2013 P1 Registration Exercise for 2014 In-Take

[kasparov]

ChiefKiasu:

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.

It seems that the pie is limited and MOE is best able to explain why they have not absorbed the extra places.

[Fried chicken]

kasparov:

ChiefKiasu:

[quote=\"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.

It seems that the pie is limited and MOE is best able to explain why they have not absorbed the extra places.[/quote]It's interesting because if this exact same scenario had happened in 2C, the school would have to create an extra space for the twin. Why they couldn't just do this for 2B instead of taking away from 2C is baffling.

[kasparov]

Fried chicken:

kasparov:

[quote=\"ChiefKiasu\"]

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.

It seems that the pie is limited and MOE is best able to explain why they have not absorbed the extra places.

It's interesting because if this exact same scenario had happened in 2C, the school would have to create an extra space for the twin. Why they couldn't just do this for 2B instead of taking away from 2C is baffling.[/quote]Creating space perhaps only as a last resort. MOE may have a directive to keep total enrolment as constant as far as possible. There is no strict quota system for each phase, only a priority system. If a ballot cannot be conducted fairly, space is taken from the next phase.

[wiltanws]

lepetitpenguin:

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.

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.[/quote]

I got to know this because I copy and paste and save all the data published by MOE website whenever there's any changes such as different phases or different days within same phase. So I can see there's changes to the figures

[wiltanws]

Till now, there’s total of 64 withdrawal from Phase1, 8 withdrawal from 2A1 and 37 withdrawal from Phase 2A2 after the closing date of respective phases.

[janet88]

wiltanws:

Till now, there's total of 64 withdrawal from Phase1, 8 withdrawal from 2A1 and 37 withdrawal from Phase 2A2 after the closing date of respective phases.

there will be withdrawals...parents register their kids under phase 1 and 2A2 to secure a place first, while closely monitoring the situation under 2C which could be nearer home or for some other reasons.

[bunnybluey]

sembgal:

wiltanws:

[quote=\"crusader\"]

MGS, ACJS, and now ACPS (all Methodist schools too) - no balloting because applicants (involving twins/triplets) exceeded vacancies by the exact number required.

Cheers

how abt plmgs? there was balloting and the numbers also ended up with 2B having 3 more places than 2c.

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.[/quote]Just to share that at the start of registration, P1 has 74 registered, & after P2A2, it showed 73 registered under P1, probably someone withdrew from P1, so at the start of P2B, there were 73 places and supposedly still have 72 places for 2C. Not sure if a pair of twins was among those balloting for the remaining places & caused 1 more child taken in at P2B & hence, 1 less place at 2C. Therefore, the figure is now 74 at P2B & 71 at P2C.

[bunnybluey]

While MOE website did say that \"At the end of Phase 2A(2), 50% of the remaining places will be allocated for Phase 2B and the other 50% for Phase 2C registrants in a school.\", it also said \"*The starting vacancies in Phase 2B and 2C may differ due to vacancies rolled over from Phase 2B, withdrawals from earlier phases or vacancies taken up by twins/ triplets registered successfully in the previous phase.\" at the end of http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/admissions/primary-one-registration/vacancies/.


I'm just thinking that if leftover vacancies can be rolled over from 2B to 2C; hence, adding more places to 2C, it may also be vice-versa that if due to twins/triplets situation, places from 2C may also be reduced to add the 1 or 2 required additional places in 2B.

I'm assuming that maybe if x numbers for balloting (not the number of children since twins/triplets share 1 number for balloting) vs x places, so no need to ballot.

[SAHM_TAN]

bunnybluey:

While MOE website did say that \"At the end of Phase 2A(2), 50% of the remaining places will be allocated for Phase 2B and the other 50% for Phase 2C registrants in a school.\", it also said \"*The starting vacancies in Phase 2B and 2C may differ due to vacancies rolled over from Phase 2B, withdrawals from earlier phases or vacancies taken up by twins/ triplets registered successfully in the previous phase.\" at the end of http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/admissions/primary-one-registration/vacancies/.


I'm just thinking that if leftover vacancies can be rolled over from 2B to 2C; hence, adding more places to 2C, it may also be vice-versa that if due to twins/triplets situation, places from 2C may also be reduced to add the 1 or 2 required additional places in 2B.

I'm assuming that maybe if x numbers for balloting (not the number of children since twins/triplets share 1 number for balloting) vs x places, so no need to ballot.

Thanks for pointing out the note abt the starting vacancies for P2B and P2C. I wish MOE would consolidate all infor in one page/space.

[pirate]

ChiefKiasu:

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.

A certain school has 5 vacancies for P2B and 4 for P2C this year. Imagine if that school in P2B has registrations from 4 singletons and 1 group of quintuplets.