MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[janet88]

It’s because of this spirit which is why we want to put our kids back in our former schools. One of my school mate from secondary is now a teacher in the primary school where my daughter is studying.

So there is every reason why Phase 2A should stay.

I had the ‘luxury’ to decide putting her in my son’s school (Phase 1) or my former old girls school…we chose the latter. BTW, my daughter happens to be in the same ‘house’ I once belonged…so she is using my badge now.

[tankee]

janet_lee88:

It's because of this spirit which is why we want to put our kids back in our former schools. One of my school mate from secondary is now a teacher in the primary school where my daughter is studying.

So there is every reason why Phase 2A should stay.

I had the 'luxury' to decide putting her in my son's school (Phase 1) or my former old girls school...we chose the latter. BTW, my daughter happens to be in the same 'house' I once belonged...so she is using my badge now.

Agree that alumni should be retained.

But it is questionable whether it is more important than proximity.

Perhaps the entire phase 2 should be merged. And when there is more applicants than places, allocate in the following way:

Phase 2
1. within 1km
1.1 allocate to alumni first, if not enough, ballot within this group
1.2 if still have places after alumni, allocate to PV, Clans, Religion group, if not enough, ballot within this group
1.3 if still have places after PV, Clan, etc. allocate to those without priority, if not enough ballot within this group

if there is balanced place, then proceed for 1-2km in the same order, and there after > 2km in the same order.

[janet88]

tankee:

janet_lee88:

It's because of this spirit which is why we want to put our kids back in our former schools. One of my school mate from secondary is now a teacher in the primary school where my daughter is studying.

So there is every reason why Phase 2A should stay.

But it is questionable whether it is more important than proximity.

Perhaps the entire phase 2 should be merged. And when there is more applicants than places, allocate in the following way:

Phase 2
1. within 1km
1.1 allocate to alumni first, if not enough, ballot within this group
1.2 if still have places after alumni, allocate to PV, Clans, Religion group, if not enough, ballot within this group
1.3 if still have places after PV, Clan, etc. allocate to those without priority, if not enough ballot within this group

Phase 2 should be categorized.
*Phase 2A for old boys/girls as well as children of staff teachers in a category by itself.

*2B for religious groups, PV and clans. Take out grassroots.
Some schools belong to clans. Catholic/Christian have strong relationship with schools. PVs serve the schools directly. For PVs, limit intake to 20 and absorb all the children of the parents who have chalked up the required hours.

[MotherHen]

Have just ploughed through the 40+ pages.


I'd just like to say that nothing in this world is fair, and we make noise when something is perceived to be unfair to us. I am guilty of this too.

I advocate wholeheartedly:
1. Priority for siblings.Siblings should get automatic entry into the same school. Life is stressful/busy enough. Most parents are already burning candles at both ends juggling family and career. This priority shld definitely not be abolish in the name of fairness to those who have to register in later phases. In the same vein, priority should be given to current staff of the school who can cut down on the mad rush from school to work.

2. Priority for old boys/girls. I registered my dd in my old school as I had wonderful memories of my time there. In fact, there wasn't even another school in which I wanted to register her. There was such a sense of belonging, and my dd was so proud that she was attending the same school that mommy went to. Contrary to popular belief, the alumni is not a congregation of \"sleeping members\". From what I observe, the most active moms – the ones who help to decorate classrooms, man fun fair stalls, etc – are often the old girls. And they're doing all that even after their girls have successfully enrolled in the school.

3. Priority for PVs. I take my hats off to this group of parents as they are doing their best for what they perceive as best for their children. In fact, I think schools should be cautious with the number of PVs they take in each year so that they are given guaranteed entry. To me, what better way to teach our children that you reap what you sow. These are the parents who will also be very committed to the school.

In all honesty, I think the current system is as \"fair\" as it gets. Given the premise that all schools will never be the same, priority solely by distance will create a greater social divide between the affluent and the not-so-well-off.

The only \"priority\" which I have an issue with is actually the one for grassroots leaders. I do not see how one's willingness to serve the community has anything to do with one's commitment to a particular school.

[janet88]

MotherHen:

I advocate wholeheartedly:

1. Priority for siblings.Siblings should get automatic entry into the same school. Life is stressful/busy enough. Most parents are already burning candles at both ends juggling family and career. This priority shld definitely not be abolish in the name of fairness to those who have to register in later phases. In the same vein, priority should be given to current staff of the school who can cut down on the mad rush from school to work.

2. Priority for old boys/girls. I registered my dd in my old school as I had wonderful memories of my time there. In fact, there wasn't even another school in which I wanted to register her. There was such a sense of belonging, and my dd was so proud that she was attending the same school that mommy went to. Contrary to popular belief, the alumni is not a congregation of \"sleeping members\". From what I observe, the most active moms – the ones who help to decorate classrooms, man fun fair stalls, etc – are often the old girls. And they're doing all that even after their girls have successfully enrolled in the school.

3. Priority for PVs. I take my hats off to this group of parents as they are doing their best for what they perceive as best for their children. In fact, I think schools should be cautious with the number of PVs they take in each year so that they are given guaranteed entry. To me, what better way to teach our children that you reap what you sow. These are the parents who will also be very committed to the school.

:goodpost:
Children of staff members of the school should be guaranteed a place in the school, since their daddy or mummy is serving the school.
Phase 1 - For younger siblings of children already studying in the school and children of staff members.

[dorisp]

tankee:

Agree that alumni should be retained.


But it is questionable whether it is more important than proximity.

Perhaps the entire phase 2 should be merged. And when there is more applicants than places, allocate in the following way:

Phase 2
1. within 1km
1.1 allocate to alumni first, if not enough, ballot within this group
1.2 if still have places after alumni, allocate to PV, Clans, Religion group, if not enough, ballot within this group
1.3 if still have places after PV, Clan, etc. allocate to those without priority, if not enough ballot within this group

if there is balanced place, then proceed for 1-2km in the same order, and there after > 2km in the same order.

:goodpost:
I thought the idea of merging the entire Phase 2 is a good idea. After all, members in this group have all contributed to the school or to the community where the school resides in some way.

[phankao]

tankee:

Agree that alumni should be retained.

But it is questionable whether it is more important than proximity.

Perhaps the entire phase 2 should be merged. And when there is more applicants than places, allocate in the following way:

Phase 2
1. within 1km
1.1 allocate to alumni first, if not enough, ballot within this group
1.2 if still have places after alumni, allocate to PV, Clans, Religion group, if not enough, ballot within this group
1.3 if still have places after PV, Clan, etc. allocate to those without priority, if not enough ballot within this group

if there is balanced place, then proceed for 1-2km in the same order, and there after > 2km in the same order.

This doesn't sound much different from the current practice, leh.

[Nebbermind]

think most of the parents who got their children in schools on their wishlist would rather it remains status quo.

[phankao]

janet_lee88:

It's because of this spirit which is why we want to put our kids back in our former schools. One of my school mate from secondary is now a teacher in the primary school where my daughter is studying.

So there is every reason why Phase 2A should stay.

I had the 'luxury' to decide putting her in my son's school (Phase 1) or my former old girls school...we chose the latter. BTW, my daughter happens to be in the same 'house' I once belonged...so she is using my badge now.

In the years when I was class-rep, I also realised how organising for Parent helpers is so much easier through the \"old-boys\" network. I found out that my co-classrep and many of the fathers in the class were all \"old-boys\". Getting helpers for class events, donations of food, etc, were very much easier when I push that part of our duties to my co-classrep.

and yeah, in school events like walks, there are parents with their boys and their previous school teachers. Really fun. The old teachers with all the little boys of their former students. ;D

[limlim]

IDad:

phtthp:

abolish the phase 1 sibling scheme. There're far too many PR children inside the Phase 1 sibling scheme now. Every child just re-queue for their turn - whether SG born citizen or PR kid, when comes to P1 registration.

You see, I find your suggestions totally ridiculous, especially the removal of sidlings priority. That to me is the ONLY priority that should be retained. The rest, I say review or withdraw.

vicki:

Wah!! I sure hope they dont remove the siblings phase!! I have 3 kids! N I cannot imagine the logistic nightmare n the escalating cost I would have to go through if this scheme is removed n my boys suay suay don't get into the same school!!

Imagine!! New uniforms!! New textbooks (if different authors are used)!! Mad morning rush!!

Eeks!!! ;(

Pls keep this phase!!!

Yes, sibling phase is the Most important priority that must be retained.. It is also the fairest.. and is definitely \"in the best interest of the child\"..

AND it is in line with govt's pro-procreation objective..... :snuggles:

But, whether sibling phase shd be applicable to PRs.. that is another issue....... :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

So, sibling phase when both are citizens.. shd remain..

sibling phase when 1 is non-citizen.. to be discussed..... :evil: :evil: 3B, don't say we close the door to PR hor.. they got a chance to ballot too.. just no priority admission..