牛牛~媽~咗媽媽一兩聲呀!!!!
但係,再叫佢~媽~時,佢又~爸爸~ !
不過呢,呢兩日牛牛已經識得講返~奶奶~,又會~波波~,~謝謝~咁,已經好大進展喇!
加油!
「學前教育學券計劃」推出已有四年,但最近接二連三收到不少熱門幼稚園將於下學年退出參與該計劃的消息,不禁聯想起「直接資助計劃」推出後的二分局面。在自由市場定位及用者自負的原則下,莫非教育自主真的非用學費換來不可?到頭來甚麼美其名的十五年免費教育,最後把幼稚園分成參加和不參加學券計劃的分別,又是否另一項會將幼兒教育推至兩極化的政策?
面對着近年持續上升的租金、通貨膨漲和幼稚園老師需求的不斷上升,無可避免對幼稚園的營運造成龐大的成本壓力。雖然早前局方有意跟隨整體通漲調整學費上限,但實際上幼稚園成本的升幅遠超整體通漲,這正為多間幼稚園相繼退出學券計劃埋下伏線。
另一方面,教育政策與現實需求的不符亦造成部份幼稚園選擇「跳船」,退出參加學券計劃。縱然教育局多年來積極推動愉快學習,讓幼兒在無壓力的情況下上學,但另一方面又積極鼓勵名校轉為直接資助。可惜的是在這環境下,幼兒反而變成從自出娘胎開始便要提早起步,以配合父母為他們五年後的小一面試好好裝備,以求達到非名校不入的目標。
很多家長或許會認為,幼稚園不參與學券計劃是一件好事。因為少了限制、多了資源,必定能提供更大空間和課程自主,將現有課程質素提升。但要注意這推論並不是必然成立的,因為大部份退出的幼稚園,現時的學費已處於上限$24,000一年,其實不繼續參加學券可能只為舒解通漲的壓力,家長切勿一廂情願認定退出的幼稚園必會作出重大的改變。
由於預計明年將無法在保持於學券計劃的上限範圍內,繼續保持一貫的教學質素,這些幼稚園在別無他法下放棄繼續參與,實在無可厚非。縱使學費的升幅只為扺銷通漲的影響,但就算只是每年一千元的加幅,對原可使用學券的家長來說,卻是一萬七千元的分別(現時每年學券資助為一萬六千元),究竟是否非加不可呢?
當然,亦有部份幼稚園確實以提升課程自主性為目標,去爭取較佳的競爭力或加強與學術水平較高的小學函接,而選擇不繼續參加學券計劃。在現實社會中,這是一種很基本的供求關係。由學校提供相應的學習環境去滿足部份家長對普及教育所不能提供的元素。但是,這不正是跟直接資助計劃的方向一樣嗎?
想當年在九年免費教育出台前,學校之間就如百家爭鳴的境況。私立學校各有各自的特色,不少有教會背景的學校在有限資源下,為貧苦大衆提供受教育的機會。跟着私校都變成津校,隨着時間流逝,「校本條例」的出現,正是要為繼續留守的津校都跟隨主流環境而行。失去了原本的辦學理念,學校就如失去了靈魂一樣,留下的只有一個一個倒模出來的軀殼。另一邊廂,直接資助的學校在收取政府資助及家長學費的下,打造出一些提供給有經濟能力家庭的「另類選擇」。
或許,根本已經沒有人再介意了。但是教育,真的是要用錢才能買到的?
難道這就是我們希望教育下一代的價值觀嗎?
By Genevra Pittman
NEW YORK | Mon Nov 7, 2011 6:22pm EST
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Pediatricians write more than 10 million unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions -- for conditions like the flu and asthma -- every year, suggests a new study.
Those ailments, and others not caused by bacteria, don't respond to the drugs. But misuse of antibiotics contributes to drug resistance -- so those same medications might not work in the future when they're really needed.
"Antibiotics are wonderful. There are times you really need them, the question is just being judicious about when we use them," said Betsy Foxman, an epidemiologist at the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor who was not involved in the research.
The new study involved a nationally-representative sample of almost 65,000 outpatient visits by kids under 18 in 2006 through 2008. Using medical codes, researchers were able to determine the type of diagnosis kids were given, as well as what kind of drugs, if any, they were prescribed.
In total, doctors prescribed an antibiotic at one in every five visits. Most prescriptions were given out for kids with respiratory ailments, including sinus infections and pneumonia.
Some of those infections are caused by bacteria, and antibiotics are warranted. But almost one-quarter of all antibiotic prescriptions were given to kids with respiratory conditions that probably or definitely do not call for antibiotics -- such as bronchitis, the flu, asthma and allergies.
That translates to more than 10 million antibiotic prescriptions each year that likely won't do any good but might do harm, Dr. Adam Hersh of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City and his colleagues reported today in Pediatrics.
Half of all antibiotics prescribed were "broad-spectrum" drugs -- meaning they act against a wide range of bacteria. Those "kill more of the good bacteria in our bodies and can set the child up for infections with antibiotic resistant bacteria down the road," Hersh wrote in an email to Reuters Health.
"In many of these instances antibiotics are not indicated at all," he added.
Broad-spectrum antibiotics include macrolides and certain types of cephalosporins and penicillins.
Foxman said that wiping out the non-harmful bacteria in the intestines has been linked to asthma and, recently, to obesity.
"We think of antibiotics as being wholly beneficial, but they are not very specific, they hit everything in your body," she said. "By making our microbes that are supposed to be with us disappear, we can be causing other health problems we don't know about."
And even when the drugs are prescribed for just a few days, giving them to lots of kids unnecessarily raises the risk of antibiotic-resistant infections in the kids themselves, and for society as a whole, she added.
"It's been known for a very long time... that people are prescribing antibiotics for upper respiratory infections where they have no benefit," Foxman told Reuters Health.
"To me this wasn't a big surprise, though it's certainly disturbing."
Hersh said that there are a number of reasons why doctors might prescribe antibiotics when they're not likely to help. "One reason overuse occurs is because the diagnosis is often unclear -- this is common with ear infections. The decision is made to prescribe an antibiotic even though the diagnosis isn't certain, just 'to be on the safe side,'" he said.
In those cases, a "wait and see" approach in which the kid comes back to the office a couple days later might avoid an unnecessary prescription, he added.
"If your doctor suggests an antibiotic prescription, for instance for an ear infection, ask how certain the diagnosis is. If the diagnosis is still a little unclear, ask if it would be safe to wait a day or two with close follow up rather than starting the antibiotic right away," Hersh advised.
Dr. Aditya Gaur, who has studied antibiotic prescribing at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, said that parents should ask doctors why their kids are getting whatever particular medication, including antibiotics, they're being prescribed.
"Parents and families should be part of the decision and ask why (something) is being done," Gaur, who wasn't linked to the study, told Reuters Health. They should also know "not to expect an antibiotic every time an infection is diagnosed."
SOURCE: bit.ly/cxXOG Pediatrics, online November 7, 2011.