要求全面取消小學派位世襲制及宗教計分制！

Carelesswhisper

原帖由 chinaX 於 11-12-1 10:22 發表
在地鐵車廂的真實故事，一學生和其父的對話：
兒子：爸爸，我的學校是否很有名很叻？
爸爸：點解咁問？
兒子：如果學校很叻，即係話我都好叻。
爸爸：咁，你的師兄是會考狀元，是否代表你是狀元？
兒子：...
爸爸：你的師兄是跑步冠軍，是否代表你是 ...

hangyodon

其實我覺得好以美國咁一個區一間中學，小學最好; 你住嗰區就只可以讀嗰間小學／中學, 唔使小朋友塔咁耐車

你想讀嗰間學校咪搬去嗰一區lor

同區既家長通常背景比較接近

當然，冇錢就住唔到某啲區，入唔到名校
但起碼冇人話計分制點點點, 只能歎自已冇能力/冇錢搬去啲有錢佬住既地方

dad1234

其實香港都有入學條件,覺得政府已經做到有教無類(人人有書讀),但要做到人人讀名校,睇怕全世界冇地方做得到,由其係香港人望子成龍心態,一個政策制定主要係平衡各方面需求,不能滿足全部人,政策係人制定出來,但世上冇一個人係完美及公平,又怎能制定出完美公平政策呢?

thtb

這個制度都幾難會被取消, 因已入到名校的, 還有弟妹跟尾的, 這些人一定不想取消的. 相反, 百無的人, 當然想取消. 香港教育制度就係咁唔公平.

4eyesDad

It is inherently unfair and wrong to allot Primary One government funded school places based on the children's parents' previous attendance at that government funded school.

Almost everyone I talked to seem to agree it is unfair and wrong.

Bureaucrats and certain educationists may have vested interests themselves in preserving this inequality.

It falls upon parents to make their voices heard on this important issue.

I call upon the removal of this unfair element even though my children will benefit from its present form.  

The sooner this inequitable "hereditary" public primary education allotment element is removed, the better.

[ 本帖最後由 4eyesDad 於 11-12-1 23:11 編輯 ]

GoodGrief

Parents are only one of the stakeholders of the Primary One Admission System.  

If Education Bureau acceded to the parents' request to remove the "heriditary" elements, the aided pretigious schools, which hold different views, would just opt to convert to the DSS, like DBS, DGJS, Heep Yan, St. Paul Co-edu, Ying Wah.... Obviously, the pretigious schools have the final say.  

Eventually, only children from rich or middle-class families can go to pretigious schools.

ANChan59

You are right, some parents put themselves over other stakeholders....

More and more schools will be forced by parents and EDB to become DSS

4eyesDad

原帖由 GoodGrief 於 11-12-1 19:18 發表
Parents are only one of the stakeholders of the Primary One Admission System.  

If Education Bureau acceded to the parents' request to remove the "heriditary" elements, the aided pretigious schools,  ...

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. Like all fully government funded schools, DSS should not continue with the unfair "hereditary" primary one admission policy.

What are these other stakeholders?

What opposing legitimate views do these other stakeholders have against the removal of an unfair element?

[ 本帖最後由 4eyesDad 於 11-12-1 23:17 編輯 ]

To_Ma

同意！通常＂嘈＂的家長都是不夠分卻又選人人搶的學校，揀之前都知rule是點啦，唔得嘅之後可以叩門、考插班等，又不是沒機會，何來不公平 ？我贊成所有的計分，因有其價值，即使是五分宗教分而入教的家長，因為人地有付出，但在現在僧多粥小的情况下，也不保證能增加多少勝算，相對什麼也不做只管嘈不夠分不公平的家長，究竟有否想過機會是留給有準備的人呢？

GoodGrief

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 ]

Qooie@@

絕對支持, 因為我們都係"百無"的一群, 唔知幾時先可以


公開, 公平及公正D呢?!

potpot

我不是N冇人仕,但也支持改革, 原因:世龑阻礙人類進步，過時產物.
遠的例子:中國五仟年歷史中從世龑得位又稱得上是好皇帝又多少？
近的例子:新界原居民世龔特權,土地有限，特權無限,何時方休！
人可選擇沉黙,或跟自己說:跟着遊戲規則玩便是了,何來合理不合理? 不過要我選,我會選voice out的一羣. 因為深信連水点也不滴,怎可制造漣漪,再滙集成流乘風而去変成大浪！

4eyesDad

原帖由 GoodGrief 於 11-12-2 09:59 發表
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 t ...

The "heriditary" elements might be the compromise between the Government and the sponsoring organizations so t ... [/quote]


Thank you for your time and patience in explaining the historical background to the existance of the additional 10 points for hereditary reason under the Government Primary One Admission system.


I also appreciate your acknowledgement that the system is unfair and we might need to revamp the whole system.

Before our bureaucrats and educationists can work out a way to revamp the whole system, it seems to me that the partial removal of hereditary element under the existing system will improve the fairness of the system.

Publicly funded schools should use public resources fairly. Allotting primary one places using hereditary connection as a dominant factor has dubious legal and certainly immoral basis.

I understand some religious schools demand 15 additional points in total for their alumini children with the same religion background, instead of just 5 additional points for religious connection. They are greedy. You say if they don't get their demand, they will convert into DSS schools. Politely you call the final outcome is a compromise. In reality this is educational blackmail. They are using public money for their own agenda and could expose themselves to legal and moral indictment.

Some DSS schools using part of government funds have no better reason to use hereditary factor for giving admission preference.

Hereditary preference for primary one places in publicly funded schools is indefensible and must be eliminated.

chinaX

上一次參加囝囝同學的生日會，一名家長說：「全港只有四間男校，三間女校和一間男女校」

ANChan59

Your points are loud and clear.

Write a letter to EDB and you can find many supporters to back you up.... or talk to PTU's Cheung Man Kwong.

karen55407

好吖！好吖！最公正就係全港學生一齊抽，好運嘅就入到心儀學校，唔好運嘅就去到離島都唔准放棄學位，唔准叩門收生，咁就最公平了！

chinaX

原帖由 chinaX 於 2-12-2011 18:40 發表
上一次參加囝囝同學的生日會，一名家長說：「全港只有四間男校，三間女校和一間男女校」

  
剩係依八間公平地一齊抽，其餘的跟現狀也無不可。

GoodGrief

The prestigious schools will not be accused of being acted illegally or immorally as the “real”reason for their converting to DSS schools will never be made known to thepublic.  Schools can state very convincing reasons for being DSS schools, for example, to run the school with greater flexibility and autonomy according to the school vision and missions.  Schools need not admit publicly that the conversion is due to their disagreement to the Government policy. They even need not sound out their grievances to Education Bureau. In addition, many rich/middle-class families are more than happy to have one more prestigious school to choose.

I note that SPCC converted to a DSS school in 2002, DBS runs its own primary division (a DSS school) in 2004, St. Paul's College Primary School joined the DSS in 2004,..The principal’s 10-point discretion was retrieved by the Government since 2002-03 school year.
What a coincidence!

原帖由 4eyesDad 於 11-12-2 18:35 發表


The "heriditary" elements might be the compromise between the Government and the sponsoring organizations so t ...

Thank you for your time and patience in explaining the historical backgr ... [/quote]

[ 本帖最後由 GoodGrief 於 11-12-2 20:23 編輯 ]

SCKnight

逾睇逾覺得香港人無理由唔buy馬克思同列寧。

ANChan59

原帖由 SCKnight 於 11-12-2 21:41 發表
逾睇逾覺得香港人無理由唔buy馬克思同列寧。

Me too, quicker than 50 years.....