反對 繼 續 沿 用現有小一派位機制

workingmom

小 學 小 一 入 學 委 員 會全 體 通 過 明 年 繼 續 沿 用 現 時 的 派 位 機 制。津小主席柳志強坦言非常失望，並批評現行所謂「自行收生制」是瞞騙家長，因為學校無權選擇學生，不是真正自行收生。

現 時 的 派 位 機 制是極不公平的：
宗教歧視 (與該校的辦學團體有相同的宗教信仰 =5 分)
將以權 謀私合法化 (父/母為該小學的註冊校董 =20分)    (父/母為該小學主辦社團的成員5 分)

wooyee

我都覺得唔公平，我絕對唔會因為要讀某些有教會背景，而強迫自己和家人受洗。
    

898998

what is fair in the world.......
what is yr school life in primary ......

there is no fair.....unless you can aaford yr child to oterhs....

hahaa..

HPChingchingma

我反對舊計分法：我建議大仔 20 分，父母/兄姊舊生 5 分

現時很多家長的小學大多不是已搬遷或拆左，或是結婚後搬了很遠，家長舊生(10分)作用不大。薪難道真要孟母/孟父三遷？

現在大多只生1個，試問父母的舊生10 分有幾多人應用？而沒有用10分的，佢地仔女更是無乜機會中簽。此(5分)根本作用也不大。
故此是不是鼓勵父母或仔女接受浸或洗禮至有多5分( 合共 10 分 )才有得玩呢？

本以為今年９月會以有革新在來近小一計分上，但只改在第一個階段自行收生的百分比擴大至 50 % ，又令到一些只有 5 分的小孩父母將希望迫至大搞珠那裡。這樣會是很好玩的遊戲嗎？

wa_wa

[size=medium]強列反對現有既派位制。。。。    

ambrose

I also object the special bonus point for Old boys of parents and the directors of board. But it should keep the points for elder brother/sister since it can help parents to take care of childrens. For same organisation and religious, I think it is quite controversial. It is a "candy" for school when government pick their selection right (the factory).

SandyKL

嘩，教署簡直強暴民意，真係要打去教署詢問下先。     

我都係非常唔同意家長為該校畢業生有分，不過，為該校之校董或該校工作者，我都同意佢嘅分數定位。

youma

As far as I heard, Education Department originally wanted to introduce pure lucky draw only without any privilege marks related to religion, directorship with school and alumni. But many traditional schools protested. The final marking system was a result of compromise between government and some traditional schools.

The existing system is indeed not fair. I advocate pure entrance exam (second best is pure lucky draw) because it is the fairest. Priority can be given to younger brothers/sisters of the schools' existing students or those living nearby if there is places in a school after the exam (or lucky draw) result. If no places are left, EMB can help to allocate the students to the nearest school to home.

I agree that exam is not a bad thing if the subjects are constructive and good to the children's development.

In my opinion, fairness is more important than other factors like proximity to schools, brothers/sisters and other relationship factors. It is because all parents have their own attributes and issues in choosing schools. Govt should not give privileges to some attributes but not others, in my view.

SandyKL

youma,

我都贊成大抽獎，但仍然保留兄/姐在該小學就讀，可直接入讀，因為要家長將兩兄弟/姐妹分別就讀不同學校，一來家長要費神，例如接送返學，二來又浪費金錢，例如要屣錢買過第二d校服。

從最近派發嘅教育統籌局、中文大學及優質教育基合出一單張嚟睇，有一個名為「學生能力國際評估計劃」，該計劃將世界41個國家包括香港的十五歲的學生在數學、科學及閱讀能力作評估，結果數學能力，香港排第一;科學能力，香港排第三;閱讀能力，香港排第六，而香港是表現最好的十個國家/地區之一。於是，佢話說明香港的教育體系為學生提供了均等教育機會。

另外，又用圖表顯示，在大部份表現優異的國家/地區，學校之間的差異都在低水平，反映出他們(教統局)把中一派位機制的五個組別減為三個，以減少學校之間的差異，方向是正確的。

可以看到教統局，是一心想以公平為大原則去改革教育，但可惜眼高手低，遭學校、家長非議，未能循序漸進去改變，真係可惜。

youma

我並非強烈反對有兄/姐在該小學就讀的申請人直接入讀，因這是合情(但非合理)。但愚見最公平還是入學試/純抽獎,然後酌情處理個別申請。

SandyKL,

我都贊成你的看法:- {可以看到教統局，是一心想以公平為大原則去改革教育，但可惜眼高手低，遭學校、家長非議，未能循序漸進去改變，真係可惜。}

其實現在的中一派位機制和英中/中中制度, 存在太重幸運分配成份, 發揮不了分流作用, 無疑阻礙了激發學生上進心和語文/多元發展。

SandyKL

我明白你點解希望考試，但係教統局嘅教育改革理念係唔想家長為子女入讀名牌小學，而迫他們去學校，上入學班，預早已令小幼苗承受壓力。其實佢地依家嘅理念係想消除各小學間之差異，沒有名牌小學，但與推行母語教學一樣，沒有考慮到客觀因素，其實想消除人為因素，真係要慢慢嚟，唔可以心急架。

話時話，最近同一個住係美國嘅朋友傾起，我向佢透露今年9月想俾我剛滿2歲個女入讀幼兒園，佢好驚奇咁話，係美國好少兒童咁早入學，佢地果邊5歲先入讀幼稚園，至早入幼兒園都4歲，佢好訝異於我地香港咁早就俾d小朋友讀書。所以我唔贊成小一入學設立考試，相信會俾到壓力d小朋友，理個都係我個人意見，唔係反駁你的意見。

toystory

It seems most parents oppose to the bonus related to religion, directorship with school and alumni. But, it quite controversial that some still think the ‘free pass’ to those having elder brother/sister in the same school because it helps parents to take care of young children. However, I could mention some disadvantages:-
1. Is it fair to those大仔 without elder brother/sister in the school?
2. Can I make it compulsory to those younger children to follow their elder brother/sister’s footstep to enter to the same school ? It will be much fair as they should take the privilege as well as take the risk (if it is not a famous school)!
Personally, I agree with youma‘s view

I advocate pure entrance exam (second best is pure lucky draw) because it is the fairest.

Though the entrance exam is not the best, but it is the fairest. (In fact, a PURE lucky draw is another fairest way, if regardless of their district, their background)

ambrose

It is not the problem of fairness. It is the problem of eliminating examiniation and provide equal opportunities. If you agree examination, I think you have confidence on your kid's performance. I don't think there is a fair examination for all those 5-year-old childrens. Some of them are smart and clever but they don't like to talk. Some of them like to talk but they are not so smart. Indeed, it is very dangerous to select them by one "single" "so-called" examination. In addition, many schools choose the parents rather than their kids.

I totally agree the basic spirit of EMB in central allocation but not their implementation approach.

To answer the elder sister/brother problem, please stand the point of view of parents who have two (or more) kids. If you have two kids then you will understand it. Do you think they will easily give up this right? It is very time-consuming to send two or three kids to different schools with different activities. Especially for working mothers (as me).

hinhinmummy

老實d講, 如果我有宗教信仰, 亦係某名校的old girl, 我相信我不會反對現有機制.  對每個family有不同的背景, 對自己有利的, 一定支持, 對自己無利的, 一定反對.

有家長話, 每個大仔有20分, 甘我想問, 香港依家甘多家庭只生一個小朋友, 甘個個小朋友有呢20分的機會相當大. 甘咪即係又係抽獎?

我對好反對宗教分, 因為我個女無宗教信仰(暫時未洗禮), 我係自行分配學位時, 咪搵一間無宗教信仰的學校lor, 個個小朋友都無呢5分, 相對黎講, 我覺得fair 小小.

ambrose

hinhinmummy,

You reminded me that if the points of elder sister and brother should be deleted. Then I think the points for first child should be deleted also.

So what is fairness? I think fairness should consider the interest of all parties but can we do that? If we choose random drawing for all students then some parents may argue that it is not fair because "my kids is smart enough to apply famous school"......

So I suggest two choices: Private and government schools. For private schools, they have autonomy to choose students. For government schools, all students should be picked by lucky draw since they use public reserve. If parents don't like the lucky draw, they can object and apply directly in P.2-P.6.

SandyKL

toystory先生/女士:

真係好高興，又係理度見你/妳發言，我想提出我嘅意見:

1) 每一個方法/制度都有一定有其公平與不公平之處，只是政府應該與家長及學校有一共識，而不是閉門造車，組成一個由10零人組成的「改革小一入學基制」委員會，而去與教育入學基制「整容」，教統局曾經講過已公開諮詢過公眾，但我相信這裡沒有幾個家長知道諮詢期。

2) 我不是太明白你/妳第一點所說: "Is it fair to those大仔 without elder brother/sister in the school?"
因為以現今基制，首名子女有5分，比起那些排序小的
，已有優勢，因為他們只得基本適齡10分。     

3)我真越來越糊塗了，可能上得網多，理解力也降低了，再一次不明白你/妳在第二點中所說:"Can I make it compulsory to those younger children to follow their elder brother/sister’s footstep to enter to the same school ? It will be much fair as they should take the privilege as well as take the risk (if it is not a famous school)!?
因為現時之基制，其中必收情況是:有兄/姐在該小學就讀，但也不是強迫的，家長可以不申報有兄/姐在該校就讀，而只以基本10分或其他情況去報分，另亦不必要報讀兄/姐正就讀的學校，「自行分配學位」即是不限地區，家長可選擇任何一間小學去報，相信有些家長如果唔嫌煩，又非常清閒，愛做運動又大把錢，他/她可放棄去報讀其兄/姐就讀的小學，另一方面，亦可放棄參加「自行派位」，選擇參加第二輪「統一派位」。

這方面絕對沒有強迫，另如果嫌兄/姐所就讀的小學不夠好，也可替較幼子女報考私校/直資小學，但可能較幼子女覺得不能與兄/姐同校，又覺得不公平，覺得家長剝奪其選擇權。

toystory

To ambrose
So what is fairness? Fairness should consider the interest of all parties OR should ignore the interest of all parties, therefore, a pure lucky draw regardless any factors including district, religion, directorship with school, alumni, elder brother/sister and the first child (大仔) will be fair.
This also eliminates the problem of entrance examination.

Regarding the elder sister/brother problem, can u stand from the view point of parents whose first child has been deprived of a chance to enter to his dream school because of the ‘free pass’ to those having elder brother/sister in the same school.
To be fair, will u accept the compulsory way to force the younger brother/sister to enter to the same school of the elder brother/sister (even it is not a famous school)? Why the younger child having elder brother/sister can have more choices -- to get the 'pass' if it is a famous one or attend lucky draw if it is not good enough?

I agree with youma's suggestion that priority can be given to younger brothers/sisters of the schools' existing students or those living nearby ONLY if there is places in a school after the exam (or lucky draw) result. If no places are left, EMB can help to allocate the students to the nearest school to home. Perhaps it may relief the difficulties of picking up 2 kids to/from 2 schools for working mom.

HPChingchingma

津小請會代表柳志強校長，在報章上表示很人失望，他是委員之一去建識議調節計分法。換句話說即是代表組織上有徵詢過！

以往20 幾 30 年前的父母搵朝唔得晚。生得多，有兄姊帶著弟妹上學就已還得神好落，校舍越近家所越好。

以今時今日的香港而言，不大合時宜，若果有政策不合時而的，要重新厘定比較好些。

不過知道計分方法無變，只是將自行排位擴至學位50% ，先扣除兄姊的必收位後，才排隊按分分配，排至學額越小而有同分就抽簽。為何首名子女只得5分呢？

如父母非宗教人士，而又沒有運行的，在第一輪早抽了出來，沒有機會玩簽簽，你話是否再替子女運氣加功，再來玩一次大搞珠呢！

toystory

To SandyKL
我也很高興，在這裡和你討論這題目。
第一點：完全同意。政府喜愛小圈子選舉/作決定！
第二點和第三點：也許是我表達不夠清楚，我的立場是：我對現行必收那些有兄/姐在該小學就讀的申請人的制度有保留！
我認為：這種必收有違公平原則。這對那些大仔(沒有兄/姐就讀該小學)不公平，大仔只得5分，而有兄/姐在該小學就讀的申請人卻是必收，假若這是名校，而眾多申請人都有兄/姐在該小學就讀，那麼這些大仔(沒有兄/姐就讀該小學) 差不多沒有機會入讀該小學了。
其次，假若這種必收的背後理念(要方便父母易於照顧)是成立的，那麼便應該硬性規定弟妹必須入讀兄/姐的同一小學(就算這只是一般小學而非名校)，而不是現行的那一套：你可選擇必收；或是參加大抽獎。為什麼他們有多項選擇，這便是不公平了。
每個家庭當然有他的難處，這便要看究竟要公平原則，還是為了部份人而要犧牲部份人的權利了。

SandyKL

toystory,

如依你/妳在第一點而言，可引伸其實賦予大仔有5分，可說也是不公平，相對來說對其他家中排行較幼的，他們沒有額外分數，便不公平了; 另一情況是:年滿5歲8個月至7歲者可獲10分，如果年齡低於/超過這範圍者，便被剝奪那10分，那麼也變成不公平?更有年齡歧視之嫌?不要笑以為絕對沒有人會不屬此年齡範圍內，而參加「小一入學」，小兒舊小學便收到有這類兒童參加「自行分配學位」，對他們而言，這基制真真不公平。

所以我認為每一種制度都有其公平與不公平，只是當事人是站在那一個角度/定位去作評估。

我身為香港其中一個面對教育改革的家長，只希望有參予發言教育改革的權利及機會。