當觀察被歸納成現象,當現象被包裝成真理,事實的另一面,總是無聲無息被淹沒於眾聲喧嘩中。
太多太多關於「孩子要贏在起跑線」的討論,眾說紛紜,結論卻殊途同歸:今時今日講求通識,即是鬥見識。見識要花好多錢,所以窮人只得死路一條。
《動物農莊》說:「所有動物生而平等,但一些動物比其他動物更平等」。
堅信「通識=見識=錢」的現代人說:「教育令社會更平等,但昂貴的教育比其他教育帶來更多平等」。
不敢說全無道理,但肯定不是道理的全部。
前線老師所見,恰好相反。通識較強的,往往不是一些家庭背景很出眾的孩子。
課堂討論,尤其明顯。例如有家底的學生,總是眾口一詞反對「自願」驗毒,因為只有「強制」才最有效。 不肯驗的,是「身有屎」,行得正企得正,怕甚麼?
只有出身平庸的,懂得反問,如果懷疑有人偷竊,是不是也要全面強制搜書包?禁毒,就能凌駕私隱和人權?
面對全球暖化,溫室孩子會說,各國合作就行了。只有窮孩子會問,若有人只說不做,怎辦?而這,不正是哥本哈根高峰會的死因?
我不會說誰對誰錯,反正通識科要求的,正正是正反兩面的分析。富孩子與窮孩子,各有盲點。但後者由於身處社會邊緣,思考也較有批判性,反而有利「起跑」。
如果環遊世界習外語學樂器是見識,捱窮捱餓刻苦生活亦然。至少在一張試卷面前,兩者一樣可貴。如此想來,通識反而造就平等。
我最心痛的卻是,孩子們被社會風氣洗了腦,以為輸梗,連鬥心也輸掉。
孩子,你們的經歷,名符其實「錢買不到」。何苦看輕自己的價值和能力?與其着眼自己所沒有的,何不好好利用自己獨有的?
5 則留言:
蕭若元、任志剛同樣住板間房出身。
同樣 St. Paul Boys
but it's late 1950s & early 1960s when social mobility was high. they were top winners of primary school public exam and got the tickets to St. Paul Boys. the society was quite fair.
Now it's quite unfair for children of poor families to enter top schools as they're discriminated by their religion, region they live, whether their parents are alumni, occupation of parents, "class" of their parents and other expensive criteria that only middle/upper class can afford. all those practices of unfair admission lead to much lower social mobility.
"如果環遊世界習外語學樂器是見識,捱窮捱餓刻苦生活亦然。"
Agree.
我認同Peter。現今世代貧窮的小朋友沒錯是能夠鍛鍊出批判性思考,但是社會上的不公平令他們甚至沒有機會跑到終點。富裕人家的孩子跑的是賽跑,但與之比賽的貧窮孩子跑的卻是障礙賽。在同一個競技場上,貧窮孩子要付出的努力必然更多,但終歸成功與否,往往是看他們有沒有運氣能遇上任何可以幫他們一把的人。除非他們天資聰敏或是勤奮過人,才會偶爾出現一、兩個「天水圍星之女」。但其實普通程度的小朋友往往居多。政府要求縮班,優質名牌官立中學首當其衝,以往貧窮學生能賴以一己之力讀上這些學校,現在競爭更激烈。富裕人家孩子周身刀,除了學業成績還帶著一大堆證書去面試;貧窮人家的孩子往往除了讀書只能夠讀書,成績好不是不好,只是不夠別人好,因為少了幾項技能,未能為校增光。現今多少孩子活在這種扼殺中,也難怪他們會氣餒。因為他們的父母也為生存在這個不公平的社會而感到氣餒,他們的父母明白這個社會的不公為孩子們帶來太多不必要的障礙,縱使他們對自己的孩子有多信心,也難以不替孩子們擔心。而孩子們從小便面對這種不公平,也難教他們相信公平的存在、努力的價值。
"不敢說全無道理,但肯定不是道理的全部。"
今時今日, 出身貧寒, 不一定不能出人頭地, 但睽諸事實, 成功的機會比富家子弟低許多許多.
The main difference (or 'gap') between the two sets of discourses is that:
Poverty (as described and observed by host) can help in Liberal Studies (i.e. public exam, academic results); while
Wealthiness can help in other domains, which are the 'real factors' (or at least the MORE IMPORTANT aspects) to become 'successful' (a.k.a. RICH in terms of the mentality of the general public in HK, and China).
Do 8A's in CE, DSE, 5A's in ALE, first class honoured degree, etc. help you climb up the ladder? Or to be more precise, do all these help you get a decent job with good prospect? But a RICH PARENT with good social network and all the connections DOES! See what I mean?
Even a good, talented, bright and well-educated graduate would not get the starting point which a rich man's son get!
......
*SIGH*
Of course the poorer children have their competitive edges, but the society is still very unfair to them!
發佈留言