# data[].attributes.body
3A 15

I choose Dasia’s group.

I think that they did very well on analysing the whole news thoroughly before presenting and writing their scripts. It shows that they have a very good understanding of the news and can explain the details very clearly.

One thing they can do better in is the distribution of the lines they speak. Some of the members only have a few lines while some of them had paragraphs.

# data[].attributes.body
3A16

The group I picked is group 1. Although they only have two people, they still managed to do their work well. They have good division of labour and they have equal parts to read out. They also elaborated with plenty of details on their opinions on the central allocation system. They also introduced about the allocation system at the beginning, so we can get an overview of the topic they are going to introduce. However, I think they could improve by getting more familiar with their script because sometimes they are looking at it for too long and speaking not clear enough.

# data[].attributes.body
3A03

Courtney’s group

Comment: Good explanation of why some of them think the systems are unfair

they provided a reason is that in the discretionary place stage, the younger sibling may get into his/her preferred school without using his/her own academic abilities but his/her older sibling(s) which got into that preferred school’s academic abilities. It’s unfair since the older sibling(s) use(s) his/her own academic result to get in his/her preferred school while his/her younger sibling doesn’t, it is not only unfair to other pupils who don’t have siblings in their preferred school, but also the older sibling(s).

It is a quite brand new point of view for me to see this admission system, as the reasons I saw before about why the admission system is unfair are usually talking about the central allocation is based on luck but not abilities, or unfair to those other pupils who don’t have siblings in their preferred school. This point of view also allows me to think of the perspective of the older siblings. They would also suffer in unfairness since they paid effort to get in their preferred school while their siblings don’t.

Improvement: Can have more elaboration on how to improve the admission system

As in their Padlet or even their speech, they mentioned a lot about their view of why the admission system is unfair, but a bit lack of the suggestion of how the admission system can be improved to be more fair. They have suggested to count the pupils’ performances individually, without counting their siblings’ participation in that preferred school, but I think they can also suggest how should the central allocation system improve, as it is also one of the concern of the pupils who couldn’t get in the school they are in favour of in the discretionary place stage.

# data[].attributes.body
3A 10

i chose veronica’s group, i think they did really well on their analysis, they really understand the article that they were doing and explain and comment really well and write it very detailed. They also have equal distribution of work. I can understand what was their article well. I like the way Veronica is presenting, she knows her lines well and was loud enough to hear as well as Alexis. The improvement they need work on is only eye contact, i can see both of them were looking at the script a lot. Overall, i enjoyed listening to their presentation.

# data[].attributes.body
3A 23

The group whose work I'd like to analyze is Veronica's group. Firstly, they have an equal work delegation. All members of the team got to speak at least once, which is great. Secondly, they were very thorough in their analysis. They have clear signposting in their speech, their points are well-researched, and they use their own knowledge to further their understanding of the article. Lastly, they have elaborated on their points thoroughly. When analyzing the article they found, they have a clear stance - it's not fair because there is luck involved - and they explain why with quality arguments. Overall, this is a great presentation, which we should all take inspiration from.

# data[].attributes.body
3A 08

The group I picked is Veronica’s group. One thing they did well is how throughly they explained their stance with points that are relevant, this shows they have a good understanding on the central allocation system as they considered most of the points from the view on how it is unfavourable to students.

One thing they can improve on is the voice projection of some students as well some mumbling which can make certain points to be unheard and less clear.

# data[].attributes.body
3A 06

I chose the work of group 3. Their members are Sweety, Lily, Erato and Dasia. One thing they did good about is the analysing of their findings. They really tried their best to explain how the central allocation system and how it would affect the education system

One part they need to improve on is their eye contact and body language. It is important to look at the audience when they are speaking and use their hands to bring out the message in an attempt to convince the audience or to explain more clearly. Also, they were pretty unprepared, as lots of the members didn’t know their order of speaking, so I believe that it could be better improved.

# data[].attributes.body
The group I pick is Lily’s group.

One thing they did well is that most members had taken their turns to elaborate on their explanations about both negative and positive views on the allocation system. They are able to focus on the negative and positive reviews of the system and can catch my full attention. They are able to catch people’s eye without any slides or presentation.

One thing they have to improve is that they can be more familiar with their script. Some members are messing up their words, which makes them less convincing. They need to organize their ideas better to make it a better presentation.

# data[].attributes.body
The group I pick is Veronica’s group.they provide a very clear explanation and idea to support their point of view.they also use their own knowledge to express their opinions on central allocation.not just only these, they also analysed why this phenomenon happen and how does that affect the students and parents.their voice projection is loud enough and some of the member is willing to try to read out the words that they don’t know.I appreciate this bravery.

However,they should be familiar with their scripts.perhaps they should prepare more on the presentation part.second,their ways to improve the system is not really effective as even students go through the central allocation first.this is still based on luck,people who can’t reach the school standards can still get into the school.then the unfair situation is unchanged.you guys can think more about on that ;)

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to pick Verena’s group.

Appreciation: They can express themselves with rich variations in intonation. It catch my attention and helps me focus on the content. They talk about both the advantages of this central allocation system, such as all students can have a spot, and also the disadvantages, for example, luck is involved in this process.

Suggestion: It would be nice to have a strong and clear conclusion. Thus I am able to identify their stance easier. Otherwise even I receive a wealth of information, no definitive point makes me feel challenging to understand. A clear conclusion would also clarify their position and enhance the overall performance of their presentation.

# data[].attributes.body
3A 09 Anna Ho

For this task, I chose the work of group 6 of members of Jun Jun, Aleydis, and Shelby. I think the area that they did well is that their point of view is strongly expressed and the area that needs improvement is some members can have more improvements in body language.

Recalling the presentation brought by my classmates, I remember the member first stated their stance of “The situation is better now”, followed by a brief explanation of how the situation is better. They also used another article chosen to reflect the current situation where “lucky students” are overjoyed with their secondary school preference.

For the area that requires more room for improvement, I think the area not enough body language during the presentation. Body language is crucial for presentations or public speeches as it can attract the attention and eyes of the audience. In the presentation, I appreciate that Jun Jun has both eye contact and body language such as hand movements throughout the presentation but I think Shelby and Aleydis need more body language such as hand movements and not only eye contact.

Overall, I think the presentation is very well and their stance is projected and presented very well.

# data[].attributes.body
3A12

I picked group 5, Hayley's group. They were expressive during the presentation and gave an elaborative sharing on their opinions with evidence that connected to the news. Some members were well prepared and gave certain amount of eye contact. They mentioned about how the allocation system was unfair and considered by family relations.

I think that their contrast between their projection and volume needs more improvement as some members' voices were too small and were mumbling instead which makes it difficult to understand.

# data[].attributes.body
3A 24

I choose Group 6 (Group 3 in the presentation).

One thing that they did well was how they elaborated on how the author was only sharing information. They provided evidence about how the author presented both sides, and did not have a stance. I think it was a very clear and logical explanation.

One thing to improve on is to speak slower during the presentation and pause regularly. I think that at some parts of the presentation, they spoke quite fast and I could not catch up easily. I think that pausing regularly would give the audience more time to process their points, and also for the group members to think about what to say next.

# data[].attributes.body
3A 20

The group that I picked is Jun Jun’s group. I think that they did really well in explaining what their main view of the article was with great voice projection and eye contact.

They included a variety of examples in their speeches such as “door knocking”, as they mentioned that some students weren’t as lucky as the others who got in.

I think they can improve in the area where they said that they’re against the system. I think that they can elaborate more on that point as that is where they have to support their stance with strong examples.

# data[].attributes.body
3A 13

The group I picked is Veronica’s group. I think that they did well in elaborating the news and giving a clear explanation. They clearly stated the reasons why the local school admission system is not favourable and unfair, and a way to improve the system. The elaboration was extremely detailed and organised as well.

However, I think that they could have rehearsed their presentation more. Although the explanation was really detailed, it was harder to understand as they weren’t too familiar with the main arguments in the presentation. I suggest writing the script in the English notebook because it was hard for some of them to see when she placed their iPad on the desk instead of holding the script. It was a bit awkward to do the presentation when she couldn’t read the script properly.

# data[].attributes.body
3A 18

The group I pick is Verena's group.

They elaborated on their chosen article giving enough context to work on and tie to their points given later in the presentation such as for the meritocracy idea, I think was a point that was presented well.

I think that group members could improve and be more familiarized with their ideas, to avoid confusion when explaining and sharing their points as some parts (when talking about the points of the article) were a little hard to catch up when listening.

# data[].attributes.body
3A 19

I pick group 6, Jun Jun’s group. I think one thing they did well was they clearly identified the main idea of the article. They included both negative and positive sides of the central allocation stage. They also mentioned that some students are "not as lucky" and have to resort to "door - knocking" and still come up short.

I think they could improve on one claim “as parents in Hong Kong are overly strict and have great ambitions”. This claim is a generalization. They should support this statement with evidence from the article or other reliable sources.

# data[].attributes.body
The group i pick is Dasia’s group.

A thing they did well was offering different perspectives on the central allocation system. While some parents highly value their children to get into a good school, but also brings stress to their children. Presenting both positive and negative aspects can give the audience/readers a different view of the situation.

One thing they could improve is to be more specific, and elaborate on the impact of the system like how stress can reflect the situation related to education.

# data[].attributes.body
In-class Activity on 12/3

Pick one group, whose chosen article is different to yours, and comment on 1 thing they did well and 1 area of improvement. Offer enough evidence and elaboration to support your opinion. Write 100 words.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Even the allocation system has been more successful, many parents are still dissatisfied with the results. They take the “door-knocking” system and catch the last minute to let their children get into a preferred school. The overall number of pupils seeking entry into primary schools has decreased, but competition is still very nervous and intense, especially for those popular schools.

2. The writers just simply provide the information. He talks about the fact about the primary one admission system. He describes the reaction of the parents and the situation of this system. His attitude is neutral but not critical.

3. The primary one allocation system seems favourable to some parents who highly value getting their child into a good school over the stress and gruel some work and succeeded. But although there were no direct comments on the efficiency of the system, many parents seem unfavourable of it, as seen with their disappointment at the results and stress towards the complicated follow-up process. The intense competition for popular schools and how many parents resort to the door-knocking shows that the system brings so much stress to the families. The decrease of the applicants and the shutdown of the schools will also be the problem of this allocation system in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angry parents ‘door-knock’ top schools in Primary One admissions fallout

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Three-quarters of pupils are allocated one of top three choices, but families still out in force to secure last-minute entry into desirable schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Q1.Main idea: Primary school students in Hong Kong may consider their sports skills along with their academic performance. The South China Morning Post said that this change may be part of the new method of deciding which middle school they go to.The Education Bureau made a new plan after the school subjects have been changed.They split general studies into science and humanities, and also had more focus on patriotic education. With that, this can give more affirmation for the students good at sports and encourage students to not only focus on academics, but also physical health.

Q2.sharing information

Quote from professional(vice-chairwoman of the Hong Kong Aided Primary School) “ It would be fairer to include physical education as Hong Kong also attaches importance to sports development “ -> this quote is an opinion from the vice-chairwoman, but not the author’s opinion. Therefore, it shows that the author is only sharing a piece of information of how the professional thinks on the new proposal.

Q3. We think the local school admissions systems are not favourable and they are unfair to Hong Kong students.

In the discretionary place stage, it is claimed that it is the stage in which quotas are allocated based on students' abilities. Students may have performed extremely well in interviews and have many accomplishments in their portfolio. But the fact is that they cannot get into the school of their choice because they lose the competition with other students who have older siblings attending the school or have family members working in the school.

The central allocation stage is for the students who fail to enter their preferred schools during the discretionary place stage and can only be allocated to schools within their residential districts. It does not provide any options for students who fail to apply to the school at the discretionary place stage. And if these students are in areas where their ideal schools are not available, then even if they have good grades and high achievements, they will be forced to attend schools they do not want to attend.

The entire system seems to be fair and beneficial to Hong Kong students, but in fact it does not really provide students with the opportunity to choose the school they like. Even during the discretionary place stage, it seems to be "based on ability", but in fact the school will give priority to students based on the relationship between the students and the school. At the central allocation stage, it depends on the student's luck and place of residence. At both stages, good academic performance and a good portfolio will never be the top priority in applying to schools.

1 way to improve the system: Change the sequence of these two systems

Students may first go through the central allocation stage. And if they are dissatisfied with the allocated results, they may interview to the schools they preferred

As this can first ensure every student must get into a school, also they would have options to choose whether they pursue a better school or not . Therefore the central allocation result would not be the only and final result of the school allocated to students, allowing diversity and freedom for the students to choose their own schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hong Kong primary school students' sports performance may be under the scanner along with their academic report cards. The SCMP has learned that this change may be seen under a revised grading rubric for allocations to secondary school.

The Education Bureau submitted its proposal after authorities earlier revamped the curriculum to split the current general studies subject into science and humanities, and placing a significant emphasis on patriotic education.

Under the current practice, schools internally evaluate their pupils for secondary school allocation with three rounds of exams - one in the latter term of Primary Five and two in Primary Six - and submit those scores to the Education Bureau under a standardised 38-point system.

Core subjects such as Chinese language, English and mathematics currently take up nine points each; general studies six; music two; and visual arts three. Physical education (PE) does not currently take up any points.

However, according to sources familiar with the new proposal, pupils graded under the new rubric for secondary school allocation would have their performance in PE included, with the subject taking up two points.
The changing face of women's gymnastics across the world
Chinese, English and mathematics would be lowered to eight points each, while the two new courses on science and humanities would each take up four points. Music and visual arts would take up two points each. The total will still add up to 38 points.

Primary One and Primary Four pupils in the 2025-26 school year would be the first batch to study the new science and humanities subjects, with full implementation in 2027-28.

The revamped assessment for secondary school places would be implemented from the 2026-27 academic year onwards, when the first batch of pupils taking the two new subjects enter Primary Five.

Principal Polly Chan Suk-yee, vice-chairwoman of the Hong Kong Aided Primary School Heads Association, said the bureau had consulted representatives in the sector earlier but no final decision on the plan had been made.

She said the proposed revamp was intended to promote a more holistic development of pupils from the primary school level.

"It would be fairer to include physical education as Hong Kong also attaches importance to sports development," she said, adding that she expected authorities would make arrangements for those who were physically disabled or who had special education needs.

Education sector lawmaker Chu Kwok-keung suggested authorities allow sufficient time for schools to adjust to the proposed changes, especially for physical education.

"For example, we can score the pupils without using the grading [for the school place allocation]," he told a radio programme on Tuesday. "The physical quality of students varies greatly. A grading system can cause stress as pupils compare themselves to their peers."

Chu Wai-lam, the chairman of the New Territories School Heads Association, and Lobo Louie Hung-tak, senior lecturer of health and physical education at the Education University, agreed that the new marking regime could improve pupils' health and thereby lower society's healthcare burden in the long run.

Chu, principal of the Fung Kai No 1 Primary School, added that he would increase physical education classes to three sessions per week, a move to align with the World Health Organization's recommendation that adolescents engage in at least 60 minutes of exercise daily.

Louie described the practice of sports as a fundamental right for students to improve their physical and mental health.

"From past experience, we can see that students and parents will not pay attention to subjects that do not require examinations," he said.

"If exams are needed to draw societal attention to the development of personal physical and mental health, we shouldn't regard such a move so negatively."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hong Kong students may be graded on sports performance for secondary school allocations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Education Bureau proposes that the PE subject should take up two points; will be implemented from the 2026-27 academic year onwards.

# data[].attributes.body
Group 5

1. The main idea of this article is that there were 49, 448 pupils who have successfully got admitted to their top 3 priorities of their secondary school choice as lots of families immigrated to the UK that year, therefore, leaving more available spots for applicants.

2. The author is just simply reporting facts and also giving examples to support their facts.

3. 3. Our group believed the entire system was prejudiced, considering the amount of people can get into their preferred schools through siblings or school relationships, living or school districts, which are all determined by luck. We against this system because it's related to the aspects you are inherited of. It isn't judged solely upon the student's performance in academics and achievements, which brings unfairness for pupils who prepared for interviews, portfolios and have studied for good grades. Imagine if people can get in simply decided by their grades and luck, it'll be an absolute advantage for students who live in areas with better schools, or because of their parents and siblings related to the school. Furthermore will waste the talents of students who worked hard to gain the spot, it'll also create a large amount of competition between students for a secured spot.

One change that can be adapted to improve the system is to replace some spots from central allocation system to merit-based spots, this can encourage students who are interested in the school, to pay more effort instead of getting in by luck.

# data[].attributes.body
Group 2

Lesson Task 1

Source: https://www.scmp.com/yp/discover/news/hong-kong/article/3186503/percentage-hong-kong-pupils-getting-secondary-school

1. 94% of pupils have been allocated one of their first three choices for secondary school, the highest satisfaction rate since the allocation system was revised in 2007.

2. The author is sharing information.

3. Our views are largely favourable towards the secondary school allocation system, because last year, 91% of students were still allocated to their first choice. Although it is lower than the percentage rate in the article, it is still a very high satisfaction rate. Also, having a sibling in the same school does not give you an advantage.

However, one thing we could change is adding more spaces for door-knocking students, to ensure more students are satisfied. The Education Bureau has halved door-knocking places two years ago to improve the quality of education. However, the government can make funding education more of a priority, and give more resources to schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Group 6 lesson task 1

1. The main idea of the article:

Some students are overjoyed to be able to get into their preferred schools through the discretionary stage of allocation. Although some are filled with joy, others cannot say the same. Some are not as lucky and had to be driven with the choice to “door-knock” to other schools, but have also fallen short with this.

2. The author simply shares an overview of the situation of the allocation stage for Hong Kong Secondary admission, sharing both the successful admissions as well as “failed” admissions.

3. As parents in Hong Kong are overly strict and have great ambitions. They often will take their children to “door-knocking” even though they already got a spot in one of their preferred schools. (They somehow always have their ways :]) We are against the system to a certain extent. We think it all depends on the student’s skills, also their character during different “door-knocking” interviews.

Source: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/education/article/3269715/joy-many-hong-kong-pupils-over-school-allocation-some-still-door-knocking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Joy for Hong Kong pupils over school allocation but some still door-knocking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
But with higher number of students advancing to secondary school this year, competition for spots at popular schools has become more intense.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Yes

2. According to the article, there will be a higher chance for pupils applying for Primary one being admitted to popular subsidised schools in Hong Kong this year. For example, one popular government school located in Tuen Wan had 80% more available spots for students than last year. Since there are more families that move out of Hong Kong to provide their children education overseas. Therefore, it is less competitive among students for popular school spots. Also, schools must accept applications from the siblings of current pupils in the discretionary phase, and have to use the spots in the central allocation stage if the quota for sibling admissions is used up. Less people will use the “siblings route” because it will be too risky. So there will be more spots for the people and it will be less competitive as most people wouldn’t risk to apply for siblings admission.

# data[].attributes.body
Group 2

1. The situation has gotten better recently

2. Yes, the situation has gotten better recently now that there are more vacancies for more popular government school, favoured by most students being increase by 80% , it has been mentioned in the article , the central allocation has been considered as the second stage of the system, and are actual less people taking part in it , which means that most students are able to get in to their favourable school of choice.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Popular schools have more spots for applicants who don't have siblings in the school.

2. They are simply sharing information.

3. While some of us believe that the system works fine because it's free and everyone gets a spot, others believe that it's unfair. Some strange criteria for the first stage (Discretionary Allocation) were mentioned, such as the religion and eldest child bias. We believe that family relations should not be considered during Discretionary Allocation. Why? It doesn't assess the applicant's academic ability, but the eldest child's academic ability/parents' relations. Since we don't choose our family, it's unfair because it's based on luck.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parents to have greater chance of securing spots in top Hong Kong primary schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Data shows fewer students admitted via ‘siblings route’ in first stage, leaving door open to parents to try luck at sought-after schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Group 1

We think the situation of students getting into their preferred primary school is better now.

According to my own knowledge, the birth population has been decreasing these years, it is also a reason why there are fewer pupils applying for Primary One this year according to the article.

Less pupils applying for Primary One means that the “dog fight” and the competitions between the pupils would be decreased, with fewer competitions, pupils can get to their preferred primary school easier than before.

Also, less pupils applying for Primary One causes more spots offered in the central allocation stage by the popular primary schools, which most parents would hope their children to get into those popular schools because of their higher banding etc. Therefore, it is easier for the students to get into their preferred schools.

# data[].attributes.body
Group 4 Courtney Wong,Verena Chau,Hayley Fung,Anthea Lui

1.the situation of the ability of students to get into their preferred primary school through the system has improved.

2.since there are more vacancies for kids without siblings who studied in that school.students will be more able to enter their(or their parents’)preferred schools.this makes the allocation more fair and kids can get into their preferred schools by themselves but not by their family relationships.

# data[].attributes.body
more students have a better chance of getting into the primary school they want, there are more open spots which means more kids are able to get accepted. it is mentioned that at least 14 primary schools admitted less than 16 students in the discretionary place which means schools with bad reputations are forced to shut down. and overall students are able to get into better schools as the number of vacancies hasn’t changed

# data[].attributes.body
Group 6

1. The situation is better now. The situation has improved compared to the past, as there is a higher chance for students to secure a spot in their preferred subsided primary schools this year.

2. The situation improved as the vacancies in popular subsidized schools during the central allocation phase increased. According to the article, there has been an 13% increase in primary one spots compared to last year. For example, Tsuen Wan Government Primary School saw an 81% increase in the available places. As less students use the ‘sibling route’ to get into their preferred schools during the first stage, there is an increase available spots.

# data[].attributes.body
In groups, you will come out and present your ideas based on the chosen article for 5 minutes.

# data[].attributes.body
Lesson Task 1

Go to SCMP/YP or any other news website to find an article relating to Hong Kong's Primary/Secondary Schools Admissions System and the central allocation system.

Based on your chosen article - answer the following AS A GROUP:

1. What is the main idea of the article?

2. Does the author of the article share an opinion on the admissions system in HK or are they simply sharing information?

3. As a group, discuss your views on the local primary/secondary school admissions systems. Are they largely favourable or against these systems? Regardless of whether you reach a consensus, summarise your group's views and list one way in which you would improve the system.

# data[].attributes.body
Hong Kong pupils have better chance of entry to popular primary schools this year

Refer to the above article and answer the questions below AS A GROUP:

1. Is the situation (the ability of students to get into their preferred primary school) through the Central Allocation system?

2. Why or why not? Give ONE reason to support your answer, it may or may not be referenced from the text.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Better chance for Hong Kong children to enter popular primary schools this year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are fewer applicants and an average 13 per cent more Primary One vacancies across districts in central allocation phase this year.