MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[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?

[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]If I may add, it is also absurd to, on the one hand, agree that \"Connection\" is as important as \"Distance\", yet if you are an alumni and happens to stay at Pulau Ubin, your stand is changed to \"distance not important anymore\" because an alumni is an alumni hence the privilege to decide now \"Connection\" is somewhat more important than \"Distance\" in the name of we parents know what is best for our kids. :?

[mum_sugoku]

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: ???

Not really. Like in my case, we live just within 1 km of kids' primary school, and it's a mere 10 mins walk to reach the school every morning. Hence, I don't think anyone who live within 1 km of school would need to take a public transport or school bus to school. Moreover, I consider walking a good morning excercise for the kids, it helps to freshen them up.

I would strongly encourage parents to enrol their kids in a school nearby to minimisse travelling time. Take my kids for instance, even though their school now requires them to reach the school by 7:15am, they could still afford to wake up at 6:30am, with 1/2 an hour to wash up + have their breakfast, leave the house at 7am, and still reach the school just before 7:15am. And I think it's important for children to have enough sleep (at least 8hrs) at night, it enables them to concentrate better in school.

(PS. My kids' primary school is a non-branded neighbourhood school )

[limlim]

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?

Plus.. for some of us our kids is ALREADY in the school of choice and alumni works best for us..

But we just offer our views of what is fairest for the community as a whole..

on the other hand......

If, rising property prices is a concern as mention by others.. than, isn't bad traffic condition that can be directly attributed to the presence of popular schools a concern too?

I would choose reducing traffic congestion as higher priority over worrying about rising property prices (which will never be eliminated).....

Even if distance priority is removed.. properties near popular school would still fetch a premium bcoz staying near the school has REAL and significant benefits.. what more do we need to say.........

[LOLMum]

[quote=\"concern2]


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?[/quote]


aiyah, you still contribute to this thread because you care.

everyone just throwing out ideas lah, :celebrate: