MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[dorisp]

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

You are exactly rigth on the spot and head on with the problem we face now.

Under the current system, an alumni staying at Pulau Ubin is not even \"grouped\" together with the one staying next block. Under the current system, the alumni from Pulau Ubin has priority over the one staying next block. So along the same reasoning, Pulau Ubin and next block being in the same \"group\" is bad enough not to mention having priority over it.

This could well probably be the current situation and could get worst if left unchecked, isn't it?

[Lyddon]

I see the frequent usage of the word "connection" (aka alumni) may set an incomplete impression of the contributions (scope + depth + duration) of Alumni members and their relationship with their school.


Its beyond simply a "connection" (like plug and play devices).
Its a symbiotic bond (especially of schools that has a long history and strong spirit/identity) where both parties (school & ex-students) has worked closely together to bring the institution & its students to where they are today - in areas of Sports, Academics, Financal support, and various achievements.

Recount of the pride students feel for their school (and vice versa) when they represent their schools at competitions - especially when they win. In sports (for example), the fellow classmates of these students bear their hearts and cheer their throats sore for pride and glory of a win for their school flag. These same students who eventually graduate to become part of an alumni and hope their own children will share the same emotional / spiritual ties to their Alma Mater.

It is beyond the x-hours of PV, or association with a church or clan or grassroots or kilometers.

That is the reason why "Alma Mater" in Latin means "nourishing mother".
You cannot simply have a "connection" with your mother, grandfather, brother or sister.

It is much more than that.

[absolut_vodka]

Actually, from my understanding, the alumni staying next door to the school does get priority over the one in pulau ubin if balloting is required in that phase though we have not reached the point where spaces are filled up to that extent. So distance does come into play even for alumni.

dorisp:

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

You are exactly rigth on the spot and head on with the problem we face now.

Under the current system, an alumni staying at Pulau Ubin is not even \"grouped\" together with the one staying next block. Under the current system, the alumni from Pulau Ubin has priority over the one staying next block. So along the same reasoning, Pulau Ubin and next block being in the same \"group\" is bad enough not to mention having priority over it.

This could well probably be the current situation and could get worst if left unchecked, isn't it?

[IDad]

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]If 0-5km, why not 0-7.5km or 0-42km...covering the entire Singapore population? There is no pleasing everybody. As I have said before, Alumni deserve priority, so does the clans, religious, GRL as they all have contribution both past (founder) till current times. Thus put all into 1 pot and call it `contributors' and then when demand exceed supply, use distance proximity to allocate the spaces just like 0-1km, 1-2km, greater than 2km.

[IDad]

absolut_vodka:

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.

Why only PV and GRL should go? Any reason why `clan' should be retained :evil: I thot there are also grey areas in clan??

[LOLMum]

IDad:

absolut_vodka:

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.

Any reason why `clan' should be retained :evil: I thot there are also grey areas in clan??

because they are the ones who started the schools in the very first place and are still actively involved in the raising of funds for the schools.

i would say there is more grey areas in church members cos to join skkh, non members need at least 2 members to get them in (no easy feat) and be actively involved in clan activities for a few years and at the end, it is up to the board to decide who to give the letter to (so no guarantee).

i find it easier for people to become chrisitian and church members in order to get the letter. btw, i am a methodist too. for catholics, i am unsure of the ease in getting the letter.

[limlim]

w/o country, there is no schools…


To protect our country… we need military defence…

So, all those who served NS are contributors too…

And so, NSmen’s kids shd be given priority like alumni…

And that effectively includes all citizens…

ok… just kidding… not serious so doesn’t warrant a reply…

[LOLMum]

:faint: :faint: :faint:

[Lizzie]

dorisp:

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\".

concur. sound argument that balances both alumni and distance consideration. at this point, i can't resist to point again-root out short term renters that spoils the market for everyone.

[hquek]

limlim:

w/o country, there is no schools..


To protect our country.. we need military defence..

So, all those who served NS are contributors too..

And so, NSmen's kids shd be given priority like alumni..

And that effectively includes all citizens.....

ok.. just kidding.. not serious so doesn't warrant a reply..

Then the PRs and new citizens will be excluded liao. I don't think it's a bad idea becos then pp will no longer feel that ns is a burden and no more.