MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[corneyAmber]

laughingcat:

ksi:

[quote=\"laughingcat\"]

Solie eh.....when comes to SG vs non-SG..... I am very HOT HOT :stompfeet:

Start another thread on this lor....should be fun to watch the debate.. Quick laughing cat...chiong. maybe something like \"what do you enjoy as pink ic, blue ic or no ic?\"................

I would love to start this thread but then cannot right in this KSP forum as this will go viral and can steer unnecessary ill feelings. I don't want this thread to be like that of TR.[/quote]Parents here still more open-minded and controlled compared to many other forums....yes it runs the risks and what it needs is close monitoring.
Between discussing and pent-it-up, really up to all of you...

[magiccastle]

If we are looking at the issue of p1 registration, the focus shd not just on the alumni. I mentioned the pty issue because it will be truly unfair that just bec I put a deposit to purchase the pty in feb 2012which is not even on construction yet I can register my child in July this year for the school near to the new pty project . So anyone with $$ who is not residing near to the school can compete with the existing residents . If this is current ruling, it has to be changed. It shd be after top and staying at the pty at the year of registration for p1.

[vicki]

Regarding property, maybe they can hve a clause that says you have to stay in that property that u use to register the kid till at least end of P4 year, unless due to specific reasons, ie, bankruptcy? N also rental units NOT allowed to be used as within 2km distance, as a >2km distance instead.


Wonder if it can cut down on the number of ‘within 2km’ applicants?

[corneyAmber]

Mod's Note:


As the topic of SG kids vs non-SG kids is a hot topic for P1 registration, I have removed it and put under this thread to continue the discussion:

http://www.kiasuparents.com/kiasu/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32436&start=40

All other categories will be discussed here with ALUMNI as the main focus as the title suggests. If I notice any other category being a major concern, I may split the topic again for more focused discussion.

[jenao]

Popular schools will always have more applicants than places and I don’t think there is a fair way to this. Even if you remove the phases and get everyone to ballot, the person staying next to the school but did not get in will not be happy. He will have to put up with the traffic and noises everyday at his place and yet take a bus to to another school.


And if you go with proximity, then those with money will be able to buy up the property near the school. Mostly the rich benefit. Also not fair. Or people will rent or come up with lots of solution to show that they have an address near the school just to get a higher balloting chance.

I think the current system is as good as it gets. Alumni/clan assocation benefits the school and it is reasonable that parents want their children to go to their school with the same tradition, history, religion, culture. Same with PV, they benefit the school. Though some may not be happy with the way the PVs are selected. And if they combine all Ph 2 (those with connnections) instead of 2A1 and 2A2 and 2B and get everyone to ballot together instead of having priority given to a particular group now, is it better and fairer? Or they reprioritise the phases with active alumni as 2A1, PV as 2A2 and so on and so forth is it better and fairer?

[janet88]

Just 1 day MIA from forum and I'm lost :yikes:

Yes, the hot issue is definitely on P1 registration after article came out in today's paper.

This alumni thing should be scrapped...after all, the parents would be able to get their kids in at phase 2A1.
I've heard several times about 'sleeping members' in alumni...many do not mind paying that one-off amount to get into phase 2A1.

[janet88]

jenao:

I think the current system is as good as it gets. Alumni/clan assocation benefits the school and it is reasonable that parents want their children to go to their school with the same tradition, history, religion, culture. Same with PV, they benefit the school. Though some may not be happy with the way the PVs are selected. And if they combine all Ph 2 (those with connnections) instead of 2A1 and 2A2 and 2B and get everyone to ballot together instead of having priority given to a particular group now, is it better and fairer? Or they reprioritise the phases with active alumni as 2A1, PV as 2A2 and so on and so forth is it better and fairer?

Phase 2B is for clan/church associations as well as parent volunteers, and grassroots. So I dont agree with 2B combining with 2A.

[corneyAmber]

janet_lee88:

Just 1 day MIA from forum and I'm lost :yikes:

Yes, the hot issue is definitely on P1 registration after article came out in today's paper.

This alumni thing should be scrapped...after all, the parents would be able to get their kids in at phase 2A1.
I've heard several times about 'sleeping members' in alumni...many do not mind paying that one-off amount to get into phase 2A1.

Oh...I am ok with scrapping phase 2A1(where people pay to join alumni) but not Phase 2A2.

[janet88]

ksi:

janet_lee88:

Just 1 day MIA from forum and I'm lost :yikes:

Yes, the hot issue is definitely on P1 registration after article came out in today's paper.

This alumni thing should be scrapped...after all, the parents would be able to get their kids in at phase 2A1.
I've heard several times about 'sleeping members' in alumni...many do not mind paying that one-off amount to get into phase 2A1.

Oh...I am ok with scrapping phase 2A1(where people pay to join alumni) but not Phase 2A2.

Scrapping 2A1 (phase which allows parents to pay money) is definitely OK...bit pls keep phase 2A2.

[corneyAmber]

janet_lee88:

ksi:

[quote=\"janet_lee88\"]Just 1 day MIA from forum and I'm lost :yikes:

Yes, the hot issue is definitely on P1 registration after article came out in today's paper.

This alumni thing should be scrapped...after all, the parents would be able to get their kids in at phase 2A1.
I've heard several times about 'sleeping members' in alumni...many do not mind paying that one-off amount to get into phase 2A1.

Oh...I am ok with scrapping phase 2A1(where people pay to join alumni) but not Phase 2A2.

Scrapping 2A1 (phase which allows parents to pay money) is definitely OK...bit pls keep phase 2A2.[/quote]OOps! I got the phases numbering wrong... :oops: :oops: :oops:

Edited already...