MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[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:

[wayne lai]

Hektor,


I totally second what you propose.

Having a cap on the alumni phase will achieve 2 immediate aims:

1)It will definitely free up spaces for the public (both SC and PR), especially those who stay near the school.
2) It will help to reduce the no. of 'sleeping' alumni - which both active alumni and general public agree they should not be getting a free ticket (akin to a 'birth right').

In the long run, having a more active alumni base will benefit the school better. And the overall number of spaces opened up will far exceed what the latest ruling on PRs can achieve.

I believe MOE should decide on the allocation % and most of the rules for this new alumni phase, and not leave everything to the school's discretion. This way, the school staff will not have to respond to direct pressure from disgruntled inactive 'connected' parents.

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]

As the current system has no cap for registration by alumni, the day will come where places in 2A1 & 2A2 are oversubscribed.


Under such circumstances, perhaps SCs in P2A will get priority over PRs in P2A. In P2A, alumni and PR stay 15km will also get a place but not the non alumni SC child staying next door.

All that talk about child's welfare, importance of distance proximity and diversity........ :razz:

[beanstalk]

limlim:

beanstalk:

It works both ways. Religion is a sensitive issue and for those who subscribe to one, it can be very emotional. It is very hard to say if a Christian child should be deprived of a Christian education simply because his/her parents chose to reside outside of 2 km of a school. Singapore is small, 'outside 2 km' could mean 2.5 or 20 km. With expressways, and a car, a kid living outside of 2 km may actually reach home the same time as someone walking home a few blocks away.

The parents made the choice. What more do you want to say?

You value religious faith in lessons, Other value their sleep/health. Why should you be given priority over the others?

Why should connection be valued over practicality?

And children are not deprive of their religious beliefs.. They can attend church every week or every day if they like. No body stops them. For your own convenience of having the religious teachings in the school instead of separately in the church, you deprive others of practical convenience. Is this fair?

And the expressway example.. the users on cars is jamming up the roads causing much inconvenience to other road users, in the morning and evening.

I think going by the principle of 'what is in the child's best welfare' is fair. However that may hold different meanings for different parents. I may not mind my child taking an extra 15 mins to get home if the school environment (academic standards, religious formation or lack thereof etc) suits him. To me, it might be in his best welfare to 'waste' that extra 15 mins as he would get a better education, at least by my standards.

It is not always possible for people to move within 1 km of a school. Some people simply cannot afford to.

There is a bit of misunderstanding here...the religious teaching at school is not intended to replace that provided by places of worship. It reinforces the latter. For people in that religion, it is important that their kids receive consistent messaging. A secular educational environment teaches values but does not associate the values with spirituality, which some people would want for their kids. This is a need that may be as important to one parent as it is for another whose kid needs alot of sleep. I don't think you should attribute selfish intentions to people without really knowing them. Much worse, to even accuse them of religious hypocrisy because of this.

The present system has checks to encourage diversity in a school and that's a good thing in the national interest. I guess with the caps, each group thinks it should have a bigger piece of the pie than they currently have. That includes you and me. I believe we both have valid concerns.

[LOLMum]

beanstalk:

I think going by the principle of 'what is in the child's best welfare' is fair. However that may hold different meanings for different parents. I may not mind my child taking an extra 15 mins to get home if the school environment (academic standards, religious formation or lack thereof etc) suits him. To me, it might be in his best welfare to 'waste' that extra 15 mins as he would get a better education, at least by my standards.

It is not always possible for people to move within 1 km of a school. Some people simply cannot afford to.

There is a bit of misunderstanding here...the religious teaching at school is not intended to replace that provided by places of worship. It reinforces the latter. For people in that religion, it is important that their kids receive consistent messaging. A secular educational environment teaches values but does not associate the values with spirituality, which some people would want for their kids. This is a need that may be as important to one parent as it is for another whose kid needs alot of sleep. I don't think you should attribute selfish intentions to people without really knowing them. Much worse, to even accuse them of religious hypocrisy because of this.

The present system has checks to encourage diversity in a school and that's a good thing in the national interest. I guess with the caps, each group thinks it should have a bigger piece of the pie than they currently have. That includes you and me. I believe we both have valid concerns.

:celebrate: :goodpost:

[Picolo]

LOLMum:

beanstalk:

I think going by the principle of 'what is in the child's best welfare' is fair. However that may hold different meanings for different parents. I may not mind my child taking an extra 15 mins to get home if the school environment (academic standards, religious formation or lack thereof etc) suits him. To me, it might be in his best welfare to 'waste' that extra 15 mins as he would get a better education, at least by my standards.

It is not always possible for people to move within 1 km of a school. Some people simply cannot afford to.

There is a bit of misunderstanding here...the religious teaching at school is not intended to replace that provided by places of worship. It reinforces the latter. For people in that religion, it is important that their kids receive consistent messaging. A secular educational environment teaches values but does not associate the values with spirituality, which some people would want for their kids. This is a need that may be as important to one parent as it is for another whose kid needs alot of sleep. I don't think you should attribute selfish intentions to people without really knowing them. Much worse, to even accuse them of religious hypocrisy because of this.

The present system has checks to encourage diversity in a school and that's a good thing in the national interest. I guess with the caps, each group thinks it should have a bigger piece of the pie than they currently have. That includes you and me. I believe we both have valid concerns.

:celebrate: :goodpost:

:goodpost: beanstalk.

[phtthp]

THUMBS UP, beanstalk ! Brillant !

:thankyou:

[magiccastle]

Beanstalk .

I agreed with u.
I see the difference in the values placed by mission n govt school.
My boy attended catholic school. The principal in his speech will thank God for the achievement that the school has attained n pray for wisdom & protection for the students. In contrast , the govt school that my girl attended don’t even allow a religion ornament , ie she can’t even bring a little cross to school.
As a Christian , I m quite pissed off by the school rule.
On the distance issue, if let say my boy need to choose Hwa Chong instn n a neighborhood school opp my hse, I will definitely ask him to go HC without thinking twice even it is a long distance from my place. But if the school opp my place is Victoria school ,then I will need to evaluate n decide before we make a choice. At the end, may ask him to go to Victoria taking distance into consideration.
So it is a comparability issue.