MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[corneyAmber]

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…

The other thing is Phase 2A actually does not make up a big number in most years.

[3Boys]

sean wife:

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.

Arguably there would be more spaces open to the 'public' (non alumni) for balloting?

[doodbug]

HVR:

3Boys:

[quote=\"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.[/quote]I don't think Government can ever remove the alumni scheme totally. We can't move from a system where alumni's children have automatic entry, immediately to a system where alumni roots count for nothing. It sounds very extreme and drastic to me!

My gut feel (though I have no insider clues) is that it will be some combination of reducing the alumni advantage - perhaps no longer automatic entry, I'm not sure. Alumni links will probably continue to count for something, but it probably won't guarantee a place.

[limlim]

3Boys:

Siblings is Phase 1.

of \"existing students\" only..

or applies to ex-student also? (i.e. age gap > 6 yrs.)

[doodbug]

ksi:

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…

The other thing is Phase 2A actually does not make up a big number in most years.

For not so popular schools, Phase 2A doesn't make up a big number. Many of these schools are fairly new, and may not have existed in our time!

[janet88]

3Boys:

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

Since MOE is willing to look into P1 registration, it is good enough for the moment.

[laughingcat]

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.

I am not getting you when you mentioned \"hereditary\" and your argument on this is vague. If your younger child is time to go into school where the older siblings have studied in the school before. Removing alumni means removing totally.....there should not be grey area in it. Then by all means ballot again....if can't get in then study in another school. No pass on and no herediary.....for the fairness.

Or are you just thinking about yourself? :evil:

[corneyAmber]

limlim:

3Boys:

Siblings is Phase 1.

of \"existing students\" only..

or applies to ex-student also? (i.e. age gap > 6 yrs.)

ex students is Phase 2A2

[janet88]

limlim:

3Boys:

Siblings is Phase 1.

of \"existing students\" only..

or applies to ex-student also? (i.e. age gap > 6 yrs.)

Phase 1 is for younger siblings who have kids STILL studying in the school...supposing the age gap is 5 years which will see younger one in P1 and older in P6. But those whose gap is 6 years, then younger child will fall under Phase 2A2.

[phtthp]

when MOE make announcment -

the changes not just affect alumni 2A only, but also directly impact 2B (Parent Volunteers, Hokkien Clan, Church, Grassroot). Because 2A and 2B are inter-linked.

once MOE studies plan in lengthy detail and question, \"now, who are the ones directly impacting 2A ? Should we let 2A remain stand alone, or combine 2A together with 2B into same common pool for balloting ? If we throw 2A with 2B together, then what's going to happen to 2B ? what changes need to alter for 2B ? should we put in a certain percentage to cap and limit 2A intake, then how about 2B percentage apportionment ? should we abolish 2B PV totally, or abolish 2B Grassroots who has no direct contribution to the primary school at all ? Likewise to 2B Church group. Or abolish which category within 2B ? Or allow all 2B category to remain - but cap the maximum intake for each ? This being the case, how much percentage to apportion to each category in 2B ? We also need to review - from phase 1 to 2C, from past statistics gathered, what's the percentage of SG born kids, and %tage of PR kids ? have we collected enough statistics to prove that PR kids take up a lot of places, thus depriving SG kids ? If Yes, then what now ? push PR kids to the back of the queue from all phases 1 to 2C, let all SG born kids register first ? If No, how to apportion 2A and 2B seats? \" 2B becomes the automatic answer, to determine 2A intake portion and vice versa! So, 2B group will also be affected. don't think only affect 2A. They're both inter-twined.

MOE going to organize a taskforce team to study the ENTIRE plan for ALL - not just to alumni only.
MOE looks at the BIG OVERALL picture - not just zoom in at minute, small section of Alumni folks only.

anyway, based on past statistics - alumni folks only constitute small figures each year. it is the 2B and 2C that constitute the bulky, chunky number.