Opinions of the Primary School Registration System

[MyBaby]

Hi hquek, certainly agree that thank goodness we have a mum who had the foresight and the determination to change our lives for the better.


All of us are professionals now with our own family. My mum has given us the best gift that she can give despite our situation at that time. And this is a gift that even when we are poor, and have no connections, it is still within our reach, achieved through her sheer effort by going early to queue. This is what I believe meritocracy is, which is slightly different from the concept of fairness.

Of course, going to a TOP school was my mum's idea of \"making it\" and we did benefit from a good education. That, however, is not to say that if we had gone to another school, we would not end up what we are today. My brother, who attended a \"neighbourhood\" school, also did very well. Getting into the \"choice\" school is only the first step.

Incidentally, none of my siblings and neither did I send our kids to our alumni though we could have easily gotten the girls in through Phase 2A. Reason - we didn't have a good school experience there. Of course, we get berated by my mum for wasting all her effort but she has since come to terms with OUR concept of what type of school experience and education we want for our kids.

hquek:

Agree with your posting. And very happy for your family that your mum had the foresight and the determination to change your lives for the better. Kudos to her!! :celebrate:

[tankee]

INNOVATE:

hquek


Policy makers will not tweak phase 1A as national interest is at stake.

not only national interest, it does not make sense and would create logistic nightmare.

Phase 1
For a child who has a sibling studying in a school of choice.

[markfch]

janet_lee88:

Thanks for the post. Glad to know there is a mummy who agrees that PV is a great opportunity to know more of HOW the school works.

Make that 2! I also agree that nothing beats being a PV to learn what makes a sch tick. I was fortunate enough to PV at the general office for a week. From that brief experience, I learnt about the constraints and concerns of P, the HODs, the OM. What's their approach to problem solving, how they handle discipline. I came out of the whole experience much more appreciative of the work that they do, work that is usually transparent to people on the outside.

I also know a friend who gave up on the sch she PV halfway thru when she realised that the sch is not the right fit for her ds. These are personal anecdotes, not hearsay from a friend of a friend.

Others can disagree and argue that I've vested interest by singing the praises of PV. I cannot expect everyone to agree with me on a public forum like this. But I'm quite sure that if I didn't like what I saw, I'll give up on the priority registration because I felt that I had a good backup plan to fall back on. As far as my experience is concerned, doing PV definitely helped me to know the sch better.

[3Boys]

tankee:

INNOVATE:

hquek


Policy makers will not tweak phase 1A as national interest is at stake.

not only national interest, it does not make sense and would create logistic nightmare.

Phase 1
For a child who has a sibling studying in a school of choice.

I quote my previous input on this;

\"There are real pragmatic reasons for use of Phase 1\"

[3Boys]

MMM:

To me, this is fair just like a man who inherited wealth from his late ancestors.

You are prescient, I was about to use inheritance tax as a contextual adjunct.

It is actually a matter of philosophical debate as to whether inheritance is in fact societally fair. It forms the basis of inheritance tax in many countries, which in some, can be fairly punitive, and seeks to redistribute wealth to society.

So, no, that a man should live significantly off his forebears' efforts is not a universally accepted norm.

IMO, same for Phase 2A (with some caveats).

If anything, the case for Phase 2A is even weaker than that for inheritance. At least in the latter, the forebear is in actual POSSESSION of the property he may wish to bequeath to his offspring. In the case of alumni, the priority admission is GRANTED by a government policy, the alumni is not in possession of anything.

There appears to be a general acceptance of this, but to my eyes, there is no natural 'flow' as to why a non-active (here's the caveat) alumni's child should be granted priority admission over anybody. Being an alumni of a pre-school, secondary school, JC or university does not grant you priority admission for your children to that institute, does it? Why should it be different for primary-schools? Is it not the outlier and begs for a logical explanation? I do grant the caveat for ACTIVE alumni, however you may want to define it.

The question about tradition (religious or otherwise) has already been discussed, and I believe the consensus was that there is a good mix of cultures in schools anyway and thus is not a big factor.

[janet88]

I know there are parents unhappy with PV (Phase 2B)…successful applicants who get to be PV, finish the hours required but yet balloted out, as well as those who are not successful to be PVs. We don’t know how long this PV thing will last but it has benefitted parents like myself and some others.


As for Phase 1, I hope this will stay FOR GOOD. This is to be fair to younger siblings, and perhaps parents can consider having 2nd, 3rd or even 4th kid.

As for Phase 2A2, imagine this - the parents have already gone through the stress of Phase 2C balloting and registered first child in the school. Along the way, another child comes along but older sibling has already completed primary school. Shouldn’t the younger child have priority to register in the same primary school his/her older sibling studied in ?

[3Boys]

janet_lee88:

As for Phase 1, I hope this will stay FOR GOOD. This is to be fair to younger siblings, and perhaps parents can consider having 2nd, 3rd or even 4th kid.

As for Phase 2A2, imagine this - the parents have already gone through the stress of Phase 2C balloting and registered first child in the school. Along the way, another child comes along but older sibling has already completed primary school. Shouldn't the younger child have priority to register in the same primary school his/her older sibling studied in ?

Ok with Phase 1.

Restrict 2A1 and 2A2 to ACTIVE alumni and siblings who are ex-students (maybe ok) . But not alumni all-comers.

[toddles]

MyBaby:

Incidentally, none of my siblings and neither did I send our kids to our alumni though we could have easily gotten the girls in through Phase 2A. Reason - we didn't have a good school experience there. Of course, we get berated by my mum for wasting all her effort but she has since come to terms with OUR concept of what type of school experience and education we want for our kids.

Just curious, which pri sch is this? can PM me?

[markfch]

3Boys:

Ok with Phase 1.

Restrict 2A1 and 2A2 to ACTIVE alumni and siblings who are ex-students (maybe ok) . But not alumni all-comers.

For the sake of clarification, how would you differentiate between active & inactive alumni members?

[3Boys]

markfch:

For the sake of clarification, how would you differentiate between active & inactive alumni members?

There are of course some real practical issues that will need to be sorted, but is the better alternative to just give up and stick with status quo? I am making some suggestions at this time which go part way to meet the bona-fide alumni contributors (cited here as a reason to keep 2A in place) and provide greater access to those who are not in place of non-active. Its a start, no?

See also my other post on 'inheritance'......not a God given right.