蘇浙 vs 柴灣聖米迦勒

ANChan59

原帖由 stseng 於 10-12-29 16:53 發表
Do any of you have a list of 升中派位of 柴米 for me to compare with that of 蘇小?  Thanks.

Did you check St Michael's website? I can download the pdf a few years ago.

ANChan59

原帖由 stseng 於 10-12-30 17:30 發表
I searched through St. Michael's website but could not find it.  I simply want to compare it with that of KCS.  Could any of you help me (maybe parents of students at Chaiwan St. Michael)?

Yes, you are right, they removed the allocation results from the website.

Another alternative is go to North Point Methodist Primary School and check their allocation results. From my memory, if it doesn't let me down, their portfolio quite simlar to St Michael except the % of EMI of NPMPS (60-65%) > CWSMS (~55%).

ANChan59

原帖由 stseng 於 10-12-30 22:02 發表
Dear ANChan59
What does "EMI" mean?

English Medium of Instruction

ANChan59

原帖由 stephanielaw 於 11-1-2 20:54 發表
不好意思，是北衛，不是北循

From my memory (4-5 years ago), the school portfolio is similar means similar school mixed:

Girls: BPS, YWG, St Stephen Girls.....
Boys: QC, SPB, HKWY.....
Co-Educ: SPCC, CCSC, SKWGSS....

Different % means different numbers to those schools. As no updated info, just an alternative to assess CWSMS.

Other CWSMS parents pls confirm this......

ANChan59

原帖由 Sorb 於 11-1-6 14:11 發表
Starting from this year, the school will not publize the result in web.....I learnt they do this based on the advice from EDB. I know the 2010's result is slightly better than 2009.  So, you just make ...

Any quoted source of your statement. NPMPS and SMS(NP)..... still publized in the web, it's a right thing to do.

EDB is crazy, blind leads the blind...... unfair to users - students and parents......

ANChan59

原帖由 Go-to-school 於 11-1-6 14:55 發表
Thanks Sorb
教局甘搞法令資訊透明度大减,對一眾家長選校無好處.只令大家更烏下烏下,估下估下,甘選校

May be this is their intention.

ANChan59

I understand your point.

I also know some schools won't disclose the results because their results declined as the rule of game changed in the last few years. The weighing factor is changed every year according to TSA results.

Like NPMPS, their results dropped a bit due to the new weighing factors over years. Transparency is our concerns.

ANChan59

Agreed.

Now. using moving average TSA results as weighing factor, the 2009 result can be a good reference for 2010 & 2011. Of course, the relevance will be declined according to time.

ANChan59

原帖由 stseng 於 11-1-10 21:13 發表
We do not need to memorize it.  If they post the list in the office and let us go in to check it out, then we should just bring a pen and a paper with us and copy the list manually.

A suggestion, use the camera of your mobile phone.

ANChan59

權力使人腐化.........
愚民政策...............