2010 P1 Registration Exercise for 2011 In-Take

[qms]

OK. Let's put it this way.


Come 2011 P1 registration, the phrase will be:

\"In order to qualify for registration at Phase 2B as a parent volunteer, you would have to be registered as a parent volunteer with the school not later than 1 July 2010 and given at least 40 hours of voluntary service to the school by 30 June 2011 if you are registering your child in the 2011 Primary One Registration Exercise. You can approach the school of your choice directly to enquire about their parent volunteer scheme.\"

Strictly speaking, based on MOE's guidelines, schools should only accept PVs one year prior to the year of registration. Hence, PVs will only be able to clock the 40 hours between 01 Jul 2010 to 30 Jun 2011.

This is the official MOE guidelines. Of course, I know of schools who accept PVs more than one year before the year of registration. Even then, I thought the PV period should still be between 01 Jul of the previous year and 30 Jun or the year of registration? To be sure, please check with the school.

[hquek]

qms:

OK. Let's put it this way.


Come 2011 P1 registration, the phrase will be:

\"In order to qualify for registration at Phase 2B as a parent volunteer, you would have to be registered as a parent volunteer with the school not later than 1 July 2010 and given at least 40 hours of voluntary service to the school by 30 June 2011 if you are registering your child in the 2011 Primary One Registration Exercise. You can approach the school of your choice directly to enquire about their parent volunteer scheme.\"

Strictly speaking, based on MOE's guidelines, schools should only accept PVs one year prior to the year of registration. Hence, PVs will only be able to clock the 40 hours between 01 Jul 2010 to 30 Jun 2011.

This is the official MOE guidelines. Of course, I know of schools who accept PVs more than one year before the year of registration. Even then, I thought the PV period should still be between 01 Jul of the previous year and 30 Jun or the year of registration? To be sure, please check with the school.

It only says they must start at least 1 year ahead, so I'm reading it as schools can accept PV more than 1 year before registration. Some schools need 80 hours. To cheong that within 1 year is super siong for FTWP. [/b]

[vicki]

Yah - the prob is that they gave the \"latest\" date to complete - they dont tell you the \"earliest\" date to start or the \"in between\" dates that you should perform the PV duty.


So - effectively - the interpretation is left to the school? Funny! I tot they would have a more standardised procedure. :roll:

[Daddy D]

If there’s no validity period for PV… imagine parents applying to do PV even before their child is born?

[janet88]

It’s hard enough to clock up 40 hours if both parents are both working, let alone 80 hours.


I hope schools who want parents to clock up 80 hours have sufficient ‘jobs’ for PVs, do not take in too many PVs fighting for jobs, yet in the end can’t clock up time to register under Phase 2B…that would be very heart-breaking if this happens.

[meeyah]

janet_lee88:

It's hard enough to clock up 40 hours if both parents are both working, let alone 80 hours.


I hope schools who want parents to clock up 80 hours have sufficient 'jobs' for PVs, do not take in too many PVs fighting for jobs, yet in the end can't clock up time to register under Phase 2B...that would be very heart-breaking if this happens.

Hmmmm...seems like Gahmen wants everything...Promote both parents to work to contribute to the economy. Promote to have more kids but so difficult to get into our ideal schools. AS more n more parents are better educated naturally, our standards and expectation will increase. Hence the hopes of getting our kids to 'better' school will naturally increase as compare to our parents generation.....no such thing about PV or phase 2B..What more in phase 2B, PV has to compete with church members, grassroot members, clan members...Fierce competitions... Really hope gahmen will step in and improve the situation. Also, this PV thing seems to favour more to parents who are SAHM. Hahahaa..really so hard to be parent in Singapore.

[janet88]

meeyah:

Hmmmm...seems like Gahmen wants everything...Promote both parents to work to contribute to the economy. Promote to have more kids but so difficult to get into our ideal schools. AS more n more parents are better educated naturally, our standards and expectation will increase. Hence the hopes of getting our kids to 'better' school will naturally increase as compare to our parents generation.....no such thing about PV or phase 2B..What more in phase 2B, PV has to compete with church members, grassroot members, clan members...Fierce competitions... Really hope gahmen will step in and improve the situation. Also, this PV thing seems to favour more to parents who are SAHM. Hahahaa..really so hard to be parent in Singapore.

Agree, agree...but I don't agree to the part about govt wants women to be SAHM. Otherwise why they hold exhibition to get women to re-join workforce again.
During OUR time, no such thing about PV right ? Now do PV also have to compete with church/clan/grassroot members. Quite unfair.
Surviving on sole breadwinner is tough, but when both parents work, the poor children has to go student care or else employ maid who drives employers crazy with their antics.

[3Boys]

vicki:

Yah - the prob is that they gave the \"latest\" date to complete - they dont tell you the \"earliest\" date to start or the \"in between\" dates that you should perform the PV duty.


So - effectively - the interpretation is left to the school? Funny! I tot they would have a more standardised procedure. :roll:

vicki,
I understand you trying to split the difference in the wordings and text. The schools have some autonomy in setting start and stop dates for PV, or for that matter, number of hours, share between parents etc., but fundamentally, 1 PV qualification is for 1 child. That is why in the PV forms I have filled, it states very clearly the name of the child that the PV counts towards, and the year of admission. It could not be fair to other parents to do it any other way.

[vicki]

3Boys:

vicki,

I understand you trying to split the difference in the wordings and text. The schools have some autonomy in setting start and stop dates for PV, or for that matter, number of hours, share between parents etc., but fundamentally, 1 PV qualification is for 1 child. That is why in the PV forms I have filled, it states very clearly the name of the child that the PV counts towards, and the year of admission. It could not be fair to other parents to do it any other way.

Oh! I didnt know you have to fill in the name of the child - cos asking for a fren.

Okies - understand from this angle then.

[tankee]

vicki:

Yah - the prob is that they gave the \"latest\" date to complete - they dont tell you the \"earliest\" date to start or the \"in between\" dates that you should perform the PV duty.


So - effectively - the interpretation is left to the school? Funny! I tot they would have a more standardised procedure. :roll:

there isn't a standardised procedure. That's why some schools can go beyond 40 hrs, and different schools have different start date of accepting PV and how PV are selected.