, parent engagement and compliance.
• Rules on board membership, terms of service, conflicts of interest and documented decisions.
• Clear explanations of tuition, debentures and levies, including protections when ownership changes or a school closes.
• Student welfare and safeguarding policies, including staff and contractor vetting, incident reporting and periodic training.
• Routine checks of health, safety and campus capacity, with clear consequences for repeated breaches.
• Contingency plans for continued learning, faster placement elsewhere and refunds after prolonged disruption or closure.

Debentures and capital levies are payments that families may make beyond tuition, often connected to a school's funding or facilities. Parents need written information explaining how these funds are held and the conditions under which they are returned. The proposed emphasis on fee transparency would make those arrangements easier to understand before a family commits money.

A standard checklist could also make school evaluation more consistent. Parents would be able to examine similar categories across institutions, while managers would have a clearer framework for reviewing teaching, welfare, leadership and compliance.

Spotting financial trouble before lessons stop

Persistent late salary payments, missed rent or lease obligations, a sudden increase in student withdrawals and overdue audited accounts are among the possible warning signs discussed for closer monitoring. Each would give authorities a reason to examine whether a school needs support or corrective action.

Authorities could respond in stages, beginning with advisory letters and plans requiring managers to correct problems. Stronger measures could follow if the problems continue. Advocates favor this approach because early engagement is less costly and less disruptive than intervention after a school has reached a crisis.

Families would benefit most from timely information about changes that affect their children's education. Suggested safeguards include advance notification of substantial changes in leadership, ownership, fees or accreditation status. Accreditation is an external assessment of whether a school meets the standards of a particular education organization.

Proposals also include escrow arrangements or insurance for prepaid tuition, transparent refund policies and commitments to continue teaching while a school winds down. Escrow means placing money with a separate holder under agreed conditions, rather than leaving it freely available for the school to spend.

A school facing unavoidable closure could be required to provide transcripts, references and transfer support promptly. Those records help a receiving school understand what a student has studied and where the student should be placed. Timely assistance would reduce pressure on families and help nearby schools absorb displaced learners.

Contingency planning would cover relocation, reorganization and prolonged disruption as well as closure. A written plan would explain how lessons could continue, who would communicate with parents and how transfers or refunds would be handled when ordinary operations cannot continue.

International schools face a shared local baseline

Hong Kong's international schools offer a range of curricula, including the International Baccalaureate and British and American programs. Many hold external accreditation from organizations such as CIS, WASC or IB. A local code is envisaged as concentrating on finance, governance and continuity planning while those educational programs remain in place.

Schools already meeting rigorous accreditation standards may find many proposed practices familiar. The expected change is a common, publicly accessible baseline that allows families to compare financial transparency and safeguards across operators whose courses and external review arrangements differ.

Hong Kong presents itself as an international education hub serving local families and the city's global workforce. Confidence that schools are well managed and able to continue operating matters to that role. Employers and families need dependable school places when considering life and work in the city.

The government wants parents to be able to distinguish an institution meeting defined standards from an operator that may be at risk. A framework centered on transparency and preparedness would seek to protect students while allowing a diverse school market to retain its different educational approaches.

The pandemic period also brought staffing difficulties in Hong Kong and across the region. Travel restrictions, quarantine policies and uncertainty about border rules made recruitment harder and disrupted everyday operations. A clearer regulatory framework could help schools make employment offers with greater confidence and reassure prospective teachers about their financial stability.

Sound governance and sufficient reserves also matter for retaining key staff, maintaining specialist programs and preserving extracurricular activities. These are concrete parts of the education families choose, and they can become harder to sustain when a school's finances or management are unsettled.

National security education applies across the sector

The Education Bureau's guidance in recent years has required national security education across school categories, including private and international schools. The guidance calls for basic national security concepts to be integrated into lessons and daily school life.

The Education Bureau, the government body overseeing schools, states that this responsibility extends to international and private institutions:

All schools, including international and private ones, have a responsibility to help students understand national security.

That existing requirement forms part of the policy setting in which the new code is being proposed. The planned framework's expected focus is on governance, transparency and preparedness, including how managers identify risks and keep families informed.

Private and international schools therefore already operate under common legal and policy obligations while offering different curricula. The new proposal would bring a more visible set of expectations for their management and financial practices, alongside existing registration, safety and education requirements.

What parents can check while the code takes shape

Parents can seek information now about a school's board, audited accounts, reserves and plans for disruption. Written answers are especially useful where a school collects debentures or capital levies, changes ownership or belongs to a larger education group.

For schools within a group, families can ask whether financial obligations rest with the individual campus or the parent organization. They can also ask how the board and senior leadership are appointed, how conflicts of interest are handled and whether annual reports and audited financial statements are shared with the school community.

• Is the school fully registered under the Education Ordinance, and does it display current certificates on campus and online?
• Does it publish audited financial statements and an annual report for its community?
• How are board members and senior leaders appointed, and how are conflicts of interest managed?
• What financial warning signs would managers share with parents?
• How are tuition, levies and debentures protected, and when are refunds available?
• Which accreditations does the school hold, and when are its next external reviews?
• What written support plan applies if the campus relocates, reorganizes or closes?

Officials are expected to consult stakeholders before finalizing the code and then publish an implementation timetable. The compliant school list will be closely watched because it could affect family choices and school reputations.

Schools already operating with extensive disclosure may seek early inclusion. Others may need time to strengthen governance or complete external audits. Parents can follow Education Bureau circulars and use existing official resources, including contravention records for providers offering non formal curricula, as the proposal moves toward implementation.

The central challenge is to turn a public promise of stronger oversight into practical information and earlier action. For a family choosing a school, the useful outcome would be greater clarity about who is responsible, how money is managed and what happens if the institution can no longer operate as planned.

What to Know

• Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu announced plans for a code of practice and a public list of compliant private and international schools.
• As of October 10, 2025, officials had not released a draft or a clear implementation timetable.
• Chu Kwok-keung and other advocates want regular financial disclosure, structured self evaluation and earlier intervention when risks appear.
• Reports that Think International School was preparing to cease operations on July 31 sharpened concerns about fees and continuity of learning.
• All schools already face registration, management, health, safety and capacity requirements under Hong Kong's education laws.
• DSS practices, including annual audits and external reviews, provide a reference for stronger accountability.
• Suggested safeguards include clearer refund arrangements, protection for prepaid tuition and prompt transfer support.
• The code is expected to focus on governance and financial transparency while leaving curricula and languages of instruction in place.
• National security education requirements already apply to private and international schools.
• Parents can ask for audited accounts, details of reserves and written contingency plans while awaiting the new framework.