MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[Musings]

I don’t think there is any satisfactory way of pleasing everyone in the P1 registration system. The various permutations, pros and cons of tweaking any part of the current rules have been analysed to death esp durin P1 registration time and there is never one consensus on what is fair.


On the issue of alumni, the alumni had studied in the school and contributed to the school’s success, culture and ethos. Many continue to be active and contribute to the school in money and in kind after graduation. Such contributions should be recognised. It is only beneficial to the school and for newer schools to build up a sense of history, identity, - passing down the school traditions, culture, values from the parents to kids if alumni is encouraged to send their kids back to the alma mater.

I support a restriction on the places available for alumni (like capping the places left after Phase 1, leaving the rest for 2B and 2C) but not a total removal of priority. The conditions for qualifying for 2A should also include some condition that the alumni participates in alumni activities etc and continues to be active and contributes to the school.

[3Boys]

Musings:

On the issue of alumni, the alumni had studied in the school and contributed to the school's success, culture and ethos. Many continue to be active and contribute to the school in money and in kind after graduation. Such contributions should be recognised. It is only beneficial to the school and for newer schools to build up a sense of history, identity, - passing down the school traditions, culture, values from the parents to kids if alumni is encouraged to send their kids back to the alma mater.

How about secondary school and uni, where alumni involvement is arguably even more extensive?

[Musings]

3Boys:

Musings:

On the issue of alumni, the alumni had studied in the school and contributed to the school's success, culture and ethos. Many continue to be active and contribute to the school in money and in kind after graduation. Such contributions should be recognised. It is only beneficial to the school and for newer schools to build up a sense of history, identity, - passing down the school traditions, culture, values from the parents to kids if alumni is encouraged to send their kids back to the alma mater.

How about secondary school and uni, where alumni involvement is arguably even more extensive?

Contributions by alumni to secondary school or uni are recognised by the schools in their own ways. But priority admission cannot be given at that level simply because it undermines meritocracy. In the same vein, I dont support affiliations from primary to secondary school - at that stage of secondary school admission, it should be based solely on merit.

However at P1, the system is not one of meritocracy to begin with - we strive to be fair but there is never complete fairness unless the system administers an entrance exam to P1 - which in itself raises other concerns...

A restriction on alumni places will serve to maintain and perpetuate a school's traditions and yet level the field for others to enter to create more diversity within the school (as opposed to being dominated by alumni).

Having come from a school with strong traditions (though my kids couldnt take advantage of that priority - wrong gender!), I would hate for those traditions, sense of shared identity be eroded. I had always longed to be able to tell my kids \"mummy and friends planted that tree in school over there, your teacher was also mummy's teacher...\" but that was not meant to be.

[phtthp]

-

[3Boys]

Musings:

Having come from a school with strong traditions (though my kids couldnt take advantage of that priority - wrong gender!), I would hate for those traditions, sense of shared identity be eroded. I had always longed to be able to tell my kids \"mummy and friends planted that tree in school over there, your teacher was also mummy's teacher...\" but that was not meant to be.

I'm not saying it is, but you can see how this comes across as being 'elitist' or 'clubby', much to the chagrin of those on the outside looking in. But I get your point, it is valid. So perhaps a restriction on the percentage (which should be small) for alumni, and to ballot it the applications exceed for that phase, and the rest for 2B/C.

[jtoh]

limlim:

BlueBells:

She added that the scheme aims to allocate school places according to a set of fair and transparent criteria that are in the child's educational interests.


There are six phases in the registration process, with siblings of children already in a school getting top priority. Next come the children of alumni, parent volunteers or those with church or clan connections.

This.

What has church or clan connections anything to do with the child's educational interests??????!!

Should be removed totally!

PVs.. to some extend.. could be retained.. As parents who are active in the school understand the school system better.

And, as they contribute to the school (in terms of time and effort), it is fair that some priority be given.

This is meritocracy.. unlike connections..

There are Catholic schools, Christian schools, Buddhist schools. And these impart religious values to the children which some parents do look for in their choice of school.

[Nebbermind]

actually donch need to revamp the P1 registration.

Just let these branded schools increase their intake or set up another school lor!! Then slowly slowly the branded ones will take up the noone-want schools in the neighbours and set up 'branch1', 'branch2'....

Then we will be left with only branded schools....just like we now only have a handful of local banks....

:evil:

[laughingcat]

It mentioned as quote \"changes may take some time to be studied and implemented, as suggestions from various groups would have to be considered carefully.\"


But i am all jittery and i hope it will not implement this year. Arrghhh! :scared:

[jedamum]

phtthp:

if they change rules, only 2 possible outcome:-
==========================================
a) they don't want \"sleeping\" alumni members.
they want \"active\" alumni, OR

b) they want only \"active\" alumni + staying < 1km.
so those \"active\" alumni but stay > 2 km - will also be out!

this is what i thought so too....
i dont think this year will be affected ba.

maybe they'll merge pv route with alumni, ie only alumni who pv-ed will be given priority and also subject to balloting as the no. of seats are divided with Phase2C.

[Musings]

3Boys:

Musings:

Having come from a school with strong traditions (though my kids couldnt take advantage of that priority - wrong gender!), I would hate for those traditions, sense of shared identity be eroded. I had always longed to be able to tell my kids \"mummy and friends planted that tree in school over there, your teacher was also mummy's teacher...\" but that was not meant to be.

I'm not saying it is, but you can see how this comes across as being 'elitist' or 'clubby', much to the chagrin of those on the outside looking in. But I get your point, it is valid. So perhaps a restriction on the percentage (which should be small) for alumni, and to ballot it the applications exceed for that phase, and the rest for 2B/C.

I can see the argument against building up elitism in a cluster of schools and it benefits society as a whole. In the present political climate, I thought the writing is already on the wall that some action would need to be taken (and rightly so) to alleviate some of the unintended consequences of the P1 system.

I think you are one of those who sees this from noble intentions (even if such change works to your disadvantage).

However, while those on the 'outside' clamour for removal of elitism, isn't it true that they themselves long to be part of the elite (which they otensibly want to cut down/remove)? They are only seeking their own self interest by tweaking rules to their benefit so they can join the 'club'?