57直資校「水浸」 僅2校申減學費

Charlotte_mom

路過
當年審計署報告出街後, 引起直資學校幾大迴響, 你又有無了解?
77間直資得一間清白, 果間就係宏信, 因為太新, 新到無record, 係間間直資都有問題, 定審計署有問題?
批評無畢業生做校董, D畢業生都未夠18歲, 點做校董? 審計署無俾學校解話, 份報告已經出街
話學校水浸, 要知道直資唔同津校, 好多野都自己俾錢, 油外牆整地台維修冷氣, 唔係津校, 呢D係要從儲蓄拎錢出黎, 呢D工程係講緊幾十萬or even幾百萬的, d錢唔係天上跌落黎, 就係要靠慢慢儲, 另一方面, 直資唔同津校, 教職員唔係公務員, 無長糧食, 要留住好老師, 就要唸唸薪酬點訂, 即係要花錢, 呢個亦係事實
話學校無同地政署/教統局簽訂合約, 係地政署/教統局未做到agreement, 定學校hold住唔簽先! 我聽就係話根本政府部分拖住黎做, 無agreement, 學校又點簽呢

我同意, 有部分爆出黎既項目的確好離譜, 但唔應該一面倒去睇成件事

愛濃

    正能量家長, 辛苦晒!為你們驕傲.....

ingridchau

So we see, in essense all expenditures of the school building, the administration (staffing of edu psychologists, for instance) et ctr, are all borne by parents, donations and investment income (loss?), save the usual per-head funding to students. This is the case for a DSS. We may treat it as a Private School, with usual per-head funding.

Stakeholders' consent has long been essential to the reaon to estabish an DSS in the first place. In the case of a subsidized school, it will inevitably involve a re-writing of its constitution, in terms of legal footing and operation.

avbee

轉左后政府難管了

Charlotte_mom

chanmaymay 發表於 13-3-5 15:20
有了解過. 學校當然有一套解釋. 我想指出是,校方收到的資金, 怎運用?會否攞去作高風險投資?
有否受監管?  ...

同意, 監管係必須的, 點講都好, 直資都仲係有用納稅人既錢, 亦應向家長交代d錢用左去邊, 所以賬目透明係應該的, 大大小小活動, 最緊要應駛得駛, 無論錢從哪裡來, 學校都應該對持份者負責

建新校舍係另一個issue喇..........除非好似國際學校咁又debenture又盛, 否則邊度有咁多錢丫, 都係籌期架喇, 最緊要家長俾得甘心姐