- 在線時間
- 42 小時
- 最後登錄
- 20-8-9
- 國民生產力
- 2
- 附加生產力
- 800
- 貢獻生產力
- 0
- 註冊時間
- 10-12-3
- 閱讀權限
- 10
- 帖子
- 161
- 主題
- 2
- 精華
- 0
- 積分
- 963
- UID
- 684441
|
Schools are also one of the important stakeholders of the Primary One Admission System.
The "heriditary" elements might be the compromise between the Government and the sponsoring organizations so that schools can maintain their own characteristics.
As far as I remember, when the Primary One Admission System was first introduced a decade ago, the original allocation mechanism allowed the principals to exercise their discretion to award 10points to students. By that time, many parents considered it unfair and asked the Government to cancel these 10 discretionary points. The principal’s discretion had finally been retrieved, but, as I said before, schools had the final say. Many prestigious schools therefore converted to DSS schools in order to maintain their own characteristics and protect their traditions.
Currently, many parents have criticized that DSS are for the rich and many grassroots children are not able to enjoy good education through learning at these prestigious schools.
On the other hand, we all know that the competition in the DSS schools is very fierce. Some parents push their young children to learn different languages and participate in different interest classes so as to increase their competitiveness in the admission exercise for the DSS schools. Though the selection criteria seem to be fair, is it good to our children?
The Primary One Admission System has long been criticised, in particular, for its lack of equity. We might need to revamp the whole system. I do not think that removing the "hereditary" elements can help.
原帖由 4eyesDad 於 11-12-1 22:52 發表
I am afraid that I do not follow your logic that the removal of an unfair element may probably create more hypothetically unfair results.
In principle, DSS are (partly) government funded schools. L ...
[ 本帖最後由 GoodGrief 於 11-12-2 10:08 編輯 ] |
|