MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[Nebbermind]

LOLMum:

if clan or church school, $$$ would come from members who have been helping to raise funds for their schools all these years. that's their contributions besides starting the schools for their own at the very start and opening the schools to others who asked to join without imposing any conditions (for methodist church as far as i know).

perhaps some people not aware of the term 'govt aided schools'

[limlim]

Oppsgal:

Volunteers should be truly volunteer work without hoping to get rewards.

Exactly.. That's why PV are not guaranteed a place.. They just got a better chance..

Hence, PV does NOT hv the right to complain if their kids cannot get in because they are VOLUNTEERS, not \"employed\" (in exchange for a place).

They should get it right..

So many pple mistaken about what is PV..

I still feel priority is okay.. maybe tweak a bit to hv less advantage.. but definitely NOT \"guaranteed\" place.

And for those who says PV is unfair bcoz they cannot get a place after doing PV.. well, they should be taught what is the meaning of \"volunteer\"..

Nobody forces you to be a \"volunteer\"...... nobody gives empty promises.. so, what is unfair about it?

[huanghou]

LOLMum:

huanghou:

If parent \"helper\" then at least they should b paid!

if clan or church school, $$$ would come from members who have been helping to raise funds for their schools all these years. that's their contributions besides starting the schools for their own at the very start and opening the schools to others who asked to join without imposing any conditions (for methodist church as far as i know).

It's a tongue in cheek comment on the word \"helper\" replacing \"volunteer\".

[LOLMum]

huanghou:

LOLMum:

[quote=\"huanghou\"]If parent \"helper\" then at least they should b paid!

if clan or church school, $$$ would come from members who have been helping to raise funds for their schools all these years. that's their contributions besides starting the schools for their own at the very start and opening the schools to others who asked to join without imposing any conditions (for methodist church as far as i know).

It's a tongue in cheek comment on the word \"helper\" replacing \"volunteer\".[/quote]
:razz: :evil:

[dorisp]

huanghou:

LOLMum:

[quote=\"huanghou\"]If parent \"helper\" then at least they should b paid!

if clan or church school, $$$ would come from members who have been helping to raise funds for their schools all these years. that's their contributions besides starting the schools for their own at the very start and opening the schools to others who asked to join without imposing any conditions (for methodist church as far as i know).

It's a tongue in cheek comment on the word \"helper\" replacing \"volunteer\".[/quote]

[concern2]

LOLMum:

:razz: :evil:

That's tongue in (between) cheeks!

[puff]

The only fair way is to implement it only on child born after the announcement date... Like tat parents will know wat they r getting into before they decide to have kid :evil:

[nlimm]

vicki:

nlimm:

[quote=\"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.

Hello nlimm,

If i use current phases, i will be in Phase 1 in coming registration cos ds1 already in P2 liao. Ds1 got in via 2B. 2C for me was a last resort if i dont get in via 2B.

If i had a daughter (which i dont have at the moment), then prob under 2A since my alma mater (i feel) is quite a good school....

So, actually im talking more from a practical and 'fair' (at least to me!) point of view. Honestly, i dont really see the difference between 2A n 2B <minus the teachers' kids part - for practical reasons of sending the kids to school>. I dont see why the alumni should be 'guaranteed' a space. Hence, i feel, to be fair - keep the current phases and just 'limit' the spaces in 2A just like 2B - if they really want to 'change' something.

Then at least - it frees out some spaces to the 2C (which in some schools - the amt of spaces left is sooooo little - might as well do away with this phase!)

And also, i think they should do away with the 'Full School' secondary parents having affiliation to p1 registration! Sorry - i dont understand why this group of pple is so special....

ie, why St Nics/ CatHigh sec students can be in 2A but schools like SJI cannot.... To me, doesnt make sense.... [/quote]
Vicki: y phase2A should stay ? Coz old boys old girls are those who make the school to be consider as ' Top school'. Aren't these old boys old girls those whom had earned the schools the awards/titles? On top of coz the sense of belonging. Todate all top sch majority seats r taken during phase 1. Instead of applying changes to phase 2A , they should look into those under phase 1 & limit the seats given to this phase too. Based on Nyps 2011,50% taken by phase 1 & 30% taken by phase2 only.
If again ur reason of not touching phase1 is coz of convenience like what Idad mentioned, y not move ur 1st kid to the sch nearest to ur home n put ur 2nd kid there then tta really convenience & practical right? ( sorry if I sound direct here , no personal attack k:))
And again all of us want our kids to be in a good sch & of coz with the sentimental attachment tts the best.
Instead of looking into phase 2A, don't u all think tt phase 2B is more redundant?eg Grassroot ? Wats the contribution to the sch? And for PV, how many of these parents still contribute to the sch?

[IDad]

puff:

The only fair way is to implement it only on child born after the announcement date... Like tat parents will know wat they r getting into before they decide to have kid :evil:

or maybe 9 months after that because maybe some people might not want to have kids after hearing the new policies lol (ok, I'm kidding)

[nlimm]

vicki:

nlimm:

[quote=\"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.

Hello nlimm,

If i use current phases, i will be in Phase 1 in coming registration cos ds1 already in P2 liao. Ds1 got in via 2B. 2C for me was a last resort if i dont get in via 2B.

If i had a daughter (which i dont have at the moment), then prob under 2A since my alma mater (i feel) is quite a good school....

So, actually im talking more from a practical and 'fair' (at least to me!) point of view. Honestly, i dont really see the difference between 2A n 2B <minus the teachers' kids part - for practical reasons of sending the kids to school>. I dont see why the alumni should be 'guaranteed' a space. Hence, i feel, to be fair - keep the current phases and just 'limit' the spaces in 2A just like 2B - if they really want to 'change' something.

Then at least - it frees out some spaces to the 2C (which in some schools - the amt of spaces left is sooooo little - might as well do away with this phase!)

And also, i think they should do away with the 'Full School' secondary parents having affiliation to p1 registration! Sorry - i dont understand why this group of pple is so special....

ie, why St Nics/ CatHigh sec students can be in 2A but schools like SJI cannot.... To me, doesnt make sense.... [/quote]And forgot to comment for ur last point I total agreed. Y are those from affiliated sec sch consider as alumni for the pri sch?this part todate I can't find any reason y is this group of ppls under phase 2A . Most impt toe sentimental attachment, is there any? No. Then this group of ppls will have 2 pri schs to be eligible for phase 2A?(their original pri sch n affiliated pri sch?)