MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[limlim]

CactusInDesert:

Those currently staying near popular school (w kids entering pri school) will be laughing all the way to both the bank and the school because it will be one stone kills two birds. It will be like strike 4D for them.

Wrong. Only 1.

Either you enjoy the convenient or you enjoy the price appreciation (sell it off). Not both. Unless you talk about renting which is likely small % only.. not many HDB flats got \"excess space\" top be rented out.. and those richer ones are unlikely to want the inconvenience of outsider in their house. If it benefits those less well-to-do.. well. it's a good thing.. isn't it?

[limlim]

Lyddon:

Since we are on the topic of distance....Why only 0-2km? I propose 0-5km, since travel time across 5km is still reasonable. It wld not be right that the child at 2-5km and takes 30mins to travel is grouped / prioritize together with the one at pulau ubin

Reasonable Walking distance.

I don't feel 5km is reasonable to a small kid.. Not even 2~3km. YMMV..

[blueblue]

keroppi:

Surely every parent must have a primary school here? Aren't they proud of their school? Don't they wish their kids attend the same primary school as they did?


I feel they should do away with PVs and grassroots first. Then let citizens apply before PRs and PRs before foreigners.

I wouldn't mind sending my son to my ex primary sch only that mine don't accept boys. As for my husband, his ex sch at jurong. We live in Serangoon. Not practical to send him all the way there..

[CactusInDesert]

limlim:

CactusInDesert:

Those currently staying near popular school (w kids entering pri school) will be laughing all the way to both the bank and the school because it will be one stone kills two birds. It will be like strike 4D for them.

Wrong. Only 1.

Either you enjoy the convenient or you enjoy the price appreciation (sell it off). Not both. Unless you talk about renting which is likely small % only.. not many HDB flats got \"excess space\" top be rented out.. and those richer ones are unlikely to want the inconvenience of outsider in their house. If it benefits those less well-to-do.. well. it's a good thing.. isn't it?

If u have 1 kid, there is no longer a need for u to stay there after six yrs even if u intend to enjoy the convenience during the six yrs. So why wrong?

[limlim]

Lyddon:

Here's a good example of someone buying a property near a desired \"popular\" school to gain \"higher\" chance of enroling his child in.

For simplicity of illustration, imagine:

1) The school in question is the No.1 Top performing school in singapore. (top PSLE, Top GEP, top in everything)
2) there are only 100 properties within the 1km radius of the school, and,
3) there are 100 Pri.1 vacancies in that school, and
4) Priority based solely on distance only.

If priority is based solely on distance, and nothing else... the above is likely to happen ... to a lesser extremem, of course.

You arrive at your own conclusion based on the above.

For the purpose of discussion, let's assume there is 100 vacancies every year.

I would safety conclude that there will be significant number of variances available to others after all those who wants to enroll in P1 in the vicinity have done so..

Why, bcoz NOT all the 100 families have kids going to P1 every year!

if all these families \"stop at 2\" (assume), either they take up 20% of vacancies every year, and exhaust all the demand within 10 years (leaving 80% to others every year for 10yrs, 100% thereafter).. or, they take up 40% of vacancies every year, and exhaust all the demand within 5 years (leaving 60% to others every year for 5yrs, 100% thereafter).. OR they take up 80% of vacancies every year, and exhaust all the demand within 2 years (leaving >=20% to others every year for 3yrs, 100% thereafter).. Is there a cause for concern?? really??????????

Consider the above scenario again for Alumni. The blanket is now over the whole of Singapore.. I could safety assume that the P2A vacancies would highly possible be fully taken up leaving ~0% for others, even those staying at the door step, for each and every year!

Lyddon:

For simplicity of illustration, imagine:

All school are the same..

Lyddon:

You arrive at your own conclusion based on the above.

Distance over connections.. anytime.

[absolut_vodka]

keroppi:

Surely every parent must have a primary school here? Aren't they proud of their school? Don't they wish their kids attend the same primary school as they did?


I feel they should do away with PVs and grassroots first. Then let citizens apply before PRs and PRs before foreigners.

No to all 3 of your questions - my hb's primary school has already closed down so no more 'affiliation' and even if it is around today, my hb and SIL will not want their kids in the school because its not very good to begin with (and thus, one of the reasons it closed down I suppose, due to low enrollment).

But yes, I agree that PV and grassroots scheme should be the first to go because there are too many grey areas in this scheme. And definitely citizens should have 1st priority to register for school before PRs and foreigners.

Given a choice, I would give up my 'affiliation' to enroll my daughter in my alma mater for two reasons:

1) it is too far from where we are (the school is in the north and we stay in the east)

2) i have two boys after her so they cannot use my 'affiliation' to get into any school

However, I deem myself as NO CHOICE but to use my 'affiliation' because the schools near where I live (all more than 2 km away, mind you) are popular (and good) schools which she cannot get into unless I am willing to do something, whether its PV (too late) or grassroots (not politically inclined to MIW) or joining the clan (put on hold until further announcements from MOE). The current property prices near these schools are beyond my budget (since only dh pays the mortgage) so moving nearer to the schools nearby is not one of my option for now. So my daughter who will be 5 this year will have to endure the journey from east to north (as I have had for 11 years), except that she is luckier as I will be driving her instead of relying on the public transport and hopefully, when it comes to my son's turn to register for primary one, the property prices would be much more reasonable and we will be move nearer to a desired school.

And since I belong to the group who is not 'hoodwinked' by the MIW to think that all schools are the same (or as good), it totally doesn't make sense to give up my space in such a good school and enroll my daughter into a neighbourhood school.

[limlim]

CactusInDesert:

If u have 1 kid, there is no longer a need for u to stay there after six yrs even if u intend to enjoy the convenience during the six yrs. So why wrong?

Was referring to \"at any one time\".... anyway.. in reality.. few pple actually get to enjoy the 2nd benefit of property appreciation... coz most may not want to sell it...... of coz some will lah.. but not \"most\"....

Why for no reason want to shift house? sell high, buy high (even if a bit cheaper then current one).. anyway...... my comments is OT already....

[Daddy D]

Finally Mr Heng's turn to speak on education yesterday in Parliament...

But no announcement on changes for P1 registration...
:faint:

From ST report...
\"He noted that many parents have been concerned about Primary 1 registration and anxious about getting their children into 'good' schools. 'We have received a lot of feedback, and for every rule that is currently in place, there is feedback both for and against it. If we perceive that there are only a few good schools, no form of school allocation can satisfy all parents,' he said.\"

[IDad]

Lizzie:

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.

I see your point. Indeed, for the sake of the child and travelling time, I would think most parents will just stay at the same place (be it rental or own ppty). I have moved once to be nearer my parents....and i'm sure most of us wouldn't want to move house again! Its such a waste of time packing, unpacking and the costs.....

However, to make a child transfer school after studying for a few years, its really too cruel and it might even affect their studies and emotional well being......

[dorisp]

Lyddon:

dorisp:

[quote=\"Lyddon\"]If priority is based solely on distance, and nothing else... the above is likely to happen ... to a lesser extremem, of course.


You arrive at your own conclusion based on the above.

Let me try to explain my suggestions again.

As far as I am concern, I am of the humble idea that there should still be priority given to alumni (2A) as I am convinced of the merits if this arrangement. As said, the current system put forth since 1999 is serving this well. The current policy, at the same time, also correctly addresses the importance of distance proximity and had also put in place a priority system that caters to it. As a result, this current policy managed to look after the interest of both groups of applicants that is deemed important for school enrollment.

Unfortunately of recent years, there seem more and more >2km alumni (2A) taking up places and all done at the expense of <1km others (2B and 2C) so while the >2km alumni family is willing to travel far and whether they are pleased or not it is their choice. But as a result of this, the domino effect is as many of those <1km others family cannot get a place, they had to travel further, without a choice.

As suggested many times, I think alumni priority is to be kept but only for those <2km. As for alumni >2km, perhaps they should be put into the same group as those others <1km. If this really works, there is still priority given to these >2km alumni because although they are staying further, their chances are equal to those other but <1km.

In conclusion, it is not \"priority to be based solely on distance, and nothing else\".

Since we are on the topic of distance....Why only 0-2km? I propose 0-5km, since travel time across 5km is still reasonable. It wld not be right that the child at 2-5km and takes 30mins to travel is grouped / prioritize together with the one at pulau ubin[/quote]Am glad there is finally a common platform where this could be discussed further.

In my opinion, the biggest hurdle is to convince most, if not all, of the notion that the authority ought to take time to look into the mismatching situation we currently face because current policy awards priority to \"connection\" in an overwhelming way over \"distance\".

This unconditional benefit to one group, although the original intention was good, has to be reevaluated and checked or perhaps given a cap when this unbalanced benefit given to this group starts to cause distress to another group which could be equally well deserving but is disvantaged owing to the old system.

If we are convince of this notion, then it would make sense to look at the details of what distance etc should be used.

I have plucked 2km for discussion sake as it is embedded in the current system as a benchmark. If this notion is ever accepted, the authorities could then study and propose the distance.