MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni
-
wow, din know that membership for alumni can be so ex.
nowadays we parents really slog just to get our kids into good school or school that we wish our kids to get in. -
Sun_2010:
If they're willing to go to that extent, so be it. I understand that parents all want the best for their kids.
Finally a voice of sanity...
But afraid this will get lost in the mad rush for homes near the good schools :faint:
In the race for a good/branded school we are losing out on the basics.3Boys:
In principle, I have nothing against giving places to students who have connections to the school. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main article did not mention the alumni. I believe MOE could be studying all connections and not just the alumni connection. This could include those with grassroots or clan connections as well. And indeed, I do think that the numbers need to be tweaked in favour of those who live near the school. However, there is no need to overhaul the current system.
Old alumni rule or 'new' alumni rule? Provisioning for alumni priority AND provisioning for proximity are somewhat exclusionary to each other, yes? Tweaking the second requires tweaking the first, does it not?Mdm Koh:
I don't have any objections to the alumni rule, but I hope that the schools can give more consideration to proximity.
-
tell your husband start getting active inside Catholic High alumni activities. From now to next year July 2013 registration for P1 2014 intake, still many more months to go. Anything can happen, from now till then.
the newspaper report stated very clearly - they don't want anymore \"sleeping\" alumni members. Is a \"wake up\" call - don't sleep anymore. Wake up, come back and do something for the school.
as for you, start getting active inside rgps alumni.
start clocking up active hours, help out in alumni activities.
nearer the time then see what MOE changes to phase 2A rules state.
if 2A rules change to \"active alumni + < 1km\", you need to shift nearer.
not sure if they let 2A stand alone or lump 2A together with 2B. ie active (2A alumni + 2B Parent volunteers + 2B Grassroot leaders / clan / church members ) together in the same group and ballot by distance range, once demand exceeds vacancies.
2 possible outcome:-
====================
a) if MOE let 2A stand alone.
means we need to start clocking up 40 alumni activities hours.
this way, you are no longer called a \"sleeping\" alumni member, but an \"active\" contributing member.
in the event balloting was conducted at 2A but fail to ballot in, we still have another second chance to strike at 2B - this time under Parent volunteer. However, this means we need to clock another 60 hours separately as a PV. rgps PV require 60 hrs, no more 40 hrs (history of the past).
in Total, be mentally prepared to clock (40 alumni hrs, to come under 2A + another 60 PV hrs, to come under 2B). i'm not sure if they allow the alumni hrs clocked from 2A to be carried over to 2B, as PV hrs clocked. perhaps can clarify with respective school.
i believe they'll also remove 2A1 and 2A2 labelling. Just combine these two together as one, come under 2A. The demand to join 2A1 alumni membership will also soar. People who're quietly now inside 2A2, din pay any $ to join alumni, are prepared to come forward & join 2A1 now.
b) but if MOE states \"lump 2A with the rest of 2B PV / Grassroot leaders and everyone ballot\" together,
then just clock 40 alumni hrs enough - no need to offer PV anymore, because all will be thrown into the same common pool, no differentiation during balloting. This is going to be highly stressful. Lumping everyone together means open up to a greater pool of fierce competition. jialut!
consequences
=============
property market, rental prices will soar around those schools.
if no more alumni priority, a lot of parents will be very stressed.
Mass migration to areas near schools. Become worse only. Ultra rich Singaporeans & PRs can go Bukit Timah schools. -
phtthp,
jialat if they gg to lump all phases together.
more stress to incur if need balloting. -
-
-
Wow I don’t have very firm opinions of the system as it is, or what it should be. But it would be interesting indeed to see what MOE comes up with.
Will it be lauded as fairer by the majority? Or will MOE chicken out and maintain status quo after stating that they did conduct an extensive review?
If they eradicate the alumni priority altogether I’m sure some parents will be freaking out, esp if they went through hell and high water to get their kids into a particular school thinking that it would benefit "future generations". -
toddles:
I'm sure. But there is no basis for this to 'benefit future generations', it locks down prime school places, obstructs social mobility.
If they eradicate the alumni priority altogether I'm sure some parents will be freaking out, esp if they went through hell and high water to get their kids into a particular school thinking that it would benefit \"future generations\". -
i’m terribly concerned too! praying hard they dun lump 2A with 2B. my boy currently P1 via phase 2A1 route. but my gal (still in my tummy) will miss out of phase 1 route due to 7 yrs age gap!
-
K folks, dun flame me, but its Phase (as in steps), not Phrase (as in partial sentence).
Cheers -
Mdm Koh:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main article did not mention the alumni.
It did, and yes, they are studying other connections too.
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 💗
Register Login