* Eunoia JC (EJC)
-
Nebbermind:
Actually am referring specially to myself.
You scared har?iRabbit:
Edit: Not referring specifically to anyone here.
I can be muddle-headed and post ambiguous entries. -
sushi88:
Please note \"any JC\" so....? Please also note \"rightfully or wrongfully\"... we cannot control every view, can you?
DS is in the other IP school in Bishan albeit only in year 2. From what I observed, the boys do not frown upon any classmate's school background or other background. Actually, they don't care which school their classmates were from or how they got into the school. Please do not assume and do not put words in their mouths.ngl2010:
[quote=\"sushi88\"]
...
2. Frankly, with all the hoo-ha created, for any student to join any JC in yr 5, they would be frowned upon(rightfully or wrongfully) and there is no time in the 2 years to be frowned upon. Do you seriously want to subject yr kids to such pressure and hostility in an existing JC? Ask your kids if they wish to deal with that.
...
The key point is with this issue so heated up now, it would be a talking point and there would be some pressure to deal with, a reality. Can we not accept reality?
Do you expect Cheryl from a good school to sue her good school? No? But it happened. Then do you regard her school or its girls any lesser now because of this lawsuit? I am sure the answer is also a \"No\". It is an emphatic \"No\" from me because I can form my own opinion after gathering all the relevant facts. Just want to show you that every school also has its exceptions now that you want to raise this point with me based on a sample from your kids' circle of friends that you have observed. I would never paint all kids from my kids' schools are angels or saints....far from it...but I would say the school tries hard to instill the right behaviour in them as far as possible which incidentally makes a school good as well and generally the majority turns out well eventually. Never say never and do you think Cheryl is an exception?
I am not here to argue, more to share. I take pain to write more just to let you know that you have over-reacted on their behalf and it is actually not good for the kids as it was not even targetted at anyone specific but you have chosen to direct it to them. So please don't take an issue when there is none. Peace. :xedfingers:[/quote]To share? Your sentences \"Do you seriously want to subject yr kids to such pressure and hostility in an existing JC? Ask your kids if they wish to deal with that.\" sounds more to scare than to share unless you/your kid experienced such thing before.
Cheryl's case is not on trial yet but her friends already found guilty?? -
sushi88:
lee_yl:
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/education/story/moe-mulling-over-bishan-interim-jc-site-20150527
A factual report on the dialogue with MOE on Monday night.
Many issues raised by the parents that night, went unanswered by the MOE panel. Hope to see some resolution in the coming weeks.
Can share what are the \"many issues raised that went unanswered\"?
Parents were looking for some accountability for the delay, confirmed date for the completion of the new JC at the designated site, possible alternative sites and contingency plans should the designated permanent site not be suitable or the construction works assessed to be too complex etc. MOE preferred to talk about Mt Sinai, provision of shuttle buses etc. Basically, both sides were on different frequencies.
As far as I read the report, MOE has taken a big step to review the venue of the interim site and that has already MET the main issue causing the problem. I thought that was a good cause for celebration that you have been heard. Raising irrelevant issues would only put a negative light on the parents now for trying to take advantage of the situation.
ITE AMK site was earlier raised by affected parents to MOE as an alternative interim site and MOE REJECTED the idea after an assessment, the reasons being that the ITE AMK site did not have enough facilities such as lecture theatres and labs, the common facilities such as canteen and hall were small and could not accommodate 2 cohorts of JC students as well as fewer sports facilities. Possibly, affected parents had already formed the impression from MOE that ITE AMK may not be a suitable site and were thus lukewarm to the idea resurfaced by MOE.
Here is some analysis to share:
1. There is no point in pushing for a new JC to be built. Safety first.
As pioneers, there has to be some good pioneer spirit shown at this point when MOE is willing to come to some form of agreement on an alternative site within Bishan itself. Hope people can see this as a win-win approach MOE is trying to extend. Detractors thought that Mt Sinai was the only site, wasn't it? And it has become more apparent that MOE is willing to discuss.
Interestingly, parents did not insist that it must be the designated permanent site in view of the delays arising from the soil tests and complexity of building a high-rise school building above major tunnels and would rather go for other more assured sites to start building the new JC asap so that it could be completed earlier than 2019. Some sites were proposed by the parents but the MOE panel was silent on the site proposed.
The main response from MOE was that it would take longer than end-2019 to build a new JC on another plot of land. Considering that the planned construction of a high-rise school building over an untested plot of land with massive tunneling works beneath was deemed extremely complex, it is surprising that a more straight forward construction would take longer.
Sadly, MOE was ill-prepared for the session. For the dialogue, only 6 slides were prepared which neither offered new information nor tried to anticipate what the parents were looking for in order to pro-actively provide the answers. Should the issue drag on without effective engagement of the parents, it may cast a negative light on MOE and worse, put Min under a bad light.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_xC0SDKPxSqTUlDeHlVMGZleVU/view -
ngl2010:
Yes, it is sharing about the reality. One cannot run away from the reality, only way is to deal with it. Again, please note that I am pointing to any existing JC....and any JC has presence of kids of exception if what you feel that what you observed is the norm extended to any JC.
To share? Your sentences \"Do you seriously want to subject yr kids to such pressure and hostility in an existing JC? Ask your kids if they wish to deal with that.\" sounds more to scare than to share unless you/your kid experienced such thing before.sushi88:
Please note \"any JC\" so....? Please also note \"rightfully or wrongfully\"... we cannot control every view, can you?
The key point is with this issue so heated up now, it would be a talking point and there would be some pressure to deal with, a reality. Can we not accept reality?
Do you expect Cheryl from a good school to sue her good school? No? But it happened. Then do you regard her school or its girls any lesser now because of this lawsuit? I am sure the answer is also a \"No\". It is an emphatic \"No\" from me because I can form my own opinion after gathering all the relevant facts. Just want to show you that every school also has its exceptions now that you want to raise this point with me based on a sample from your kids' circle of friends that you have observed. I would never paint all kids from my kids' schools are angels or saints....far from it...but I would say the school tries hard to instill the right behaviour in them as far as possible which incidentally makes a school good as well and generally the majority turns out well eventually. Never say never and do you think Cheryl is an exception?
I am not here to argue, more to share. I take pain to write more just to let you know that you have over-reacted on their behalf and it is actually not good for the kids as it was not even targetted at anyone specific but you have chosen to direct it to them. So please don't take an issue when there is none. Peace. :xedfingers:
Cheryl's case is not on trial yet but her friends already found guilty??
You have totally missed the point about Cheryl's case...so I should rest my case. It suffices if you understand I am not refering to the school you have in mind specifically. No offence to anyone. -
lee_yl:
[/quote]Thanks for the update.sushi88:
[quote=\"lee_yl\"]http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/education/story/moe-mulling-over-bishan-interim-jc-site-20150527
A factual report on the dialogue with MOE on Monday night.
Many issues raised by the parents that night, went unanswered by the MOE panel. Hope to see some resolution in the coming weeks.
Can share what are the \"many issues raised that went unanswered\"?
Parents were looking for some accountability for the delay, confirmed date for the completion of the new JC at the designated site, possible alternative sites and contingency plans should the designated permanent site not be suitable or the construction works assessed to be too complex etc. MOE preferred to talk about Mt Sinai, provision of shuttle buses etc. Basically, both sides were on different frequencies.
As far as I read the report, MOE has taken a big step to review the venue of the interim site and that has already MET the main issue causing the problem. I thought that was a good cause for celebration that you have been heard. Raising irrelevant issues would only put a negative light on the parents now for trying to take advantage of the situation.
ITE AMK site was earlier raised by affected parents to MOE as an alternative interim site and MOE REJECTED the idea after an assessment, the reasons being that the ITE AMK site did not have enough facilities such as lecture theatres and labs, the common facilities such as canteen and hall were small and could not accommodate 2 cohorts of JC students as well as fewer sports facilities. Possibly, affected parents had already formed the impression from MOE that ITE AMK may not be a suitable site and were thus lukewarm to the idea resurfaced by MOE.
Here is some analysis to share:
1. There is no point in pushing for a new JC to be built. Safety first.
As pioneers, there has to be some good pioneer spirit shown at this point when MOE is willing to come to some form of agreement on an alternative site within Bishan itself. Hope people can see this as a win-win approach MOE is trying to extend. Detractors thought that Mt Sinai was the only site, wasn't it? And it has become more apparent that MOE is willing to discuss.
Interestingly, parents did not insist that it must be the designated permanent site in view of the delays arising from the soil tests and complexity of building a high-rise school building above major tunnels and would rather go for other more assured sites to start building the new JC asap so that it could be completed earlier than 2019. Some sites were proposed by the parents but the MOE panel was silent on the site proposed.
The main response from MOE was that it would take longer than end-2019 to build a new JC on another plot of land. Considering that the planned construction of a high-rise school building over an untested plot of land with massive tunneling works beneath was deemed extremely complex, it is surprising that a more straight forward construction would take longer.
Sadly, MOE was ill-prepared for the session. For the dialogue, only 6 slides were prepared which neither offered new information nor tried to anticipate what the parents were looking for in order to pro-actively provide the answers. Should the issue drag on without effective engagement of the parents, it may cast a negative light on MOE and worse, put Min under a bad light.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_xC0SDKPxSqTUlDeHlVMGZleVU/view
If I remember correctly, the original new site was promised to be completed mid 2018, i.e. the yr 6 cohort only has a brief time spent in the campus, mainly to take \"A\" levels. Realistically, that would have been disruptive for the students to move from interim site, do prelims then \"A\" levels. There is not much time to enjoy of the new campus other than doing exams.
Looking at a new site and rehashing the plan, potentially it will take longer because the specs for the tender will change and likely have to re-tender. One cannot take a design of a campus from one plot and just retrofit into another plot, shape and size differs. So the potential delay could be real due to the massive tendering exercise. Whether soil issue or not, rushing any construction of a building is not ideal, eg. JEM (though it has been denied it was rushed, it officially opened 4 days later than scheduled)
http://everythingalsocomplain.com/2013/ ... isfortune/
Instead of thinking they were ill-prepared, MOE could be there to hear the suggestions and then look into it.
In any case, since the dialogue is open, should proceed with a teaming mindset with MOE instead of thinking they owe something... follow up is important.... -
iRabbit:
Technically possible mah. Tertiary centers ending with 'institution' are not JC per se. Same goes for those ending with 'high'. So depends on how one interpretes it.alng:
[quote=\"blurblob11\"]From what I heard, one of the principals of the 3 affected sec schools actually declared that the new JC ranking would surpass the top JC during the first Open House when IP was introduced in the school. This had attracted some parents to forgo the top JC and chose this school.
What I have heard from one of the principals 3 years ago was that this new JC would be rank top 3, not surpass the top JC.
Seriously though, I doubt any high ranking moe staff will make such a big promise upfront without any caveat. And I suspect the gist of the message was lost in translation.
Just bcoz someone posted it here doesn't mean it's 100% factually correct. We've many past examples of this.
Edit: Not referring specifically to anyone here.[/quote]If your school has always been placed in top ranking for O-level results, you might be carried away. Why not?
Also, it's a way to draw top primary school students to join its first IP. Afterall, the principal did not set any time frame for its success and it's up to the audience' interpretation.
I was trying to shed lights on why people view things differently and thus shared this information.
Yes, agree it may not be factual as it is hearsay but may warrant the benefit of the doubt. -
lee_yl:
ITE AMK site was earlier raised by affected parents to MOE as an alternative interim site and MOE REJECTED the idea after an assessment, the reasons being that the ITE AMK site did not have enough facilities such as lecture theatres and labs, the common facilities such as canteen and hall were small and could not accommodate 2 cohorts of JC students as well as fewer sports facilities. Possibly, affected parents had already formed the impression from MOE that ITE AMK may not be a suitable site and were thus lukewarm to the idea resurfaced by MOE.
[color=#0000FF]
Interestingly, parents did not insist that it must be the designated permanent site in view of the delays arising from the soil tests and complexity of building a high-rise school building above major tunnels and would rather go for other more assured sites to start building the new JC asap so that it could be completed earlier than 2019. Some sites were proposed by the parents but the MOE panel was silent on the site proposed.
I ain't here to argue your point but to pen my opinion.
MOE has decided to relook at the AMK ITE site possibly because many affected parents prefer the interim site to be at or nearer to Bishan. I believe MOE doesn't have any other choice available. How big is sgp and how many big vacant schools do we have? They may be thinking of container classrooms or tentage lecture halls if parents prefer site to facilities. Some may see this as a contradiction to its earlier rejection but I tend to see it as a compromise from MOE.
We can't propose a school to be built anywhere as the govt has to assess the economic, social etc factors and land scarcity etc issues and thus the MOE panel will not be able to commit on the sites proposed by parents during the meeting. -
iRabbit:
Technically possible mah. Tertiary centers ending with 'institution' are not JC per se. Same goes for those ending with 'high'. So depends on how one interpretes it.alng:
[quote=\"blurblob11\"]From what I heard, one of the principals of the 3 affected sec schools actually declared that the new JC ranking would surpass the top JC during the first Open House when IP was introduced in the school. This had attracted some parents to forgo the top JC and chose this school.
What I have heard from one of the principals 3 years ago was that this new JC would be rank top 3, not surpass the top JC.
Seriously though, I doubt any high ranking moe staff will make such a big promise upfront without any caveat. And I suspect the gist of the message was lost in translation.
Just bcoz someone posted it here doesn't mean it's 100% factually correct. We've many past examples of this.
Edit: Not referring specifically to anyone here.[/quote]Agree with iRabbit to some extent, though I know you're playing with words. The P cannot be faulted for misrepresentation if you wanna look it that way.
Also, when P made that bold and somewhat ambitious comment 3 years ago to prospective students, P could be basing on the preceding year's unprecedented crop of straight acers P's sch (or maybe 2 others P was aware of) had produced.
At that point in time, this comment was credible and reliable, so P shouldn't be misconstrued as misleading prospective students/parents. Students/parents could choose to buy it or not, by referring to the testimonials and outputs available to the public then.
Following that year, all Ps received a 'gag order of sorts' not to publicise their top scorers' identities nor detailed breakdown of results on their websites, so no one knows if the feeder schools are still producing the same stellar crops (who are needed to realise this \"ambition\") today. As such, we cannot immediately write that off as an impossibility. Neither can we dismiss it as mere pitching gimmick.
Now coming to that new JC P named Mdm Cheang MH. She should be no stranger to all Ps, including the P that made that bold prediction. In 2004, Mdm Cheang was highly praised by then MOE Min Tharman for enabling the completely brand new and unknown CVPS to make it to the top 10 value-added pr-sch list, when he paid a special visit to the n'hood sch. \"A rare feat\" he was quoted as saying. You can go to NLB to find that special feature written by Chua Mui Hoong.
Mdm Cheang was/is a high flyer in MOE who was swiftly promoted as Cluster Superintendent of East 4, and awarded the distinguished National Day (Public Admin category) Silver Medal in 2010 (approved by Ng EH). That P who pitched to parents 3 years ago must have heard positive appraisals abt her within the inner circle, have high expectations of and confidence in this fellow colleague, thus was able to give assurance to parents.
Given all these facts that were available to that P there and then, I don't think anyone should accuse P of misrepresenting or misleading the students/parents during the OH. -
We went to CHS Open House on 30 May 15. The sch said Dec 2019 the new JC would be ready.
-
Zaobao report
http://go5.10086.cn/www.zaobao.com/prin ... 1/page/0/1
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 š
Register Login
Online Users
Recent Topics
Statistics