Did we? Could we? Would we?

Two days ago I got back my Danish quiz. Despite some spelling mistakes, I got full mark because, apparently, the teacher would grant me marks as long as I got what the marking scheme requires. Say, for example, in writing the sentence "I would like a chicken sandwich", it doesn't matter if I spell "would" wrongly (trust me, that is possible in Danish), but you don't get any mark if you do not put down "chicken".

Marking scheme - I felt almost nostalgic when I heard my teacher saying that.

Another guy in my class just could not understand why he did not get any mark for a grammatically correct sentence (well, he probably wrote "I would like a sandwich" in correct grammar but without "chicken") ; that is not surprising, since he grew up receiving American education and values.

"Why do I not get any mark for this? Isn't the grammar correct?"
"Yes, your grammar is correct, but you didn't put down 'chicken' in there, therefore I cannot give you mark for it"
"Why?"
"Because the marking scheme said so, and I have to follow the marking scheme so that I am assessing you guys just as teachers from other classes do to their students."
"Why is the marking scheme set in that way?"
"..."

Exactly - Why? Why chicken? Why not sandwich? Why are we not rewarded for writing a correct Danish sentence - isn't that the point of us going to a Danish class? This just reminds me of those times back in the CE days, when we did tests or quiz instead of eating lunch properly, and got back test papers with a lot of writings on it but very few marks given by the teacher; eventually we gave up on textbooks or notes and studied marking schemes instead.

We probably had asked why among ourselves during recess; we could have asked why like the American student who challenged the Danish teacher; we would have asked why more often if it could make a difference. I guess the biggest failure of the education system in HK is revealed in how the word "why" simply stops coming up in our minds after being in school for a while.

特殊教育新高中

特殊學校新高中學制司法覆核案已有定案，法官判特殊學校學生敗訴，政府的政策沒有構成歧視。
老實說，這判決令我有點驚訝。我看不出新學制政策的道理何在，不過我相信法官這樣的判應該有他的理據。我現已返回美國校園，較難了解詳情；再有消息，便會在此更新。

特殊教育新高中

撰寫此文之際，智障學童唐偉庭爭取18歲後繼續上學的司法覆核案已經進入候判階段。
事情端倪是怎樣？

案件源於去年九月教育局頒布的《資助學校資助則例》修訂版，內裡有一行說明：「或特殊學校取錄的學生，如在學年結束時年屆二十歲，則不得繼續就讀中學班級。」條裡本來就嚴苛，但今年初，教育局更通知學校，九月起，十八歲以上的學生便不能獲得資助。
即是說，在特殊學校讀書的學生，只要年滿十八歲，無論讀至甚麼年級，也不能再讀。關注特殊教育權益家長大聯盟在報紙刊登的廣告標題便寫明：「十八歲，冇書讀！」

有特殊學習需要的學生需要比較長的學習時間，教育局反而限制他們的學習機會，此舉實在令人費解。若香港政府為節省成本而縮短特殊教育年期，更是短視。信報主筆便比較了特殊教育的開支和照顧教育不足的智障成人的成本，質疑政府：到底有沒有算清楚特殊教育的成本效益？

何況這事情根本不需要用經濟角度去評論。在新高中學制中，教育局沒有對普通學校的學生設年齡上限，普通學校裡有「超齡」會考生也不是甚麼特別的事。政府只對智障學童社這限制，疑是歧視智障學生。今次十八歲的智障學童唐偉庭司法覆核案，代表資深大律師李柱銘亦指此政策構成歧視。

除了七一遊行之外，有關團體亦多次到立法會及遊行請願，但也不能成功申訴，於是便訴諸法律。

資料：
關注特殊教育權益家長大聯盟傳媒書
司法覆核案新聞