MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[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..

[limlim]

Tokidoki:

IDad is it existing member in this thread that dun dare to review true identify? Created new acct just to attack Phttph?!

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.......

[raysusan]

limlim:

Tokidoki:

IDad is it existing member in this thread that dun dare to review true identify? Created new acct just to attack Phttph?!

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.......

possible...but only admin can tell by ip track

[tankee]

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.

it is about putting proximity over the rest (alumni, PV, etc) while respecting current priority between them.

[doodbug]

tankee:

phankao:

[quote=\"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.

it is about putting proximity over the rest (alumni, PV, etc) while respecting current priority between them.[/quote]Under this proposed scheme, for the popular schools, I think alumni who live >2km will have no chance of entering the school, even if they volunteer.

[limlim]

3Boys:

laughingcat:

[quote=\"janet_lee88\"]I know there are several parents unhappy over this old boys/girls thing. However, not every parent sends their kids back to their former schools.

A former classmate of mine wanted to send her daughter back to alma mater but decided not to as she is staying too far away. Another friend didn't send her daughter to SCGS bcos she has a son...so decided to register them in co-ed school instead.

Exactly......that is still up to individual choice whether to go back to your own alma mater or not.

How about the rights of a parent to send the child to a nearby school for which they are not alumni? You can talk about rights all day long, at the end of the day, its about fairness.[/quote]It shd be about \"the best interest of the child\", then, maybe \"fairness\" (subject to different interpretation of what is fair).

Of coz, it's a given fact that all schools are \"not the same\".. as vigorously argued by many.

But there has to be some basis when formulating priority systems.. so.. the basis has to be that assuming \"all schools are the same\".

So, based on the basic principle of \"all schools are the same\", and \"the best interest of the child\", the priority system can than be formulated and debated upon. Citizenship priority can also find it's way into the system somehow..