有學生10間直資/私小OK,唯獨自行不OK:問題在那裏?公平?

Student123

If only focus at the kid's quality & kid's previous hard working, of course I would say subsidised schools (they did not count on kid's nature) ranked No 1 in unfairness.

Student123

Beside, the quality of students has wide range of variety.
IQ score ranged from 90(may be not brilliant enough)-140.
Some students must be suffered or being kicked out in P2-6.

jonleelee

以社會資源角度, 我認為是直資學校, 收了政府資助, 又收學費, 令他們資源較多, 最唔公平係可以揀學生, 令一些傳統名校都紛紛走上直資之路, 窮困學生自然無機會入讀,  有失有教無類教學原則.

nicolemummy

我也認為直資係最不公平!

原帖由 jonleelee 於 10-11-22 13:41 發表
以社會資源角度, 我認為是直資學校, 收了政府資助, 又收學費, 令他們資源較多, 最唔公平係可以揀學生, 令一些傳統名校都紛紛走上直資之路, 窮困學生自然無機會入讀,  有失有教無類教學原則. ...

ziyi

究竟有雞先的蛋先?
如果有人答到,就知道那樣最不公平
沒有直資,我得15分,可以有那一間原是津貼的直資夠分入
又有多少位可給不住在該校網的人
兩個都唔公平,沒有先後的
所以唯一可以說公平的是私校
其餘沒有先後的一樣唔公平,遊戲就是如此

dlmcdlcl

我個人覺得津小唔公平嫁.

如果人人於冇世襲, 冇宗教的情況下(我自己都係有宗教分都係咁話), 只係以地區去介定, 我覺得就公平些. 至小, 分數人人一樣, 只係你會否真係搬去果區, 或者會否廷而走險去呃人(借地址) 因為點樣都好, 都有人呃嫁喇. 人人同分結果就好唔同. 真係ONLY BY LUCK.



只係C9一個, 講錯野就見諒.

Student123

Agree !!

Some factors cannot be control by kid or parents:
old boy/ alumni-->10 mark
even 1 st child with 20 mark, chance is slim.

Private or DSS: at least parent or kid can work hard
in: interview technique, ECA, academic, etc
Most important: private/ DSS student quality are more or less guaranteed by screening process of interview.
Some current LS students ranking the last in the class are in great stress, because they got the spirit so called:

: 有教無類----> the HKCEE result of the school will drop

原帖由 ziyi 於 10-11-22 13:52 發表
究竟有雞先的蛋先?
如果有人答到,就知道那樣最不公平
沒有直資,我得15分,可以有那一間原是津貼的直資夠分入
又有多少位可給不住在該校網的人
兩個都唔公平,沒有先後的
所以唯一可以說公平的是私校
其餘沒有先後的一 ...

[ 本帖最後由 Student123 於 10-11-22 14:51 編輯 ]

deco99

原帖由 dlmcdlcl 於 10-11-22 13:59 發表
我個人覺得津小唔公平嫁.

如果人人於冇世襲, 冇宗教的情況下(我自己都係有宗教分都係咁話), 只係以地區去介定, 我覺得就公平些. 至小, 分數人人一樣, 只係你會否真係搬去果區, 或者會否廷而走險去呃人(借地址) 因 ...

I agree with you. The subsidized school should focus on school districts and siblings.

annaanna

其實呢個世界邊有公平？
做好自己就得啦﹗

wonderbaby

好同意,呢個制度就是這樣,我們可做什麼?

原帖由 annaanna 於 10-11-22 15:44 發表
其實呢個世界邊有公平？
做好自己就得啦﹗

wonderbaby

好同意,呢個制度就是這樣,我們可做什麼?

原帖由 annaanna 於 10-11-22 15:44 發表
其實呢個世界邊有公平？
做好自己就得啦﹗

ANChan59

Before we comment on the DSS, just some background info, why famous elite schools from not pro DSS and being forced to DSS...... the DSS was tailor-made for left wing schools, it's a surprise to all of us.

周日話題﹕教育「市場」 官僚「滯後」21/11/2010
【明報專訊】
文 龐永欣（前直資中學校長）

鼓勵轉直資？

直資計劃早在一九八八年教統會第三號報告書之前，以《香港私立學校的前景》諮詢文件提出。當年面對的問題，是如何挽救私校，亦有說這是為了解決左派學校的收生問題。當年的官津校一律要參加中央派位，左校若變為津校，政府怕派去的學生不肯入讀，若變為私校自行收生，學校又會失去政府資助的資格，直資計劃令左校按自行收生的人數得到資助，這令政府省錢，學校自主，是個解決方法。然而，在相信「市場萬能」「競爭最好」的右派思潮下，直資計劃還被視為打破香港學校「了無生氣」的方法。

可是，計劃提出後的一段頗長的時間內，儘管政府大力游說，傳統名校並不感興趣。既然收生不是問題，政府的津貼又夠用，為什麼要參加直資計劃？後來參加這計劃的學校多了，主因是政府對官津校強分中中、英中政策，又不斷限制原屬小學生直升中學所致。

直資計劃是政府自己一手製造出來，讓學校避開認為是不合理政策和規管的方法。原初的直資學校，學費並不高，甚至出現只收政府的按額津貼、不收學費的直資學校。傳統名校發現變身直資校後「生機處處」，可以打造為「勞斯萊斯級」學校，只是後話。

當年教育擴張，學額不足，政府官員只懂批建新校，不理會人口趨勢的警號，什麼時間縮班殺校，是留給下任官員處理的問題。市民要養貓養狗，政府也會叫人小心考慮，說這是長期責任。然而，在建校殺校問題上，政府應當明白這是個關乎體制內教師學生命運、香港教育前途的問題，卻顯得毫無規劃，只待到時把收生不足的學校殺掉便算。當然，市場基要主義者會補充說，市場是上帝，現在上帝不要你，就是你該死的原因。

在這次「齊齊縮班」建議中，我倒有幾分同情孫局長，他確有些避免殺校局面出現的真誠願望，如果小班教學爭取不到，他提出的辦法也是一個沒有辦法之中的辦法，因此個人不覺得這是為了鼓勵學校轉直資的措施。然而，縮班措施最終會否令傳統名校因為要避開局長要求縮班的壓力而轉直資，則是個待考問題。

我在二○○二年出任直資學校校長。上任初期吃驚地發現，政府對直資學校財務管理的指示，原來只有兩頁紙，毫不清晰。屈指一算，當時直資學校已存在十多年了，究竟這些年間負責的官員在幹些什麼？既然沒有指示，我只好心安理得，就把這當作是給予直資學校的「發展空間」吧！

You can see the complete article in the following link. Reviewing.

http://news.mingpao.com/20101121/vzc1.htm

chan803

公平? 唔通要返到去以前考小一入學試咁呀?

我情願要現在 '不公平'的制度.  

況且, 就算小一派得唔好, 小二, 小三, ... 一樣可以比你考試插班.

計分都只係派一半學位, 仲有一半學位係睇彩數.  

唔鍾意計分/睇彩數, 都仲有 直資/私學比你揀.

講返計分, 最唔明係點解父母/兄姐係舊生都可以加分, 呢 part 取消埋對辦學團體都無乜影響.....

d2343130

基本上,只因香港教育基制之失敗處....多不勝數!!!

算啦.....住於此地就要面對此地給予的"困擾"!!!

ANChan59

The ex-DSS principal may be correct.

DSS school             set up year
Hon Wah                 1991
Pui Kiu                     1991
Worker's Children    1991
Fukien                     1991
Heung To                 1991
LPCUWC                  (not sure)
Delia                        1999

Logos                      2001
DBS                         2002
SPCC                       2002
HKUGA                    2002
SPCS                       2004
DGS                        2005

What's the selection criteria for audit???

thomasha

I have read a lot of complaints about unfairness of the present system, but none of the few proposals given in BK has received widespread support.  The conclusion is apparently, "no system is fair and desirable to everyone".  We can only pick a system which is the least evil to children.

Should fairness be the only concern in the system?  Communism advocates "fairness" by making everyone "proletarian" (the "no asset class"), but it is a proved failure.  The only "fairest" system I can think of is a city-wide "lucky draw", where even geographical vicinity should not be considered, but is this what parents really want?  If the geographical factor is added, some parents would complain that they cannot afford moving to an area where more prestigious schools are located.  Adding any other factor would cause some groups of people to complain anyway.

Currently the P1 admission system has some elements of:

1.  ability-based assessment (private and DSS)

2.  religious and family background (Discretionary stage, some private schools and DSS)

3. Geographical vicinity (central allocation)

In my humble opinion, the current system may have space for fine-tuning to prevent excessive pre-school training, but the overall direction (i.e. retaining different elements) should be preserved.

DSS's are often targets for attacks because they receive government subsidies and yet they are regarded as not treatinig children equally, e.g. their assessment (interview) methods, high tuition fees, preference to certain groups (expressed, implied or hidden); however, it's understandable that different DSS's can set their own assessment criteria so that they can utilise their human and monetary resources more effectively in teaching their target group of students.

ANChan59

Most DSS schools are either from subsidised or private school background. Base on certain mutual agreement and they opt for DSS.  Now, changed the rule of game by EDB is not appropriate.

In the past, I don't know the initial set up of DSS is for left wing schools, it looked odd, but why forced elite schools became DSS.

For private schools, like Delia, from their commercial, no school fee for some years. Who pay for that? Any funding from EDB?