- 在線時間
- 292 小時
- 最後登錄
- 19-4-27
- 國民生產力
- 48
- 附加生產力
- 1805
- 貢獻生產力
- 0
- 註冊時間
- 07-4-4
- 閱讀權限
- 10
- 帖子
- 121
- 主題
- 42
- 精華
- 0
- 積分
- 1974
- UID
- 131867
 
|
wow wow wow... let's just cool down a bit first shall we?
no system/policy/rules is perfect, and some are bound to think that there are flaws or unfairness. it is true that some may feel the government should not subsidize an international school that is not regulated by the government, and more importantly with an admission prioritization from public money. even the local school allocation system has a lot of complaints about being unfair (eg with the points scheme) but even some elite DSS schools have hidden prioritization (parents connections etc), but unlike ESF, they would interview you anyways to make you feel like you actually have a chance in getting in, whereas for ESF, you won't even get the interview. So I guess that's upsetting a lot of parents out there. In fact, wouldn't everyone be happier if ESF does not make public of the prioritization rules, and interview everyone who applied (though they continue to categorize kids into Cat 1s & 2s but behind closed doors)? But the application fee will probably be bumped to $1000, but that's alright isn't for the sake of fairness?
so anyways I think it's impractical to ask the government to stop subsidizing ESF now because it will affect a lot of people (think about how many students they have!). but it's also silly to ask the school to offer the local curriculum, because it won't be an international school anymore and what happens to the existing students? i just think it'll be a slow and gradual process (which I believe is on-going between ESF and the government) to re-define ESF's position.
and by the way, my children are Cat 2s as they go to a local kindy, but i don't feel so strongly about the admission rules as some of you do. yet i still apply anyway coz you know, i still buy mark 6 once in a while. you never know when's your lucky day! and besides giving the $$$ to ESF is better than putting the money to support policies like the national education curriculum. |
|