Opinions of the Primary School Registration System

[3Boys]

cherrygal:

:scratchhead: Is there a need to be mean to pple who don't support your ideas, 3boys? Are you a PR? You wanted to dismantle Phase 2A and the PV scheme in your heated debate with Rains. Is that not mean spirited to pple who are eligible for those schemes?


I still think Chief Kiasu's suggestion is fairer and I want Singaporeans first.

Many forummers just want to air their views without attacks from anyone.

No, I am a Singaporean, full NS completed, 3 Boys coming to serve the nation in the future.

And no, it's not an attack.

As a sharing of views, I say again, limiting PR places;

A) does little in the long run, because the numbers are 1) small, 2) does not prevent the racheting of P2A places that is presently happening (mostly amongst Singaporeans)

B) is mean spirited. I did no say you were mean-spirited, I said the notion of picking on a minority group just to avoid the hard issues of so many priority places going to alumni, is small minded, ill-conceived, naive, and is not becoming of an advanced society like ours.

Hope that clarifies.

[3Boys]

Alright, let me make take another stab at this;


Blanket Alumni priority for admissions into P-schools is

1) Unsustainable

2) Unfair

3) Unsupported by general principles for admissions into institutes of learning

A lot of the discussion around various band-aids like increasing capacity, affirmative-action PSLE scoring, PR/Foreigners, Phase 2B, is basically distraction or kicking the can down the road (i.e. deferring the pain).

Lets just take a quick look again at the core statistic, that is staring at us in the face, and yet it would seem that people are in denial about.

http://image.kiasuparent.com/kspfiles/files/file/A-BukitTimah.jpg\">

Does anyone disagree that

i) Phase 2A forms a sizeable and INCREASING proportion of admissions to popular P-schools, and
ii) Phase 1 is also driven significantly by Phase 2A

My read of this is that for many of the schools represented in the graphic, more than half of the intake is already placed with children who have alumni parents. And that percentage is getting bigger and bigger by the year.

So, to point 1), is this sustainable?

In my view, this is one massive ponzi scheme that will collapse on itself sooner rather than later. Already for HPPS, unless you had a child already in that school (and how do you get in there in the first place?), or an alumni, you can almost forget about getting in there. At some point in the near future, there will not be enough places for even 2A, then what?

Build more capacity like someone suggested? Create even more alumni to feed into the system for the future, then build even more capacity for your children's children?

The issue is not about capacity, the issue is that this is one massive inverted pyramid that grows and grows, and the reason this is an pyramid is that there is a egregiously flawed policy at the base of it, an unfettered/uncontrolled/unfiltered alumni priority scheme that lets ALL alumni, regardless of distance from school, regardless of past/present contributions, to admit ALL their children into their preferred school.

What is the nett result? Blindingly obvious, even to the MOE, I hope. There is a rachet in play, the popular schools receive a disproportionate percentage of 2A applications, and it increases year-on-year.

This is the big flaw. A policy of alumni priority admissions, not congruent with ANYTHING else I have ever seen pertaining to admissions to institutes of learning, not for any institutes (apart from P-school) in Singapore, or elementary/primary schools in major developed economies (as far as I could research, feel free to cite me examples to the contrary).

And to those who think that kicking the PR/Foreigners is fair game, how much time do you think this buys us?

And if there are any MOE folk reading this, you can let your bosses know that, as hard a political issue this is to tackle now, it will become even harder year by year as more and more people get on the alumni train, so you'd better get off the tiger while you can.

2) Is this fair?

Yeah, life is unfair, I get that.

Life can be unfair due to circumstances out of our control. I wish I was better looking, wish my Dad has passed on some athletic genes, even Angelina Jolie had a bad roll of the genetics dice.

Yes, life is unfair due to certain things out of our control.

But to have deliberate policies that that discriminate against one group (non-alumni) for the benefit of another? That's not unfairness, it's injustice.

Let's face it, a place in a prime Primary school is a commodity. A lot of people would like to have it. If it is a limited commodity, then the norms by which that commodity is distributed must be subject to scrutiny. This whole argument of \"Oh there is no perfect solution\" is basically a smokescreen for inaction.

Can a limited commodity as such then be subject to a distribution paradigm akin to hereditary rights? Can you imagine a situation where a vehicle COE was passed down from one generation to the next? There is a deliberately cap on the validity of a COE, so that people arriving later to the party, actually have an opportunity to buy a car (enter a favoured P-school) and not have those precious things locked away from their sight forever.

Yes, reminiscing about driving that nice car (having studied in school X) brings a tear to your eye.....now how about sharing that joy with a fellow Singaporean who has not yet had the chance to sit in a car?


3) Alumni priority, really?

I take issue with the notion that somehow removing the alumni priority for child admission will 'dilute' the school spirit. If that were the case, Oxford/Cambridge/Harvard/Yale would be soulless/hollow institutions since they don't have blanket priority admissions for children of alumni. Would the alumni from those institutions like their children to follow in their footsteps? I'm sure many would. Alumni affection for their schools is a natural and good thing, and ought to be encouraged.

But does it give those parents the right to insist on placement of their children? No. They can encourage their children to study hard and make the admissions grades at those schools, and this acts as a natural filter, one that is fair and transparent. The upshot of these is also that not ALL the children (in fact only a small proportion) will attend the institute of their parent's instruction. This creates a natural (and fair) filter for admissions so that the broader public gets a fair shot.

The whole problem is that the current policy is so half-baked in its attempt to foster alumni relations, it forgets a filter is necessary to prevent a stratification of admissions. And parents have become so entrenched this has become a political hot-potato. And once its political of course people start dragging PRs/foreigners into it.

So.....

i) Warm and fuzzy feeling about your old school does not grant you the right to therefore insist that your child be placed there.

ii) Just because there is no priority placement for children of alumni does not mean that the school lacks alumni support or that they become hollow institutions.


So, I see no merit whatsoever in the alumni priority admissions, and in fact, I think this will collapse on itself at some point. However, recognising it for what it is, I doubt if the MOE wishes to commit political suicide by completely dismantling it from the outset.

But some cap on alumni phase is clearly in order.

[3Boys]

Nebbermind:

Just had prata supper with ah heng coz he couldn't sleep thinking abt this issue. After a cup of teh halia, his mind cleared up and he told me his plans.


Since most parents are upset about not getting into a nearby school, he's gonna do this.

i. For those popular schools within HDB estates that have lesser known schools within 500m, it will be joint admission for P2C so that most, if not all will get into a school near their homes.

ii. If there isn't any other schools nearby, he will look for suitable plots of land to build new ones.

iii. For those schools surrounded by private estates, he will see how they can increase their intake by another 2~3 classes, ie, 60~90 kids. This should be sufficient since private estates population also not that high. The most they go to farther schools which isn't a big problem coz they would have the resources to do so.

iv. To go one step further, he was also considering giving those parents to had lived at the address for more than 5 yrs double the ballot chances. So if they are in the joint admission, they will have better chance of getting into the more popular school.

It does nothing for that giant elephant in the room which is the large and growing Phase 2A proportion of admissions, which feeds into Phase 1 also in subsequent years.

We all just need to understand that this is an unnatural and unsustainable state of affairs and needs to be fixed at the root of the problem (uncontrolled alumni priority admissions). Unfortunately too many parents have become used to it.

[3Boys]

ChiefKiasu:

Laura02:

... But standing at attention, once again, while the school song played with my P1 daughter by my side, after a break of over 20 years, brought tears to my eyes. I share my reminiscences with my dd. Tales of playing in the field, falling over, climbing poles, trees, falling over, ghost in the primary school toilet ... And there's meeting old teachers at school events, meeting old classmates, sharing memories ... The traditions of fair play, holistically nurturing the child, giving back to society ... I am glad, after all, that she gets to share a part of my heritage.

...

Thank you! You captured what is in the mind of many parents out there with regards to sending their children to their alma maters. Diversity is never the intent of giving alumni priority in getting their children back into the schools. The purpose is tradition, the carrying of the torch, so that the ideals, principles, and culture that the schools hold dear can transcend the rigours of time and evolution. A child going to very school that his/her parents went is likely to have greater reverence for the place and its practices, and strive to do as well or better than his/her parents. A clan-like culture where the faculty, students and parents have shared-objectives promotes a sense of camaraderie, school spirit, loyalty and pride in the school beyond what can be offered by institutions that simply try to process each batch of students in and out as efficiently as possible.

While the current free-play given to alumni should certainly be looked at and tweaked to prevent abuse, the phase should be retained to prevent schools from being diluted into soul-less institutions. Perhaps the best way to do so is to restrict Phase 2A admissions to no more than 50% of places remaining after Phase 1, just like how Phase 2B and 2C are allocated. And yes, that would mean balloting even in Phase 2A.

Chief,
one can have good feelings about one's alumni.

But.....

One does not conflate that with the idea that it then allows for priority admission for one's child....

or

That not having priority admission will result in a school losing it's character.

This present policy is an anachronism and out of step with so many basic principles, the only reason it continues is because so many parents have a vested interest.

[3Boys]

cherrygal:

Before we ask for such things to be removed, think thrice. If your kid gets into a good school later (by transfer due to good grades / GEP admission / entrance to a full school due to good PSLE grades etc), would you want this alumni priority to be gone when your grandkid needs to enter P1?

Yes. I believe this needs to be dismantled regardless of any future consequence for my kids and beyond.

It is a wrongful policy, and it needs to be stopped.

[limlim]

3Boys:

We all just need to understand that this is an unnatural and unsustainable state of affairs and needs to be fixed at the root of the problem (uncontrolled alumni priority admissions). Unfortunately too many parents have become used to it.

I believe the number of parents against it >> the number of parents who are used to it.

btw, we see a lot of letters to the ST or other forum like CNA etc who are against alumni priority.. seems like very few letters that are for it..?

[pirate]

3Boys:

But some cap on alumni phase is clearly in order.

Simple suggestion:

After P1, remaining places divided P2A 33.3%, P2B 33.3%, P2C 33.3%.

Unutilised P2A places (if any) divided equally between P2B and P2C like it is now.

A child of an alumni who is also a PV/clan or church member/community leader can have 3 bites of the cherry.


But I still say it's tuition that makes the difference.

[limlim]

Personal Reasons like "I want my kids to wear the same school uniform as me" just have ZERO value in debates that are related to shaping national policies that affect the masses.


Someone like their kids to enter the same university as them. So their kids should be entitled to priority? Don’t forget, these graduates played a part in putting the universities on the world map too.

[pirate]

limlim:

Someone like their kids to enter the same university as them. So their kids should be entitled to priority? Don't forget, these graduates played a part in putting the universities on the world map too.

But universities have exam results and admissions tests for selection. Have P1 admission exams? :yikes:

Then give it a decade or two and we will need K1 admission exams.

[iFirefly]

limlim:

3Boys:

We all just need to understand that this is an unnatural and unsustainable state of affairs and needs to be fixed at the root of the problem (uncontrolled alumni priority admissions). Unfortunately too many parents have become used to it.

I believe the number of parents against it >> the number of parents who are used to it.

btw, we see a lot of letters to the ST or other forum like CNA etc who are against alumni priority.. seems like very few letters that are for it..?

If they are FOR it.. And they GET it.. Still need to write letters meh... :roll: