- 在線時間
- 3 小時
- 最後登錄
- 15-11-7
- 國民生產力
- 0
- 附加生產力
- 2
- 貢獻生產力
- 0
- 註冊時間
- 04-10-19
- 閱讀權限
- 10
- 帖子
- 178
- 主題
- 6
- 精華
- 0
- 積分
- 180
- UID
- 32761
 
|
Traditional "elite" schools and new "elites"
I have noticed an interesting phenomenon.
A lot of "traditional" elite schools (MSS, MCS, LSC, St. Joseph's) are now part of the Government allocation system. This means that the school has no control over the quality of the new primary one students. But because they are "traditional" elite schools and also because school fees are low, a lot of parents want to go to these schools.
A lot of parents, however, are worried that there is no "quality control" for these schools (however glorious their past history may be) and they want their kids to be surrounded by peers who are "competitive" in terms of ability and quality. These parents (if they can afford it) will go for the few elite private or DS schools.
There are therefore two streams of parents. One stream consist of those who regard government allocated schools as prime choices, and another stream consist of those who regard government allocated schools as "back-up" schools.
I know some parents who shed tears of joy at being admitted to a traditional (government allocated) elite school, and equally some who would shed tears of sadness if their only school is a traditional (government allocated) elite school.
Which type of school, in the long run, do you think will produce more all-rounded students? |
|
發表於 04-11-15 12:27
