MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni
-
Power Puff:
Or how about abolish Alumni, Clan, Parent and Grassroots volunteer and put them all under 1 pot call `Volunteers'. Since Alumni feel so much for their alma mater, they will not mind volunteering in the school. And since all the other clan, parents (volunteer) and grassroots (who only do grassroots duties due to gettting P1 priority), they also wouldn't mind volunteering directly to the school I suppose. So since all are `volunteering' so to speak, just put all under the same pot. And when demand exceed supply, I think distance to school should be used as a way to allocate the seats.OOps sorry..I meant abolish Phase 2B altogether - too confusing and unfair in the selection of PVs et al. I feel so sorry for those parents who choose to become PVs, spend so much time and effort, only to get balloted out. It would be good that MOE mandates that all schools stop this unhealthy practice. Alumni members can then have a chance to become 'active' and be part of the Parents Support Groups. At least they provide 'free labour' and expertise happily and at the same time get to build strong rapport with the staff and students, which can only be better for the school.
Parents who are staff of the school should also be placed in the same phase with 'Siblings' for practical reasons. Many school staff start work very early at 6ish am, before the pupils arrive at school. It would be a mad mad rush for them to have to travel up and down just to get their kids to and from school. -
limlim:
concern2:
Hey, people, has it occurred to you that if distance become priority, and that being the key determining factor to school selection, then there will be LESS TRAFFIC on the roads - less school buses, no need to drive children to school (walk/cycle can do), less traffic cramped outside school compounds (less hazards to children), we save, govt also save, no need to buy so many buses, no need to squeeze in crowded buses and MRTs to get to school? I mean - like the roads are so much quieter during school holidays!!! Doesn't it mean something to you?
:goodpost:
Best interest of the community....... wah.. bonus point..
Precisely my point. You could not have said it better. The whole cycle and chain of events ultimately affects every single persons in Singapore whether you have a kid /no kid or whatever. -
Lyddon:
Erm, such properties(within 2 km) have already and always seen high prices all this time, thanks to the balloting process based on distance. And yes, such properties are indeed already beyond the reach of many.
Increase in property prices will also have other consequences.mrswongtuition:
The danger in factoring distance for almost all phases:
Property prices will go out of control.
Then, even if the catchment area has many HDB flats, there will be a 'divide' due to affordability.
I think it has to be carefully balanced.
As mentioned earlier, no solution will make everyone satisfied.
MOE not only has to weigh the interest of the students, they have to consider the convenience of the parents and ultimately, the impact on Singapore as a whole.
I'm in favour of revamping the system, but they should focus on improving the registration process first.
Change of criterion - to be settled after they get the registration process online and convenient for all parents.
If priority by distance, property prices within the 2km range will escalating further. Over time, this will lead to those schools having only students whose parents can afford it (high property COVs and high valuations) and less popular schools with students whose parents can't. Do we really want to divide public schools by those who have it vs those who don't?
However, why restrict high property prices to properties within 2 KM only? I am pretty sure where areas that is of low residential density e.g RGPS , NYPS, ACS, residents who live beyond 2km may very well sniff a chance of applying and attending such schools- therefore , would property prices beyond 2 km also increase? Sounds like a happy problem if the system is structured around distance based allocation for these positive effect to spillover to properties beyond 2 km. -
limlim:
Distance based allocation doesn't mean restrict to only those who live within 2km. It means anyone who have applied and closest to the school will stand a chance.For such areas of low population density without HDB, the allocation just stretches beyond the 2 km or more to whoever is nearest. Where two applicants are of equal distance say for e.g 3km away from the applied school, the next stage of criterion can kick in say , any alumni connections? any clan association? any GRC contribution etc.
And with such low population density (since no HDB), you are afraid that the vacancies will be be fully taken up by those <2km and left nothing for alumni far far away?laughingcat:
Take a look at SCGS and ACS......do you see HDB within 2km????? The answer is NO. Are we creating social divides here by looking at distance only? -
IDad:
The points in red....excellent! :goodpost:[/quote]Why is the phase under Alumni getting bigger? That's because it's perpetuated by Phase 1 :siblings priority. I am for phasing out phase 1 altogether . Current phase 2A can still remain in system to allow the continuing lineage to maintain their privilege but increasingly, phase 1 is seeing more abuse cases of people renting (short-term) to beat the whole system thereby depriving all others who may never see the light of day of getting into such schools.dorisp:
[quote=\"JGMum\"]Err... please correct me if I am wrong. :scratchhead: (Don't flame me, okay).
I have always thought that the original notion (as you call it) is not priority by distance, it is alumni more important than distance. Perhaps the question you are asking is should the original intent - where alumni is more important than other 2B connections, and 2B connections more important than distance - be changed?
:siam:
No worries, its friendly discussion as far as I am concern.
With or without one 1998 MOE speech, I believe all of us know the original notion of the policy is for prority to alumni over \"others\" but somehow the policy also recognises home proximity as an important factor to the child and the family.
In recent years, the bigger and bigger 2A take up rate plus more mis-matches of home school arrangements due to the umbrella priority given to 2A (regardless of distance) trigerred the need for policy holders to relook into this system.
When there are concerns or issues over existing policies, the policy makers ought to re-evaluate if they should still insist priority of alumni (especially those staying far) over all others to such extend that it totally disregard distance priority and done at the expense of another family's travel time. All policies need to cater for newer developments, recent changes and better efficiency.
-
[quote="Lizzie]
Why is the phase under Alumni getting bigger? That’s because it’s perpetuated by Phase 1 :siblings priority. I am for phasing out phase 1 altogether . Current phase 2A can still remain in system to allow the continuing lineage to maintain their privilege but increasingly, phase 1 is seeing more abuse cases of people renting (short-term) to beat the whole system thereby depriving all others who may never see the light of day of getting into such schools.[/quote]
i dun understand what does renting house got to do with phase 1? if you have a elder child currrently studying in the same school and you own a house in pulau ubin, your second child can still enroll into the school.The renting of house comes in during phrase 2b and 2c, nothing to to do with phase 1. i would rather they do away with phase 2A then phase 1 cos it is ridiculous to send parents going to 2 different schools to fetch the kids at the same time and it is worst for those having 3 or more kids -
larkspur:
i dun understand what does renting house got to do with phase 1? if you have a elder child currrently studying in the same school and you own a house in pulau ubin, your second child can still enroll into the school.The renting of house comes in during phrase 2b and 2c, nothing to to do with phase 1. i would rather they do away with phase 2A then phase 1 cos it is ridiculous to send parents going to 2 different schools to fetch the kids at the same time and it is worst for those having 3 or more kids[/quote][/quote][quote=\"Lizzie]
Why is the phase under Alumni getting bigger? That's because it's perpetuated by Phase 1 :siblings priority. I am for phasing out phase 1 altogether . Current phase 2A can still remain in system to allow the continuing lineage to maintain their privilege but increasingly, phase 1 is seeing more abuse cases of people renting (short-term) to beat the whole system thereby depriving all others who may never see the light of day of getting into such schools.
You rent a house within 1km under phase 2C. Child gets in. You move away to pulau ubin, 2nd child , 3rd child , 4th childm, 5th child, nth child qualifies under Phase 1 being siblings, no ? Therefore is this fair? Many people rent , just so the subsequent kids qualify under phase 1. Once you are in phase 1, your kids, grand kids are assured a lifetime/multiple generations of assurance under the phase 2A -
Lizzie:
[/quote]
i dun understand what does renting house got to do with phase 1? if you have a elder child currrently studying in the same school and you own a house in pulau ubin, your second child can still enroll into the school.The renting of house comes in during phrase 2b and 2c, nothing to to do with phase 1. i would rather they do away with phase 2A then phase 1 cos it is ridiculous to send parents going to 2 different schools to fetch the kids at the same time and it is worst for those having 3 or more kidslarkspur:
[quote=\"Lizzie]
Why is the phase under Alumni getting bigger? That's because it's perpetuated by Phase 1 :siblings priority. I am for phasing out phase 1 altogether . Current phase 2A can still remain in system to allow the continuing lineage to maintain their privilege but increasingly, phase 1 is seeing more abuse cases of people renting (short-term) to beat the whole system thereby depriving all others who may never see the light of day of getting into such schools.
You rent a house within 1km under phase 2C. Child gets in. You move away to pulau ubin, 2nd child , 3rd child , 4th childm, 5th child, nth child qualifies under Phase 1 being siblings, no ? Therefore is this fair? Many people rent , just so the subsequent kids qualify under phase 1. Once you are in phase 1, your kids, grand kids are assured a lifetime/multiple generations of assurance under the phase 2A[/quote][/quote][/quote]
That is why they should do away the rule for renting house to qualify for the phrase 2b and 2c.This is the root of the problem. once this root is removed, phrase 1 of moving away is no longer there and by removing phrase 2A, the issues of grand kids for multiple generations are gone. i feel that no point attacking the top when the issues start at the bottom -
Lizzie:
[/quote]
i dun understand what does renting house got to do with phase 1? if you have a elder child currrently studying in the same school and you own a house in pulau ubin, your second child can still enroll into the school.The renting of house comes in during phrase 2b and 2c, nothing to to do with phase 1. i would rather they do away with phase 2A then phase 1 cos it is ridiculous to send parents going to 2 different schools to fetch the kids at the same time and it is worst for those having 3 or more kidslarkspur:
[quote=\"Lizzie]
Why is the phase under Alumni getting bigger? That's because it's perpetuated by Phase 1 :siblings priority. I am for phasing out phase 1 altogether . Current phase 2A can still remain in system to allow the continuing lineage to maintain their privilege but increasingly, phase 1 is seeing more abuse cases of people renting (short-term) to beat the whole system thereby depriving all others who may never see the light of day of getting into such schools.
You rent a house within 1km under phase 2C. Child gets in. You move away to pulau ubin, 2nd child , 3rd child , 4th childm, 5th child, nth child qualifies under Phase 1 being siblings, no ? Therefore is this fair? Many people rent , just so the subsequent kids qualify under phase 1. Once you are in phase 1, your kids, grand kids are assured a lifetime/multiple generations of assurance under the phase 2A[/quote][/quote][/quote]
The underlying logic to qualify under phase 1 is distance (yes to ensure convenience of ferrying all the kids to the same school) It's a different thing altogether when you abuse the system of renting close and then move away (many move away after one/two years rental). But because your elder kid is in the school already, you next kid immediately qualifies under phase 1 . Is this fair? Is this also fair subsequently when the next generation also qualify (under phase 2A now) because it so happens that ancestor made the right decision of \"renting\" just to get the first child in? Is this fair? -
larkspur:
[/quote]You rent a house within 1km under phase 2C. Child gets in. You move away to pulau ubin, 2nd child , 3rd child , 4th childm, 5th child, nth child qualifies under Phase 1 being siblings, no ? Therefore is this fair? Many people rent , just so the subsequent kids qualify under phase 1. Once you are in phase 1, your kids, grand kids are assured a lifetime/multiple generations of assurance under the phase 2A[/quote][/quote][/quote]
i dun understand what does renting house got to do with phase 1? if you have a elder child currrently studying in the same school and you own a house in pulau ubin, your second child can still enroll into the school.The renting of house comes in during phrase 2b and 2c, nothing to to do with phase 1. i would rather they do away with phase 2A then phase 1 cos it is ridiculous to send parents going to 2 different schools to fetch the kids at the same time and it is worst for those having 3 or more kidsLizzie:
[quote=\"larkspur\"][quote=\"Lizzie]
Why is the phase under Alumni getting bigger? That's because it's perpetuated by Phase 1 :siblings priority. I am for phasing out phase 1 altogether . Current phase 2A can still remain in system to allow the continuing lineage to maintain their privilege but increasingly, phase 1 is seeing more abuse cases of people renting (short-term) to beat the whole system thereby depriving all others who may never see the light of day of getting into such schools.
That is why they should do away the rule for renting house to qualify for the phrase 2b and 2c.This is the root of the problem. once this root is removed, phrase 1 of moving away is no longer there and by removing phrase 2A, the issues of grand kids for multiple generations are gone. i feel that no point attacking the top when the issues start at the bottom[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
Why target the top? I am assuming you are saying phase 1 now. To be more targetted, they should check on those people who qualify under phase 1 who got under phase 2C , based on distance. It would be interesting to know just how many who qualify under phase 1 because they have been renting for their elder child but have NOW moved away.(maybe even earlier) They should make the distinction of phase 1 of children who are still staying within vicinity and those who are not.
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
