救救香港教育，將 “破格” 普及化和正常化
1：羅范的故事。在剛結束學年，羅范椒芬曾給一群師生說以下一個故事。內容是一個農夫有一頭驢子，但驢子卻不幸掉進井中，農夫無計可施，又不忍驢子受苦，便把沙泥往井傾倒，心想長痛不如短痛，活埋驢子免長期痛苦。但是驢子有其生命力，每次傾倒沙泥時，總不斷掙扎往上爬，結果一輪輪的掙扎以後，竟能逃出生天。作為故事，驢子故事說的自然是不要放棄，凡事總有奇蹟！
2：當故事成了寓言。但若將羅范的故事從 “說漏咀” 角度，看作寓言，則現今香港的教育制度實在處於極度惡劣的境地！師生終日仿如在井底，為不被掩死而掙扎求存，教育制度的 “主人” 卻無計可施，不向外求救，而只會 “落井下石” 又等待奇蹟。最後，也許仍有一批不被淹沒的師生，但同時被淹死的相信也數量不少吧！看教師的壓力與不滿，學生的厭學與焦慮，難道不跟羅范的 “寓言” 太相符嗎？而終日掙扎而存活下的，還有甚麼愉快學習？多元、差異、兼容、啟發學習等漂亮口號還有何可能呢？
3：朱經武的破格。因中五生陳易希的科學成就 (多功能機械人)，獲美國的一個科學創意中心表揚並以星星命名，使陳易希獲破格被科大校長朱經武承諾取錄。這本是好事一樁，尤其見到陳易希的爛漫與熱情，很使人替他高興 (若教署中人頭腦活一點，大可成為愉快學習的活標本哩)！可是陳的會考成績不甚理想，惹來各方責難，質疑朱經武 “押錯注” ，朱亦講話相信陳會成為傑出科學家。
4：“破格” 有何特別？曾看一段故事，是在七、八十年代解放初，某內地青年參加小說比賽，得全國冠軍，被一美國大學校長羅致，其時青年是全不懂英語的，有問校長不怕嗎？校長答：不怕，全國的冠軍，怎會蠢？後來青年成知名教授。也許成功例子易找，說個 “不成功” 例子吧！那是我的姊姊，接近廿年前，我的姊姊讀中學，參加青年科學家比賽，得獎。一甚麼博士的給她寫推薦信，結果獲牛津大學取錄。可大學時身體很差常病，結果是成績差點點而不能獲獎學金繼績升學。如今在英國結婚生子經營餐館。對這 “不成功” 個案，難道是牛津的某負責人 “押錯注” 了嗎？
5：將破格普及化及平常化。對一些歐美學府，招攬各類有科研、創作或體育潛能的學生是很平常的事，招攬的目的，不是要求他們將來必成大科學家或大學者 (這也沒可能保証) ，而是給予一個機會給有潛能者，接受高等教育的機會，將來成果便看各人造化了！
朱經武破格招生之成全城焦點，是因香港的大學缺少此傳統。陳易希會考成績之成全城焦點，是因為香港教育體制從來只視公開試為唯一正途！但正途是甚麼？是那口不斷被灌沙灌泥的井？出產的是終日掙扎，深諳 “生存之道” 的人才？
也許，經過不知多少回的教育改革和失望，香港社會實不應再寄厚望於現有教育制度 (我不是說全盤否定)，而更應發展一種多元的升學與取錄模式，將各校收錄學生的自主性大幅提高，將 “破格” 視為為有潛質者提供高等教育的普通及正常手段，而不是 “押上一鋪” 。政府常說知識社會的來臨要各類人才，但更應知道各類人才不會是由同一個 “模” 壓出來的！我想香港社會現在要做的，是對朱經武的破格作出肯定，肯定的可不是他的 “眼光” ，而是那讓社會更多潛能得以栽培、發展與提升的 “識見”！
回應
Formal education v learning
When it comes to education, we have to think of this on at least two levels.
On one level, the teachers who still have ideals to educate have to think of "what students want to learn" and "how they going to learn" within the very limit resource.
What students really want to learn?
Ask any teacher, they would tell you the students who get pretty low marks, could remember many details on TV shows, Cartoon series and a lot of "non essential information".
From this observation, the children are tactling "boredom". Children get bored easily, and when parents/adults allow things to district themselves with TV, games, etc. from boredom, books and homework is comparative much less "attractive".
Children with educated parents may notice this, and created a bored environment so that homework, reading become the "way out" of boredom.
Why people from 100 years ago read? Because they were bored, and reading is an easy way to pass time.
Time seems run much slower for children when compare to adult. Give a child some free time with nothing better to do than read, and he/she will read on his/her own.
Sometimes, it is true to say "we are what we read", and that is why good books with good ideas are dangerous. That is why religious fanatics, bigots and politicians are so afraid of books, so much so that they want to ban them so that people could not read them.
On the second level, is the much more calcuated level, is how to turn a child into a money-earning-adult. In order to do that, this child has to pass many exams, get good grades, get into good schools, go to university and study in field that is support by the society, and then find a job and goes from there.
Learning has little to do with this level. How to get A and beat the system is the way to go.
If you think of education as a factory of making "labor force" needed by the market, then you will see how the EMB has formed their policies.
Practicing for exams that were designed poorly, is not only boring, without much benefit in itself. But that the way it is for Hong Kong.
阿丙, AGREE!!!
Agree x 10!
To xox,
曾聽為人師表者以下觀察，指教精英班和中線班級的分別，是精英班較乖、聽話、語文能力較好，但是中線的上課卻較活潑，較多問問題，而問的問題很多是經過思考的。兩者相較，這老師倒喜歡教中線學生，因喜歡當中的互動，而不是精英班那種甚是單向的學習氣氛。
“為學習而學習” 亦可以在 formal ed. 處發生的。將教育分兩 level ，只是將敗壞的制度說成理所當然！退回私領域是一種出路，可追求教學自主不是更積極進取的回應方法嗎？尤其教育用的是公共資源，豈能讓大企業老闆以 manpower 角度抹平一切社會價值呢？