MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[HVR]

3Boys:

HVR:

Alumni is but one of the criteria and if you remove it, people will go around it and make sure they fulfill other requirements in order to have priority in registration. If alumni connection is unfair, how about grassroots and PV? At least alumni instill sense of loyalty and make you appreciate what you've benefited from the school, and hopefully, you'll pay it forward.

Its unfair because its hereditary, and we have a public school system, notionally open to ALL Singaporeans, not a monarchy. I have made my statement previously about active vs non-active alumni.

Tend to agree with your view on non-active alumni but varying degrees of freeloaders exist everywhere, in every scheme, in my office. I am not sure we should remove alumni scheme totally... I hold my thoughts.

[BlueBells]

HVR:

Alumni is but one of the criteria and if you remove it, people will go around it and make sure they fulfill other requirements in order to have priority in registration. If alumni connection is unfair, how about grassroots and PV? At least alumni instill sense of loyalty and make you appreciate what you've benefited from the school, and hopefully, you'll pay it forward.

I am in favour of removing grassroots and alumni, but not PV. PVs contribute directly to the school, and many switch to PSG to continue their support. However, the challenge then is how to ensure PVs are all not snapped up by PRs who have more time on hand to volunteer than working parents.

[janet88]

Tokidoki:

Everyday i feel so proud to see my boy in the same uniform that i have worn, and carry on the tradition of being part of a school that i loved.

I am proud to see my daughter in the same uniform I once wore...it's great to see her continue the tradition and legacy too.
It's the alumni phase ie Phase 2A1 which should go...Phase 2A2 (for old boys/girls) should stay.

[3Boys]

MMM:

Tokidoki:

Everyday i feel so proud to see my boy in the same uniform that i have worn, and carry on the tradition of being part of a school that i loved.

Yes, I share this view as well. Not just that, simple things like being able to sing the school song with the kids because I can associate with it as I sang it for 6 years. Seeing teachers belonging to my era who are still teaching in the school. Being an alumni, all these brings association to the school that we attended. Also, the desire for kids to do well and exhibit the right character/ behaviour as we want them to bring pride to the school. It's not just a primary school but the school that we once attended. I would actually loved to see my grandchildren attend the same school as well. Also, as alumni, I make contributions to needy students scheme so that existing students can benefit.

Frankly, I am not sure what is defined as a fair system. If it is fair to one, it would be unfair to another. Is distance fair??? Yes. But not if parents intentionally buy a flat next to the school just because they can afford to do so.

Sentimentality should not trump fairness. Why not spread the joy of your wonderful experience? Whilst it is a zero-sum game, I don't agree with the notion that 'if it was fair to one, it would be unfair to another.' If a fundamentally unfair system were righted, there will be winners and there will be losers, but what will emerge will be an overall more fair system.

[doodbug]

3Boys:

Tokidoki:

I dun understand why alumni r penalised here, when we contributed to the school when we were studying there. If not for our past results, some schools may not have reached their current status. Everyday i feel so proud to see my boy in the same uniform that i have worn, and carry on the tradition of being part of a school that i loved.

We are going by results now, are we? How about alumni who did poorly in school then? They get the same shot?

How about allowing some other family to experience the same pride, since you've already had the benefit of it?

I think there's no easy solution to the P1 registration problem, because MOE is not starting from a clean slate - there is an existing system that gives alumni, parent volunteers and grassroot volunteers, and to a certain extent, distance, some priority.

In many Western countries, there is little choice of public schools. You can only opt for a public school within your home district. This is quite untenable in the Singapore context. Although if we adopt the position that travelling distance matters, this is a logical way to allocate school places. However, this is impossible to implement in Singapore.

But there are problems within the current Singapore system. This list is not exhaustive, but highlights some of them:
1) An increasing number of parent volunteers (and whoever falls under Phase 2B), have no opportunity to enter the school because they live beyond 2km. Balloting has occurred for many popular schools at Phase 2B.
2) If the current trajectory continues, at some of the popular primary schools, the overwhelming majority of places will be taken up by siblings and alumni children. There is a possibility that some schools may end up with little or no spaces in time to come, for non-alumni.
3) There is no opportunity for a person with no prior connections with the school living beyond 1km to enter popular schools. There is less intermingling and exposure to children of different backgrounds.

Currently, all forms of priority, relatively speaking (not always, I have to qualify), favour the middle and upper income families, than families from more humble backgrounds. Even parent volunteering - hourly-rated dual income parents probably cannot afford to take time off to volunteer. Plus schools now have a long list of volunteers, and tend to pick those with specific skillsets. For popular primary schools, of course not all alumni are equally well-off but established schools with history tend to have more alumni, and more esteemed alumni than new and fledgling primary schools.

The fact remains that the places in popular schools are limited. If MOE wants to give more people a chance at the popular schools, they will probably have to open up more places for balloting, and the balloting criteria will be widened.

Not an easy problem! And there will be a ton of angry parents, regardless how MOE changes things.

[corneyAmber]

I must echo Janet again... Alumni has 2 phases.... Phase 2A1 - pay to be member should go. Phase 2A2 - old boys/old girls should stay.

[janet88]

HVR:

I am in favour of removing grassroots and alumni, but not PV. PVs contribute directly to the school, and many switch to PSG to continue their support. However, the challenge then is how to ensure PVs are all not snapped up by PRs who have more time on hand to volunteer than working parents.

Grassroots fall under Phase 2B...as well as getting MPs to write letter to get child into school. So, it is ok to remove grassroots and those who pay money to get into Phase 2A1.

PVs serve the school directly...so this should stay right ? There are 2 sides to this - PVs who serve 40 hours to get their child into the school and that's it, job done after that. What about schools who accept only PVs of those kids who are ALREADY in the school ?

[sean wife]

Actually I don’t really understand the rationale of parents who are asking for the alumni phase to be removed…I mean does it really mean that their child can get into a nearby popular school?


My thinking is that for a popular nearby school (which currently has a significant number of places taken up at 2A phase), even if this phase is removed, there is also almost 100% certainty that balloting is still required at Phase 2B or 2C based on distance right? So it is not a clear win benefit for those who stay near but no affiliations with the school.

For not so popular schools, the number of places taken up at 2A should not be high with the current policy, and those staying near but with no affiliations already have a very high chance(or 100% chance) or getting into the school…

[doodbug]

Tokidoki:

MMM:

Frankly, I am not sure what is defined as a fair system. If it is fair to one, it would be unfair to another. Is distance fair??? Yes. But not if parents intentionally buy a flat next to the school just because they can afford to do so.

Precisely. And a lot are juz renting to get the address. Why should this be tolerated?

There is a difference under the current system. Alumni = automatic guarantee your child gets a place in the school. Buying a flat next to the school = a shot at balloting at Phase 2C (or 2B if you volunteered). No guarantees at all.

[3Boys]

I am quite against PV too, but I’d settle for alumni rule being changed for now.