MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[IDad]

Lizzie:

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.

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]

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 see no reason why rental address can't be used and it is also not right to force somebody to stay in the same place throughout as there are a thousand and 1 reasons why a family has to move house. I have seen all too many of my friends who has sold their ppty and are renting now and refuse to buy a ppty because its just too high.

Thus its not right to force somebody who choese to exercise financial prudence by renting instead of buying a ppty at current super high price just to ensure his/ her child gets into P1. It just happen that many of us has the benefit of buying a HDB at cheaper price but increasingly, younger couples do not have this luxury. Some just have to rent and I see no reason to penalise them from using their rental address for their child's p1 registration.

[limlim]

Next, a fixed percentage of the vacancies, say, 5~10%, shd be reserved for the last "free-for-all" phase… After those with whatever priorities got in, the places are open up for all others to have a chance to get in w/o restrictions. most likely, they need to ballot… but all equal chances… (or with citizens extra ballot slips)


This would allow some diversity…

[IDad]

limlim:

I feel that, P1 priority shd be given only if the subsequent address is STILL within a given distance.. say, 2km( if address changed ), OR, the address remain unchanged. If they do not fulfill this, then, they stand in line with the others and not take advantage of the P1 priority.


This is to arrest those cases where pple rent a place to get the 1st kid in for the purpose of getting the first kid in only, and not bcoz it is for the welfare of the child.

A family's circumstance do change, eg parent's work place change, care-giver place change, financial situation change (better or worse)....like the example I have given, a young couple rents a place instead of buying because ppty price too high. Later use the address to get into the school. Some years down the road ppty price drop or family's financially stronger, decides to buy a place but can't afford the vincinty (dun laugh....maybe majority of residences are private condos) but force to buy HDB further from school. Is it reasonable to deprive this family from sending the 2 child to the same school as the older sibling? Of coz not!

If anything, I say do away with address or distance priority scheme totally if we are going to penalise those who rent....this will eliminate the possibility of abuses by not having the ruling there in the first place to be abused....although this is not what I'm would like to see because I think rental address is equally valid from `own address'.

[laughingcat]

Lizzie:

Lyddon:

Increase in property prices will also have other consequences.

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?

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.

Oh yes! Because of distance priority, my property increase in valuation like nobody business. Almost this time of the year, we will have people knocking on our door asking whether do we want to sell or RENT! Singaporean and foreigner. Worse one of my boss actually asked me can he rent so that his son stand a higher chance to be put into the school. Yeah.....this is a serious loophole! Are we encouraging that? Like one of the forumers here blatanly encourage to rent. Tsk tsk tsk....... But i am all for it for my pocket.

[limlim]

IDad:

limlim:

I feel that, P1 priority shd be given only if the subsequent address is STILL within a given distance.. say, 2km( if address changed ), OR, the address remain unchanged. If they do not fulfill this, then, they stand in line with the others and not take advantage of the P1 priority.


This is to arrest those cases where pple rent a place to get the 1st kid in for the purpose of getting the first kid in only, and not bcoz it is for the welfare of the child.

A family's circumstance do change, eg parent's work place change, care-giver place change, financial situation change (better or worse)....like the example I have given, a young couple rents a place instead of buying because ppty price too high. Later use the address to get into the school. Some years down the road ppty price drop or family's financially stronger, decides to buy a place but can't afford the vincinty (dun laugh....maybe majority of residences are private condos) but force to buy HDB further from school. Is it reasonable to deprive this family from sending the 2 child to the same school as the older sibling? Of coz not!

If anything, I say do away with address or distance priority scheme totally if we are going to penalise those who rent....this will eliminate the possibility of abuses by not having the ruling there in the first place to be abused....although this is not what I'm would like to see because I think rental address is equally valid from `own address'.

When the address changes to far far away land.. the \"welfare\" consideration of the child is no longer valid.

If the parent really cared for the child, continue rent the place or rent another nearby place. Of coz, there could be case-by-case appeal to the authorities if they can justify the reasons which is not for us to judge, to retain the P1 priority.

[laughingcat]

:rotflmao: It is equally amazing to see how those parents in phase 2B & 2C can somehow come out with all sort of skewed reasoning as in need to rent lah because no $ to buy property lah, less traffic concern for the overall masses (pulzzz for considering the community) just so that they can put into popular school.

[phtthp]

ho ho ho ho ho :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:


finding all kinds of weird excuses !

[laughingcat]

At the end of the day, i still can’t get it why not do away with phase 2B. Between alumni and phase 2B , alumni has the genuine community bonding to the school. There is "transactional element" in PV (doing something for some gain). GRL - a political association. All these should be removed. There you go, you have more vacancy.

[phankao]

laughingcat:

At the end of the day, i still can't get it why not do away with phase 2B. Between alumni and phase 2B , alumni has the genuine community bonding to the school. There is \"transactional element\" in PV (doing something for some gain). GRL - a political association. All these should be removed. There you go, you have more vacancy.

Church members have community bonding to the school too.

[laughingcat]

phankao:

laughingcat:

At the end of the day, i still can't get it why not do away with phase 2B. Between alumni and phase 2B , alumni has the genuine community bonding to the school. There is \"transactional element\" in PV (doing something for some gain). GRL - a political association. All these should be removed. There you go, you have more vacancy.

Church members have community bonding to the school too.

Agreed. I am also one of them. That is why never touch on religion.