MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[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.

[IDad]

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.

phttph, you sure have lots of `creative ideas' to ensure you are not disadvantaged or disadvantaged less at phase 2A....even to the detriment and addition of stress to young K2 children and parents as to subject them to entry exams!

Trust me, if MOE is going to make it so stressful for parents and kids (which I believe they wouldn't), not only will there be serious social implications like more cases of even younger child suffering depression, RA Teo would also have to report in Parliament more singaporeans renouncing their citizenship. Streaming (which is the implication of an entry test) at such a young age goes against established child development theories.

I sometimes wonder what kind of values are we imparting to our children...what with all the selfish suggestions just to gain an upper hand but blinded from common sense and logic :frustrated:

[castanst]

this moe is making us "ren xin huang huang" y cant the annouce only when everything is finalised…


i think i have to stop myself reading this thread… i am having countless slpless nights becoz of this !!

[nlimm]

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?)

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.[/quote]


=>IDad: u see indirectly u r benefitting right? Whats your response if rhey implement it before your elder registeration this yr?My boy 2009 & I have aldy make arrangement too. Do don't u think my suggestion the best as none existing parents be unhappy ?

[dorisp]

castanst:

this moe is making us \"ren xin huang huang\" y cant the annouce only when everything is finalised...


i think i have to stop myself reading this thread.. i am having countless slpless nights becoz of this !!

Take it easy, there are many of us in the same boat. Let's wait and see what the changes are and deal with it when the time comes. Take care.

[nlimm]

IDad:

nlimm:

[quote=\"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.[/quote]If u think 1 step into it, alot of phase1 kids gotten their places due to phase 1,2A&2B right? Moe shd just don't do any change but look into those who make use of grandparents/relatives address /rental to get within 1km but again difficult to track

[IDad]

nlimm:

=>IDad: u see indirectly u r benefitting right? Whats your response if rhey implement it before your elder registeration this yr?My boy 2009 & I have aldy make arrangement too. Do don't u think my suggestion the best as none existing parents be unhappy ?

Hi nlimm,

my elder son is already in P1, he is not registering this year. Thus I suggested apply the new policy for parents whose child was born in 2008 as those parents using priority schemes unlikely to have started their actions right now. 1 group I forsee who might have taken action would be those who has bought an apt and due to the 4 yr SSD ruling, would not be able to sell their ppty and re-strategise. But I have 1 suggestion and that is to rent out the said ppty and rent 1 nearer to your school of choice and then once the SSD is over, sell that ppty and try to buy 1 near the school.

Or in fact, I'm of the school of thought one does not even need to own a place to use the address. A rented apt is good enough. Some people just doesnt belive in buying ppty....esp those who can't buy subsidised HDB flats due to income ceiling rule. And with the high ppty price now, its also unfair to force them to buy a private ppty just for school. Rental apt makes a lot more financial sense to some people.