I only used Prof Cheng's Quadrant II in Fig 3 and Roles 8 to 10 in Table 1 to illustrate the directon of distortion. His article did not mention details of other distortions like teaching a curriculum one or even two years ahead of the normal (traditional)syllabus, too many tests/exams (especially in the case of lower grades), too much (repetitive)homework, etc. While Prof Cheng proposed to trim the syllabuses for educational reform, he did not mention about reducing the homework to foster a balanced life, both for the students and for the parents. Although we still have very good students in public schools (govt / subsidised), the performance of some good primary and junior secondary students is prone to deteriorate in higher forms when indepth understanding and critical thinking becomes more important.
If I'm in a position to give advice, a child with fewer choices should not stretch his/er limits to target for a school with the highest banding so that his/er results in school will drop to below average. Otherwise, s/he will not be happy and his/er confidence will be undermined. It is important that parents should not give an impression to their children that it will be end of the world if they cannot enter their dream schools. Not everyone will be doctors or lawyers but they can still contribute to the society and live a happy and meaningful life. From previous research, the people of Hong Kong are not as happy as those who live in less developed countries. It comes up to the question ... what is the purpose of life! Good education is just a process ... its the ultimate goal that really matters after all.
Quote:原帖由 ANChan59 於 11-11-9 20:19 發表 
slamai
Thanks for your info, it's my second time to read the same article. I agreed with the distortion of education system, but I will use Fig. 1 as illustration of distortion, just illustrate DSS ( ...
|
