MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni
-
Imsoobusy:
I see, it is fair because you are staying near two good schools.
Not all who stay around good school are rich people. I am staying between 2 good school becos my parents have been staying here for more then 30 years. I don't have extra to buy a new flat and I am worried that my boy cannot get into the nearest sch and will need extra cost for transport.
So is not always the rich will get into good sch. Those staying at small hdb around good sch are the one whom r more worried. Not all good sch are at expensive area or whoever stay there must be rich.
-
Took me a lo…ng time to decide my own stance about the PV scheme.
After 68 pages of this topic…I think I would say - Do Away with the PV scheme!
Why? Well, the thought of parents doing at least 40 hours of PV JUST for the sake of getting their kids into the desired schools make me sick. And I am really pissed when I hear about so and so PVed for so many hours yet did not get to go into the schools of their choice! What utter unfairnest and poor management from the school concerned!
Knowing that such parents mainly does PV jobs for only one thing, yet at the end of the day, could not get their kid in!
As for me, although I think doing PV would allow people like me with no connections whatsoever to have at least a CHANCE of getting into prized schools, yet the thought of doing gardening etc…make me sick. I also suspect should the schools requires you to wash their toilets, you also cannot refuse!
As for the schools, why subject to such an admin. hassle to manage the PVs? If they are so popular, surely they could get volunteers from existing cohort student’s parents/maid/grandparents etc? Surely it is an admin. hassle they can do without?
If school vacancies are not for sale, neither than should there be a system whereby parents can WORK for the places!
Just like the thought of BUYING (ie. donation) to a school to get a place made me sick, so too the thought of PVing for tens of hours. -
Is not abt fair or not fair, just hope there are more space left for 2c as most of my neighbour kids last 2years counldnt get in and got to take sch bus to the next nearest, is very troublesome.
-
To be fair, just allocate 2A , 2B n 2 C with the same number of vacancies.
If 2A has bal , then brg bal to 2B n 2C. -
DesertWind:
PV shd be read as PV and not PV......
If school vacancies are not for sale, neither than should there be a system whereby parents can WORK for the places!
Many pple read the wrong way and result in unmatched expectations..
focus shd be on the word volunteer and not parents..
When there is the correct expectations, there would be no issues.. -
magiccastle:
that doesn't sound fair at allTo be fair, just allocate 2A , 2B n 2 C with the same number of vacancies.
If 2A has bal , then brg bal to 2B n 2C.
every volunteer, nearby resident, volunteer would have their vested interest.
-
CactusInDesert:
Popular schools are located in areas with fair distribution of pte and public homes . In district 10, the hdbs and pte estate are within 1 km of popular schools like rgps , nyp , sngs.
So this is the most fair system? All who can afford to stay ard the popular schools should be allowed to enter the schools. Those who are poorer in financial term should always be excluded from these popular schools?Lizzie:
In all cases of fairness and uphold meritocracy they should throw out all the categories of phases and just allocate students to schools near their homes.
In this case of distance based allocation, there would be a need to tighten policies of renters who are just short term stayers . All else being equal, rooting out short-term stayers, students who live 1 km, 2 km, 3km , 4km might even stand a chance to go to a school nearest to their homes and get in purely based on this merit and not some connections to who and who or so and so.
Where in the case of low residential density , if allocation is based on distance alone, the ones who applies and lives closest to the schools would get a place based on the merit of distance. Clear cut case. How is this not fair?
The only unfairness would be a case of people renting nearby short-term and then move out immediately after getting a place hence assuring the future prospect of latter siblings and grandchildren to qualify under the earlier phases.
This virtually closes all doors to those without any such means of getting in. If education is to be the great leveller and allow admission based on equal merit ceteris paribus , it should start at the primary one admission. -
Lizzie:
Popular schools are located in areas with fair distribution of pte and public homes . In district 10, the hdbs and pte estate are within 1 km of popular schools like rgps , nyp , sngs.
So this is the most fair system? All who can afford to stay ard the popular schools should be allowed to enter the schools. Those who are poorer in financial term should always be excluded from these popular schools?CactusInDesert:
[quote=\"Lizzie\"]In all cases of fairness and uphold meritocracy they should throw out all the categories of phases and just allocate students to schools near their homes.
In this case of distance based allocation, there would be a need to tighten policies of renters who are just short term stayers . All else being equal, rooting out short-term stayers, students who live 1 km, 2 km, 3km , 4km might even stand a chance to go to a school nearest to their homes and get in purely based on this merit and not some connections to who and who or so and so.
Where in the case of low residential density , if allocation is based on distance alone, the ones who applies and lives closest to the schools would get a place based on the merit of distance. Clear cut case. How is this not fair?
The only unfairness would be a case of people renting nearby short-term and then move out immediately after getting a place hence assuring the future prospect of latter siblings and grandchildren to qualify under the earlier phases.
This virtually closes all doors to those without any such means of getting in. If education is to be the great leveller and allow admission based on equal merit ceteris paribus , it should start at the primary one admission.[/quote]
In my case, I stay within 1 km of two popular schools but had to face the tremendous anxiety and stresses of balloting under phase 2 C (due to a lack of connection under earlier phases). Due to god's grace my dd got in but the hair tearing moments, one can only emphatize if you are under the situation. What about those who balloted and cannot get in? -
The problem with the PV scheme is that there are too many grey areas.e.g.
1) some schools accept, some schools don’t
2) selection criteria and tasks assigned of PV is not clear - its entirely UP to the school/PSG’s discretion; that gives room ‘pull strings’
3) Why does MOE stipulate 40 hours and yet some schools expect parents to do more to get better chances when it comes to appealing (after the registration closes, i.e. and there are people who give up the spaces) - why shdn’t the given up/withdrawn space(s) be opened to balloting again?
Even for priority given to clan members, its the same - there is room to ‘pull strings’ since there is no FIXED criteria on who gets the letters and who doesn’t.
For alumni, on the other hand, its clear-cut - you studied there once upon a time (for some families, more than one generation has studied in the same school!); it may not always be about the results but rather the tradition and culture. As an e.g. I mean we all know ACS doesn’t really produce many top students - however, the relationship and network is what gels the students/ex-students before and many ex-ACS boys would love for their boys to carry on that tradition. -
Coming back to the main issue as can be seen from the title of this thread.
The issue in question is, is there \"too much priority to alumni\" for our current P1 registration system. Since alumni is 2A, so the dismay most likely come from the group behind ie. those in 2B and 2C which consist of PV, clans, GRL in 2B and general public in 2C.
Those in 2C are most likely \"not connected\", stays very near the school but is deprived of a place as overwhelming number of places of the schools near their house are taken up by the end of 2A.
Many suggest doing away with schemes in 2Bs but it will not address the main issue which is (is there?) \"too much priority to alumni\" leading to \"too few places\" left after 2A. So far, most agree that proximity of home and school is a critical factor in the child's well being especially during the Primary school years. This leads to the interesting question of which child deserves the place in the school more: the child of alumni who is staying >2km from the school (from 2A) or the child whom family is staying just <1km from the school (from 2B or 2C)? Which is \"to the best interest of the child\"?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login