Xiaoshengchu draws lots to burn incense.
In a broad sense, this admission policy is quite good, taking into account all kinds of situations, such as having the opportunity to enter a quality school, and at the same time ensuring that you can at least enter the school nearby and study in your district. Everyone has books to read, and education is universal.
But as parents, children are the only treasure in the family, and parents can pay a lot for their children's future, especially not to lose at the starting line. Education is very, very important. Therefore, we must do everything possible to strive for the best and best educational resources for our children. So there are many pictures of "being poor and bearing the wind", such as: waiting in line all night, waiting in the hot sun, feeling uneasy when drawing lots ..... I am happy when I win, I feel sorry when I don't win, I feel sorry for my children, and so on.
So here comes the question
1. Is it really necessary for parents to care about the school choice of "young to small" and "small to early"?
2. Is the lottery fair or unfair to children's growth?
3. Is the disparity of teachers between schools enough to determine children's future?
On the above three questions, I also want to talk about my personal views:
1. Is it really necessary for parents to care about the school choice of "young to small" and "small to early"?
Kindergartens and primary schools belong to the most basic simple subjects of teaching and learning, and there are no so-called majors or profound things. As long as there is a teacher to teach, students are willing to cooperate and can basically learn. At this stage, there is no so-called pursuit of "excellent" or "top" subjects, but an enlightenment development, which exposes children to Chinese, mathematics, nature and so on. , and have a basic understanding of learning and a certain degree.
At such a simple stage, do parents still have to stare at the question of "choosing a school"? Why?
I believe that most parents know that this is an initial education and do not expect their children to "stand out" at this stage. But the school environment is very important. Many parents think that the "starting line" is very important and the starting line is too low. How will they compete with others in the future? Therefore, the key to this problem is the "learning environment", in other words, whether the school can shoulder the "trust" of parents. If parents have confidence in the school environment or teaching resources and are willing to send their students to teach, there is no need to rush to "choose a school".
Of course, in the eyes of parents, schools are always ranked. However, is this ranking important enough to be "selected"? Can schools in the nearby area dispel the "trust crisis" of parents? In other words, what do district schools use to convince or prove that their basic teaching is completely competent? In this regard, district schools also need to try hard, instead of "I am like this" or being in the mentality of "I only do my own job" and "reassuring parents". This is what district schools must do well, and at the same time, we should pay attention to related communication.
On the other hand, parents don't need to follow the trend too much and take "prestigious schools" too seriously. Once a netizen published "The school chosen at the starting line is too underestimating your children!" ":No matter whether it's a small seven or a small three, it can't be without the influence of the family. Indeed, although school is important, for children aged 3 to 12, the influence of family is the most important. Parents can't just throw their children into a "prestigious school" and think that they have completed the task. In kindergartens and primary schools, the family plays the greatest role. Therefore, from this perspective, do parents really need to care about the choice of schools?
2. Is the lottery fair or unfair to children's growth?
Is it fair or more unfair to come to this most controversial link? Personally, this way, from a big perspective, is more fair. If there are school-age children in school, you have a chance to win. This opportunity is equal to everyone, and there is no need to fight for money, identity and face value. ......
Of course, this fairness is relative, not absolute, because there is still a 20% ratio here. On the other hand, I think such a rule actually protects the "poor". The so-called poor are relative to the "rich", because the rich don't look at such rules at all, and their eyes have long come out of their pockets. They may be watching schools in Sihui, Sanshui and other cities. Therefore, from this perspective, the lottery is fairer, more secure for the "poor" and prevents the children of poor families from losing at the "starting line".
The unfair controversy is that "lottery only depends on luck, not on hard work, which stifles students' motivation and is not conducive to selecting high-quality students". From this perspective, I think it exists in a short time, but in a long time, it is a false proposition. In a short time, because the current teachers and school resources are too concentrated, they often have the aura of "prestigious schools", so it is unfair to think that good students can't enter good schools. However, if in the long run, all good students go to good schools and all bad students go to poor schools, then simply dividing students and schools into "good students", "poor students", "good schools" and "poor schools" is this fair? Is this really fair to the general public? In my opinion, this is the biggest unfairness. Poor students pay to train good students and use a large number of "poor students" to achieve "good students"? Use "poor schools" to achieve "good schools"? All power resources are inclined to "good schools". What about a large number of "poor students and poor schools"? Let them down? You know, this is the basic stage of "kindergarten" and "primary school" in the basic teaching stage, and it is not recommended to label it immediately.
So in the long run, we must break this simple label of "good" and "poor". To break this label, in the short term, someone needs to make sacrifices. At present, our parents are in this historical period. Therefore, some parents will jump out and call this practice "unfair". Why do my children work so hard and get assigned to ordinary schools? The purpose of adjusting the distribution form of students is to evenly distribute students. All schools have students, and schools in each district have excellent students, so that all students can be fair for a long time, and then we can continue to improve the school's hardware measures and teachers, because for schools, students are the first. With students, other hardware or software improvements can follow.
Just because we are in the "average student" stage, the teachers in other schools are not averaged, so there will be a gap here, so there will be an unfair feeling. Now some parents and children are "students are averaged", making sacrifices and contributions to the next stage of "teachers are averaged". No one wants their children to be "averaged", so there is a saying of "drawing lots".
Since "students are averaged" has been accepted by parents, how is "teachers are averaged" realistic and when will it be realized? This is what our parents are most concerned about at present. If the "faculty" is not averaged and this faculty is tilted, then the parents' previous sacrifices will be in vain. This is really unfair, unfair, unfair.
Therefore, as parents, we should supervise the education department and urge it to speed up the reform and realize the equalization of educational resources as soon as possible. This is what we should attach most importance to and be responsible for our future generations. Otherwise, the sacrifices of these generations of parents will be in vain, and the children will be distributed, which is unfair.