MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[laughingcat]

It would be very interesting to see what the PAP members have to say about alumni who stayed >2km. Because they too fall in this category.

[phtthp]

let’s invite all ministers of Parliament to contribute to this forum, esp.those stay > 2km.

let’s hear your view.

esp. Ministers (current, ex, retired) who are alumni from Nanyang family, ACS Barker, ACS Junior, Rosyth, Henry Park, Catholic High, Nan Hua, Tao Nan, St Hilda, RGPS, SCGS, etc. or any Minister from SAP schools, Catholic family, Methodist family, Anglican family, Buddhist family, Hokkien Clan Huay Kuan related family, other religious group family, other family, etc.

[dorisp]

Let's look at the current P1 registration system.


We all know that when balloting is necessary, the policy/system goes according and gives priority by home distance of the child. That is to say, first priority goes to those staying <1km, followed by 1 to 2 km, then >2km.

Somehow, and I am not sure since when, the authority already had this in mind that home proximity to school is an important criteria for school placement for young children. And the reason behind this policy of distance discrimination is most probably none other than putting the interest of \"the well being of the child\" first by minimising travel time for a young child and for easy logistic transport solution for the family.

From the existing policy, we already can see that home distance is one of the important factor, or at least, from the point of view of the authority or department that puts this in place in the first place.

Just some thoughts for friendly discussion.

[dorisp]

So if more children enters the school but stays >2km or more (because they belong to earlier phase such as 2A) and in turn those staying <1km had to give way and to attend at a school that is >2km (because they belong to later phases such as 2B or 2C and could not enter the school owing to places taken up by earlier phase), then it defeats the original well intended purpose of having a policy/system set whereby it clearly wants to give priority to children for schools based on home distance.

[laughingcat]

Home distance is not an important factor in today’s policy since it serves as a easy selection factor for phase 2B onwards.

[dorisp]

Besides Phase 1, Phase 2A onwards will all be subjected to balloting based on home distance should demand exceeds supply. If this is true, home distance to school, unfortunately, is the determining factor (as set by the authority) besides luck in balloting to determine who gets into the school. Correct me if I am wrong.

[laughingcat]

This is not true. There were instances when phase 2A were over subscribed. In the end priority based on family household with 3 or more children.

[magiccastle]

Ya. Good suggestion. Instead of just home distance, priority shd be based on the number of children each family have when come to allocation. The family had done it’s national service n a lot of sacrifice of raising 3 or more children.

This policy in a way will help to encourage couples to have more children.

[laughingcat]

In view of today’s policy, it also means that the MOE believes that alumni is a critical factor in the registration process - recognizing the contributions that ex-students have made to their alma mater, in upholding a continued sense of belonging and tradition to the school. This is already seen as a higher priority (phase 2A) than distance (phase 2B onwards).

[dorisp]

laughingcat:

In view of today policy, it also means that the MOE believes that alumni is a critical factor in upholding a continued sense of belonging and tradition to the school. This is already seen as a higher priority (phase 2A) than distance (phase 2B onwards).

Undeniably, besides those having siblings currently studying in the school (phase1), the current policy indeed recognises children of alumni having priority over \"others\".

But in recent years, could it be true that more and more places are taken up by Phase 1 and 2A, hence leaving fewer and fewer places for the remaining phases to cater for children that stays <1km from the school. Putting Phase 1 aside, has the situation gone a little out of hand to the extend that if left unattended, may lead to ill placement of more and more children depriving the opportunity to attend to schools near their home?

Frankly I personally do agree that children of alumni should be given some priority over others especially those staying near the school but perhaps many are now beginning to ask: to what extent should this priority be given? As I mentioned in one earlier post:

Which is \"to the best interest of the child\"? : 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)?

\"Connection\" vs \"distance\".