MOE Relooking P1 registration - Too much priority to alumni

[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:

[limlim]

You still don't get it..


from the viewpoint of the school/MOE, why should your kid be given priority when student's welfare is the main consideration for the SAME school?

All parents also want the best possible environment for the kids.

So, what differentiates the kids to let one have priority over the other?

As far as welfare is concerned, the kid staying nearer should have priority to the SAME school.

absolut_vodka:

U want to talk about welfare? Welfare for my child is putting him/her in the best possible environment to thrive and that would include having the best resources to develop him/her to his/her fullest potential.

[dorisp]

absolut_vodka:

前人种树，后人乘凉. If you need translation, it means u grew the tree and the future generations enjoy the shade.

This is so true. Many people pass their wealth etc to their future generations, rich or poor but it is very odd to apply this thinking for something publicly owned such as public schools where some fundings from the general public (tax payers' money) are involved.

[dorisp]

wayne lai:

Let's not detract from the issue of ANY alumnus getting an unlimited direct entry to the school.


The argument here is not about an underdog poor alumnus getting an upper hand over the rich non-alumnus. The reverse can also occur: i.e. an alumnus staying in Sentosa cove getting into NYPS, and edging out a non-alumnus ALREADY living in a 3-rm Farrer HDB for the last 20 years.

It is about the alumnus (rich and poor) being prioritized over the non-alumnus (both rich and poor). The opportunity for entry is unequal and without limits, and that is my grouse.

Continue to give priority to alumnus for those who feel strongly about it, but do impose a limit on the numbers. When there is an over-subscription, prioritize them based on some criteria (activity in school, distance, etc).

:goodpost:

[dorisp]

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.

For your case (alumni),

The parent studied, and contributed. Contributed, and gained from the sch, the learning, the teachings etc.. and graduated.

It is the parent who contributed, NOT the child. And the parents who studied there already gained from the school. Now want to pass the benefit to the kid who NEVER contributed ANYTHING.. yet..

Very well said. :hi5:

[limlim]

scotia:

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.

Did you read my post in full?

All kiasu parent will pay their way to get within 1km? All those with no schooling kids will sell their flat?

Do you have data or statistics to show?

I repeat here again.. if, there's a flat for sale, at 20% above market rate for similar flat. It is within 1km of a very popular school whereby every year the SC there needs to ballot for a place. Successful rate is approx 50%.

Will you pay the 20% premium for a non-guaranteed place? Will you? Will all kiasu parent do that? I highly doubt so.

Will the rich give up the luxury of a big bungalow to squeeze into a HDB to have a try at the non-guaranteed place?

If, the flats cannot guarantee a place, will it still command a 20% premium?

Will it rise to 100% premium and squeeze poor Singaporean out of the picture? I guess some of the worry is really too far stretched.

Plus, let's consider the average income families.. if they are the alumni of a popular school but they stay very far away. WILL they go for the alumni sch? if they don't have car, no maids, both working.. will they? We have seen from this forum, that some do NOT. they choose a nearby school.

I guess, alumni priority with no distance consideration favors the rich even more!

Rich alumni hog the place of popular schools.
Poor alumni give up their priority bcoz they stay too far. They simply can't afford to travel.
Poor SC staying <1km squeezed out of the picture bcoz significant portion of places taken by rich alumni >2km.

So how? poor and average SC, no welfare for them!

PS: I hv no data.. you speculate I also speculate.. anyhow whack.. :evil:

[dorisp]

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.

Yes that is very rational reasoning.

Due respect is given to all alumni and their past \"contribution\".

A question to policy makers would be: is this \"contribution\" from, \"recognition\" for alumni, active or non active, so great that it is ok for this school to admit alumni who stay 15km away and very soon, because the alumni numbers are not capped, these schools are made out of bound for any single non alumni who stay the very next block?

[LOLMum]

so the best is after phase 1, whatever vacancies left, split it equally among 2a, 2b and 2c.

[dorisp]

scotia:

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.

Agree. That is why a number of forumers are not saying we should \"remove all connections and other phases, just go by distance and siblings.....\".

A number of us are suggesting to cap the number for P2A \"connection\".

[limlim]

dorisp:

A question to policy makers would be: is this \"contribution\" from, \"recognition\" for alumni, active or non active, so great that it is ok for this school to admit alumni who stay 15km away and very soon, because the alumni numbers are not capped, these schools are made out of bound for any single non alumni who stay the very next block?

Many of the argument against distance priority is that it favors the rich.. bcoz the rich will snap up properties near popular schools for a non-guaranteed place.. (which, at this point, is more like speculation)

But, in reality, most likely only the rich alumni will travel 15km to get their kids to sch.. So, alumni priority actually favors the rich even more. (we can set a poll to see how many rich give up their alumni place of popular sch vs the poor alumni who give up the place of popular schools :evil: I guess it will be like 0:10 ? )

So, if we want more welfare for the average SC.. and not favor the rich too much..

Alumni should really be limited/restricted..