为何不让办得好的学校接管?

DD仔

有一点想不通:
如果学生不足,好学校也不足,为甚么不让办得好的学校,接管办得差的?
如此,家长可以多一些选择,也不用杀校,好学校的老师又可以有升职进入管理层的机会.

可能这是很dumb的提议,所以希望各位给些意见.谢谢!

DD仔

怎样越讲越乱呢?
1)你应该针对我提出的assumptions中的重点来反击.
2)"是小学制造出来",好,那我就加几个字:"是小学和父母制造出来",但最重要的是,最后几个字:已成定局.
3)是不是你们都同意,小学毕业生,是龙是虫,已成定局,接受怎样的中学教育都不会有所改变?
美国,加上伟大祖国都是走334.大学有4年,我都觉得比较好,在大学里用心学习的话,exposure是不一样的.
母语教学,我也觉得很多余,在小学时用母语是有必要,但在中学时坚持用母语,就害了很多人,他们到读大学时就格外辛苦.

dad1234

原帖由 DD仔 於 11-2-13 00:28 發表
还有，如果这个assumption是成立的话，我的论点就不成立：香港没有不（够）好的中学，只有不（够）好的学生。
1）这里的背后台词是：不（够）好的学生，是小学制造出来的，已成定局。
2）不（够）好的学生，即使在所谓“好”的学校，都只会不适应，只会一败涂 ...

沒有不夠好學校,也沒有不夠好的學生,只有不夠好的父母

DD仔

还有，如果这个assumption是成立的话，我的论点就不成立：香港没有不（够）好的中学，只有不（够）好的学生。
1）这里的背后台词是：不（够）好的学生，是小学制造出来的，已成定局。
2）不（够）好的学生，即使在所谓“好”的学校，都只会不适应，只会一败涂地。（注：我从来没说过要皇仁教band3)

DD仔

另一个你们经常触及的论点是说好像皇仁这类的学校，不一定代表它的老师好，只是它收来的学生好。
1）或许皇仁的情况真的是这样，那我就可能一开始就用错它作为例子。但我的论点没有改变，就是好学校应该教多些学生。
2）我还是相信在香港是有好学校的，是可以替学生增值的，助他们更长进的，这些都在我的好学校的定义范围里。
3）我可以话，Harvard,Yale,Chicago等等的学校都名不符实，因为它们收生都很严格，收回来的都已经是精英，不代表它们的本身质素好，所以即使它们来香港办学，也不会有什么好结果？

DD仔

Assumption: 间间学校都有问题学生，学生都有机会犯事。
如果这个assumption是成立的话，皇仁学生都有问题学生这个论点根本就不是考虑的点，所以才没人提及。

原帖由 brianshe 於 11-2-11 15:05 發表


人有高矮肥廋, 又點會有相同智慧?!

先天已經決定資質高低, 後天努力只係輔助.

不過, 每個人長處短處不同. 問題係點發揮長處. 學業成績差, 並不一定代表低智商; 可能係唔合適香港教育 OR 唔合適學術發揮.

呢頭我 ...

genpub

That is the point I am trying to make. They are in different places and the backgrounds of the students and the families are different. Even Using the same philosophy like Queen's College to apply in different schools and it will not guarantee good results, because of the students' socio-economics background, support from parents, etc. Even asking those people in Queen's college to take over another Band 1 school and it is also possible that it will fail because how a government school sees one thing is different from how a aided catholic/christian school sees the same issue.

And of course, like what other people said, schools with good results do not guarantee good students produced. It is possible that the students of Queen's College is good because they have good intake of students and actually the teachers in Queen's are poor in teaching. Students have good results is simply because the students themselves are smart and diligent, not the input by the teachers.

DD仔

请问皇仁旧生会中学的校董事会,老师团队,教学方针课程设计,教学技术支援,等等,是不是跟皇仁同气连枝的?

原帖由 genpub 於 11-2-9 11:44 發表
其實皇仁都可說是有分校，就是皇仁舊生會中學，這間學校就證明了開分校並不一定令學校成為BAND 1學校 (當然可能這學校是高增值學校，但就不得而知) ...

DD仔

1)你所说的是过度延伸. 开分校跟全港学校集体管理是两码事.
2)放band3入band1,不是我所说的事,请细读前文.

原帖由 LittleKidult 於 11-2-9 10:58 發表
如果可以的話, 為何不將全港中學合為一間呢, 由一個校長管理?
其實接管會引申好多問題, 一間學校好唔好, 由好多方面合作影響, 校長, 教師團隊, 學生, 家長等, 你放d band3入band1 學校, 就算學校教師想做好, 而家長 ...

genpub

其實皇仁都可說是有分校，就是皇仁舊生會中學，這間學校就證明了開分校並不一定令學校成為BAND 1學校 (當然可能這學校是高增值學校，但就不得而知)

LittleKidult

如果可以的話, 為何不將全港中學合為一間呢, 由一個校長管理?
其實接管會引申好多問題, 一間學校好唔好, 由好多方面合作影響, 校長, 教師團隊, 學生, 家長等, 你放d band3入band1 學校, 就算學校教師想做好, 而家長唔理, 學生唔好學, 結果會好嗎? 結果只會浪費教師學校既資源.....

DD仔

Yes, you got my point.  I used Queen's College as an example of a "good school", on which I believe no one would cast doubt.  But of course, not only would elite schools like this be considered "good", but also those adding value to their students.

Going back to the main premise.  Say it is Queen's which takes over another school and establishes Queen's II.  Its target student group must also be the top ones from the pool.  On the other hand, if a good Band 2 school, which consistently provides value added education, takes on the challenge, it will probably target at Band 2/3 students.  In any case, the result is that under this educational system, there is one less poorly managed school and simultaneously one additional good school to serve the society.

One critical point here is how to identify "bad or poorly managed school".  I hope that our government is able to do this job right; otherwise, I don't know why we need to give them such a big paycheck.

原帖由 iantsang 於 11-2-8 23:53 發表
Just wanna clarify some information concerning this discussion.

Reading from the comments, I have this feeling that there seems to be some gap among various members.

I believe it is natural to consi ...

iantsang

Just wanna clarify some information concerning this discussion.

Reading from the comments, I have this feeling that there seems to be some gap among various members.

I believe it is natural to consider band 1 schools are the good schools, but is it true that this is not exactly what 樓主 has in mind?  I guess 樓主 somehow (not by intention) led others to think so since QC was the example being used and it will easily lead others to use public examination results (hence related to school's banding) as a criteria.

If I have to consider a school is managed well, one of the area is how much improvement the students can achieved during their school years, rather than purely judging from public exam results.  If we use QC as an example again, we are talking about students who come in who should obtain 85 points in average and ended up with 90 points in average when they graduate.  There are improvement for sure.  However, some other schools may get students who are 60 points in average and ended up with 80 points.  Unfortunately, despite the dramatic improvement, their public exam results may not impress anyone at the end.

There is a scoring system by the EDB which actually measure this, to indicate how well students have improved during their secondary study.  Unfortunately, schools are not allowed to disclose these information in details.  However, I do notice some schools may include partial information in their annual school report.  If this piece of information may be useful for parents to consider.

just something to share.

50108686

Band3 學校 唔係人人可以管治，會好驚嚇的？　Band1 學校老師會好驚！

[ 本帖最後由 50108686 於 11-2-8 22:02 編輯 ]

DD仔

这只是一个发牙痕的idea,但若果真的有一间有名气的学校愿意如此行,设立二校,三校,都蛮有意思的.
读书时,老师说,提出任何新的idea,都要play devil's advocate.
谢谢你们一直想打沉这个idea! hehe...

hinhin_ma

原帖由 DD仔 於 11-2-8 13:53 發表
1) 当band2学校得到的学生是band3学生,有两个可能性,一是学校搞得一落千丈,一是针对学生的情况,替他们增值.这就是办得好和不好的分别.band3学生真的不可以被增值吗?办得好的学校的课程就一定是困难深奥到要致学生于 ...

世上無難事,只盼有心人

理念...但如何去推行... 如何去推行成功才是重點....時間,金錢,人力等樣樣斉,都唔代表一定成功...最重要個變數是當時D 學生...BAND 1,2,3生都可以增值,都要去增值, 但唔係只靠學校就成事...重要係佢本身...佢讀得辛苦唔開心會有反效果嗎?? BAND 3學校都有好多好老師,好多BAND 3生都有得著...遇強愈強的小朋友大有人在, 所以之前都提及...要確實了解到小朋友所需而選校會更理想..知識改變命運, 一份耕耘一份收獲....

可能提升BAND 3學校來扶持學生替學生增值會更貼心..

名校..相對來講, 對社會承擔要更大...要接手D次級學校, 佢地要更多考慮....