MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni
-
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appealing (after the registration closes, i.e. and there are people who give up the spaces) - why shdn’t the given up/withdrawn space(s) be opened to balloting again?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\"?
-
"To the best interest to the child"? I think not. Most parents would be thinking "to the best interest to my wants" rather.
I have seen familes who have the time and money can afford to send their children to and fro from school even though they live >2km. Afterall some only takes 20mins car ride for 2.3km. That does not seems far as compared to bus ride. -
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.
-
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. -
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. -
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.
-
Home distance is not an important factor in today’s policy since it serves as a easy selection factor for phase 2B onwards.
-
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.
-
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.
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