2013 P1 Registration Exercise for 2014 In-Take
-
ChiefKiasu:
Yes. How difficult is it to just create one more space within the school instead of taking away from people who are already struggling for places?
It's logic that appeals to me, not face. pirate did elegantly explained why the process for handling the twins situation this year in MGS and ACSJ may not be fair to parents in Phase 2C, and I do see his logic.XXXX:
Firstly kudos to you Chief for conceding pirate's point so gracefully above, it's a lesson for other forum warriors! In my short time here, I've learnt to listen to pirate as he or she knows his stuff. He is probably more well versed on the pros and cons of the P1 registration process than most ministers and civil servants.
As to the balloting mechanism - I noticed today that if your ball is off to one side (stop sniggering at the back) then it won't get into the selection channel for the bucket to pick it up. Some major swirling of the pool of balls is required. Probably effects ballots with small numbers more, but it was alarming waiting for our ball to move back to the selection channel (in the middle) - which it did, thankfully, some 80% through the ballot. :celebrate:
The strange thing is, if there is a ballot, the twins are guaranteed a place in the school, regardless of whether their ball is picked first or last. If their ball is picked early, then one of the other singletons in Phase 2B will be balloted out, and no additional place is taken from Phase 2C. If their ball is picked last, then every child in Phase 2B will get a place, and Phase 2C will lose 1 place.
Given the furore over the priority schemes, such scenarios add to the woes of parents in Phase 2C. No, I don't think MOE made the right call to not conduct a ballot in Phase 2B for those schools, given that there is a high chance the outcome could be quite different for parents in Phase 2C. It is just not right. I can understand if MOE made this decision to make it easier for Phase 2B parents and the schools, but people in Phase 2C should not be penalised for taking this short cut.
PS. BTW, XXXX, if I read your post correctly, I should congratulate you and your child for winning the ballot today!
Someone on the previous page said a MOE officer told them that places would not be taken from 2C. If that is the case, then something is not right when 2C is clearly losing numbers. IMO there just seems to be a complete lack of transparency regarding many facets of the P1 registration, from getting the distance breakdowns for each phase (although I know some schools do provide it, but not sure if all do) to what happens when something out of the norm happens in balloting (twins, triplets etc). I've said before that I'm not actually in the registration system, so just my observations. Feel free to correct if I'm wrong. -
wiltanws:
For MGS, after Phase 2A, there's 79 vacancy left, so 40 allocated to 2b and 39 allocated to 2c. There was 41 sc within 1km registered for 40 vacancy at 2B, one of them is a pair of twin. so one place is transferred from phase 2c to 2b to cater for this extra place required by the twin. all 41 sc within 1km admitted and no ballot required. that's why phase 2c is left with only 38.[/quote]wiltanws,
Hello,lepetitpenguin:
[quote=\"lepetitpenguin\"]Just thinking aloud here. Looking at the P2B Schools Conducting Balloting, I've noticed the following comments for the following schools,
\"The school has places for only SC children residing within 1km of the school. No balloting will be conducted.\"
The schools being, ACSJ (47/73), ACSP (24/31), Hong Wen (51/72), Kong Hwa (41/46), MGSP (40/57), SCGSP (22/23). ie. Name of school (2B vacancies/No. of children registered 2B).
Apart from Kong Hwa and SCGSP, the number of children registered for the schools mentioned far outnumbers the number of 2B vacancies. I find it interesting that the exact number accepted equals the exact number of SC within 1km. I'm guessing that this is only possible if the applicant (SC/PR) has the exact status of the registration numbers (including breakdown of SC, PR, Distance information) close to the closing of 2B on 23 Jul late afternoon and hence registers accordingly.
Somehow, the numbers seem too \"exact\" imho. Perhaps I'm missing something here.
Just curious. Tks.
Just adding to sembgal's comments. I've replicated my earlier post to facilitate referencing some of the vacancy numbers at end P2B (late 23 Jul).
Looking at MGPS:
At end P2B, 40 vacancies, 57 applied. All SC (1km) accepted. Vacancies at start of P2C, 41 enrolled (P2B) and 38 vacancies (P2C). I would think that at the start of P2B, vacancies would have been 40 (P2B) and 40 (P2C). Even if 1 pair of twins were enrolled at P2B, there should be 39 (40 minus 1) vacancies for P2C instead of 38. Note: There was no balloting for MGPS for P2B. As such, there would not have been the possibility that the last \"ball\" was a \"twin\" ball.
Still trying to understand how the system works. Tks.
Tks for the clarification. Apologies, I'd missed out on the 40(P2B) & 39(P2C) allocation. A lot clearer now. -
ChiefKiasu:
PS. BTW, XXXX, if I read your post correctly, I should congratulate you and your child for winning the ballot today!
Indeed we did, thanks! I was already mentally resigned to 2C when our ball was selected - just before the twins, about five balls from the end. I hate leaving things to chance like this and getting to 90 per cent was the best we could do.
Is there a good reason why they have to make it \"positive selection\"? Quicker and less stressful to select those going out, no? It's exactly the same random process, but would not be viewed as fair by the \"losers\", presumably. -
ChiefKiasu:
Hmmm... I believe you are right! Good point. This is deserving of further clarification with MOE.[/quote]
No, it doesn't work like this.pirate:
[quote=\"ChiefKiasu\"]I believe the context is something like this.
Say the number of vacancies is 50
The number of parents applying with 1 child is 49.
One parent has 1 set of twins.
So total number of places needed is 51
But in a ballot situation, the parent with the twin will choose to submit only 1 ballot with both names in it.
So the total number of balls in the thingy will be 50, not 51.
So whether we ballot or not, every one of the 50 families will get a place.
So no need to ballot lor.
There are 50 balls and 50 vacancies, but 51 places needed.
If the first ball that rolled out belonged to the twins, there would be 48 places left and 49 balls left in the cage, ie. 1 kid will be balloted out.
Likewise, if the twins' ball was the 2nd ball to fall out, or the 3rd... and so on and so forth.
Only if the twins' ball was the last to fall out would 51 places be taken up at the ballot.
The chance that the twins' ball would be the last to fall out is actually very slim.
Cannot anyhow take shortcut, otherwise it is not fair to the people in the next phase.
Agreed. Hopefully phase 2c parents involved can convince MOE and the schools involved to return the seat taken. -
Yes, probable there’s 2 pair of twin or 1 triplet. acsp is a bit complicated. there’s was 2 withdrawal from phase1, 2 withdraw from phase 2a1 and 1 withdrawal from phase 2a2. Not too sure how these extra places allocated to phase 2b & c.[/quote]
wiltanws,
You’d mentioned for ACSP, as for withdrawals, -2(P1), -2(P2A1) & -1(P2A2). Where can we get this specific information? I’d enquired pre P2B for this information with the schools on my shortlist, but they (the schools) were not prepared/able/willing to give information this specific. They were only referencing past years Ballot chances vis-a-vis distance, which is information that is already well detailed in this website. Withdrawal information would be particularly useful when strategizing for the later Phases if the vacancies are allocated then or at least for the so-called Waitlist.
Many tks. -
ChiefKiasu:
It's logic that appeals to me, not face. pirate did elegantly explained why the process for handling the twins situation this year in MGS and ACSJ may not be fair to parents in Phase 2C, and I do see his logic.XXXX:
Firstly kudos to you Chief for conceding pirate's point so gracefully above, it's a lesson for other forum warriors! In my short time here, I've learnt to listen to pirate as he or she knows his stuff. He is probably more well versed on the pros and cons of the P1 registration process than most ministers and civil servants.
As to the balloting mechanism - I noticed today that if your ball is off to one side (stop sniggering at the back) then it won't get into the selection channel for the bucket to pick it up. Some major swirling of the pool of balls is required. Probably effects ballots with small numbers more, but it was alarming waiting for our ball to move back to the selection channel (in the middle) - which it did, thankfully, some 80% through the ballot. :celebrate:
The strange thing is, if there is a ballot, the twins are guaranteed a place in the school, regardless of whether their ball is picked first or last. If their ball is picked early, then one of the other singletons in Phase 2B will be balloted out, and no additional place is taken from Phase 2C. If their ball is picked last, then every child in Phase 2B will get a place, and Phase 2C will lose 1 place.
Given the furore over the priority schemes, such scenarios add to the woes of parents in Phase 2C. No, I don't think MOE made the right call to not conduct a ballot in Phase 2B for those schools, given that there is a high chance the outcome could be quite different for parents in Phase 2C. It is just not right. I can understand if MOE made this decision to make it easier for Phase 2B parents and the schools, but people in Phase 2C should not be penalised for taking this short cut.
PS. BTW, XXXX, if I read your post correctly, I should congratulate you and your child for winning the ballot today!
Since the twins are 'guaranteed' a place when such a ballot is conducted, it is no longer a fair ballot because it is skewed in their favour. It is like having a loaded die or 'ball off to one side' as you said so no point having a ballot. In another scenario where there are say 40 applicants balloting for 35 places, the chances of twins being excluded completely are there. The only thing the ballot rules have assured are that the twins stay together and if they get a place, they deprive singletons of another balloted place.
As to whether it is fair for the 2c applicants, it is unfair insofar as they were not forewarned. The priority scheme accords priority to the earlier phases and the availability of places depends on the number of places taken up in the earlier phase. You could say that in the popular schools for this year especially, the 2b+c phases have been at the mercy of the 1+2a phases. -
wiltanws:
how abt plmgs? there was balloting and the numbers also ended up with 2B having 3 more places than 2c.[/quote]Only the principal of PLMGPS can answer how phase 2B ended up with having 3 more places than phase 2C. MOE should be informed about this decision made by that principal from PLMGPS.crusader:
[quote=\"mummy bear\"]I believe ACSP had triplets registering in phase 2B
Thanks for sharing.
What amazing odds.
MGS, ACJS, and now ACPS (all Methodist schools too) - no balloting because applicants (involving twins/triplets) exceeded vacancies by the exact number required.
Cheers -
kasparov:
It's logic that appeals to me, not face. pirate did elegantly explained why the process for handling the twins situation this year in MGS and ACSJ may not be fair to parents in Phase 2C, and I do see his logic.ChiefKiasu:
[quote=\"XXXX\"]Firstly kudos to you Chief for conceding pirate's point so gracefully above, it's a lesson for other forum warriors! In my short time here, I've learnt to listen to pirate as he or she knows his stuff. He is probably more well versed on the pros and cons of the P1 registration process than most ministers and civil servants.
As to the balloting mechanism - I noticed today that if your ball is off to one side (stop sniggering at the back) then it won't get into the selection channel for the bucket to pick it up. Some major swirling of the pool of balls is required. Probably effects ballots with small numbers more, but it was alarming waiting for our ball to move back to the selection channel (in the middle) - which it did, thankfully, some 80% through the ballot. :celebrate:
The strange thing is, if there is a ballot, the twins are guaranteed a place in the school, regardless of whether their ball is picked first or last. If their ball is picked early, then one of the other singletons in Phase 2B will be balloted out, and no additional place is taken from Phase 2C. If their ball is picked last, then every child in Phase 2B will get a place, and Phase 2C will lose 1 place.
Given the furore over the priority schemes, such scenarios add to the woes of parents in Phase 2C. No, I don't think MOE made the right call to not conduct a ballot in Phase 2B for those schools, given that there is a high chance the outcome could be quite different for parents in Phase 2C. It is just not right. I can understand if MOE made this decision to make it easier for Phase 2B parents and the schools, but people in Phase 2C should not be penalised for taking this short cut.
PS. BTW, XXXX, if I read your post correctly, I should congratulate you and your child for winning the ballot today!
Since the twins are 'guaranteed' a place when such a ballot is conducted, it is no longer a fair ballot because it is skewed in their favour. It is like having a loaded die or 'ball off to one side' as you said so no point having a ballot. In another scenario where there are say 40 applicants balloting for 35 places, the chances of twins being excluded completely are there. The only thing the ballot rules have assured are that the twins stay together and if they get a place, they deprive singletons of another balloted place.
As to whether it is fair for the 2c applicants, it is unfair insofar as they were not forewarned. The priority scheme accords priority to the earlier phases and the availability of places depends on the number of places taken up in the earlier phase. You could say that in the popular schools for this year especially, the 2b+c phases have been at the mercy of the 1+2a phases.[/quote]In terms of the balloting process, when there are multiple siblings, I think it's still fair, becos they only have one ball, it's not as if they have multiple balls and whichever ball pick will ensure both or more are in.
The part I don't understand is why the vacancy is taken fr P2C. It aeems that way now after reviewing the numbers after P2A2 and P2B. I think this part need to be reviewed becos policy is that P2B and P2C will share the remaining vacancies fr P2A2 equally unless in the event of odd number. -
kasparov:
Since the twins are 'guaranteed' a place when such a ballot is conducted, it is no longer a fair ballot because it is skewed in their favour. It is like having a loaded die or 'ball off to one side' as you said so no point having a ballot. In another scenario where there are say 40 applicants balloting for 35 places, the chances of twins being excluded completely are there. The only thing the ballot rules have assured are that the twins stay together and if they get a place, they deprive singletons of another balloted place....
You do have a valid point that if a ballot is conducted for this situation in Phase 2B, the singleton parents will be disadvantaged compared with the twins. Perhaps this was the consideration of MOE in waiving the ballot. But that decision also affected people in Phase 2C, because there would be a high chance that Phase 2C won't lose a place since it is highly unlikely that the twins' ball will be picked last. Imagine a scenario when the situation involves not twins, but triplets or quadruplets. Phase 2C will not only lose 1 place, but 2 or 3 places, if the ballot is not held in Phase 2B. -
ChiefKiasu:
I guess that would be just unfortunate for the 2C...after all, 2B has higher priority so nothing wrong if due to (rare) circumstances there's a need for a couple more vacancies.
You do have a valid point that if a ballot is conducted for this situation in Phase 2B, the singleton parents will be disadvantaged compared with the twins. Perhaps this was the consideration of MOE in waiving the ballot. But that decision also affected people in Phase 2C, because there would be a high chance that Phase 2C won't lose a place since it is highly unlikely that the twins' ball will be picked last. Imagine a scenario when the situation involves not twins, but triplets or quadruplets. Phase 2C will not only lose 1 place, but 2 or 3 places, if the ballot is not held in Phase 2B.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login