How important is a school's autonomy in choosing its own students?

anxiousparent

This is an age-old question but more and more friends are talking about it.  I have posted here before.

A long long time ago, primary schools in HK can choose their own students.  They may have different policy in accepting different types of students (some want outgoing types, some want academic types) but, all in all, each can maintain certain standards, whether in terms of academic standard or "school style" (some schools may not produce 9A's every year but students' style and flair was instantly recognisable).

Ever since the "big wok rice" policy of the government a lot of old "famous schools" were forced to give up their autonomy in exchange for government aid.  The reason of the government is to make sure that everyone, regardless of background, can receive a good education.   But then the inevitable downside is that impression that standards are being diluted.     This is particularly so for part 2 of the allocation because it depends on the address, and every year we read about ugly parents talking (proudly!) about how hard they have tried to create an address in Kowloon Tong/Kowloon City (buying a flat there which is now worth a lot; borrowing someone else's address).  Sadly, the impression is given to some parents that if you go to these traditional famous schools, they are not as glorious as before and even though teachers are still good, you have a chance of mixing with children of undesirable parents (whose kids have a chance of becoming undesirable children themselves).   

A lot of graduates of "traditional famous schools" have turned to send their children to DSS or private schools.    The "selling point" is that DSS and private schools can choose their own students and so their kids will be more homogeneous in terms of standards .  And graduates of these schools tend now to be "successful" in society and many of them do not want their kids to mix with kids of parents who take pride in telling the newspaper how they worshipped to Goon Yum the night before the lucky draw or who borrowed a relative's address to get into a school net or who break down in tears before reporters about getting a place in a dream school.  So a lot of graduates of top traditional schools are not sending their kids back to their old schools (this phenomenon happened to many of my friends who attended  - no names mentioned - famous catholic boys schools and girls schools in Kowloon Tong and HK Island).  This is actually quite sad because the sense of tradition and continuity of these schools are broken.  Instead, graduates from these schools join the crazy game of having to prepare application forms and attending interviews with their kids.

But what is a proper solution?   Is the "big wok rice" system really a good one?  If so, why are so many decent schools turning DSS?   Kids from "not so good parents" can also be educated to become successful people and these kids, if they have to be interviewed with their parents, may not be accepted by decent DSS or private schools.  That is one of the reasons why some catholic schools are insisting on taking in students allocated by the government.   Is the price worth paying?  The trend, as far as I can observe (and also fear), is that for aided/government schools, there will still be students who are bright (or educated to become good) but the standards will be more uneven towards the middle to lower half of the class, whereas for the top DSS/private
schools, the good will be very good, and the mediocre will still be alright when compared with aided/government schools.  

I have written for too long now.  What are your views? I have posted similar topics before but apparently parents here are too busy talking about how to fill in an address to maximise their chances of succeeding in the lucky draw and no one is interested in this more funamental problem.  


Anyone?

anxiousparent

My thoughts were triggered by this link, posted here some time ago.

http://www.baby-kingdom.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=232404&forum=7

Charlotte_mom

其實好多人都話, 政府年年玩教改, 隔幾年就有學生變白老鼠--前幾年突然改左小一派位制, 無左校長分, 跟住基準試, 殺校, 334, 仲有咩目標為本, 母語教學....
其實有幾多樣真心為學生好? 我覺得佢地d官, 玩改革, 玩政治, 多過真心想改好個制度
好無奈啊!

anxiousparent

Well, both DSS/private schools and government/aided schoolsare victims of the government's changes in policy, but DSS/private schools have more autonomy in the way they teach and accept their students. Charlotte-mom you also chose a DSS/private school la.  Can yo share with us why you did not choose an aided school neh?

Charlotte_mom

No... 我唔係 not choose an aided school, 我都想入間好學校又唔駛錢, 問題係我唔敢去搏姐........所以咪自己考, 起碼決定權o係返自己手上
當一間學校, p1入黎學生質數參差左, 學校一係谷晒成班學生上, 一係就按大圍standard, 制定一套大家都適合既課程, 點講都好, 辛苦左老師, 辛苦左學生...

LLT

anxiousparent,

Below are some extracts of what the principal of St. Joseph's Primary School said in the parents' day held on 16th September 2006:-

"Up to now, we have never given up even one single student. Students' good academic performance is not the primary aim of St. Joseph. Instead, what we pursue is students' good personality. Disregarding his academic performance, we will be able to make your kid a boy with good personality, and you won't regret to have sent him here 6 years later."

"During the past few years parents keep asking me the same question why we do not change into a direct subsidy school. The answer is it is our principle to teach without distinguishing the categories of students. It will be an easy task if teaching should confine to those students striven for by anyone, but then who is to teach those 'unwanted'? We do have more satisfaction when we manage to turn those 'unwanted' into good students."

"Never give pressure to you kid, it won't work; boys' intelligence development usually come late and may suddenly pick up rapidly when they are in their Form 3 or 4."

Having heard the above, may I know your view on this school?  Do you regard what the principal said really represents their principle and belief in education, or is it a mere puff with a view to maintaining its 'business' in fear of the keen competition from DSSs?

Charlotte_mom.

you said "其實有幾多樣真心為學生好? 我覺得佢地d官, 玩改革, 玩政治, 多過真心想改好個制度"

Absolutely agree with you.  But I would add further that many government officials are making their living by suggesting and writing proposals for reform.  If proposals for reform/change are  not 'produced' from time to time, they may soon find themselves redundant!

anxiousparent

LLT 寫道:
anxiousparent,

Below are some extracts of what the principal of St. Joseph's Primary School said in the parents' day held on 16th September 2006:-

"Up to now, we have never given up even one single student. Students' good academic performance is not the primary aim of St. Joseph. Instead, what we pursue is students' good personality. Disregarding his academic performance, we will be able to make your kid a boy with good personality, and you won't regret to have sent him here 6 years later."

"During the past few years parents keep asking me the same question why we do not change into a direct subsidy school. The answer is it is our principle to teach without distinguishing the categories of students. It will be an easy task if teaching should confine to those students striven for by anyone, but then who is to teach those 'unwanted'? We do have more satisfaction when we manage to turn those 'unwanted' into good students."

"Never give pressure to you kid, it won't work; boys' intelligence development usually come late and may suddenly pick up rapidly when they are in their Form 3 or 4."

Having heard the above, may I know your view on this school?  Do you regard what the principal said really represents their principle and belief in education, or is it a mere puff with a view to maintaining its 'business' in fear of the keen competition from DSSs?

Charlotte_mom.

you said "其實有幾多樣真心為學生好? 我覺得佢地d官, 玩改革, 玩政治, 多過真心想改好個制度"

Absolutely agree with you.  But I would add further that many government officials are making their living by suggesting and writing proposals for reform.  If proposals for reform/change are  not 'produced' from time to time, they may soon find themselves redundant!

Very well said indeed.  I truly believe that the belief expressed by the principal is truly held.  In fact I have heard this from a number of representatives of leading catholic schools (about why they did not change to DSS).   The problem is that this is not the way a lot of parents perceive the situation.   

judy

我有朋友在银行エ作，佢話，每個月有幾天最忙，就是在政府發放綜援、生果金的日仔。以下是他所所發之牢騷："點解政府唔學辦學咁，一手包辦埋呢？為甚麼不在各區，開辦大型之合作社，飯堂，領綜援的，每日三餐都在那里吃，日常用品，由政府配給，老人家之生果，也由政府分配。咁就唔使來银行出錢囉"

我想，如果政府以開辦大型之合作社，飯堂，為綜援户解决每日三餐，配給日常用品來代替綜援，綜援户會否接受呢？假設綜援户不得不接受，政府的合作社能否滿足綜援户呢？

在香港，綜援户是幸福的，政府沒有為他們開辦合作社。反而，香港學生却沒有綜援户咁好彩，香港學生不得不進入開辦之合作社，進行標準化之教育。

直資，並沒有得到甚麽特權，他們所得的，只是和綜援户之侍遇一樣，他們拿到學卷(直資和學卷差不多)，可以到別的地方買東西而己。

judy

"During the past few years parents keep asking me the same question why we do not change into a direct subsidy school. The answer is it is our principle to teach without distinguishing the categories of students. It will be an easy task if teaching should confine to those students striven for by anyone, but then who is to teach those 'unwanted'? We do have more satisfaction when we manage to turn those 'unwanted' into good students."

好幽默，建議家長可print出這段，為小朋友做一通識教育，學到其兩成幽默感，足以考取SPCC。

轉佐直資，有100%之收生權，你如想收those 'unwanted'，盡管收，收100% 的也可以，使咩講咁多呀。佢講呢段話之前，又唔諗吓自己小學八班，到中學時踢走四班 'unwanted'的。

Charlotte_mom

呵, 講呢番說話去考spcc就死梗啦....
聽聞spcc轉直資之前, 的確係激烈爭論過: it is our principle to teach without distinguishing the categories of students
結果咪就係一路收$48000一年, 一路揀學生家底, 一路又強調自己有subsidy......

leeleelumlum

結果咪就係一路收$48000一年, 一路揀學生家底, 一路又強調自己有subsidy......

LLT

judy 寫道:
"佢講呢段話之前，又唔諗吓自己小學八班，到中學時踢走四班 'unwanted'的。"

Have you considered the practical problem encountered by St. Joseph's College in relation to the number of students that it can accept is limited by:-

1) the school SAPCE; and
2) the rules set by the government that only a percentage of the seats can be reserved to its primary school.

Below is a news report posted on this site today by another member.  Will you think differently on this school after reading the news?

聖若瑟小學擬減班結龍  

　　(星島日報報道)為預備轉為全日制及直屬中學結成「一條龍」學校，灣仔區名校聖若瑟小學計畫於○八學年，把小一班數由現時八班減至五班，小一學額將減少約一百一十個。校方強調，尚未有轉全日制及「結龍」的時間表。

　　聖若瑟英文書院校監Brother Thomas Favier日前接受訪問時表示，辦學團體一直希望中小學「結龍」﹔但由於小學每級有八班，中學只得五班，校方尚未決定是否「結龍」。

　　該校校長梁長興透露，現時中一只有逾百個直屬學位，小學畢業生卻有近三百人，每年均有百多名小六生未能直升中學﹔故小學計畫於○八學年，把小一由八班減至五班，原因是若中小學「結龍」，中學須預留部分學位予他校學生，小學或須再減至四班小一，中小學才能「結龍」。

　　聖若瑟小學校長梁賦鈿則指，轉全日制是小學減少班數的另一原因，因學校只有二十四個課室，小一至小六均須減至五班才能轉制。但她強調，校方對轉全日制未有最後定案。

　　梁長興表示，聖若瑟英文書院的第一期學校改善工程，須籌募一千一百萬元費用﹔由於得到校友會支持，現已籌得一千萬元，他有信心在明年二月完工前，能達到籌款目標。

　　他又指，改善工程獲校友、王董建築師事務有限公司董事總經理何承天支持，只象徵式收取一元顧問費。「其他公司也因此不好意思收太貴，令我們省下逾百萬元顧問費。」梁長興透露，校方正計畫第二期工程，把禮拜堂部份樓底高的樓層「一開二」，增加二至三層樓面，改善教員設施。

judy

小學人多，中學額少，自然有人升不到，這是人人皆知之事，不用討論。至於它要那些、不要那些，只要公開一貫，我想也不會有異議。但同一道理，直資招生，名額100，申請人數1000，自然有900名落選，所以犯不着指責直資，好象自己好偉大咁: "The answer is it is our principle to teach without distinguishing the categories of students. It will be an easy task if teaching should confine to those students striven for by anyone, but then who is to teach those 'unwanted'?”，不如想想，未教改前，他又何曾不是在小學左選又選，在中學又左選又選。

如果他真是那麽善心，轉直資啦，轉直資所得之資助，並不比津校少，直資有收生權，那時他就可收哂those 'unwanted'?”，可teach those 'unwanted'?”。