MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[vicki]

I also strongly feel that there should be cap on 2A. If you cap the church and clans (who are the original root to the school) - then i dont see why 2A should be left unchecked.


I say keep 2A - but limit it the way 2B is limited.

[scotia]

[quote=\"limlim\"]That's where you're wrong.. for distance priority, the kid is given a place bcoz it is better welfare for that kid in this school compared to another kid who stay far away from this school, NOT bcoz the parent can afford to buy a flat there. Whether it is a result of the parent being rich is not a consideration. Plus, in reality, there is many average households in HDB staying near branded schools.


Note: The CHILD stays near the school. That is the consideration. Not bcoz the parents stays near the sch, althou it is inevitable that the parent's address is used assuming the parent stays with the kid. But the focus here is, the CHILD. Quote]


I totally disagree with what u wrote!

If moe removes all connections and other phases, just go by distant n sibling. in d long run average Singapore will suffer too! All rich parents will have d means to buy within 1km of branded, so welfare of the rich kids are well taken care of!

After 5 yrs of staying there, they can sell their flat at even higher pricing, becos the next rich Singaporean parents will take over. In 10 yrs time, average singaporean will not be afford to move near 1km of all this branded school.

Now, u can see average Singaporean staying near this area, is also becos they r different phases for P1 registration. Once u removes them, I m sure that so call 'kiasu' parents will pay their way to get with the 1km mark!

Who loose out in d long run? Poor and average Singaporean' children, no welfare for them anymore.

[castanst]

scotia:

limlim:

That's where you're wrong.. for distance priority, the kid is given a place bcoz it is better welfare for that kid in this school compared to another kid who stay far away from this school, NOT bcoz the parent can afford to buy a flat there. Whether it is a result of the parent being rich is not a consideration. Plus, in reality, there is many average households in HDB staying near branded schools.


Note: The CHILD stays near the school. That is the consideration. Not bcoz the parents stays near the sch, althou it is inevitable that the parent's address is used assuming the parent stays with the kid. But the focus here is, the CHILD. Quote]


I totally disagree with what u wrote!

If moe removes all connections and other phases, just go by distant n sibling. in d long run average Singapore will suffer too! All rich parents will have d means to buy within 1km of branded, so welfare of the rich kids are well taken care of!

After 5 yrs of staying there, they can sell their flat at even higher pricing, becos the next rich Singaporean parents will take over. In 10 yrs time, average singaporean will not be afford to move near 1km of all this branded school.

Now, u can see average Singaporean staying near this area, is also becos they r different phases for P1 registration. Once u removes them, I m sure that so call 'kiasu' parents will pay their way to get with the 1km mark!

Who loose out in d long run? Poor and average Singaporean' children, no welfare for them anymore.

:goodpost:

[phtthp]

Strong valid reason ! !!

:goodpost:

[blessed777]

vicki:

Just wondering - it's done n dusted liao har? I tot the SG PR thing was the 1st change and there are more coming??

U r probably right, it was the 1st change n may expect for next one.. as everybody is calling out for fairness..

[pommelow]

I feel that distance to schools should be factored into phases from phase 2 onwards. Those who stayed too far away should not be allowed to register for the schoool for the sake of the child’s welfare.


Many of those connections unrelated to the school should be abolished as well e.g. grassroots leader, clan association, etc. I do think we should keep the one for existing teachers in the school to be able to send their kids in for practicality reason.

Many things being said, i do not think the policy makers will make anymore changes so as to observe the effects of this one they just imposed.

[janet88]

Phase 1 is guaranteed for reasons of practicality. But are the kids staying near the school ? Since MOE has made the change fast enough for this year’s P1 registration, I feel it has indeed addressed the concerns.

[blessed777]

pommelow:

I feel that distance to schools should be factored into phases from phase 2 onwards. Those who stayed too far away should not be allowed to register for the schoool for the sake of the child's welfare.


Many of those connections unrelated to the school should be abolished as well e.g. grassroots leader, clan association, etc. I do think we should keep the one for existing teachers in the school to be able to send their kids in for practicality reason.

Many things being said, i do not think the policy makers will make anymore changes so as to observe the effects of this one they just imposed.

its just a matter of time, it may not be this yr but can no longer expect grand children will be guaranteed place in almamater..need to share the 'inheritance' JK

[dorisp]

Nebbermind:

vicki:

Just wondering - it's done n dusted liao har? I tot the SG PR thing was the 1st change and there are more coming??

Some are hoping for more changes!!

A lot are hoping it stops here!!

[dorisp]

wayne lai:

Alumni is prioritized before grassroots/PV without any cap.


In future, there may be a situation (e.g. dragon year applicants) where the alumni takes up ALL the remaining spaces in a popular school. There will not be any spaces allocated for anyone else, regardless whether you are SC, PV, grassroots, or stay within 1km!

This intake will be siblings and alumni. Period.

Bring the grassroots/PV argument in ONLY after we have imposed an alumni CAP. We should continue to focus on old boys/girls until MOE has done something about this....

:goodpost: