I'm having a discussion with my husband about schools opening up physical classes. I'm a bit torn.
I know my kids school is quite compliant with SOPs and they're strict. I'm pretty sure most of the parents will adhere to the SOPs and ensure they are responsible in ensuring they will follow through the guidelines; if there are any suspicions of any their family members are high-risked and/or have been exposed to the virus, they won't be silly to send their kids to school. I'm quite confident of that.
But what worries me is the other schools who may not be as SOP compliant and/or have irresponsible parents who won't give two hoots about it.
My children are in a private school and had access to online classes. We had some teething problems at the start of MCO, but I suppose that was to be expected. Online classes was a different ballgame all together, not just for the students and teachers, but for us parents too as we had to find ways to ensure there were enough devices and space for all our children to have access to elearning. Not just that, Azmi and I upgraded our internet connectivity and even invested in using a landline so there were no wifi disconnection.
(Poor Iman was reported being absent from class because of the wifi stability in her study area - so we quickly got a contractor to fix that problem in case we had to continue online classes this year)
But that's just it. Our children are blessed with resources to make their elearning experience a pleasant.
Some schools only offer 2-3 hours of classes. Some don't have access to laptops/ tablets and have to resort to their parents phones (like my helper's child -- we got Dina an acer tablet when we found out about her predicament).
Some of my NGO friends (and certain balding politicians) have found ways to ensure marginalised children have laptops to use. But then there is the concern of internet connectivity. Orang di kampung macam mana?
So, I understand the "need" to have physical classes again. As the economy picks up, most parents are working and don't have the luxury of someone to be at home to ensure their kid is doing their classes online. IF they have online classes that is.
But at the same time, there's the debate about whether education is more important than the safety and health of our children.
Such a tricky decision isn't it?
What are your thoughts about this?
https://www.therakyatpost.com/2021/01/04/cmco-sop-january-2021/
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過3的網紅syazaaa roslan,也在其Youtube影片中提到,BIT31003 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION We are students of Bachelor Information Technology in University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia. This group proj...
「internet safety for students」的推薦目錄:
- 關於internet safety for students 在 Daphne Iking Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於internet safety for students 在 無待堂 Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於internet safety for students 在 盧斯達 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於internet safety for students 在 syazaaa roslan Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於internet safety for students 在 Internet Safety for Kids K-3 - YouTube 的評價
- 關於internet safety for students 在 Top 10 internet safety for kids ideas and inspiration - Pinterest 的評價
internet safety for students 在 無待堂 Facebook 的最讚貼文
【《砥鋒挺鍔 傲雪欺霜》- 大專學界就民主牆爭議之聲明 | “Arming Ourselves in Our Darkest Hour” - Declaration of Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions on the Controversy Surrounding Democracy Wall】
(Please scroll down for English version.)
近日,各大專院校對於學生使用民主牆爆發爭議,舔共傀儡林鄭月娥竟借機指言論自由並非完全沒有限制,更暗指學術自由和院校自主是鼓吹歪論的藉口。大學校園應為思想意見交流之所,民主牆亦是容許學生暢所欲言的公開平台。如今,政權之首竟出言鉗制學生表達自由,企圖向校方施壓,大興文字獄,大專學界予以最強烈之譴責。
在中大校園內,有同學於學生會管理的範圍掛上「香港獨立」橫額及於民主牆上貼上宣傳港獨之文宣。有關港獨之橫額及文宣並無違反香港法律,只是單單內容不合乎中大校方心意、與校方立場有異,校方便指鹿為馬,無理指控其內容違法,圖以法律之名打壓言論自由,更繞過該場地的真正管理者中大學生會,直接指派保安人員拆下橫額,完全無視學生自治的原則。大專學界強調,《基本法》性質類近憲法,而憲法訂明政府權限及人民權利。憲法圈限政府權力,政府卻絕不可借憲法縮窄人民權利。因此,政府及中大校方均不可以「違反《基本法》」為名,禁止學生討論香港獨立。
其後,中大學生會幹事會因是次事件而受到大規模滋擾。然而,校方並沒有就此作出回應並保護學生,反而因立場不同而置學生安危於不顧,有違教育者之原則,再證中大校方已淪為為政權護航的機器。
除此以外,早前有人於香港教育大學民主牆張貼「恭賀」教育局副局長蔡若蓮長子去世,教大校長高調批評該二人「歹毒」,更指若該二人不是教大學生,則「放他上網」。翌日,相關閉路電視截圖流出,實在令人髮指。的確,大專學界認為奚落蔡若蓮之言論確有失當,然而,冰封三尺非一日之寒。教育局多年來接連推出殘害莘莘學子之政策,當中包括全港性系統評估及國民教育,蔡若蓮為其一一護航,年青人對教育局及蔡若蓮的不滿無處發洩,最終訴於不當的情緒宣洩,實在是情有可原。教大校方縱然不滿此等言論,卻絕不可公開閉路電視片段。此等行為不但如同鼓吹社會公審批鬥,更有機會違反《個人資料(私隱)條例》。今日有人因失當言論被公開容貌,他日有學生批評校長,會否亦遭受類似報復?大專學界強烈譴責教大校方借機製造白色恐怖,並要求教大校方就洩露閉路電視片段作出合理交代。
《基本法》第二十七條訂明香港居民享有言論自由,我們的基本人權應受保障及尊重,而院校自主及學術自由更不容港共侵害。大專學界在此重申,言論自由是天賦人權,是不容侵犯之底線。我們將密切留意各大專院校之情況,堅守我們的自由與權利。
二零一七年九月十日
香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會
In the past few days, controversy surrounding students’ use of their democracy wall has broken out and received widespread attention. Communist puppet Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor took the chance and implied that freedom of speech should be limited, and fallacies have been told under the veil of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Universities are where thoughts and opinions are exchanged, and democracy walls are platforms for students to speak our mind. The regime is now making an explicit effort to limit our freedom of expression through exerting pressure on university authorities to punish those whose speech may have intimidated the people in power. Students’ Unions across the higher institutions condemn such atrocities.
In the Chinese University of Hong Kong, students hanged banner advocating Hong Kong independence at a site managed by Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Related leaflets were also posted to the democracy wall. Staggeringly, while the students by no means breached the law, the university authorities claimed that such advocacies as illegal and overrode CUSU by sending securities to remove the banner, revealing their complete ignorance to the autonomy of CUSU. Students’ Unions now reiterate that the nature of the Basic Law is similar to that of a constitution, which defines the power of the government and the liberty enjoyed by the citizenry. In other words, while the government is bound by the constitution, the government can never restrict the liberty of the people through the constitution. Thus, neither the government nor the university authorities can restrict the freedom of students to discuss Hong Kong independence under the name of the Basic Law.
Due to the controversy, the Executive Committee of CUSU has been suffering excessive nuisance. Yet, neither has there been any response from nor actions taken by the university authorities to protect the students. The authorities, as educators, should feel shameful for not ensuring the safety of students due to differences in opinions.
Apart from this, there were also two persons posting slogans to ‘congratulate’ Education Undersecretary Choi Yuk Lin’s loss of her son on the democracy wall at the Education University of Hong Kong. The President of EdUHK severely condemned the students as ‘vicious’, and claimed that the university would expose those persons on the internet if they were not students of EdUHK. Related shots of CCTV were then released to the media in the following day. Indeed, students’ unions believe the slogans are inappropriate. Yet, it is also important to acknowledge that the Education Bureau has been introducing malicious policies against students, ranging from TSA to national education, and Choi has been an explicitly pro-government person. With no effective channels to express their discontent, young people may have chosen such emotional and even irrational expression. Thus, while such slogans are inappropriate, we also find them excusable. Albeit their discontent, the university authorities should not have released the shots of CCTV to the media. Such action not only stirs up public emotions and ignites mass criticism against the two persons which would be completely out of proportion, but may also constitute violation of Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. Student may also be aware of similar vengeful acts when they criticise the university authorities again in the future. Students’ unions condemn the authorities of EdUHK for creating white terror and request the authorities to give a proper response regarding the leak of CCTV footage.
Under Article 27 of the Basic Law, we as Hong Kong citizens are entitled to the freedom of speech. Our rights must be protected and respected, while academic freedom and institutional autonomy are values that must not be stripped away. Students’ unions stress that everyone enjoys the freedom of speech, and this is the line that we shall never compromise. We are now paying attention to situation across the higher institutions and we are ready to defend our rights and liberty.
10 September 2017
City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students' Union
Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union
Lingnan University Students’ Union
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong
internet safety for students 在 盧斯達 Facebook 的最佳解答
【《砥鋒挺鍔 傲雪欺霜》- 大專學界就民主牆爭議之聲明 | “Arming Ourselves in Our Darkest Hour” - Declaration of Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions on the Controversy Surrounding Democracy Wall】
(Please scroll down for English version.)
近日,各大專院校對於學生使用民主牆爆發爭議,舔共傀儡林鄭月娥竟借機指言論自由並非完全沒有限制,更暗指學術自由和院校自主是鼓吹歪論的藉口。大學校園應為思想意見交流之所,民主牆亦是容許學生暢所欲言的公開平台。如今,政權之首竟出言鉗制學生表達自由,企圖向校方施壓,大興文字獄,大專學界予以最強烈之譴責。
在中大校園內,有同學於學生會管理的範圍掛上「香港獨立」橫額及於民主牆上貼上宣傳港獨之文宣。有關港獨之橫額及文宣並無違反香港法律,只是單單內容不合乎中大校方心意、與校方立場有異,校方便指鹿為馬,無理指控其內容違法,圖以法律之名打壓言論自由,更繞過該場地的真正管理者中大學生會,直接指派保安人員拆下橫額,完全無視學生自治的原則。大專學界強調,《基本法》性質類近憲法,而憲法訂明政府權限及人民權利。憲法圈限政府權力,政府卻絕不可借憲法縮窄人民權利。因此,政府及中大校方均不可以「違反《基本法》」為名,禁止學生討論香港獨立。
其後,中大學生會幹事會因是次事件而受到大規模滋擾。然而,校方並沒有就此作出回應並保護學生,反而因立場不同而置學生安危於不顧,有違教育者之原則,再證中大校方已淪為為政權護航的機器。
除此以外,早前有人於香港教育大學民主牆張貼「恭賀」教育局副局長蔡若蓮長子去世,教大校長高調批評該二人「歹毒」,更指若該二人不是教大學生,則「放他上網」。翌日,相關閉路電視截圖流出,實在令人髮指。的確,大專學界認為奚落蔡若蓮之言論確有失當,然而,冰封三尺非一日之寒。教育局多年來接連推出殘害莘莘學子之政策,當中包括全港性系統評估及國民教育,蔡若蓮為其一一護航,年青人對教育局及蔡若蓮的不滿無處發洩,最終訴於不當的情緒宣洩,實在是情有可原。教大校方縱然不滿此等言論,卻絕不可公開閉路電視片段。此等行為不但如同鼓吹社會公審批鬥,更有機會違反《個人資料(私隱)條例》。今日有人因失當言論被公開容貌,他日有學生批評校長,會否亦遭受類似報復?大專學界強烈譴責教大校方借機製造白色恐怖,並要求教大校方就洩露閉路電視片段作出合理交代。
《基本法》第二十七條訂明香港居民享有言論自由,我們的基本人權應受保障及尊重,而院校自主及學術自由更不容港共侵害。大專學界在此重申,言論自由是天賦人權,是不容侵犯之底線。我們將密切留意各大專院校之情況,堅守我們的自由與權利。
二零一七年九月十日
香港城巿大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港浸會大學學生會
香港科技大學學生會
嶺南大學學生會
香港珠海學院學生會
香港高等教育科技學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港演藝學院學生會
香港大學學生會
香港公開大學學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會
In the past few days, controversy surrounding students’ use of their democracy wall has broken out and received widespread attention. Communist puppet Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor took the chance and implied that freedom of speech should be limited, and fallacies have been told under the veil of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Universities are where thoughts and opinions are exchanged, and democracy walls are platforms for students to speak our mind. The regime is now making an explicit effort to limit our freedom of expression through exerting pressure on university authorities to punish those whose speech may have intimidated the people in power. Students’ Unions across the higher institutions condemn such atrocities.
In the Chinese University of Hong Kong, students hanged banner advocating Hong Kong independence at a site managed by Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Related leaflets were also posted to the democracy wall. Staggeringly, while the students by no means breached the law, the university authorities claimed that such advocacies as illegal and overrode CUSU by sending securities to remove the banner, revealing their complete ignorance to the autonomy of CUSU. Students’ Unions now reiterate that the nature of the Basic Law is similar to that of a constitution, which defines the power of the government and the liberty enjoyed by the citizenry. In other words, while the government is bound by the constitution, the government can never restrict the liberty of the people through the constitution. Thus, neither the government nor the university authorities can restrict the freedom of students to discuss Hong Kong independence under the name of the Basic Law.
Due to the controversy, the Executive Committee of CUSU has been suffering excessive nuisance. Yet, neither has there been any response from nor actions taken by the university authorities to protect the students. The authorities, as educators, should feel shameful for not ensuring the safety of students due to differences in opinions.
Apart from this, there were also two persons posting slogans to ‘congratulate’ Education Undersecretary Choi Yuk Lin’s loss of her son on the democracy wall at the Education University of Hong Kong. The President of EdUHK severely condemned the students as ‘vicious’, and claimed that the university would expose those persons on the internet if they were not students of EdUHK. Related shots of CCTV were then released to the media in the following day. Indeed, students’ unions believe the slogans are inappropriate. Yet, it is also important to acknowledge that the Education Bureau has been introducing malicious policies against students, ranging from TSA to national education, and Choi has been an explicitly pro-government person. With no effective channels to express their discontent, young people may have chosen such emotional and even irrational expression. Thus, while such slogans are inappropriate, we also find them excusable. Albeit their discontent, the university authorities should not have released the shots of CCTV to the media. Such action not only stirs up public emotions and ignites mass criticism against the two persons which would be completely out of proportion, but may also constitute violation of Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. Student may also be aware of similar vengeful acts when they criticise the university authorities again in the future. Students’ unions condemn the authorities of EdUHK for creating white terror and request the authorities to give a proper response regarding the leak of CCTV footage.
Under Article 27 of the Basic Law, we as Hong Kong citizens are entitled to the freedom of speech. Our rights must be protected and respected, while academic freedom and institutional autonomy are values that must not be stripped away. Students’ unions stress that everyone enjoys the freedom of speech, and this is the line that we shall never compromise. We are now paying attention to situation across the higher institutions and we are ready to defend our rights and liberty.
10 September 2017
City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students' Union
Hong Kong Baptist University Students’ Union
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students’ Union
Lingnan University Students’ Union
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
Technological and Higher Education Institute of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Students' Union
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Open University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong
internet safety for students 在 syazaaa roslan Youtube 的最佳解答
BIT31003 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
We are students of Bachelor Information Technology in University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia. This group project is using Arduino which is the application of the internet of things (IoT). Hopefully, this video gives you all the new information about the technology.
internet safety for students 在 Top 10 internet safety for kids ideas and inspiration - Pinterest 的必吃
A free poster that can help older students stay safe online. The rules on this poster are based on the SMART tips from the ThinkUKnow site: S - Stay Safe, ... ... <看更多>
internet safety for students 在 Internet Safety for Kids K-3 - YouTube 的必吃
Key moments. View all · Internet Safety · Internet Safety · Internet Safety · Do not type anything on a webpage unless you are told to by your ... ... <看更多>