- 在線時間
- 26 小時
- 最後登錄
- 15-3-4
- 國民生產力
- 16
- 附加生產力
- 6
- 貢獻生產力
- 0
- 註冊時間
- 03-7-28
- 閱讀權限
- 10
- 帖子
- 987
- 主題
- 8
- 精華
- 0
- 積分
- 1009
- UID
- 12592
 
|
Re: 中學教學語言及升中機制諮詢文件論壇
Actually I am talking the contingency approach in management style, in response to philip change management's ABC.
But what you said didn't conflict to my idea - consistence in the policy: generlisation of subsidary school (reduce elite tag); other options in DSS or previlege PS.
From the policy of EMB - use of mother tongue will benefit more students, and from yours postings, I can't see why the EMIs obtain more subsidy from the Government, as posted, 1 million more for an EMI than a CMI each year. Is that English teacher getting higher wages?
Pinpoint to Ms Lam's (YW) words is reasonable. A through train school should be in consistence to its teaching approach. why bother to be EMI at lower secondary, at the end it goes back to EMI at higher level. With same logic, why bother to be lost the tiltle of EMI as insist to be a through train system.
Why through train? because you(the school management) believe that the 12 years consistent approach will at the end most beneficial to the students. If mother tongue is good, why bother to be EMI only on lower secondary. Why need training in order to uphold the title.
Or is it really good for secondary students being taught in English. Or just the name of EMI attract elite students from whom keep the school still "elite".
If so, why bother through train.
My conclusion, Schools(or teachers) don't really know what they want! Being an educational bodies to maximise the abilities of students, or keeping themselves in a higher reputation than the peers.
Once their reputation is harmed, they will forget their initial mission.
|
|