MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[DesertWind]

Daddy

Curious... :?

Anyone knows why MM Lee sent his kids to Nanyang Pri, and not Telok Kurau Pri, where he studied?

Some alumni(s) are better than others? That's where we are now...
:siam:

Hi, earlier on in my earlier post I mentioned perhaps it was due to security? Some forumner don't understand what I was talking about. I meant PHYSICAL security! Wah piang! As in bodyguard security. As in tight security, get it?

So what I meant is perhaps going to the same primary school, those teachers would be interviewed, hired carefully etc...etc...

I dunoo. Besides those great sentimental values, perhaps physical security counts too? Dunnoo if anybody can confirm about this point.

[dorisp]

DesertWind:

dorisp:

The issue is \"Distance\" vs \"Connection\".

Decision making ultimately will be \"Head\" vs \"Heart\".

Whole decision are you referring to?
The MOE or the parent?
So you are for distance priority but remove the alumni \"connection\" priority.
I will say both are equally important. Not one over the other.

For alumni staying > 2 km, it should be for the PARENTs themselves to decide whether it is practicable or not. Not another of those garmen's high-handedness to tell us what is good for our own kids!

For decision making, I refer to the Ministry or the policy makers.

I have expressed my views many times that we should keep the alumni \"connection\" priority but only for those <2km because of their special connection with the school (heart) and for practical travel efficiency hence leading to the well being of the young child (head).

Yes I have always felt that distance priority and alumni conccention are \"equally\" important and the current policy since 1999 could have served this well but unfortunately in recent years, the increased numbers in 2A registration, which may consist of many that are >2km, may have somewhat eroded this equation. This seemed to be the issue of one alumni family that is willing to travel >2km but it is, at the same time, depriving another non alumni family's travel efficiency if this other family stays <1km but due to overwhelming subscription at 2A, had very slim chance to enter via 2B or 2C. As a result, a total of two families have to travel further thru and fro for their young child everyday for 6 years.

In view of the above, perhaps, an idea is for those alumni >2km to be grouped with those \"others\" but are <1km. By doing something like this, we are moving towards the real notion of advocating \"connection\" is equally as important as \"distance\", and not one over the other, as you have rightly said.

[LOLMum]

wrt distance, 1km is still a long walk for kids especially when it is real hot in the afternoon + a heavy school bag.


even for those living with 1 km, in order to board the crowded public buses and not be caught in jam, one has to leave early too maybe 645.

a child living near to school (within 1km) takes the school bus to school everyday and the pick up time could be as early as 615 (or even earlier) in order to get to school before 7 am.

for one who lives more than 2km away from school, the pick up time could be the same as the one living near to school.

a child living more than 2km away from school driven by parents to school everyday could leave the house at 630 or later to get to school before 720 am.

i find that once a child is used to the routine, it is not the lack of sleep (or waking up early) that is an issue, it is the tons of homework and tuition that make the child tired.

:offtopic: ???

[Nebbermind]

DesertWind:

An alumni is an alumni, it is the Heart and the Spirit within that counts. It is not whether the alumni is \"sleeping\" or not! Once these alumni gets their kid in if they so desired, I can betcha they will be sleeping no longer but will be doing PSG or PV even, in the truest sense of the word \"volunteer\"!

To reiterate my earlier post, you get rid of the alumni priority you are getting rid of the goose which lays the golden egg. Gone, liow, liow! :lightrod: :lightrod:

Sitting on the same side of the fence, I can't agree more!!!

Come funfair, u'll see all sorts of sponsorship....these sleeping alumni not only wake up but also gather family members with similar links to chip in...suddenly the sleeping uncles, aunties, grannies all appear at the BIG show!! REALLY AWESOME!!

[limlim]

Lyddon:

IDad:

Exactly! I'm quite amazed how those parents within phase 2A can somehow come out with all sort of skewed reasoning just so that they protect the vacancies in this phase.

Skewed reasoning?
MOE certainly values the Alumni by giving it due recognition and priority, since 1998. Is our MOE explanation and rationale is skewed as well?

The skewed reasoning that he is referring to maybe

1. Longer distance is good because it trains one to be resilient.. for the kid's benefit.. (One of the most ridiculous that I have heard in this forum).

2. Distance priority for sparsely populated area w/o HDB falts in the vicinity cause social divide because the poor cannot get into good schools because ALL the vacancies taken up by the rich pple in landed properties..

And not those quote by MOE.. Yes connection and contribution is real.. now the issue is how much weight shd it get as compared to welfare of the kids.

[limlim]

DesertWind:

limlim:

[quote=\"laughingcat\"]
As stated by the Ministry, connection is more important as it foster bonding between the community and the school.

If you're talking about active members.. ok.. it is valid.
As for sleeping members, I'll throw that argument out of the window.
hence, Alumni priority shd be subjected to strict evaluation/approval process..
And NOT blanket priority for sleeping members to benefit.

An alumni is an alumni, it is the Heart and the Spirit within that counts. It is not whether the alumni is \"sleeping\" or not! Once these alumni gets their kid in if they so desired, I can betcha they will be sleeping no longer but will be doing PSG or PV even, in the truest sense of the word \"volunteer\"!

To reiterate my earlier post, you get rid of the alumni priority you are getting rid of the goose which lays the golden egg. Gone, liow, liow! :lightrod: :lightrod:[/quote]I recognize the significance of alumni but I feel they do not deserve the current priority over the distance..

Don't remove it.. but place it lower.. but maybe before those w/o connections and stay far far away..

[LOLMum]

laughingcat:

Also the longkang minister's youngest son will be registering his son to P1 this year also bah.

ah.....who is this longkang?

[dorisp]

limlim:

Lyddon:

[quote=\"IDad\"]
Exactly! I'm quite amazed how those parents within phase 2A can somehow come out with all sort of skewed reasoning just so that they protect the vacancies in this phase.

Skewed reasoning?
MOE certainly values the Alumni by giving it due recognition and priority, since 1998. Is our MOE explanation and rationale is skewed as well?

The skewed reasoning that he is referring to maybe

1. Longer distance is good because it trains one to be resilient.. for the kid's benefit.. (One of the most ridiculous that I have heard in this forum).

2. Distance priority for sparsely populated area w/o HDB falts in the vicinity cause social divide because the poor cannot get into good schools because ALL the vacancies taken up by the rich pple in landed properties..

And not those quote by MOE.. Yes connection and contribution is real.. now the issue is how much weight shd it get as compared to welfare of the kids.[/quote] :goodpost:

[limlim]

DesertWind:

It should be up to the alumni parent to DECIDE whether to send our kid to our alumni or not or whether the distance is practical or not. It is NOT for the garmen to tell alumni whether it is in the best interest of the kid or not to go to a nearby school.

The govt does not tell the alumni whether they shd sent their kids to nearby school or somewhere far far way.. it is their choice.

But it IS the govt's job to ensure that the Needs of the community is BEST taken care of and in a \"fair\" way with an acceptable priority system.

So, now we're debating on whether certain groups deserves the \"priority\".. and whether it is fair to give the priority to someone who stays far away as compared to someone nearby when a short traveling distance has indisputable clearcut benefits to the welfare of the kids, and putting the kid into an alumni's school maybe have questionable(not clear cut) benefits to the kids..?

Given a choice, all parents would WANT the kid to be nearby (their school if choice is nearby).

Given a choice, NOT all parents would want the kids to be in the alumni school.

So, Distance shd be given priority over alumni since it is the \"fairest\".. What is fair? refer below question..

Ask yourself.. between 2 top-popular schools, one is alumni and far far away, and one is nearby at the doorstep, which one would you choose?

Answer this question to your conscience, and it is clear which criteria shd be given higher priority.

[concern2]

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.

laughing cat, I seem to be the only one pointing out traffic concern here, so this point I assume you are referring to me. If you think I am contributing these 'ideas' just for my own benefits, I am utterly disappointed. I am just concerned. And don't tell me that there is NIL traffic problems around the schools. Somehow, I just pity those who live Sooooooo close to the school, next to the school, possibly, yet unable to get a place for the children. And for your info, if you have read my posts in this thread, I am no longer in need to worry of P1 registrations. I am just a KPO who still stick around reading this thread which I realize I shouldn't have been since it no longer concerns me. Goodness. Why I bother in the first place?