MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[leo]

lovekin:

edener:

I just called MOE hotline and asked if there's any updates as to when the new policies for P1 registration kicks in.


CS replied, \"Hold the line please and let me do a quick check if there is any information on this yet.\"...(waited almost 3 min)..
\"I am sorry, there is no information yet. Pls call again in end May or early Jun. There will be more information by then.\"

I guess it will be release just in time before P1 registration but may not be a major change though.

Then....don't think will affect 2006 child reg this year? By June, PV for 2012 intake will have fulfilled their hrs!

Anything, so long as they announce before phase 1, can be implemented and made effective. Imagine if they scrap PV priority with immediate effect - I just told my friend this afternoon that I would cry if that happen .

[dorisp]

LOLMum:

Too many goods schools round bt area.


Acsp, Acsj,sjij,rgsp, scgsp,nyp,ph. Maybe should move some to nsew areas.
:siam: :siam: :siam:

The issue lies with too many wanting to go branded schools and places in these schools are insufficient to cater to all. So the problem might still exist even if these schools move.

[phtthp]

-

[tankee]

phtthp:

flashback ... a few years back, do you recall MM Lee LKY visited some primary schools in Singapore and recommend that schools should admit pupils, based on merit ?


thus i won't be surprised that for the new changes this time round to be announced in end May for branded schools, they may introduce - make K2 kids sit for entrance admission proficiency tests - ie. follow what SCGS is doing now. Entrance based on merit! This happens when demand exceeds vacancies, in any hot popular, branded school. I do not rule out this possibility.

example
==========
applicants: 50
vacancies: 12

after K2 kids sit for entrance tests, only the best 12 kids enter, after go through interview.

if this is the case, in branded schools - even (sibling, alumni, PV, GRL, Clan) also no use. Everything depends on the child himself.

Please quote your source of information.

[phtthp]

google

[CactusInDesert]

sweehai:

:boogie: Whatever change the gov makes, it will benefit some and it is definitely gonna hurt some! :xedfingers:

I am registering my girl this yr and we made plans two yrs back. If MOE just make changes without giving me ample time to react and I am worse off due to their last min announcement, I will remember this and do the needful four years later. If we can do planning ahead, I don't see any reason why I have to be worse off due to their last minute policy.

And mr Heng, pls cut the crap on all pri schools are the same, show us with statistics on the pri schools that children of MPs went over the last ten yrs. And also if they are the same, pls remove priority for grassroot leaders and tell them to register only near their homes.

[edener]

leo:

Anything, so long as they announce before phase 1, can be implemented and made effective. Imagine if they scrap PV priority with immediate effect - I just told my friend this afternoon that I would cry if that happen .

Then it will not be fair for existing parents already contributed to PV. No, i think even if changes really kick in this year, PV priority will only be scrap after 2013 registration for 2014 intake. MOE needs to give schools advance notice to stop accepting PV too. Otherwise, I think many parents will start approaching the MPs.

[nlimm]

vicki:

Actually hor,


I think MOE no need to change too much lah - either way they change also will have some unhappy pple one....

So, easy thing is to twig the current 2A to 2C. Maybe after Phase 1, just divide the remaining spaces to 3 sections lor, ie, if 360 original vacancies and Phase one has 60 registrations, Phase 2A/2B n 2C will have 100 each ((360 - 60)/3). If 2A only uses up 60, then roll the remaining 40 to 2C. Then do the same with 2B.

Like that, the current system is kept BUT more spaces opened up for 2C so that schools like Catholic High/ St Nics might have a higher chance of the 2C folks joining them.

HELLO MOE - ARE YOU READING THIS? PLS DONT WASTE MY TAX MONEY ON THINKING TOO MUCH.... just TWIG a little n i think most pple would still be satisfied!!

@Vicki: errmm r u in phase 2C? U seems to tilt towards tt.Me & hb be very unhappy & guessed quite a nos of parents out there who hope our kids to be in our same old sch.

[nlimm]

phankao:

DesertWind:

For me, too, my primary school already kerna demolished! :sad:
Nevertheless, if it is still existing, I think I SHOULD have the choice to send my kid back there as an alumni too! I think the alumni priority is FAIR! Why? Because all of us who attended an SG-school is an alumni of that school and hence everyone of us have the priority, no need to be jealous!

Actually when my 15yo heard about the possibility of this Alumni priority being abolished, he was quite unhappy about it. In my opinion, he didn't inherit it, we balloted for it, he has gained from the primary school, and he has also contributed loads during his time there. So I don't see why alumni priority is not fair? Same goes for my other boys.

I vote for you. Memories & ties are impt. Y not just combine phase 2B&2C as for parent volunteering it shall apply to parents of kids during the 1st 1-2 yrs? Parents contribute & get to know the sch where their kids study? Better then those who applied pv & done pv & yet the kid did not get a place

[nlimm]

No need to speculate, I'm not another poster who is afraid of being associated with. I have been a passive reader of KSP but when I read the selfish suggestion of capping phase 1 to transfer seats to phase 2A...because the people in phase 2A felt `threatened' that the alumni might have to give up their priority (mind you, its just pure speculation that alumni are targeted), I'm compelled to rebut that suggestion. It was not to attack phttph per se, but the suggestion itself.


Since there are so many proposals put forward, I might as well throw 1 in the ring.

Phase 1: Keep phase 1 intact, ie sidlings automatically qualify and parent is a staff of the school. Balance of seats goes to next phase.

Phase 2: Merge all the PV, GRL, Alumni, Board Memeber priority and ex-sidlings into 1 phase and if more applicants than vacancies, ballot based on distance proximity (rental included). By putting all the `priority' schemes into 1 pot, it will eliminate the discussion which group of volunteers is entitled to greater priority. All are treated the same, fairest way.

Phase 3: All other applicants.

The new scheme should take effect for children born 2008 onwards.

I deliberately avoided the discussion of PRs and foreigners as I'm a Singaporean and I'll be biased and I also think it should be discussed in another thread.[/quote]


=>@ IDad: me passive reader too but this thread discussion really spite my interest. only after 2008 kids, ur kids borned b4which?if want to be Fair, implement for the batch of babies borned on the year they announced the final change ? ( my penny thought then parents of all existing kIds won't be unhappy?)