- 在線時間
- 1 小時
- 最後登錄
- 14-9-7
- 國民生產力
- 0
- 附加生產力
- 454
- 貢獻生產力
- 0
- 註冊時間
- 12-9-13
- 閱讀權限
- 10
- 帖子
- 17
- 主題
- 2
- 精華
- 0
- 積分
- 471
- UID
- 1007208
 
|
本帖最後由 whitepenguin 於 13-3-12 12:15 編輯
Seeking views on the recent SCMP article titled Students, not institutions, will improve English classes criticising the government's proposed scholarship programme to attract stellar teachers-to-be.
Personally, given the surplus, I would not be one to complain about the government allocating funds to Education. Obviously, if more of the funds could be distributed efficiently and effectively e.g. in dealing with appropriate teacher-student ratios, resources, levels of continuing professional training for teachers, remuneration etc that would be great, but any step in the right direction, even if it needs improving, merits encouragement.
The loss of teaching talent to more lucrative professions is a very real problem in Hong Kong, where students with excellent grades opt for opportunities in the banking, medical, legal, accounting industries for example, not to mention that those who are more academic in nature would turn first to work at a university (as opposed to a primary or secondary school). Would it not be overly punitive to teachers that, by virtue of their passion for teaching alone, they are expected not to want incentives? If you
I am not trying to say that the programme is necessarily the key to the salvation or downfall of Education in Hong Kong, but if we think that a proposed solution does not work, should we not be suggesting improvements as opposed to just criticising without providing constructive comments on possible solutions?
Views and comments welcomed- particularly on what you think additional funds could be used for to improve Education in Hong Kong.
|
|
發表於 13-3-12 12:05
