MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[nlimm]

I find Singapore life really very stressful, fr work to taking care of kids to now even sch registration .

[Kagillus]

I greatly hope MOE will do some study on the P1 registration.


All my colleagues and i just want our kids to be at neighbourhood school simply for CCA convenience sake and well taken care of by our parents during non-schooling hours. However, looking at the current trend, even neighbourhood schools, which are not top notch in rank, need balloting. This really kills cos it will be difficult to coordinate transportation when they have irregular hours of CCA.

Gov expect us to stay nr our parents/in-laws. We did. In the end the neighbourhood school turns out to be popular not because it is top notch in rank but because there are no other nearby schools. Does that mean we need to move to places where schools need no balloting? The current caregiver declaration, giving priority of 1-2km, is simply useless at this decade.

I heard that some schools that closed down, meaning no alumi to other existing school. This is also creating unfairness to many parents. In that case, either abolish the alumni or find an alternative school to those that close down is a fair move.

MOE, pls look into it seriously. The current registration system really does not fit this decade anymore !!! It is a sign of why Singaporean does not want kids.

[huanghou]

I personally prefer announcement made wef 2014 - no more connection, pv etc. If have siblings currently in school, ok get priority. If no, everyone go for a great grand tombola.

[Power Puff]

The suggestion of having different campuses is unlikely to work as many people may believe that the original one is the best. I was bemused to find out that parents rank even Pat’s Schoolhouse’s Halifax vs Claymore vs Whitley vs other branches. Ranking at preschool level, within the same expensive school chain.


The merging of schools and adopting and sharing best teaching practices is already being carried out. That has little effect on parents’ high demand for the branded schools. At the end of the day, ‘neighbourhood’ schools are still neighbourhood schools even if they have teachers who are more competent and caring than those in the branded schools.

It is worrying that even for many neighbourhood schools balloting is still required. There is something fundamentally wrong with the registration system somewhere. Perhaps, the proposed new changes will held address this. Anyway, it doesn’t make sense for Phase 1 and Phase 2A to be capped. Schools depend very much on alumni to keep their tradition/ culture alive and bring glory to the school’s name.

By the way, I am just wondering: are grassroots leaders given priority for registering their children in a school located in the community which they serve or are they allowed to select any preferred school in the whole country?

[nlimm]

huanghou:

I personally prefer announcement made wef 2014 - no more connection, pv etc. If have siblings currently in school, ok get priority. If no, everyone go for a great grand tombola.

It to remove all connections even phase 1 shd be remOved & combine all phase 1,2A,2B &2C together. Why shd phase 1 retained if you mentioned to remove all connections? As discussed earlier, even though siblings but in diff sessions( though quite a nos of schs are 1 session but not all) .

[janet88]

nlimm:

I find Singapore life really very stressful, fr work to taking care of kids to now even sch registration .

P1 registration is just the beginning. When child is in P1, more stress to come. My son's last CA1 (continual assessment aka test) today...I feel a stone taken off my shoulders.

[concern2]

Power Puff:

By the way, I am just wondering: are grassroots leaders given priority for registering their children in a school located in the community which they serve or are they allowed to select any preferred school in the whole country?

This would be under Phase 2B (after 1, 2A(1) and 2A(2)) .
It is ' For a child whose parent is endorsed as an active community leader.'
This should mean preferred school.

[IDad]

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.

=>@ 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?)[/quote]

Hi nilimm,

My boys were born in 2005 and 2007. The reason for suggesting 2008 is to give parents enough reaction time, esp if there is a need to apply for PV, GRL as some have already started this route.

[IDad]

nlimm:

huanghou:

I personally prefer announcement made wef 2014 - no more connection, pv etc. If have siblings currently in school, ok get priority. If no, everyone go for a great grand tombola.

It to remove all connections even phase 1 shd be remOved & combine all phase 1,2A,2B &2C together. Why shd phase 1 retained if you mentioned to remove all connections? As discussed earlier, even though siblings but in diff sessions( though quite a nos of schs are 1 session but not all) .

All schools WILL go single session in a couple of years time...I think by 2015 or 2016. Its mandated by MOE. Phase 1 is not `connection' priority. Its a practical and logical move to put siblings in the same school. As it is, due to the difficulity and non-guaranteed spaces near the child's place of residence, I can't imagine how to juggle sending my 2 boys to 2 different schools (maybe very different locations)....and they both will probably start at the same time at 7.30am.

[b2b3m4]

concern2:

Power Puff:

By the way, I am just wondering: are grassroots leaders given priority for registering their children in a school located in the community which they serve or are they allowed to select any preferred school in the whole country?

This would be under Phase 2B (after 1, 2A(1) and 2A(2)) .
It is ' For a child whose parent is endorsed as an active community leader.'
This should mean preferred school.

It is only for schools in the constituency they serve (and live in), NOT for the whole country.