MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[limlim]

dorisp:

I respect that religion is a sensitive issue and agree that it can be very emotional. It is a personal choice. It is personal.

A policy on education for the nation, on the other hand, however sensitive it may be too as it affects many families, could not be taken and regarded the same way. It has to look after the interest of the child and of the general public as a whole.

JMHO.

:goodpost:

A \"personal choice\" (such as religion, associations) should not be highly factored into a national education program.

But the welfare of the child, should. And be of high priority.

It is important that they get sufficient sleep/rest etc..

All children needs sufficient rest, and on this principle, the policy can be formulated for the best interest of the masses.

[keroppi]

limlim:

keroppi:

Let's leave religion out of this. Too sensitive lah. Peace.

Yes.. but you're the one who bring in religion in the first place..

We are all along talking about connections (alumni, grassroots, clans, church etc..) vs practically and distance.. until you mention faith and beliefs etc..

By the way, in the good well meaning values of the religion, isn't it better to spread the love and take in kids who are not associated and let them be exposed to the good values, instead of hogging the places for generations? I believe, all religion, spreads goodwill. Is hogging places in line with the religion's value (Any religion)?

Anyway..

I feel that religion should be left out of this argument for the priority system for a national education program.

Agree. :hi5:

Everyone has different level of conviction and practices, so differs in what how they want their children educated and brought up. Nothing to do with hogging places. There are parents who put their kids in religious-affiliated schools and then complain about indoctrination ..... so can never please everyone. Those who want to go through the extra mile to get their kids into their choice school, so be it.

I won't talk about faiths and beliefs anymore ... back to alumni, I still think alumni still should have priority. :rahrah:

[Hektor]

My 2 cents on the issue for discussion. Basically, there is no way to please everyone, because demand exceeds supply for the good schools, and it’s just human nature to want the best for your child.


But i think there are a few basic principles that we can all agree to:
1. Practical consideration should matter e.g. logistic, distance
2. The system should have some degree of fairness e.g contribution should matter, but those without contribution should not have priority
3. Accept that there will be some degree of uncertainty as demand exceeds supply ultimately and it is left to God’s will / luck as to whether your child can get in

My suggestion is to tweak the system into 4 phases.

Phase 1:
To stay as it is. I think this is probably the one phase that, (maybe not all) but most can agree that it makes sense for siblings to study in the same school for practical reasons.


Phase 2:
All the connected people (alumni, PV, religious association, clan, etc.) to be in this phase. Number of places capped at 50% of remaining vacancies after phase 1. This guarantees that there will be a reasonable amount of places left for the general public (i.e. those without connections).

After reading through so many posts, i think many of these connected stakeholder groups have made and continue to make contribution to the schools and this should be taken into account.

However, I would suggest tweaking it such that:

The school gets to make its own decisions on how many slots it wants to give to each connected group. This is because the school would know best the relative contribution of each group. The school should then work with the various stakeholders so that each group of stakeholder does not recommend too many people into this phase.

1. Alumni or old boys/girls would require a letter from the alumni committee recommending them for this phase. This would put the onus on the alumni network for recommending people who have made contribution to the school. As per my point above, the school should work with the alumni committee to decide on the number they should recommend. For schools with very active contribution from alumni, they should allow more recommendation from the alumni.

This will also mitigate one of the often heard complaints about unfairness whereby an old boy / girl who has not contributed or even connected with the school for more than 10 years should just walks in with a report book and have priority over many others.

2. Religious, clan associations who have contributed much should have more recommendation based on the school decision, but those where the link is weak should not continue having priority based on the school decision.

3. PV - left to the school discretion as to whether they want to continue having PV. e.g. if a school does not have an active contributing alumni, but needs manpower that is contributed through PV, then i would think PV should have higher priority over alumni.

4. Scrap the GRL because i feel their main objective should be to lead and serve the community at large and not the school specifically, so i’m not sure dangling a primary school priority registration carrot necessary leads to the right kind of volunteers.

Another way to give priority to specific stakeholder group is for the school to grant extra ballot slips to groups that have contributed more rather than do it through the recommendation method (which could lead to a lot more paperwork). e.g. if a school thinks the alumni has contributed more, then maybe all alumni should get 2 ballot tickets and a PV will get 1.


Phase 3:
General public - SC and PR.


Phase 4 (if there are still vacancies):
General public - Sc, PR and Foreigners.

Within each phase, i think the current balloting framework should still apply.

These are just some ideas i have, there are probably many implications that have not come to my mind yet.

[dorisp]

keroppi:

I won't talk about faiths and beliefs anymore ... back to alumni, I still think alumni still should have priority. :rahrah:

IMO, I too think alumni should still have priority but only for those <2km. Just a suggestion for all's deliberation that for those alumni >2km, they should go to the same queue/phase as those non alumni <1km.

By doing so, alumni <2km enjoys the same current priority over all other non alumni.

Alumni >2km are also given an edge by putting them into the same phase as non alumni <1km.

This is not against alumni priority totally. This is to keep the alumni priority yet at the same time, take into consideration those non alumni staying very near the school because this is in line with the current system whereby it acknowledges that home school distance is an important factor contributing to the welfare of the child at this tender age.

[dorisp]

limlim:

dorisp:

I respect that religion is a sensitive issue and agree that it can be very emotional. It is a personal choice. It is personal.

A policy on education for the nation, on the other hand, however sensitive it may be too as it affects many families, could not be taken and regarded the same way. It has to look after the interest of the child and of the general public as a whole.

JMHO.

:goodpost:

A \"personal choice\" (such as religion, associations) should not be highly factored into a national education program.

But the welfare of the child, should. And be of high priority.

It is important that they get sufficient sleep/rest etc..

All children needs sufficient rest, and on this principle, the policy can be formulated for the best interest of the masses.

:hi5:

[LOLMum]

after phase 1, the remaining vacancies should perhaps be split equally among all cat in phase 2?

[Strparent]

limlim:

LOLMum:

[quote=\"keroppi\"]Yes, cut out PV, affiliation and Grassroots ... but keep Alumni. These are stake-holders of school.

without the church/clan who started the schools, there would be no such traditions and values.

Without country, there is no home.. let alone schools.. clans, church, grassroots..

w/o an effective arm forces, there is no country.

So all boys should be given priority, bcoz when they grow up they'll defend our country which give you your home and schools.

So, all boys choose their school first in phase X, then girls get to pick their school in phase Y. All Girl schools will start enrolment in Phase Y.

makes sense?

How far, how wide, should we make the connection link? :evil: :evil:[/quote] http://i42.tinypic.com/34f163c.gif\"> http://i42.tinypic.com/34f163c.gif\">

limlim, u also learn from the guru bait-er, ar ??

I also feel child welfare should be most important.

Now that govt make citizenship priority, dont worry so much about FTs buying/renting homes near popular schools , so left child welfare. Dont make the kids wake up so early and travel long distances to and fro ba. They are only PRIMARY sch children wor.
nearby schools are good enough for P1 especially.

kong lai kong kee, all must have an open mind/view, mai siong kum cheng toh ho

[verykiasu2010]

what makes the non-active / sleeping alumni special or different from Phase 2C ? they should be treated the same


suggest MOE to come up with policy guidelines on active alumni for them to qualify for alumni priority under Pr 1 registration, eg how many hours of active participation in the last 5 years prior to pri one registration

it will make alumni meaningful, continuing, and perhaps spur some sleeping members to be more active if they pride in being an alumni of a branded school

frankly, if the alumni has never got in touch with the school since graduation, there should be zero priority for such, as they are no different from anyone under Phase 2C

[limlim]

dorisp:

IMO, I too think alumni should still have priority but only for those <2km. Just a suggestion for all's deliberation that for those alumni >2km, they should go to the same queue/phase as those non alumni <1km.

By doing so, alumni <2km enjoys the same current priority over all other non alumni.

Alumni >2km are also given an edge by putting them into the same phase as non alumni <1km.

This is not against alumni priority totally. This is to keep the alumni priority yet at the same time, take into consideration those non alumni staying very near the school because this is in line with the current system whereby it acknowledges that home school distance is an important factor contributing to the welfare of the child at this tender age.

:hi5:

Something along this line looks good..

[limlim]

Strparent:

limlim, u also learn from the guru bait-er, ar ??

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

btw.. he MIA ar..? parliamentary debate over liao rite..... :offtopic: