Choosing and Evaluating Primary Schools

[phtthp]

2A1 already facing balloting, in some popular highly sought after schools. Which phase can Moe possibly cap now ? cap Phase ( 1 sibling or 2A1 alumni ) ?

[Vicky2016]

:rahrah: :rahrah:

floppy\" post_id=\"2016542\" time=\"1614781563\" user_id=\"97579:

Budget debate: MOE to review P1 registration and how to offer more places in Phase 2C

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/moe-to-review-p1-registration-framework-see-how-to-increase-number-of-places-in

“...any increase in places for Phase 2C would mean greater competition under the earlier phases for more popular schools”

Lai liao Lai liao.
Wonder which phase will see new restrictions.

[zac's mum]

phtthp\" post_id=\"2016551\" time=\"1614786023\" user_id=\"35251:

2A1 already facing balloting, in some popular highly sought after schools. Which phase can Moe possibly cap now ? cap Phase ( 1 sibling or 2A1 alumni ) ?

It was implied in the news that they will increase 2C places to more than the current 20, so that kids living near the school can get better chance of entry.

So the trickle down effect will be to “limit” the chances of alumni living too far away. I think it’s fair. SNGS will have more 2A1 facing balloting unless they move nearer.

[ResilienceLC]

The number of Primary 1 places are limited and is fixed.

Any adjustments in number of places in any of the phases will affect the number of places in other phases.

That said - 20 places for Phase 2C is really really very little.
That means - only 20 non related ‘outsiders’ can get into the school.
It is timely for the review

[Imp75]

Maybe simply split 1/3 each for each phase 2A 2B and 2C to be fair. Keep phase 1 intact. For rich and resourceful alumni, they can try at 2A then 2B then 2C, triple chance than a commoner.

[ResilienceLC]

It is a very delicate challenge for the MOE to tackle.

A very fine balance needed.
There are many stake holders - please one - the other will not be happy.

This is life.

"Why my child cannot attend the school opposite my house and have to take two buses to go to the other (lesser) school ?"

[floppy]

zac's mum\" post_id=\"2016563\" time=\"1614809706\" user_id=\"53606:[quote=\"zac's mum\" post_id=2016563 time=1614809706 user_id=53606]

phtthp\" post_id=\"2016551\" time=\"1614786023\" user_id=\"35251:

It’s going to be an incremental change rather than a revolutionary change. I won’t be surprised if the number of seats reserved for 2C is increased to 25 (and I think it’s unlikely to be more than 30).

Ultimately, to prevent balloting never seems to be the aim. Thru measures introduced in previous years, such as the reserving 20 / 20 places for 2B / 2C and MK priority at 2A2, the number of schools balloting have increased and the distance that they are balloting for is getting closer to < 1km. Hence, it could be argued that applicants (across the different phases) are now living nearer to the schools than ever before.

Imp75\" post_id=\"2016568\" time=\"1614816161\" user_id=\"2358:[quote=Imp75 post_id=2016568 time=1614816161 user_id=2358]Maybe simply split 1/3 each for each phase 2A 2B and 2C to be fair. Keep phase 1 intact. For rich and resourceful alumni, they can try at 2A then 2B then 2C, triple chance than a commoner.

Interestingly, the review isn’t centered on increasing the diversity of the schools, ie letting those without previous relationship getting in. If it is, a capping of places for the earlier phases or a % to reserve (instead of hard capping to 20/20) would have been more appropriate I think.

[Stevenage]

floppy\" post_id=\"2016571\" time=\"1614817386\" user_id=\"97579:

If it is, a capping of places for the earlier phases or a % to reserve (instead of hard capping to 20/20) would have been more appropriate I think.

This makes more sense IMHO.
20 out of 210 is 9.5%
20 out of 390 is only 5.1%.

[floppy]

Stevenage\" post_id=\"2016575\" time=\"1614818720\" user_id=\"89746:

floppy\" post_id=\"2016571\" time=\"1614817386\" user_id=\"97579:

If it is, a capping of places for the earlier phases or a % to reserve (instead of hard capping to 20/20) would have been more appropriate I think.

This makes more sense IMHO.
20 out of 210 is 9.5%
20 out of 390 is only 5.1%.

They should look at 10% and no less than 20 / 20.

In this case, it would 20 / 20 out of 210 and 390. However, when you make the adjustment, you only need to move the % needle. That said, increasing diversity and opening up places to “non-related” applicants isn’t the main aim.

[Imp75]

From hearing min wong speech it did appear that preserving traditions via alumni is very important but so is diversity. Now thinking back, why do we need phase 2b for peeps who are not remotely related to the school? Give all the spaces to phase 2c?