MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni
-
laughingcat:
My dear, you need to stay near popular school.[/quote]
even with distance priority, the values in my area doesnt seem to be moving leh :sad:LOLMum:
[quote=\"limlim\"]
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.........
in between acsp and j hor. scgs and sjj and rgs also nearby. houses in the east now even more expensive per sq foot. :faint: -
LOLMum:
If alumni by distance is the way to go, I am very sure he is concern. I do know where he stays leh. :evil:laughingcat:
Huh? I thought everyone knows liao. Hehehe. It's Vivian Balakrishna lah :rotflmao:
oh himmmmmmmmmm. he has no worries since he is old boy of acsp or j (cant remember). also very active church member.
forgot about him cos mr tan chuan jin has been on my mind lately. -
Distance is relative… Esp with the different mode of transportation.
The point of debate should be travelling time.
Is 1hr or more daily travelling time acceptable?
Not to mention another 1hr or more to return home.
Of cos’ there will always exceptional cases when parents do not have better options. -
yeap! Distance is relative. Travelling from Thomson Medical Center to NYPS takes 30mins by bus. That is 4.08km.
-
IDad:
[/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.
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.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
If one has moved away, then the child should also move to schools nearest to the residential address since distance was the basis upon which the child was given a place. (in the instance of balloting withing 1/2km in phase 2c) It would not make any sense for the subsequent siblings to qualify under phase 1 just because the elder one has gotten in earlier. There an obvious loop hole in the system whereby renters (the short term ones) abuse the system. I am fine with renting but one shoud rent throughout the during of the child's education and not short term basis so that the elder one gets in thereby assuring the siblings to qualify under phase 1 . -
limlim:
Exactly,I strongly agree with the argument and point. MOE should seriously look into people who are abusing the system . If you want to rent, fine, but one should rent throughout the duration of the child's education. Once you ve moved away, then so should the children move too, to schools closer to the new address.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. -
IDad:
[/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.
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.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
No problem with renting, but once you've moved, rightfully the kid should also move to schools closer to the new address. This brings back to the underlying basis of allocation :distance. -
IDad:
Renting is fine , if and only if the renting is throughout the duration of the education .
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!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.
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'.
Once you ve moved , shouldnt' the child also move to the school closer to the new add? This will spare not only the elder but also all the rest of the brood from travelling long distances and unnecessarily tiring out the tiny tots ?
Distinction must be made between those renting short term and genuine people who rent (because they want their child to enter the desired sch) and if so the latter is true, the duration of rent must be throughout the duration of education. Unfortunately, there happens to be more cases of people renting short-term and moving away after that. I hear of so many stories and cringe at some blatant trumpeting of how have gotten around and made a mockery of the system. Where is the justice to the poor cleaners' son or daughters who may never ever have a chance to even step foot in the hallways of these privileged schools? Never, for all doors are closed upon them. -
i agree that short term rent should be frowned upon because a 6 months or 1 year contract means that the family would move out before school starts in january or around june the following year.
for long term contract, well, most landlord would prefer a 2 year contract. i have yet to meet one landlord who is wiling to rent a place out for the same amount (or even an annual fixed & of increment) for 6 years.
even those who live in their own houses cant promise you that they wont shift to another place for the next 6 years.
if the office tea lady, admin clerk, cleaners or gardeners are employed by the school directly, they would fall under the category of staff (cant remember which phase but i think is 2a???) which automatically guarantee their child a place in the school.
1 thing i must say is how many of you would blow the whistle on your friends or even the classmate whom you know is breaking the law? it is because most of us kept quiet about it that such things keep repeating itself and on an increasing rate. -
Abit ‘off topic’.
Going by the logic that if u have moved, therefore the kid should be in another school near the new hse theory, should it also mean that ‘u should also get a job near your hse theory?’
Then maybe we might hve lesser jams on the roads n more space in the MRT with everyone working within 1km of their home!
siam before I kenna whacked in the butt!
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